Conflict and Negotiation in the Early Church: Letters from Late Antiquity, Translated from the Greek, Latin, and Syriac 0813232775, 9780813232775

Citation preview

Conflict and Negotiation in the Early Church

CONFLICT & NEGOTIATION IN THE EARLY CHURCH Letters from Late Antiquity,

!

Translated from the Greek, Latin, and Syriac

Bronwen Neil & Pauline Allen

The Catholic University of America Press Washington, D.C.

Copyright © 2020 The Catholic University of America Press All rights reserved The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standards for Information Science—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984. ∞ Cataloging-in-Publication Data available from the Library of Congress isbn 978-0-8132-3277-5

To John Cawte, in loving memory 7/6/1942–11/9/2016

!

CONTENTS

CONTENTS

Acknowledgments Abbreviations

xi xiii

Map of the Byzantine Mediterranean, 500–700 CE xv

1. An Introduction to Ecumenical Conflict (500–700 CE)  1 An Exploration of the Rhetoric of Ecumenical Conflict  4 Epistolary Sources on Ecumenical Conflict  8 Other Sources  12 Scholarly Methods of Approach to Ecumenical Conflict  13 The Rhetoric of Primacy  18 The End of an Ecumenical Era?  19 Conclusion 25 Note on the Translations  29 Timeline of Significant Events  30

2. Negotiating the End of the Acacian Schism  32 Introduction 32

TRANSLATIONS Text 1. Anastasius II of Rome to Emperor Anastasius  43 Text 2. Dioscorus and Chaeremon to the Roman Legates  49 Text 3. Symmachus to the Eastern Bishops  54 Text 4. Hormisdas to Bishops Ennodius and Fortunatus  59

vii

viii   Contents Text 5. Libellus of Hormisdas  67 Text 6. Hormisdas to Emperor Anastasius  68 Text 7. Emperor Justin to Hormisdas  73 Text 8. Justinian the Comes to Pope Hormisdas  74 Text 9. John II of Constantinople to Hormisdas  75 Text 10. Hormisdas to Emperor Justin  76 Text 11. Second Libellus to Our Ambassadors  77 Text 12. Hormisdas to Justinian the Illustrious  79 Text 13. Report to Hormisdas from Dioscorus the Deacon  81 Text 14. Justinian the Illustrious to Hormisdas  85 Text 15. Copy of a Report of Epiphanius, Bishop of Constantinople 87

3. The Conflict between Antioch and Alexandria and the Rise of the Syrian Church  90 Introduction 90

TRANSLATIONS Text 1. First Letter of Julian to Severus  101 Text 2. First Letter of Severus to Julian  103 Text 3. Second Letter of Julian to Severus  104 Text 4. Second Letter of Severus to Julian  105 Text 5. Synodical Letter of Theodosius  111 Text 6. Severus’s Reply to Theodosius’s Synodical Letter  119 Text 7. Theodosius’s Letter to the Eastern Bishops  139 Text 8. Letter of Jacob Baradaeus to Conon and Eugenius  142 Text 9. Letter of Jacob to John, Eunomius, Stephen, and Longinus  144 Text 10. Letter of the Eastern Bishops to the Bishops in Constantinople 146 Text 11. Letter of the Anti-Chalcedonian Bishops to the Faithful  153

Contents ix

4. Disputing the Activities and Wills of Christ  162 Introduction 162

TRANSLATIONS Text 1. John IV’s Apology for Pope Honorius  178 Text 2. Synodical [Letter] of Pope Theodore to Paul, Patriarch of Constantinople 186 Text 3. Pope Theodore to the Bishops Who Consecrated Paul, Patriarch of Constantinople, on Account of the Ex-Patriarch Phyrrhus 193 Text 4. Pope Theodore to Emperor Constantine  196 Text 5. Emperor Constantine to Pope Theodore  199 Text 6. The African Churches to the Holy Roman Bishop Theodore 201 Text 7. Pope Martin to the Church of Carthage  204 Text 8. Pope Martin to John, Bishop of Philadelphia  210 Text 9. Pope Martin to Bishop Antony of Bacatha  218 Text 10. Pope Martin to Bishop Theodore of Esbus  220 Text 11. Pope Martin to George, Archimandrite of the Monastery of Holy Theodosius  221 Text 12. Pope Martin to Pantaleon, a Cleric in Jerusalem  222 Text 13. Pope Martin to the Church of Jerusalem and Antioch  226 Text 14. Pope Martin to the Clergy and Laity of the Church of Thessalonica 230 Text 15. Pope Leo II to Ervigius, King of Spain  235 Bibliography 241 Index of Biblical Citations 261   Old Testament Index 261   New Testament Index­  262

General Index 264

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Australian Research Council supported this research through Discovery Project funding (DP 140101909) for three years (2014– 2016). Dr. Leonela Fundic assisted on this project as part-time research associate, as did Dr. Anna Silvas, who worked on translating the Syriac letters. The Office of Research at Australian Catholic University funded this project as part of a larger one on “Agency and Power in Early Christian Church and Social Issues” (2014–2015), which paid for casual research assistance from Dr. Sandra Sewell. We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of staff and colleagues at the Australian Catholic University libraries, the Theological Library at Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Dumbarton Oaks Byzantine Studies Center in Washington, D.C., and the Bodleian Library, Oxford. Many colleagues, among them members of the Asia-Pacific Early Christian Studies Society, gave valuable peer reviews of early versions of the research presented at conferences in Tokyo (2015), Oxford (2015), Pretoria (2015), and St. Petersburg (2016). To our colleagues at the Centre for Early Christian Studies, our doctoral students, and our administrative officer, Dinah Joesoef, we are, as always, indebted for their collegiality, academic generosity, and good humor in adversity. Ms. Joesoef also helped with preparing the indexes. Dr. Kosta Simic and Dr. Phoebe Garrett provided valuable expertise in bringing this volume together. To our research assistant, Sandra Sewell, we are grateful for proofreading and moral support, and to our families, for being there until the end, yet again.

xi

ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS

ACO Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum, edited by Eduard Schwartz and Johannes Straub. Berlin: W. de Gruyter ACO ser. 2.1 Concilium Lateranense a. 649 celebratum, edited by Rudolf Riedinger, ACO, series 2, vol. 1. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1984 ACO 2.2/1 and 2 Concilium universale Constantinopolitanum tertium, edited by Rudolf Riedinger, ACO, series 2, vol. 2, parts 1 and 2. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1990–1992 CAv  Collectio Avellana, edited by Otto Günther, Epistulae imperatorum pontificum aliorum inde ab a. CCCLXVII usque ad a. DLIII datae Avellana quae dicitur collectio, 2 vols. Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 35. Prague: Tempsky, 1895 CCSG

Corpus Christianorum series graeca

CCSL

Corpus Christianorum series latina

CPG

Clavis patrum graecorum

CPL

Clavis patrum latinorum

CSCO

Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium

DM

Documenta monophysitica

HE

Historia ecclesiastica

Regesta pontificum romanorum ab condita ecclesia JW  ad annum post Christum natum MCXCVIII, edited by Philipp Jaffé, Samuel Löwenfeld, Friedrich Kaltenbrunner, Paul Ewald, and Wilhelm Wattenbach. 2 vols, rev. ed. Leipzig: Veit, 1885–1888 xiii

xiv   Abbreviations

LP  Le Liber Pontificalis, edited by Louis Duchesne and Cyril Vogel. 3 vols, 2nd ed. Paris: E. de Boccard, 1955–1957 Mansi Sacrorum conciliorum noua et amplissima collectio, edited by Giovanni D. Mansi, 16 vols, Florence, 1759–1771; repr. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 1960–1961 OECS

Oxford Early Christian Studies

OECT

Oxford Early Christian Texts

PG

Patrologia Graeca

PL

Patrologia Latina

PLRE  The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, edited by Arnold H. M. Jones, John R. Martindale, and John Morris, 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971–1992. Thiel  Epistulae Romanorum pontificum genuinae et quae ad eos scriptae sunt a s. Hilaro usque ad Pelagium II, edited by Andreas Thiel, 2nd ed. Braunsberg, 1867; repr. Hildesheim: Georg Olm, 2004 TTH

Translated Texts for Historians

The Byzantine Mediterranean, 500–700 CE.  Map courtesy of Kosta Simic

Conflict and Negotiation in the Early Church

ECUMENICAL CONFLICT (500–700 CE)

CHAPTER 1

An Introduction to Ecumenical Conflict (500–700 CE)

!

Ecumenical conflict has only recently been recognized by scholars as a valid lens through which to view all kinds of conflict between church and state leaders and followers of the sixth and seventh centuries. Such inter-Christian conflict has been blamed for allowing Muslim tribes to gain such a strong hold so quickly throughout the former Byzantine Empire in the seventh and eighth centuries. This work is the first systematic study of the role of the bishop in negotiating ecumenical conflict through letters in the sixth and seventh centuries. We use the term ecumenical in its broadest sense to refer to the Christian household (oikoumene), a concept that obtained at least until the end of the seventh century. The purpose of this book is to ask whether the Third Council of Constantinople (680), the sixth ecumenical council of church history, witnessed the end of the ecumenical era, by which we understand that imperial invitations to the council were extended across the empire, and representations were made from the sees of Rome and the four eastern patriarchs. The fact that three of these primary sees—Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem—lay in conquered territories by the mid-seventh century spelled the end for an oikoumene as it had existed before, but we argue that the desire for ecclesiastical unity was not lessened as the polity fractured under the impact of Islam. It will be demonstrated that external political pressures and internal ecclesiastical impulses 1

2   Ecumenical Conflict (500–700 CE)

towards fracture and self-destruction were equally strong contributors to the religious controversies of 500 to 700 CE. It is the playing out of these two mutually exclusive goals that makes this period of two centuries so fascinating and deserving of study. Nowhere is the struggle between these goals so clear as in the letters exchanged between bishops and heads of state in this period. Our primary goal is to identify, analyze, and compare around 1,500 Latin, Greek, and Syriac letters written by sixth- and seventhcentury bishops and the Byzantine emperors they served, in terms of their social, religious, and political impact. Through careful study of correspondence on the important but controversial subject of ecumenical conflict, we can assess and compare the epistolary outputs of Greek and Roman bishops and emperors, both individually and collectively. We address questions of authenticity, survival rates, and the rationales behind the preservation of those letters and lettercollections that survived. This study of two hundred years of letterexchange highlights the long history of ecumenical negotiation between the major powers in early medieval and Byzantine Europe. On the subject of ecumenical conflict, one finds a common pattern of rhetorical strategies adopted by Roman episcopal letterwriters and their Greek correspondents. The rhetoric of divine appointment and divine judgment was used to great effect by the bishops of Rome and patriarchs of Constantinople to impose their authority on their opponents, to threaten dissenters, and to invite cooperation on issues of conflict. In this study, we uncover and analyze these strategies, as well as other diplomatic strategies associated with the ritual of letter-exchange, and compare those used by episcopal letter-writers and their imperial counterparts in the war of words that continued through two centuries of deep political crisis. This introductory chapter provides an overview of the large but little-known diplomatic and conciliar letter collections that survive from the eastern and western churches of this period. It bridges the traditional divide between western, Late Roman studies based on Latin evidence and eastern or Byzantine studies based on Greek and Syriac evidence, and it sheds new light on a crucial period of European history, the seventh century, which has only begun to get



Ecumenical Conflict (500–700 CE) 3

its due from modern historians and theologians in the past three decades. As the editors of a recent collection of essays entitled Two Romes: Rome and Constantinople in Late Antiquity comment in their introduction, “There has been relatively little effort, in the substantial scholarship on both cities [sc. Rome and Constantinople], to look at them together . . . Rome tends to have its own specialists, so vast is the range of literary, archaeological and epigraphic evidence, while early Constantinople has often been studied by specialists in later Byzantine history looking backwards.”1 In fact, only three essays in Grig and Kelly’s collection treat both Old and New Rome together, the other thirteen concentrating on either Rome or Constantinople. As Philippe Blaudeau has conclusively demonstrated for the fifth and early sixth centuries, ecclesiastical rivalry was by no means a two-horse race, but also included the Churches of Antioch and Alexandria.2 This situation did not change in the later sixth and seventh centuries, even after the Arab conquests of the 630s removed Alexandria and Antioch from the pentarchy of the Byzantine church. The scope of our study crosses traditional geo-historical boundaries, thus giving us a way to test the rhetoric (both Roman and contemporary) of cultural decline. While Roman networks with the east were taken into consideration in Kristina Sessa’s recent study of papal authority, her chronological span ended with Gregory the Great in 600.3 In the current study we have extended the focus by another century and sought to transcend the boundaries that have traditionally defined “Byzantine” and “early medieval” history.

1. Lucy Grig and Gavin Kelly, “Introduction: From Rome to Constantinople,” in Two Romes: Rome and Constantinople in Late Antiquity, ed. Lucy Grig and Gavin Kelly (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 4–5. 2. Philippe Blaudeau, Le siège de Rome et l’Orient (448–536): Étude géo-ecclésiologique Collection de l’École française de Rome 460 (Rome: École française de Rome, 2012). 3. Kristina Sessa, The Formation of Papal Authority in Late Antiquity: Roman Bishops and the Domestic Sphere (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012).

4   Ecumenical Conflict (500–700 CE)

An Exploration of the Rhetoric of Ecumenical Conflict It is important at the outset to distinguish carefully between conflict that occurs in an ecumenical context but is not religiously motivated, and religious conflict per se. Conflict in general may be defined as “the situation that arises when rival interests can no longer be denied, deflected, negotiated, or contained by the structures and processes ordinarily competent to do so.”4 Even ostensibly religious conflict may mask other underlying causes: rivalries that are political, ecclesiastical, status-driven, or material in nature, or the product of a combination of these causes.5 We are interested here in uncovering the causes underlying all kinds of conflict between churches in Late Antiquity. Many of the ecumenical controversies treated in this volume arose out of contested definitions of orthodoxy. The thirteenth-century bishop of Lincoln, Robert Grossteste (c. 1175–1253), famously defined heresy as “an opinion chosen by human perception contrary to Holy Scripture, publicly avowed and obstinately defended.”6 This is problematic, of course, because it depends on individual readings of Holy Scripture, which even Augustine of Hippo in the fifth century recognized as being polyvalent.7 In the case of sixth- and seventh-century heresies, defenders also had to ground their interpretations in proof-texts (real or forged) from 4. Bruce Lincoln, “Conflict,” in Critical Terms for Religious Studies, ed. Mark C. Taylor (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1998), 55–69, at 65. Lincoln’s definition is also adopted by Ronald L. Grimes, “Ritual, Media, and Conflict: An Introduction,” in Ritual, Media, and Conflict, ed. Ronald L. Grimes, Ute Hüsken, Udo Simon, and Eric Venbrux (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 22n42. 5. Wendy Mayer has addressed some of the traditional and more recent methodological challenges of studying religious conflict; see “Religious Conflict: Definitions, Definitions, Problems and Theoretical Approaches,” in Religious Conflict from Early Christianity to Early Islam, ed. Wendy Mayer and Bronwen Neil, Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 121 (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2013), 5–8, and the literature cited there. See also Wendy Mayer, “Re-Theorizing Religious Conflict: Early Christianity to Late Antiquity and Beyond,” in Reconceiving Religious Conflict: New Views from the Formative Centuries of Christianity, ed. Wendy Mayer and Chris L. de Wet, Routledge Studies in the Early Christian World (London: Routledge, 2018), 3–29. 6. See Jonathan Wright, Heretics: The Creation of Christianity from the Gnostics to the Modern Church (Boston and New York: Houghton, Mifflin, Harcourt, 2011), 3, 306. 7. Augustine of Hippo, Confessions 12.30–32.



Ecumenical Conflict (500–700 CE) 5

earlier church Fathers. This led to some very creative compilations, or florilegia, as we shall see in the case of the fifth and sixth ecumenical councils. The sixth and seventh centuries saw diplomatic relations between Rome and Constantinople reach an all-time low, with Pope Silverius sent into exile by Narses,8 where he died; his successor, Pope Vigilius, was held under house arrest in Constantinople for over three years while the emperor tried to compel him to condemn the Three Chapters; and Pope Martin was arrested and taken to the imperial capital for trial over his support of Maximus the Confessor and other opponents of the monothelite formula. Martin was exiled to Cherson, where he died, thus becoming a martyr in the eyes of many in the West. The unpopular emperor Constans II was to make a quick visit to Rome in 668, en route to Sicily, leaving with precious roof tiles from various churches. The seventh-century evidence consists of various strained letters between the bishops of Rome and patriarchs of Constantinople, as well as Emperors Heraclius, Constans II, and Constantine IV. These are a valuable and untapped source on how the two great powers of early medieval Europe, before the rise of the Franks and of Islam, dealt with conflict over an issue of great religious significance. The cultural impact of this breakdown was enormous, as Rome turned in the eighth century to the Franks for military support against the Lombards, and then the Saracen invaders in the ninth century, believing rightly that they could no longer rely on the Byzantines for assistance. Research on the seventh century has largely been undertaken from a Byzantine perspective, with the work of materialist and legal scholars of the Frankfurt school dominating the field.9 This imbalance has recently begun to be redressed. Larison and Booth have both adopted a cultural history approach which is text-based, but they have only touched upon the resource 8. Justinian’s general in Italy during the Gothic Wars. 9. John F. Haldon, Byzantium in the Seventh Century: The Transformation of a Culture, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997); Wolfram Brandes, “Juristische” Krisenbewältigung im 7. Jahrhundert? Die Prozesse gegen Martin I. und Maximos Homologetes, Fontes Minores 10 (Frankfurt-am-Main: Löwenklau-Gesellschaft, 1998), 141–212; Brandes, Finanzverwaltung in Krisenzeiten: Untersuchungen zur byzantinischen Administration im 6.–9. Jahrhundert (Frankfurtam-Main: Löwenklau-Gesellschaft, 2002).

6   Ecumenical Conflict (500–700 CE)

of letters exchanged between Rome and Constantinople and their correspondents in the East in the christological controversies of the seventh century.10 The correspondence employed in these disputes was the main source in Jankowiak’s 2009 dissertation, as yet unpublished.11 This rich resource from a period of two centuries is fully exploited here for the first time, with the scope limited to letters by bishops and significant figures in the imperial administrations of Rome, Syria, and Constantinople. Over the past decades, since van Dieten first analyzed the careers and roles of seventh-century patriarchs of Constantinople,12 bishops of Rome and Constantinople have been the subject of increasing attention for their role as civic leaders.13 It is now high time to return 10. Daniel Larison, “Return to Authority: The Monothelete Controversy and the Role of Text, Emperor and Council in the Sixth Ecumenical Council,” 2 vols. (PhD diss., University of Chicago, 2009); Phil Booth, Crisis of Empire: Doctrine and Dissent at the End of Late Antiquity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2013). While Booth’s focus is mostly on theological and hagiographical sources, there is some treatment of letters in his volume, for example, the citation of letters by Maximus the Confessor, Popes John IV and Theodore, and Paul of Constantinople at 255–67. 11. Marek Jankowiak, “Essai d’histoire politique du monothélisme à partir de la correspondance entre les empereurs byzantins, les patriarches de Constantinople et les papes de Rome” (PhD diss., École pratique des hautes études, 2009). Cf. the recent update of Polycarp Sherwood’s date-list of the works of Maximus the Confessor, which includes fifty-one letters, the majority of which pertain to the monoenergist and monothelite disputes, in Marek Jankowiak and Phil Booth, “A New Date-list of the Works of Maximus the Confessor,” in The Oxford Handbook of Maximus the Confessor, ed. Pauline Allen and Bronwen Neil (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 19–83. Table 2.1 on 78–81 lists the letters with their approximate dates. 12. Jan-Louis van Dieten, Geschichte der griechischen Patriarchen von Konstantinopel, Teil 4: Geschichte der Patriarchen von Sergios I. bis Johannes VI. (610–715) (Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1972). 13. See, e.g., Pauline Allen and Bronwen Neil, Crisis Management in Late Antiquity: A Survey of the Evidence from Episcopal Letters (410–590 CE) (Leiden: Brill, 2013), esp. 97–145, on the religious conflicts of the fifth and sixth centuries, parts of which are used within this volume; David Gwynn, “Episcopal Leadership,” in The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity, ed. Scott Fitzgerald Johnson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 876–915; Susan Wessel, Leo the Great and the Spiritual Rebuilding of a Universal Rome, Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 93 (Leiden: Brill, 2009); Bronwen Neil, Leo the Great, The Early Church Fathers (London and New York: Routledge, 2009); Claire Sotinel, “The Three Chapters and the Transformations of Italy,” in The Crisis of the Oikoumene: The Three Chapters and the Failed Quest for Unity in the Sixth-Century Mediterranean, ed. Celia M. Chazelle and Catherine Cubitt (Turnhout: Brepols, 2007), 85–120; Philippe Blaudeau, Alexandrie et Constantinople (451–491): De l’histoire à la géo-ecclésiologie, Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 327 (Rome: École française de Rome, 2006); Éric Rebillard and Claire Sotinel, eds., L’évêque dans la cité du IVe au Ve siècle: image et authorité: Actes de la table ronde organisée par l’Istituto Patristico Augustinianum et l’École française



Ecumenical Conflict (500–700 CE) 7

to the sixth and seventh centuries in light of the progress that has been made in understanding the leadership role of the bishop in Late Antiquity. In keeping with their ideas of their own status, bishops directed their correspondence only to important figures such as members of the imperial family and well-known fellow bishops. Through careful study of correspondence on the important but controversial subject of ecumenical conflict, we can assess and compare the epistolary outputs of Greek, Syrian, and Roman bishops and emperors, both individually and collectively. Late-antique bishops engaged the language of diplomatic negotiation as well as spiritual rhetoric based on biblical tropes to invoke cooperation from their counterparts in the eastern capital. Bishops of rival sees produced these letters on the occasion of their consecration (synodical letters) and afterwards on a regular basis, notably on their election, along with sermons and polemical tracts. In particular, bishops of Rome unfailingly adopted a high-handed tone when addressing their eastern counterparts or rivals, even emperors, often opening their letters with expressions like “We are amazed that we have not heard from you about this earlier” or “We are amazed that you have not replied to our letter,” always in the royal plural. In our annotations to translated letters, we provide a linguistic analysis of the language of threats and promises that shaped the correspondence that came out of Rome and Constantinople. When persuasion failed, threats were issued: the bishops of Rome could use their spiritual authority to exclude from their communion even the patriarch of Constantinople, who would usually respond in kind. The curse of exclusion from communion (or the anathema), imposition of exile, and other strategies for asserting spiritual or temporal authority are studied alongside rhetorical strategies. Above all, the apocalyptic rhetoric of an age of decline, reflected in talk of the “end times,” is measured against other claims to spiritual leadership. Bishops, like emperors and monks, sought to manipulate the medium to increase their own influence. de Rome, 1–2 décembre 1995, Collection de l’École française de Rome 248 (Rome: École française de Rome, 1998).

8   Ecumenical Conflict (500–700 CE)

Epistolary Sources on Ecumenical Conflict In the absence of television and the internet, which now convey powerful visual messages to a global audience, the “mass media” of the sixth and seventh centuries, and the main tools for shaping the dominant political and religious discourse, were precisely the main source we have identified for use here: letters. Our work in this volume builds upon recent scholarship on episcopal letters from the fifth to seventh centuries, including studies of ecumenical conflict in the correspondence of Leo I of Rome, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Gelasius I of Rome, Gregory the Great, Pope Martin I, and Sophronius of Jerusalem.14 The objective interpretation of such Greek and Latin sources is necessary in order to avoid the confessional biases that have plagued scholarship in this area for the past three hundred years. The conceptual framework for the use of letters to illustrate social history has been laid out in The Greek and Roman Early Christian Letter: The Christianisation of a Form.15 The major problems of early Christian epistolary sources include the following:

14. Bernard Green, The Soteriology of Leo the Great (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008); Wessel, Leo the Great; Neil, Leo the Great; Adam M. Schor, Theodoret’s People: Social Networks and Religious Conflict in Late Roman Syria (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011); Schor, “Theodoret of Cyrrhus,” in Late Antique Letter Collections: An Introduction and Reference Guide, ed. Cristiana Sogno, Bradley K. Storin and Edward J. Watts (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2016), 269–85; Bronwen Neil and Pauline Allen, eds., The Letters of Gelasius I (492–496): Pastor and Micro-manager of the Church of Rome (Turnhout: Brepols, 2014); Richard M. Pollard, “A Cooperative Correspondence: The Letters of Gregory the Great,” in A Companion to Gregory the Great, ed. Bronwen Neil and Matthew Dal Santo (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 291–312; Matthew Dal Santo, “Gregory, the Empire and the Emperor,” in Neil and Dal Santo, A Companion to Gregory the Great, 57–81; Pauline Allen, trans., Sophronius of Jerusalem and Seventh-century Heresy. The “Synodical Letter” and Other Documents (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009). 15. Pauline Allen and Bronwen Neil, The Greek and Roman Early Christian Letter: The Christianisation of a Form (Cambridge University Press, forthcoming). See also Bronwen Neil, “Continuities and Changes in the Practice of Letter-collecting from Cicero to Late Antiquity,” in Collecting Early Christian Letters: From the Apostle Paul to Late Antiquity, ed. Bronwen Neil and Pauline Allen (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 3–17; and Pauline Allen, “Rationales for Episcopal Letter-Collections in Late Antiquity,” in Collecting Early Christian Letters, 18–34.



Ecumenical Conflict (500–700 CE) 9

1. Poor survival rates of ancient letters generally; 2. The difficulty or impossibility of accurately dating many letters; 3. The narrow focus of those who collated them, usually on matters of clerical discipline and heresy, or church territorial disputes; 4. The tendency of letter-writers to obscure the real purpose of their communication (writers often committed the substance of their messages to the envoy who would deliver them orally); 5. Uncertain attribution of many letters to the authors whose names are attached to them (forgery was considered a valid way of supporting one’s argument, and the use of some older authority’s name on one’s correspondence was considered to be a compliment); 6. The heavy bias, in papal letter collections, towards the need to make a collection that would illustrate the principles of medieval canon law, which resulted in such letters often being excerpted to illustrate a particular issue, rather than being reproduced in full;16 and 7. The inclusion of letters, whole or excerpted, in council Acts (these have a tendency to be taken out of context to illustrate a particular doctrinal position, especially in the case of catenae [lit. “chains”], the collections of proof texts which often accompanied council Acts). In spite of these pitfalls for the researcher, letters remain an unparalleled and largely untapped source for the history and rhetoric of ecumenical conflict of the sixth and seventh centuries. Roman Letters

Sixth- and seventh-century letters have to be retrieved from a variety of sources, including miscellaneous collections such as the Avellana Collection (hereafter, CAv) a sixth-century Italian collection of papal letters which preserves Pope Hormisdas’s letters on the Acacian Schism.17 Council records, such as the Acts of the Lateran Synod of 649 and the fifth and sixth ecumenical councils, preserve the major16. These are discussed by Bronwen Neil, “Papal Letters and Letter Collections,” in Late Antique Letter Collections, 449–66. 17. Otto Günther, ed., Collectio Avellana, CSEL 135, 2 vols. (Vienna: Tempsky, 1895).

10   Ecumenical Conflict (500–700 CE)

ity of Greek and Latin letters for the period.18 No letters survive from John I (523–526), Silverius (536), John III (561–574), or Benedict II (575–579). Only one letter survives from Boniface II (530–532).19 The Roman corpus for the sixth century consists of around 240 surviving letters or fragments of letters composed by nine bishops of Rome. Most of these have been contributed by Pope Hormisdas (514–523). This constitutes significantly fewer than the 630 letters surviving from the fifth century, due to survival of large corpora of Leo I (143 letters) and Gelasius I (102 letters including six tracts and forty-nine fragments).20 From the seventh century, starting with Gregory I (590–604), we have approximately 912 extant letters from six bishops of Rome. The bulk of these are from the archive of Gregory I. Several studies of this pope’s letters are presented in the Brill Companion to Gregory the Great, including a chapter which reconstructs the institutions of the papacy from Gregory’s correspondence.21 Doubts about the authenticity of some of the letters attributed to Gregory the Great have been treated by Mews and Pollard.22 The survival of so many letters in two different collections is evidence of the workings of the papal archive, which were severely disrupted in the violence and chaos that enveloped Rome in the seventh century. Along with the 854 letters of the CCSL edition, the much older edition of Ewald and Hartmann contains several more of 18. Rudolf Riedinger, ed., Concilium Lateranense a. 649 celebratum, Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum, series 2, vol. 1 (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1984) (hereafter, ACO 2.1); Richard Price, trans., with Phil Booth and Catherine Cubitt, The Acts of the Lateran Synod of 649 (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2014). 19. An inventory of surviving Latin, Greek, and Syriac episcopal letters from 410 to 590 may be found in Allen and Neil, Crisis Management in Late Antiquity, Appendix, 205–29. Jankowiak provides an inventory of seventh-century correspondence on the monoenergist and monothelite disputes in “Essai d’histoire,” Appendix 1, 529–44, an update on Winkelmann. 20. Papal letters from Innocent I to Pelagius II have been analyzed for evidence of episcopal crisis management by Allen and Neil, Crisis Management, 214–22 et passim. The letters of Gelasius are studied in Neil and Allen, Letters of Gelasius I, with translations of thirty-five letters. 21. Bronwen Neil, “The Papacy in the Age of Gregory the Great,” in A Companion to Gregory the Great, 3–27. 22. Constant Mews, “Gregory the Great, the Rule of Benedict and Roman Liturgy: The Evolution of a Legend,” Journal of Medieval History 37 (2011): 125–44; Pollard, “A Cooperative Correspondence.” Martyn’s translation of Gregory’s letters ignores questions of authenticity: The Letters of Gregory the Great, trans. John R. C. Martyn, 3 vols. (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 2004).



Ecumenical Conflict (500–700 CE) 11

dubious attribution.23 Other episcopal letters from Rome in the seventh century are those of Honorius, John IV, Theodore, Martin, and Vitalian. The bulk of these come from Martin I (649–653). Many popes produced no letters at all, or at least none that survive. Greek Letters

From the sixth century there survive only some eleven letters of two Byzantine patriarchs, John II of Cappadocia (518–520) and Epiphanius (520–535). This dearth of sources is somewhat compensated by a considerable number of relevant imperial letters and edicts, mostly from the long reign of Justinian (527–565). Only sixteen letters survive from the patriarchs and emperors of Constantinople in the seventh century. The Greek sources are not so well served by critical editions, with some notable exceptions.24 Many are preserved in the Greek version of the Acts of the Lateran Council and the Acts of the Council of Constantinople III, now also translated by Richard Price.25 Allen has studied several of these in connection with the correspondence of Sophronius, patriarch of Jerusalem.26 The correspondents of seventh-century Roman bishops included not only other bishops but also Byzantine emperors. Several of them—Heraclius, Constans II and Constantine IV—were highly involved in ecclesiastical affairs, too much so in the opinion of some popes, especially John IV, Theodore, and Martin I. Martin enjoyed a close collaboration with Maximus the Confessor, disciple of Sophronius and intimate of several popes as well as of members of the Byzantine 23. Dag Norberg, ed., S. Gregorii magni Registrum epistularum libri I–XIV, Corpus Christianorum series latina (hereafter, CCSL) 140, 3 vols. (Turnhout: Brepols, 1982); Paul Ewald and Ludovicus M. Hartmann, eds., Registrum epistularum (Hannover: Weidmann, 1891–99). 24. These include the forthcoming edition of forty-nine Greek letters of Maximus the Confessor in Basile Markesinis, ed., Epistulae et opuscula sancti Maximi Confessoris, Corpus Christianorum series graeca (hereafter, CCSG) (Turnhout and Leuven: Brepols). 25. Rudolf Riedinger, ed., Concilium universale Constantinopolitanum tertium, Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum, series 2, vol. 2, parts 1 and 2 (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1990–92) (hereafter, ACO 2.2/1 and 2); The Acts of the Council of Constantinople III, trans. Richard Price, Translated Texts for Historians (hereafter, TTH) (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, forthcoming); on the Acts of the Lateran Council, see n. 18 above. 26. Allen, Sophronius of Jerusalem.

12   Ecumenical Conflict (500–700 CE)

administration. Sometimes bishops were forced to apologize for the letters of their predecessors, as in the case of John IV’s apology for Pope Honorius. Other popes, like Eugenius and Vitalian, were bullied into compliance with Constantinople. Questions of authenticity often arise, with the spurious attribution of letters to a well-known author being a respectable practice in the management of religious controversy. Archival practices assisted in the putting together of dossiers of witness statements that bishops used to support their positions, thus anticipating by fifteen hundred years the contemporary “culture of evidence” that we find in our cultural, political, and educational institutions. The correspondence between emperors and popes is particularly interesting, as it offers a window on how rival channels of authority, spiritual and temporal, could and often did work against each other in the bitter disputes of the seventh century. Syriac Letters

Many of the Greek letters concerning the detachment of the Syrian Church from the Churches of Rome and Constantinople in the sixth century, which claimed the attention of Byzantine emperors for decades and impeded ecumenical relations, survive in Syriac translations.27 It will be shown in chapter 3 that correspondence with Syrian bishops, both Chalcedonian and anti-Chalcedonian, far outweighed any other sort of surviving correspondence from this century. Other relevant letters written in Syriac are those of Severus, patriarch of Antioch (512–518), five of which are translated within, and ten letters of Jacob Baradaeus (542–578).

Other Sources Religious tracts, poems, contemporary histories, and imperial edicts are used as a control against which to test the epistolary evidence. For the sixth century we have the histories of Count Marcellinus and 27. Albert Van Roey and Pauline Allen, eds. and trans., Monophysite Texts of the Sixth Century, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 5 (Leuven: Peeters, 1994); Volker L. Menze, Justinian and the Making of the Syrian Orthodox Church, Oxford Early Christian Studies (hereafter, OECS) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008).



Ecumenical Conflict (500–700 CE) 13

John Malalas; the church historians Ps. Zachariah, Evagrius Scholasticus, and John of Ephesus; and contemporary Syriac chronicles. Two histories of the seventh century, the Greek Easter Chronicle and the Chronicle of John of Nikiu in its Ethiopic version, are valuable points of comparison, as well as the chronicles of western Syria on the seventh century.28 The later chroniclers, Theophanes Confessor (eighth to ninth centuries) and Michael the Syrian (twelfth century) preserve some very useful earlier sources. In addition, we have used imperial edicts; hagiography, such as the Greek and Syriac Lives of Maximus the Confessor; doctrinal tracts, such as the tract Against the monothelites by Anastasius of Sinai; and other little-studied works, such as the poems of George of Pisidia, which concern Heraclius’s victories in the East.

Scholarly Methods of Approach to Ecumenical Conflict Social science methodologies adapted by scholars of ecumenical conflict in Late Antiquity include social conflict theory, social network theory, and cultural studies’ retrieval of popular culture. More traditional historical approaches have also been used, such as textual criticism and discourse analysis of Greek, Latin, and Syriac sources.29 Social Network Theory

Social network theory—which attempts to map the social networks of individuals (let us call them Bishop A and Emperor B) so as to see the effects of triangulation, or influence, on third parties (Aristocrat C) —has been used to great effect to study the correspondence of bish28. Hermann Zotenberg, ed. and trans., La chronique de Jean, évêque de Nikiou: Texte éthiopien (Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1883); a new edition and translation is being prepared for Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium (hereafter, CSCO) Series Aethiopica by Phil Booth with Marcin Krawzcuk. The Seventh Century in the West-Syrian Chronicles, trans. Andrew Palmer and Sebastian Brock, TTH 15 (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1993). 29. Gender studies, cognitive, and neuro-psychological approaches have not been adopted in this volume and so are not explored here. See the summary of recent work in these fields by Mayer, “Religious Conflict: Definitions,” 5–6.

14   Ecumenical Conflict (500–700 CE)

ops and other key figures in Late Antiquity. It applies best to the study of letter-collections or archived correspondence, such as the papyri collections from Egypt. Giovanni Roberto Ruffini pioneered the approach for two such collections from sixth-century Egypt, the Aphrodito and Oxyrhynchus collections, in an effort to “reveal the degrees and patterns of interconnectivity that characterized these settlements’ respective social worlds.”30 Ruffini highlights the vertical relationships (between people of different social status) evident in the urban setting of Oxyrhynchus, as compared with the horizontal relationships (between those of similar social status) evident in the archive of the village of Aphrodito. The great advantage of this theoretical approach is that recent technological advances make possible the visual modeling of such relationships and interconnections. Three scholars of letter-collections in Late Antiquity have taken up this opportunity: Adam Schor’s study of the correspondence of Theodoret of Cyrrhus, a fifth-century Syrian bishop, and “his people”; and two studies of the letters of Hormisdas, most of which concerned the resolution of the Acacian Schism (see chapter 2 below).31 Social Conflict Theory

In the early part of the twentieth century, sociologists developed social conflict theory in order to understand and explain human goals and behavior in a theoretical framework. This theory challenged the narrow Marxist understanding of conflict as primarily economic in nature, as a product of the class system and of limited access by the majority of the population to the means of production. Weberian conflict theory defined goals or social resources more broadly, to include land, capital, social respect, physical strength, and knowledge. According to Max Weber, the capacity to access and control these resources translated into social power, wealth, and influence. Incompatibility of goals, by contrast, caused conflict.32 In seeking to 30. Peter Sarris, review of Social Networks in Byzantine Egypt, by Giovanni R. Ruffini, American Historical Review 114, no. 5 (2009): 1571–72. 31. Schor, Theodoret’s People; Schor, “Theodoret of Cyrrhus,” 269–85. 32. Otomar J. Bartos and Paul Wehr, Using Conflict Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 13, defines social conflict with some circularity as “a situation in which actors use conflict behaviour against each other to attain incompatible goals and/or to express their



Ecumenical Conflict (500–700 CE) 15

trace the escalation, avoidance or resolution of conflicts, contemporary conflict theorists such as Bartos and Wehr look for incompatible goals, differentials in power, access to social resources, the exercise of control, the expression of dissent, and the strategies employed in responding to disagreements. These concepts are just as applicable to the analysis of historical conflicts in Late Antiquity as to the understanding of modern conflicts. A positive appraisal of conflict as a socially useful tool for identity formation and redefinition was first offered by Georg Simmel in 1908, and taken up by Lewis Coser in 1956.33 John Gager then applied this concept of social utility to early Christian and Jewish conflict.34 Since then, the association of conflict and the shaping of social group identity has become an accepted foundation of late-antique and Byzantine studies.35 Peter Bell used this theoretical framework, in what he called a “non-dogmatic” application, to his analysis of sixth-century conflicts, primarily in Constantinople, Asia Minor, and Syria.36 Bell examined a variety of conflicts from the long rule of Justinian (527– 565), including the violent Nikê riots between Blue and Green factions in Constantinople, the violent effects of the plague in 542, and ideological conflicts between pagans and Christians. Bell’s study of these three episodes of conflict in the sixth century showed that they hostility.” Peter Bell, Social Conflict in the Age of Justinian: Its Nature, Management, and Mediation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 33–48, assesses the contributions of Emile Durkheim, Karl Marx, and Max Weber to the development of social conflict theory. 33. Georg Simmel, Soziologie: Untersuchungen über die Formen der Vergesellschaftung (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1908), 186–255; Lewis A. Coser, The Functions of Social Conflict: An Examination of the Concept of Social Conflict and Its Use in Empirical Sociological Research (New York: Free Press, 1956), 111–19, on the function of ideology in conflict. 34. John Gager, Kingdom and Community: The Social World of Early Christianity, PrenticeHall Studies in Religion Series (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1975), 79–92. See also David G. Horrell, “Becoming Christian: Solidifying Christian Identity and Content,” in Handbook of Early Christianity: Social Science Approaches, ed. Anthony J. Blasi, Jean Duhaime, and Paul-André Turcotte (Walnut Creek, Calif.: Altamira Press, 2002), 309–35; Pierluigi Piovanelli, “Rewriting: The Path from Apocryphal to Heretical,” in Mayer and Neil, Religious Conflict, 87–108, at 88, has a good discussion of these sources. 35. See, e.g., Phil Booth, “Shades of Blues and Greens in the Chronicle of John Nikiou,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 104, no. 2 (2012): 555–602; Peter Sarris, Matthew Dal Santo, and Phil Booth, eds., An Age of Saints? Power, Conflict, and Dissent in Early Medieval Christianity (Leiden: Brill, 2011); Wendy Mayer and Geoffrey D. Dunn, eds., Christians Shaping Identity from the Roman Empire to Byzantium, Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 132 (Leiden: Brill, 2015). 36. Bell, Social Conflict in the Age of Justinian, 38, 40.

16   Ecumenical Conflict (500–700 CE)

were relevant for conflict management in places of present conflict such as Northern Ireland.37 More recently, Weberian theory in its newer incarnations has been applied to papal letters of the fifth century. Geoffrey Dunn demonstrated how Weber’s theory of authority (charismatic, traditional, and legal) can be applied to an analysis of Pope Zosimus’s relations with the rival bishops of Gallic sees in the early fifth century.38 Bronwen Neil took a similar approach to the letters of Leo the Great that were written in the lead-up to the Chalcedonian christological conflict and in its aftermath.39 The conflict theory framework can provide another level of insight, alongside the traditional historical and theological perspectives. The French sociologist of religion Danièle Hervieu-Léger has identified four main “regimes” of faith validation: (1) the communal, based on the internal coherence of the group; (2) institutional, based on the conformity to the norms fixed by the institution; (3) mutual, based on the authenticity of the individual quest; and (4) the personal, based on “the subjective certainty of possessing the truth.”40 She claims that the institutional aspect gained ground in post-Constantinian Christianity, at the expense of the authenticity of the individual quest. Other sociologists of religion have focused on the binary of heterodoxy/orthodoxy as a social norm that operates in many social spheres, not just religion.41 Cultural History

While most of our written texts are authored by social and religious elites and thus present an elite perspective, often one that is prejudiced against the demos or vulgus, in past decades it has become 37. Bell successfully defends this somewhat controversial approach in Social Conflict in the Age of Justinian, 21–26. 38. Geoffrey D. Dunn, “Zosimus and the Gallic Churches,” in Mayer and Neil, Religious Conflict, 181–85. 39. Bronwen Neil, “Addressing Conflict in the Fifth Century: Rome and the Wider Church,” Scrinium 14, no. 1 (2018): 92–114. Some of the theoretical overview here can be found in a different form in that article. 40. Daniele Hervieu-Léger, “Individualism, the Validation of Faith, and the Social Nature of Religion in Modernity,” trans. M. Davis, in The Blackwell Companion to Sociology of Religion, ed. Richard K. Fenn (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2001), 168–70. 41. See Piovanelli, “Rewriting,” 93n21.



Ecumenical Conflict (500–700 CE) 17

possible to retrieve the often unwritten experiences of the non-elites who made up the vast majority of the late-antique world. Material evidence from archaeological surveys has been particularly useful to this process of retrieval. Such analysis has traditionally been undertaken within a Marxist framework of exploitation of lower by higher “class” or “status” groups—for example, in Chris Wickham’s Framing the Early Middle Ages. Popular culture offered ample opportunity for conflict, from enactments of symbolic rivalry—for example in the Lupercalia of the third to fifth centuries—to actual struggles between social groups, such as riots at episcopal elections.42 However, it is not possible to say whether there was an empirical increase in violence in the public sphere in the fourth to sixth centuries CE, or rather an increase in Christian sources that privileged narratives of violence. Discourse Analysis

Discourse analysis has been applied to cultural narratives in Late Antiquity, and more recently to dispute and controversy, especially over the definition of heresy.43 A comparative-religious approach was adopted by John B. Henderson in The Construction of Orthodoxy and Heresy, in which he compares patterns of discourse from Islam, Judaism, and Early Christianity.44 George Demacopoulos has highlighted how an apostolic discourse, or an appeal to apostolic foundations by SS. Peter and Paul, was used by Popes Innocent, Leo, Gelasius, Gregory the Great, and other bishops of Rome to enhance the authority of their see, from the fourth to the seventh centuries.45 The identification of the church and city of Constantinople as the “new Rome” or “second Rome” held the germ of competition between 42. See Neil and Allen, The Letters of Gelasius, 107–11. 43. Averil Cameron, “Can Christians Do Dialogue?” Studia Patristica 54 (2013): 103–20; Averil Cameron, Dialoguing in Late Antiquity, Hellenic Studies Series 65 (Washington, D.C.: Center for Hellenic Studies, 2014). 44. John B. Henderson, The Construction of Orthodoxy and Heresy: Neo-Confucian, Islamic, Jewish and Early Christian Patterns (Albany, N.Y.: SUNY Press), 1998. 45. George E. Demacopoulos, The Invention of Peter: Apostolic Discourse and Papal Authority in Late Antiquity (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013). See also John Moorhead, The Popes and the Church of Rome in Late Antiquity (London and New York: Routledge, 2015).

18   Ecumenical Conflict (500–700 CE)

these two major sees for pre-eminence.46 Portraying monks as “soldiers of Christ” was another important discursive tool in the rivalry between monks and bishops for spiritual authority, as Thomas Noble and Thomas Head have shown in their collection of the Lives of various western saints, including St. Boniface of Frisia.47 Byzantine saints’ vitae of the fifth to seventh centuries were used in exactly the same way.48

The Rhetoric of Primacy Imitating the Roman provincial system in Late Antiquity, the Christian churches developed an increasingly hierarchical leadership structure, wherein some bishops exercised power over others.49 This was nowhere more obvious than in the case of the bishops (popes or patriarchs) of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and, to a much lesser extent, Jerusalem. Other increasingly powerful bishops in the West were those of Gaul, especially in the rival sees of Arles and Vienne; in northern Italy, especially the metropolitan see of Altinum; and in Spain, especially Avila and Gallicia.50 Two cities that mediated to some extent between Rome and Constantinople were Thessalonica, see of the papal vicar, and Ravenna, headquarters of the Byzantine exarchy, whose bishop was usually in open competi46. On the foundation of Constantinople and its rivalry with Rome and other capitals, see Grig and Kelly, “Introduction,” 6–11; and Lucy Grig, “Competing Capitals, Competing Representations: Late Antique Cityscapes in Words and Pictures,” in Grig and Kelly, Two Romes, 31–52, with numismatic evidence at 42–48. 47. Thomas Head and Thomas F. X. Noble, Soldiers of Christ: Saints and Saints’ Lives from Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania University Press, 1995). 48. E.g., The Life of Theodore of Sykeon, on which see Walter Roberts, “Soldiers of Christ from the Byzantine Perspective: Monks, Emperors and Conflict in the Early Byzantine Empire,” Journal of Religious History 41/3 (2017): 291–311. 49. Claudia Rapp, Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity: The Nature of Christian Leadership in an Age of Transition, Transformation of the Classical Heritage 37 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005), remains compulsory reading. For recent bibliography, see Gwynn, “Episcopal Leadership,” 900–15. 50. See Raymond Van Dam, Leadership and Community in Late Antique Gaul (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985); Ralph W. Mathisen, “The ‘Second Council of Arles’ and the Spirit of Compilation and Codification in Late Roman Gaul,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 5/4 (1997): 511–54.



Ecumenical Conflict (500–700 CE) 19

tion with the bishop of Rome and which was later the capital city of Ostrogothic Italy. The bishops of Rome over the course of the fifth century came to claim a primacy of authority over all other bishops.51 This came to a head with Gelasius of Rome’s theory of the two swords, by which he divided the temporal power of the emperor from the superior spiritual power of the head of the Roman church.52 The theory of Walter Ullmann that papal primacy continued unchecked until the end of the Middle Ages is, however, refuted by the epistolary and other evidence.53 Roman aspirations were constantly curtailed by Constantinople, as will be demonstrated in chapters 2 to 4 of this volume. Especially in the letters between emperors and Roman bishops, the rhetoric of primacy is used by both Rome and Constantinople, and this rhetoric needs to be assessed alongside the evidence of other, non-epistolary sources.54

The End of an Ecumenical Era? The letters translated and studied here have been retrieved from a variety of sources, including miscellaneous collections such as the Collectio Avellana, which preserves Pope Hormisdas’s letters on the Acacian Schism. This collection is the main source of the translated letters in chapter 2. Many of the Greek letters concerning the detachment of the Syrian church in the sixth century, which claimed the attention of Byzantine emperors for decades and impeded ecumenical relations, survive only in Syriac translations. These are translated in chapter 3. Council records, such as the Acts of the Lateran Synod of 51. See Demacopoulos, The Invention of Peter. 52. See Neil and Allen, The Letters of Gelasius, 49–50. 53. Walter Ullmann, The Papacy and Political Ideas in the Middle Ages (London: Variorum Imprints, 1976). 54. As, for example, George E. Demacopoulos, “Are All Universalist Politics Local? Pope Gelasius I’s International Ambition as a Tonic for Local Humiliation,” in The Bishop of Rome in Late Antiquity, ed. Geoffrey D. Dunn (Farnham: Ashgate, 2015), esp. 141–42, a comparison of Gelasius’s Ep. 12 ad Anastasium and his letter-treatise Adv. Andromachum (ep. 100, CSEL 135, 453–64). See also Philippe Blaudeau, “Narrating Papal Authority (440–530): The Adaptation of Liber Pontificalis to the Apostolic See’s Developing Claims,” in Dunn, Bishop of Rome, 127–40.

20   Ecumenical Conflict (500–700 CE)

649 CE and of the fifth and sixth ecumenical councils, preserve the majority of Greek and Latin letters for the period and yet do not preserve the majority of Pope Martin’s letters, translated in chapter 4. It will be seen that other literary sources, including chronicles, imperial edicts, hagiography, and doctrinal tracts, usually corroborate the evidence of epistolography. A notable exception to this trend is, not surprisingly, the Liber Pontificalis, which is written solely from a Roman perspective. Letters prove to be a superior source because they offer accounts of religious controversy from more than one point of view. Epigraphic and artistic representations of controversies that survive from Rome, Armenia, and Sinai also confirm the epistolary evidence. Our main aim in the following chapters is to explore the rhetorical and other diplomatic strategies adopted by episcopal and imperial letter-writers and their correspondents when dealing with religious conflict. We will observe the operation of a multiplicity of agents in each ecumenical conflict: monks, bishops, emperors, Byzantine military leaders, “barbarians,” elites, commoners, heterodox and orthodox Christians. Bishops and emperors used rhetoric to great effect to impress their authority upon their opponents, to threaten dissenters, and to invite cooperation on issues of conflict in this period of deep political crisis. Bishops, like emperors and monks, sought to manipulate the medium to increase their own influence. Episcopal and imperial letters emerge as valuable evidence for Roman and Greek involvement in ongoing religious controversies and for imperial reactions to those controversies. Our major conclusion here, and it is perhaps an obvious one, is that contemporary judgments about the outcomes of the various controversies, and the success or failure of those involved in achieving their aims, were largely dependent on which direction one faced: East or West. The letters presented here may lead the reader to question whether these letter-exchanges foreshadowed the end of an ecumenical era. In considering how to answer this question, we need to pose it from the western and the eastern perspectives. Doing so leads to the conclusion that the loss of the western territories and their churches weighed far less on leaders in the Byzantine capital than



Ecumenical Conflict (500–700 CE) 21

the loss of eastern Syria. It is in this context that the deterioration of relations between the Churches of Byzantium and Rome should be understood. Looking East: The Demise of Roman Relations with the Eastern Churches

From a western point of view, Hormisdas’s role in settling the Acacian Schism through his Formula and other correspondence with the Byzantine emperors Anastasius I and Justin marked a high point for the Roman episcopacy that it was never able to recover (at least not until the Middle Ages). Ostensibly religious conflict between the Gothic kings and Byzantine emperors accounted for the death of four popes: John I, Agapitus, Vigilius, and Silverius. These bishops were caught in the crossfire between the Gothic kings of Italy, the Byzantine general Belisarius, Emperors Justin and Justinian, and the latter’s wife, Theodora. From the installation of the first Byzantine papal candidate, Vigilius in 537, all successful candidates were born in Rome or Italy. The two dyothelite popes, John IV (640–642) and Theodore (642–649), were exceptions, being born in Dalmatia and Greece respectively. The origins of bishops of Rome from 678 onward tell a very different story: Agatho (678–681) was born in Sicily, where Leo II was also born; John V was a Syrian born in Antioch; his successor Conon was born in Greece; and the next pope, Sergius I, was a second-generation Syrian born in Sicily.55 All except Sergius professed their loyalty to their imperial masters in Constantinople. Pope Sergius (687–701) is a salutary case in assessing the usefulness of episcopal letters as sources on religious conflict, since no relevant letters survive from his pontificate and, but for the fairly unreliable account of the Liber Pontificalis, we would have no witness to the events that conspired to make him an enemy of Constantinople. Sergius came to the papal throne after a succession of brief but uninspiring lackey-popes, each lasting about a year: Leo II (elev55. See Andrew J. Ekonomou, Byzantine Rome and the Greek Popes: Eastern Influences on Rome and the Papacy from Gregory the Great to Zacharias, A.D. 590–752 (Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books, 2007), 215–18.

22   Ecumenical Conflict (500–700 CE)

en months), who exchanged letters with Emperor Constantine IV and Ervigius of Spain, among others; and another three popes who wrote no surviving letters, although Constantine IV decided that their elections did not require imperial approval from Byzantium, a sign that Roman loyalty to Constantinople was by now assured.56 When Conon died, the Romans—“as usually happens,” in the words of Liber Pontificalis57—divided into two factions, one supporting the archpriest Theodore, the other the archdeacon Pascal, who had the support of the Byzantine exarch of Ravenna. To break the impasse, the Roman people elected a third candidate. Sergius, born into an Antiochene family that had settled in Sicily, had been a cleric in Rome since the pontificate of Leo II. Elected in 687, Sergius I managed to resist Byzantine interference in his election and vehemently opposed the Council in Trullo, held in Constantinople in 692/3.58 One of the canons he likely found objectionable was Canon 1, which anathematized Pope Honorius for his involvement in the lead-up to monothelitism. Another was Canon 36, which reiterated previous statements from the ecumenical councils of 381 and 451, stipulating that Constantinople enjoyed equal privileges to those of the Church of Rome, being second only to Rome in honor.59 56. Constantine IV to Leo II, dated 681 (Clavis patrum graecorum [hereafter, CPG] 9439): ACO 2.2/2, 894–897; Leo II’s reply to Constantine IV sent in September 682 (CPG Suppl., 9441, Clavis patrum latinorum [hereafter CPL] 1738): ACO 2.2/2, 866–884 (Patrologia Latina [hereafter, PL] 96, 399–412). Leo’s letter to Ervigius is translated as text 15 in chapter 4. Benedict II (684–685), bishop for eleven months, John V (685–686), bishop for thirteen months, and Conon (686–687), bishop for eleven months. John V did however receive a letter from Justinian II, on 17 February 687 (CPG 9442): ACO 2.2/2, 886.3–p. 887.21 (PL 96, 425–428). 57. “ut fieri solet”: Louis Duchesne and Cyril Vogel, eds., Le Liber Pontificalis, 3 vols., 2nd ed. (Paris: E. de Boccard, 1955–1957) (hereafter, LP) 1, 371.7. 58. The Council in Trullo is still known as the “Quinisext,” being a completion of the work of the fifth and sixth ecumenical councils. On this council and the issues addressed there, see Judith Herrin, “The Quinisext Council (692) as a Continuation of Chalcedon,” in Chalcedon in Context: Church Councils 400 to 700, ed. Richard Price and Mary Whitby (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2011), 149. 59. Cf. Ekonomou, Byzantine Rome and the Greek Popes, 222, who considers it more likely that Sergius objected to the canon accepting all 85 chapters of the Apostolic Canons, when the Roman church only accepted the first 50 canons. Other controversial canons in terms of Roman practice concerned: the use of azymes, or unleavened bread, which it outlawed; the right of deacons and priests to marry before their ordination, which it allowed; and the wearing of beards by clergy, upon which it insisted.



Ecumenical Conflict (500–700 CE) 23

When Justinian II sent the Acts of the Council in Trullo to Rome for ratification, Sergius refused to comply.60 When the unsuccessful papal candidate Pascal invited the Byzantine exarch Plato and his spatharius to Rome to arrest his rival, things did not go according to plan. Sergius gained popular and military support and the spatharius, Zacharias, was thwarted.61 Sergius’s decision to restore the tomb of the great pope Leo I, author of the formula that was enshrined in the Definition of Faith of Chalcedon, underlined his resistance to Constantinople as much as his refusal to sign the Acts of the council, in that way making it impossible for it to be considered “ecumenical.” There is no good reason to believe the testimony of the Liber Pontificalis that Zacharias lost his mind from extreme fear after he was forced to take refuge in the bishop’s palace, where he was allegedly found cowering under the pope’s bed.62 However, it was probably no coincidence that Sergius chose the church dedicated to Pope Theodore (642–649) to receive the contrite spatharius. Pope Theodore (whose probable depiction is to be found in the apse of the Church of San Venanzio in Rome) was a symbol of successful resistance to the doctrinal pressures of Constantinople, as we will see in chapter 4. We cannot extrapolate from the example of Sergius to suggest that the balance of power had shifted away from Constantinople in the eighth century. The example of another Syrian pope, Constantine (708–715), whom Justinian II and his son Tiberius commanded to travel to Constantinople, where they made a great show of receiving him warmly and restoring the Roman church’s privileges, suggests that the trend was not irreversible. This act of rapprochement did not restore good relations for long, however. When the usurper 60. LP 1, 371–72. 61. LP 1, 373: “Then he [the emperor Justinian] sent Zacharias, his ferocious chief spatharius, with a mandate to bring the pontiff as well to the imperial city. But God’s mercy went before him, and St Peter, the apostle and prince of the apostles, supported him and preserved his church unmutilated: the hearts of the Ravennate soldiery were stirred up, along with those of the Pentapolitan duchy and of the parts all around, not to allow the pontiff of the apostolic see to go up to the imperial city” (Raymond Davis, trans., The Book of Pontiffs (Liber pontificalis): The Ancient Biographies of the First Ninety Roman Bishops to AD 715, 2nd ed., TTH 6 [Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2000], 82). 62. LP 1, 373–74.

24   Ecumenical Conflict (500–700 CE)

Philippicus Bardanes (711–713) attempted to reinstate monothelitism and impose it on Rome, the Romans under the leadership of Pope Constantine found the nerve to resist.63 Looking West: The Loss of Rome and Eastern Syria to the Byzantine Church

From the eastern point of view, the various rebellions and eventual loss of the Church of Rome barely registered by 700 CE. Patriarchal attention in Constantinople was consumed over these two centuries by problematic relations with the Syrian churches. The tone of the letters presented in chapter 3 indicates that the loss of eastern Syria was much more keenly felt than the disaffection of Rome in the sixth century. Bishops of Constantinople in the sixth century produced very few surviving letters compared with the Syrian and Roman bishops.64 The situation is reversed in the surviving correspondence of the seventh century, by the end of which there were very few eastern bishops still left in their sees. Letters from Constantinopolitan patriarchs and emperors to Roman bishops on the subject of religious controversy in the seventh century were comparatively numerous.65 63. For the events of Philippicus’s brief but eventful reign, see Graham V. Sumner, “Philippicus, Anastasius II and Theodosius III,” Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 17 (1976): 287–94, esp. 287–89. 64. Patriarchs of Constantinople John II the Cappadocian (518–520) and Epiphanius (520–535) produced ten letters between them, seven of which were addressed to Hormisdas and are only preserved in the Latin collection of Pope Hormisdas’s correspondence. The ordination of Patriarch Anthimus (535–536) was the subject of two letters, one from Pope Agapitus and the other from a group of eastern bishops. Patriarchs Menas (536–552) and Eutychius (552–565) both received letters from Pope Vigilius in 540 and 553. Eutychius also received one from Pope Pelagius I in 558–559. After that there is a break in the record until 626, in the pontificate of Sergius I (610–638). 65. Constantinopolitan patriarchs Sergius I (610–638), Pyrrhus (638–641 and 654), Paul II (641–653), Peter (654–666), Thomas II (667–669), and John V (669–675) wrote surviving letters on the monoenergist/monothelite controversy. Constantine I (675–677) and Theodore I (677–679) are believed to have written synodical letters to Rome. Among Roman bishops, Honorius I (625–638) addressed two letters on the monoenergist dispute to Sergius of Constantinople; John IV wrote an apology for Honorius; Theodore I (642–649) wrote two letters and a related statement on the monoenergist dispute; Martin I wrote an encyclical letter, a letter to Constans II, and eleven other letters after the Lateran Synod of 649 (see chapter 4, notes 14 and 51 below), and four concerning his trial and exile; Vitalian (657–672) addressed a synodical letter to Patriarch Peter of Constantinople; Agatho (678–681) wrote two letters



Ecumenical Conflict (500–700 CE) 25

Whether east- or west-facing, bishops and their correspondents made use of strategies that capitalized on the vagaries of the imperial post. Plausible deniability was facilitated by this method of communication. Letters went missing, arrived late, or came in languages with which their readers were not sufficiently familiar to grasp the nuances of the issues under debate (or at least they could claim so). Triangulation was another commonly used tactic. Bishops often wrote to more than one person at a time—for example, the bishop of Rome wrote not just to Paul of Thessalonica to reprimand him but also to the bishops who elected him.66 Sending dossiers of documents together with the letter enabled readers to verify the views of other stakeholders. Byzantium in the fifth to seventh centuries could accurately be characterized as a culture of evidence, where documentary proofs were required for any doctrinal statement or position, often going back more than one century. We might even call it a culture of complaint. When reminding people of their place in the divine order failed, patriarchs and popes could always fall back on excommunication, and many doctrinal disputes were prolonged over the issue of whose names were read out in the diptychs, which excluded the heterodox.

Conclusion In her recent work, Averil Cameron considers the question, “Can Christians do dialogue?”67 Our study of letter exchange from 500 to 700 CE has highlighted the long history of ecumenical negotiation between the major powers in early medieval and Byzantine Europe. Our findings illustrate that dialogue was always an ideal and usually successful to some degree. Only occasionally did Byzantine Romans—whether Syriac-, Greek- or Latin-speaking—stop trying to sort out their differences by writing to each other. When an imto Emperor Constantine IV on the monothelite dispute on the same day in March 680, the second one jointly written by him and the Roman synod; Leo II (682–683) wrote one letter to Constantine IV; and nothing relevant survives from Sergius I (687–701). 66. See text 14 in chapter 4. 67. Cameron, “Can Christians Do Dialogue?”; also Cameron, Dialoguing in Late Antiquity.

26   Ecumenical Conflict (500–700 CE)

passe was reached, a change in administration, whether imperial or episcopal, often provided the opportunity for a breakthrough. The letter proved a very flexible means of communication—although the medium was the message, in that anything written down had to be treated as a matter of public record. Perhaps the more subtle features of accommodation were conveyed in the oral messages that we know often accompanied the written communiqué. In seeking an answer to the question posed above—how many religious controversies can be explained by non-religious circumstances?—we must remember that the distinction between religious and other controversies can be hard to track, since all political conflicts had an impact, sooner or later, on the churches in whose regions they occurred. However, we have found that in addition to real doctrinal, liturgical, and disciplinary differences between the Churches of Rome and Constantinople, most major religious controversies between 500 and 700 CE can be explained by external or internal political circumstances. These two centuries were dogged by internal and external pressures on the shrinking Roman Empire that was ruled from Byzantium, from the wars waged by Justinian on the Goths in Italy and Africa, through Byzantine military conflicts with the Persians, imperial assassinations and dynastic struggles, Ostrogothic and Lombard invasions in northern Italy, Visigothic conquests in Spain, the Avar-Slav siege of Constantinople in 626, to the Arab successes in Byzantine territories of Italy, Sicily, the Holy Land, and the Levant. On the positive side, ostensibly religious conflict between social and political groups had the same powerful impact as military conflict in terms of strengthening social identity. The five highest bishops of the pentarchy—Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and, to a much lesser extent, Jerusalem—were obliged to issue a statement of their doctrinal views to the other head bishops of the pentarchy upon their ordination; this is a subgenre of letter-writing with its own rules.68 Roman claims to primacy ring hollow in light of its increasing military reliance on Constantinople during the Lombard 68. For example, text 2 in chapter 4, Pope Theodore’s synodical letter to Paul, Patriarch of Constantinople.



Ecumenical Conflict (500–700 CE) 27

invasions. Ravenna, the Byzantine exarchate and Ostrogothic capital, exercised a considerable influence in the background, and Spain, where homoian Christianity flourished under the Visigoths, posed problems of its own. Synodal gatherings of bishops within regions overseen by these bishops preserved internal unity but the question of the unity of the whole church became increasingly an issue as these bishops competed with one another for regional dominance. In the aftermath of the disastrous Council of Chalcedon, the ecumenical councils of 553 and 680/81 sought to resolve the christological differences between the Roman, Greek, and Syrian churches, with limited success. Many of the letters translated here were key documents in the Acts of these local or international synods. Wars and invasions brought famine, plague, and death to many citizens of the later Roman Empire under Byzantine rule. The influx of new and displaced peoples into the former Latin- and Greekspeaking territories required new collaborations and alliances and a degree of doctrinal accommodation that could not have been envisaged in the Constantinian era. In other words, ecumenical conflict was foundational to the oecumene of the eastern, western, and Syrian churches. It was a necessary part of fruitful exchange between the churches of East and West. Conflict in itself was not the main cause of the schisms that split the church, but one cause among many.69 It is significant that there was to be only one more council that was agreed upon by both Constantinople and Rome as being “ecumenical,” and that was in 787. The so-called eighth ecumenical council, held in Constantinople in 861, was not accorded this status by Rome. The seventh century was not the end of an ecumenical era, but its decline had certainly begun. This is evidenced by the paucity of letters that survive from the following two centuries, a period of stand-off which culminated in the schism over the Filioque in the late ninth century. The ecclesiastical parties had by the end of that century been fractured to the point of there being insufficient common ground to continue debate by the time of the Great Schism of 1054. If the Filioque controversy laid the grounds for the Great 69. This conclusion may give grounds for cautious optimism for the future of ecumenical dialogue in the changed political circumstances of the current era.

28   Ecumenical Conflict (500–700 CE)

Schism, the christological disputes of the seventh century laid the grounds for the Filioque dispute, in spite of the best efforts of Maximus the Confessor.70 It is also worth noting that the seventh century saw the end of the christological controversies that had plagued the church from the first ecumenical council in 325, and not because the issues had been satisfactorily resolved, but because all parties were consumed with facing a common foe. Although John Haldon is surely justified in calling the Byzantine administration of the eighth century “the empire that would not die,” it did face enormous pressure under Arab hegemony in many of its former territories, some three-quarters of the total Byzantine holdings at its height in the sixth century.71 It is important to remember that at the end of the seventh century it was not clear to anyone that Byzantium would survive, albeit as a remnant, as long as it did, until the Ottoman victory in the fifteenth century. For this reason, Christian leaders had to make sustained efforts to accommodate each other, and it is this spirit that we find in the letters presented in this volume. The modern reader needs to be sensitive to the desperation for unity that lurks behind the triumphalist rhetoric that characterized most epistolary exchanges between eastern and western churchmen in this troubled period. We hope that our translation and analysis of a sample of these letters will enable such a reading. We turn now to three ecumenical controversies that consumed the energies of the better part of two centuries. The detailed study of each major dispute will allow us in our concluding chapter to examine the question of whether any or all doctrinal and disciplinary disputes between the Churches of Rome and Constantinople can be explained by external, non-religious circumstances. We aim to identify the main agents in each ecumenical conflict, whether monks, bishops, emperors, military leaders and “barbarians,” elites and commoners, heretics (whether Jews, pagans, or doctrinally deviant Christians), or orthodox Christians. 70. See A. Edward Siecienski, “Maximus the Confessor and Ecumenism,” 548–63. 71. John F. Haldon, The Empire That Would Not Die: The Paradox of Eastern Roman Survival, 640–740 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2016).



Ecumenical Conflict (500–700 CE) 29

In chapter 2, “Negotiating the End of the Acacian Schism,” we analyze episcopal and imperial attempts to end the divisions between Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople that had dogged church relations from 483. This section includes letters between bishops of Rome, emperors and patriarchs of Constantinople, and other significant figures in the Byzantine administration. In chapter 3, “Conflict between Antioch and Alexandria and the Rise of the Syrian Church,” we see how the rivalry between Antioch and Alexandria culminated in the split of the western and eastern Syrian churches. The conflicts were largely concentrated on the doctrinal controversies known as aphthartodocetism and tritheism. We look at the impact of this split on Constantinople and, in turn, on its relationship with Rome. Chapter 4, “Disputing the Activities and Wills of Christ in East and West,” traces the episcopal and imperial epistolary evidence for Roman-Constantinopolitan relations throughout the monoenergist and monothelite controversies of the mid-seventh century. Bishops who agreed with Rome’s stance against the emperor and patriarchs of Constantinople, and those who emphatically did not, continued to correspond with Constantinople up to the resolution of that controversy in 680, which occurred through the combined efforts of Pope Agatho and Emperor Constantine IV. Their letters are compared with sermons and polemical tracts by the same authors and with their correspondence with Greek bishops and emperors of Constantinople, whose letters were often included in the letter collections of the addressee.

Note on the Translations Documents presented in chapter 2 are translated from the Latin and Greek originals, those in chapter 3 from Syriac originals, and those in chapter 4 from Latin originals. Throughout our translations we have stayed as close as possible to the original languages. This results in an English version that is at times stilted and often awkward, but it also preserves the formal register adopted by the original correspondents and the awkwardness of the original texts, which

30   Ecumenical Conflict (500–700 CE)

are often themselves translations. For example, we have preserved the variation between singular and plural in Latin in the address to the one correspondent in the same letter. Additions to the text for the sake of sense are indicated in square brackets. Epithets such as “Your Excellency” are indicated with capital letters on the pronoun and the noun. We have tried to preserve gender inclusive language where it does not do violence to the text—for example, human beings, humanity, or humankind instead of mankind.

Timeline of Significant Events 325 First (Ecumenical) Council of Nicaea First (Ecumenical) Council of Ephesus 431 (Ecumenical) Council of Chalcedon 451 482 Emperor Zenon issues the Henotikon 484–519 Acacian Schism 485 Roman synod condemns Acacius 498–506/7 Laurentian schism 500 Philoxenus, bishop of Mabbog, arrives in Constantinople 508 Severus of Antioch arrives in Constantinople 516 Synod of Old Epirus 532/533 Conversations between the Chalcedonians and AntiChalcedonians in Constantinople 534 Justinian reclaims Byzantine territories in North Africa and Sardinia 536 Condemnation of Severus of Antioch 540 Justinian captures Ravenna from the Ostrogoths 553 Second (Ecumenical) Council of Constantinople 557 Emergence of tritheism 563/564 Theodosius of Alexandria composes a tractate against tritheism Justin II issues the second Henotikon 566/7 568 The Lombards invade Italy



Ecumenical Conflict (500–700 CE) 31

575 Schism between Alexandria and Antioch 614 Persians capture Jerusalem and remove the True Cross 617 Union between the patriarchates of Antioch and Alexandria 626 The Avar-Slavic siege of Constantinople 628 Heraclius defeats the Persians and retrieves the True Cross 633 Cyrus of Alexandria publishes Nine Chapters (or Pact of Union) 633/634 Heraclius issues the Psephos and Sophronius of Jerusalem composes Synodical Letter 634 Arab conquest of Damascus 638 Arab conquest of Jerusalem; Heraclius issues the Ekthesis 642 Arab conquest of Egypt 648 Constans II issues the Typos 649 Election of Pope Martin I; Lateran Synod in Rome 652 First Arab expedition to Sicily 653 Trial of Pope Martin in Constantinople 655 First trial of Maximus the Confessor in Constantinople 662 Second trial of Maximus in Constantinople 668–669 Mezesius attempts to seize the Byzantine throne in Syracuse 669 Second Arab expedition to Sicily 676–678 Ravenna returns to Rome’s jurisdiction 680/1 Third (Ecumenical) Council of Constantinople 692/3 Quinisext Council in Trullo 787 Second (Ecumenical) Council of Nicaea 861 Council of Constantinople 869 Fourth (Ecumenical) Council of Constantinople 1054 Great Schism between Rome and Constantinople

THE END OF THE ACACIAN SCHISM

CHAPTER 2

Negotiating the End of the Acacian Schism

!

Introduction The Acacian Schism of the late fifth to early sixth centuries was one of the most serious breaks in the oecumene before the so-called Great Schism of 1054. What was initially a disagreement over the election of bishops in Alexandria and Antioch resulted in the bishops of Constantinople and Rome issuing reciprocal anathemas and became a rift that lasted for thirty-five years. An end to the schism was negotiated by Hormisdas of Rome (514–521), whose correspondence is largely preserved in the Collectio Avellana, the fourth and largest section of which is a dossier of papal and other letters concerning the schism that was compiled by the mid-sixth century.1 In this chapter, although the focus is on the sixth century, we first consider the political and theological background to the schism up to the pontificate of Symmachus (499–514), before turning to its resolution under Pope Hormisdas.2 The correspondence of these bishops with eastern 1. Otto Günther, ed., Collectio Avellana, Epistulae imperatorum pontificum aliorum inde ab a. CCCLXVII usque ad a. DLIII datae Avellana quae dicitur collectio, 2 vols., CSEL 35 (Prague: Tempsky, 1895) (hereafter, CAv), 495–801. The whole collection was compiled in Italy by the end of the sixth century. 2. On Hormisdas and his legacy, see Walter Haacke, Die Glaubensformel des Papstes Hormisdas im Acacianischen Schisma, Analecta Gregoriana 20 (Rome: Pontifica Universitá Gregoriana, 1939); Adrian Fortescue, The Reunion Formula of Hormisdas (Garrison, N.Y.: National Office, Chair of Unity Octave, 1955); Menze, Justinian and the Making of the Syrian Orthodox Church,

32



The End of the Acacian Schism 33

bishops, wealthy patrons, patriarchs of Constantinople, emperors, and future emperors shows us much about how letters could be used to incite or settle disputation. A Brief History of the Acacian Schism from Its Origins to 498

The Acacian Schism officially started in 484 with Pope Felix III’s condemnation of Peter of Antioch, Timothy Aelurus of Alexandria, his successor Peter of Alexandria, and the patriarch of Constantinople, Acacius (472–489). The irenic emperor Anastasius I (491–518) abided by Emperor Zeno’s Henotikon of 482.3 The reign of Anastasius, who was sympathetic to opponents of the Council of 451, was to witness the crystallization of the anti-Chalcedonian position and a powerful articulation of its theology. Instrumental in this were Philoxenus, bishop of Mabbog,4 who arrived in Constantinople around 500, and the anti-Chalcedonian monk Severus, later patriarch of Antioch, who arrived there in 508.5 The partnership of these two men, Severus and Philoxenus, who would not be satisfied passim; and Teresa Sardella, “Ormisda, santo,” in Enciclopedia dei Papi, 2nd ed., 3 vols. (Rome: Treccani, 2000), vol. 1, 476–83; Carmelo Capizzi, “Sul fallimento di un negoziato di pace ecclesiastica fra il papa Ormisda e l’imperatore Anastasio I (515–517),” Critica Storica 17 (1980): 23–54; and Celestino Noce, ed., Papa Ormisda (514–523): Magistero cura pastorale e impegno ecumenico: Atti del Convegno (Frosinone: Comune di Frosinone, 1993). 3. On the reign of Anastasius I and its religious policies, see Fiona K. Haarer, Anastasius I. Politics and Empire in the Late Roman World, ARCA Classical and Medieval Texts, Papers and Monographs 46 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 115–83; Mischa Meier, Anastasios I: Die Entstehung des Byzantinischen Reiches (Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta Verlag, 2009), especially 84–92, 103–17, 250–88. 4. On Philoxenus the classic study is André de Halleux, Philoxène de Mabbog: Sa vie, ses écrits, sa théologie (Louvain: Imprimerie orientaliste, 1963). See also Roberta C. Chesnut, Three Monophysite Christologies: Severus of Antioch, Philoxenus of Mabbug, and Jacob of Sarug (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976), 57–112, and David A. Michelson, The Practical Christology of Philoxenus of Mabbug, OECS (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014). 5. On Severus of Antioch, see Joseph Lebon, Le monophysisme sévérien: Étude historique, littéraire et théologique (Louvain: J. van Lithout, 1909; repr. New York: AMS Press, 1978). See also Pauline Allen and C. T. Robert Hayward, Severus of Antioch, The Early Church Fathers (London: Routledge, 2004); Frédéric Alpi, La route royale: Sévère d’Antioche et les Églises d’Orient (512–518), 2 vols., Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 188 (Beirut: Institut français de proche-orient, 2009). The recent volume edited by John D’Alton and Youhanna N. Youssef, Severus of Antioch: Life and Times, Texts and Studies in Eastern Christianity 7 (Leiden: Brill, 2016), gives an up-to-date bibliography.

34   The End of the Acacian Schism

with anything less than an outright condemnation of the Council of Chalcedon, has been described as a turning point in the history of incarnational theology because they galvanized the politics and theological vocabulary of the anti-Chalcedonian movement.6 Paradoxically, at the same time the ecclesiastical policies of Anastasius were waning as the Henotikon was proved an ineffective instrument of union, the patriarchates of Constantinople, Antioch, and Jerusalem were held by staunch Chalcedonians. This did not deter Philoxenus of Mabbog, however, from engineering the removal of Flavian, patriarch of Antioch (498–512), and the substitution of Severus in 512 with the agreement of the emperor. With two such powerful personalities, Hormisdas and Severus, locking horns, it is no wonder that the schism ended in a permanent rupture of some eastern churches from the oecumene of Rome and Constantinople. Letters of Sixth-Century Bishops on the Schism

Despite playing such a prominent role in the schism by his excommunication of Acacius, Felix III only merited two appearances in CAv, one spurious letter and one report of the Roman synod that condemned Acacius, over which Felix presided in 485 (CAv 70). The correspondence of Gelasius (492–496) with the East is better represented, with five documents that pertain to the schism, alongside letters dealing with Pelagianism, the celebration of the Lupercalia, and other issues bearing upon the bishop of Rome’s authority. 7 Pope Anastasius II (496–498) addressed four letters to the East on the schism, one of which has been translated below (text 1), for the light it sheds on Symmachus’s similar stance in 512. Consumed by the Laurentian Schism, Pope Symmachus did not concern himself greatly with affairs of theological import in the eastern churches. Only one letter of Symmachus pertains to the Acacian Schism, and even it may have been authored by Symmachus’s great 6. See Charles Moeller, “Le Chalcédonisme et le néo-Chalcédonisme en Orient de 451 à la fin du VIe siècle,” in Das Konzil von Chalkedon: Geschichte und Gegenwart, ed. Aloys Grillmeier and Heinrich Bacht, 5th ed., vol. 1 (Würzburg: Herder, 1979), 670. 7. Neil and Allen, The Letters of Gelasius I, 32–42, address this pope’s use of inflammatory letters to prolong the schism with Constantinople.



The End of the Acacian Schism 35

supporter, Ennodius, bishop of Pavia (438–496).8 This is his letter of 8 October 512 to the eastern bishops, priests, deacons, and archimandrites in Illyricum, Dardania, and each of the Dacian provinces (text 3).9 In answer to a plea from the same bishops, penned by Dorotheus of Thessalonica, Symmachus refused ever to admit to his communion those who would not divorce themselves from association with the condemned Eutyches, Dioscorus, Timothy Aelurus, Peter Mongus, and Acacius.10 The pope’s interest in this letter is confined to the involvement of the Greek bishops of Illyricum, the prefecture over which both Rome and Constantinople claimed jurisdiction. In this respect it mirrors the four Gelasian letters included in CAv, which were also concerned with winning over the church of Illyricum, the “middle man” between Rome and Constantinople. Also involved in the resolution of the Acacian Schism were several patriarchs of Constantinople, perhaps the most contentious of whom was Macedonius (496–511), a supporter of Chalcedon who at the same time subscribed to the Henotikon and supported union with Rome. He became an enemy of Philoxenus and Severus, who eventually engineered his deposition.11 From Macedonius and his successor Timothy (511–518) we have no literary remains dealing with the schism or its resolution. In contrast, Patriarch John II (518–520) wrote to Hormisdas at least six times; in one of these letters (a relatio, or report), translated by us in Text 9 below and dated 7 September 518, John expresses his confidence that “the right faith has been saved and love between brothers made firm.”12 He also asserts 8. On the career of Ennodius, see Stéphane Gioanni, Ennode de Pavie: Lettres, Collection des Universités de France 383 (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2006), vol. 1, VII–XCV. He was a frequent letter-bearer and diplomat during the Acacian Schism and its resolution, as can be seen, for example, in texts 4, 5, and 6 below. 9. Andreas Thiel, ed., Ep. 13 ad orientales (cf. CPL 1687), , 717–722 (8 October 512). Dated thus by Andreas Thiel, ed., Epistulae Romanorum pontificum genuinae et quae ad eos scriptae sunt a s. Hilaro usque ad Pelagium II, 2nd ed. [Braunsberg, 1867; repr. Hildesheim: Georg Olm, 2004]) (hereafter, Thiel); Günther, 487, note to CAv 104, suggests 5 March 513 but puts a question mark over the date. This letter is translated below as text 3. 10. Ecclesia orientalis ad Symmachum (a. 512); Symmachus, ep. 12, in Thiel, 709–17. Symmachus, ep. 13.6, in Thiel, 722. 11. See William H. C. Frend, The Rise of the Monophysite Movement: Chapters in the History of the Church in the Fifth and Sixth Centuries (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), 200–201. 12. CPG 6830–35.

36   The End of the Acacian Schism

his belief in the authenticity of the Councils of Nicaea, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, and in the “consubstantial and all-holy Trinity,” the latter yet another testimony to the part which the Trisagion debate played in the resolution of the Acacian Schism. The final player in the resolution of the schism from the patriarchate of Constantinople was Epiphanius (520–535), from whose long patriarchate we have text 15 to Hormisdas (CPG 6838) and another two letters to the same pope. In text 15, Epiphanius exhibits good will towards the apostolic see (Rome) and claims that he “taught the right and true faith of the one essence of the Trinity” and accepted the Councils of Nicaea, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, as did his predecessor John. During the reign of Emperor Anastasius, there was a push for the papal cause from the Latin-speaking army in Thrace, led by the Gothic magister militum Vitalian, the godson of Patriarch Flavian of Antioch who was later replaced by the monk Severus. Vitalian insisted that the liturgical prayer the Trisagion, or “Thrice-holy” (referring to the Trinity), be reinstated in its original form, without the anti-Chalcedonian addition “who was crucified for us.” There are trinitarian statements in texts 9, 14, and 15 below. In addition, Vitalian demanded the restoration of the Chalcedonian patriarchs Macedonius of Constantinople and Flavian.13 The influential role of Vitalian is mentioned in Text 4 below. The Final Phase of the Acacian Schism (515–521)

After a long hiatus during the pontificate of Symmachus, negotiations between Rome and Constantinople resumed in 515, although Emperor Anastasius took the initiative at this stage. The newly elected Pope Hormisdas sent two embassies to Anastasius, with the backing of King Theodoric. The first embassy carried the libellus, which insisted on the removal of the names of Peter of Alexandria, Peter of Antioch, Timothy Aelurus, Patriarch Acacius, and Acacius’s followers (who remained unspecified) from the diptychs (text 5).14 The 13. Frend, Rise of the Monophysite Movement, 231–232; Allen and Hayward, Severus of Antioch, 9, 16, 19. 14. The libellus fidei (CPL 1684) exists in six versions, including CAv 89, 90, 116b, 159



The End of the Acacian Schism 37

attempted removal of their names from the diptychs was a powerful means of revising the collective past of local communities, as well as of asserting the primacy of the see of Rome through its connections with the apostles Peter and Paul (see text 4; also texts 10 and 12).15 The Libellus was appended to Letter 7, a diplomatic instruction manual (indiculus) given to the papal legates sent to Anastasius in August 515, prescribing how they were to answer every question put to them in Constantinople (text 4). The second embassy carried nineteen letters confirming the faith as it was defined by the Council of Chalcedon and condemning Eutychianism. Orthodox monks were secretly employed to disseminate these letters in the East. Anastasius’s successor Justin proved willing to reach a compromise with Hormisdas, acting for Theodoric, and the schism ended in 519, although the anti-Chalcedonian factions led by the excommunicated Severus of Antioch remained strong.16 Although in 518 the largely pro-Chalcedonian party in Constantinople welcomed Anastasius’s successor, Justin I, as orthodox, it has recently been suggested that the new emperor had political reasons for accepting Chalcedon, rescinding the Henotikon, and implementing the Libellus of Pope Hormisdas.17 We are quite well informed by Hormisdas’s letters about the missions of his legates to Constantinople from 515 to 517.18 The Libellus (text 5), a letter-tractate also and CAv Appendix 4. See Haacke, Die Glaubensformel des Papstes Hormisdas, 10–14, and our translation below; Menze, Justinian and the Making of the Syrian Orthodox Church, 68n67 with lit. A previous translation by Fortescue, The Reunion Formula of Hormisdas, is based on earlier versions of the document rather than on the authoritative text in CAv. 15. Menze, Justinian and the Making of the Syrian Orthodox Church, 58–105. On the importance of the diptychs as a sign of ecclesial union, see 76–86. 16. Even when Severus was exiled in Egypt from 518 until his death in 538. See further Youhanna N. Youssef, “Severus of Antioch in Scetis,” Ancient Near Eastern Studies 43 (2006): 142–63. 17. See Menze, Justinian and the Making of the Syrian Orthodox Church, 18–30. 18. Letters 4, 6, 8, 13, 27, 37; Thiel, 745–46, 747–48, 755–58, 766–68, 796–800, 812–13. On these and other papal embassies at the time, see Andrew Gillett, Envoys and Political Communication in the Late Antique West, 411–533 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 11–26. Jonathan Shepard and Simon Franklin, eds., Byzantine Diplomacy: Papers from the Twenty-fourth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, March 1990, Variorum Reprints 1 (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1992), is restricted to Greek materials and mostly secular diplomacy. See also Ekaterina Nechaeva, Embassies—Negotiations—Gifts: Systems of East Roman Diplomacy in Late Antiquity (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2014).

38   The End of the Acacian Schism

called the Formula of Hormisdas (although in fact it was an anonymous document), insisted on observance of the formula of Chalcedon, that those regarded by the see of Rome as heretics (Nestorius, Dioscorus, Timothy Aelurus, Peter Mongus, and Acacius) be struck from the diptychs in the East as well, and that cases against bishops be tried in the papal court.19 It also demanded the submission of the secular ruler to the Roman pontiff. Justin and his nephew and successor Justinian I (527–565) implemented the document as another instrument of union everywhere except Egypt, but while it healed the breach between Rome and Constantinople, it produced lasting divisions in the East between adherents and opponents of the Council of Chalcedon. In 519, Hormisdas finally conceded to the new emperor Justin’s demand that he lift the excommunication of Acacius.20 In return, Justin agreed to remove the names of Acacius, Peter of Alexandria, and Peter of Antioch from the liturgical diptychs. The long rule of Anastasius I had ended in July of the preceding year, paving the way for a new era of reconciliation. The reconciliation of 519 was widely seen as a papal victory, even by modern scholars, although the impetus for a resolution seems to have come from the emperor himself. While the report (suggestio) of the deacon Dioscorus (text 13), dated 22 April 519, gives a graphic description of the ceremonial resolution of the dispute, even in 521 the ripples were still settling. We see this in Hormisdas’s lengthy letter to the emperor Justin, responding to the co-emperor Justinian’s questions about Peter the Fuller’s addition of the phrase meaning “one of the Trinity [was] crucified” to the Trisagion hymn in a letter of 520 (text 14). 21 This letter was included in the seventh-century Hispana collection from Italy, which supplied it to the 19. See the analysis of this document by Peter Charanis, Church and State in the Later Roman Empire: The Religious Policy of Anastasius I (491–518), 2nd ed., Βυζαντινά Κείμενα και Μελέται 11 (Thessaloniki: Kentron Vyzantinon Ereunon, 1974), 90–91. On the reception and influence of the document, see Menze, Justinian and the Making of the Syrian Orthodox Church, esp. 17–18, and 32–34 with lit. 20. On Rome’s relations with the eastern patriarchs from the time of the Robber Council at Ephesus (449) to the episcopacy of Agapitus, see Blaudeau, Le siège de Rome et l’Orient. 21. E.g., Frend, Rise of the Monophysite Movement, 197, describes Gelasius as “the true architect of the papal victory in 519.” Ep. 137, ed. Thiel, 959–965; CAv 236. Date: 26 March 521: unus de trinitate crucifixus.



The End of the Acacian Schism 39

Dionysio-Hadriana (774 AD) and the medieval pseudo-Isidorian collection.22 Its wide distribution reflects the interest that Hormisdas’s letters, especially the libellus or Formula, attracted in later centuries. The Correspondence of Hormisdas

There are 153 letters surviving in the Hormisdas collection: 125 by the pope and 28 addressed to him. The bulk of Hormisdas’s correspondence is preserved in CAv.23 The vagaries of the late-antique postal system are well illustrated by the fact that letters usually took two months to travel from Constantinople to Rome (e.g., ep. 121, ep. 130 and ep. 131). No letters exist from the last two years of Hormisdas’s episcopacy, there being none dated after April 521. Within the corpus there are several bundles of letters from the same date.24 Several types of letter can be identified: decretals (judgments on specific issues of doctrine and/or clerical discipline, intended to have universal application), indiculi (instructions to legates), commonitoria (instructions to everyone), responsoria (answers to specific questions), and encyclica (letters addressed to the bishops of the major sees). We may compare these with the thirteen types of episcopal letters identified in our recent work on crisis management in episcopal letters.25 We must consider the possible influence of papal letter-writers of note from the previous century, especially Innocent I, Leo I, and Gelasius. This is especially obvious in ep. 125, which for the most part is virtually a copy of Gelasius’s ep. 42, an 22. Hormisdas, ep. 137, Thiel, 959–65. See Günther, CAv, 716, in notes. 23. CAv, 495–742. On this collection see the www.luc.edu/collectioavellana; Kate Blair-Dixon, “Memory and Authority in Sixth-century Rome: The Liber Pontificalis and the Collectio Avellana,” in Religion, Dynasty, and Patronage in Early Christian Rome, 300–900, ed. Kate Cooper and Julia Hillner (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 59–76; Philippe Blaudeau, “Un point de contact entre Collectio Avellana et Collectio Thessalonicensis? Autour du cas d’Abundantius de Démétrias,” Millennium: Jahrbuch zu Kultur und Geschichte des ersten Jahrtausands n. Chr. 10 (2013): 1–11; Dana I. Viezure, “Collectio Avellana and the Unspoken Ostrogoths: Historical Reconstruction in the Sixth Century,” in Shifting Genres in Late Antiquity, ed. Geoffrey Greatrex and Hugh Elton with Lucas McMahon (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2015), 93–103. All but eleven of the letters written by or addressed to Hormisdas are included in CAv, making up the bulk of its 253 letters. 24. E.g., Epp. 137–41 from 26 March 521. 25. Allen and Neil, Crisis Management, 16–17.

40   The End of the Acacian Schism

index of canonical books.26 Another such strategy, a favorite of Leo and Gelasius, was to recommend the calling of local synods to endorse the position held by Rome. Two letters of Hormisdas survive also in Greek translations, namely ep. 140 to Epiphanius, patriarch of Constantinople, and the deacons and archimandrites of Syria Secunda, exhorting them to remain steadfast in the right faith; and ep. 237, also to Epiphanius, this time rejoicing in the peace that has been established between the churches of East and West.27 Another very interesting connection with the Greek-speaking world is evident in Dionysius Exiguus’s letter to Hormisdas (ep. 148), which is a preface to the Scythian monk’s translation of the Greek canons collected together with Latin canons from Serdica and Africa, a collection that later became known as the Dionysiana. Dionysius apparently undertook his huge project at Hormisdas’s request, revealing in the pope a more positive attitude to the Greeks than had been apparent in his predecessors Leo I and Gelasius. We can identify at least four categories of correspondent in the letters of Hormisdas: 1. Various bishops in East and West: Dorotheus of Thessalonica, Patriarchs Timothy, John, and Epiphanius of Constantinople, John of Nicopolis, Avitus of Vienne, Caesarius of Arles, Possessor of North Africa, and Salustius of Seville, as well as the archimandrites of Syria. The reports (suggestiones) of various bishops, including Patriarchs John and Epiphanius of Constantinople, are included in Hormisdas’s collection, as well as records from two church synods: the Synod of Old Epirus (ep. 16) and the Synod of Constantinople (ep. 131).28 2. Emperors and empresses: Anastasius I, Justin (518–527), his nephew and adoptive son, Justinian (see next section, “Aristocrats”), and his wife, Euphemia. A pair of letters to Justin and Euphemia in January 519 makes an interesting contrast in terms of style and con26. Translated with notes in Neil and Allen, Letters of Gelasius, 157–69. 27. CAv, 572–85 and 722–33, respectively. 28. Ep. 9 to Caesarius of Arles on the Acacian Schism is preserved only in the Collectio Arelatensis, a collection of letters pertaining to the church of Gaul. Epp. 15, 39, 63, 67, 109, 115, 130, 146 and 147; see text 9.



The End of the Acacian Schism 41

tent.29 Letters sent to the pope that pertain to the Acacian Schism include two letters from Anastasius I (epp. 111, 138) and seven from Justin.30 Letter 12 from Emperor Anastasius to the Roman senate and Letter 14, a rescript of the Roman senate to Anastasius, are included in the collection. 3. Aristocrats: Pompey, who was the consul, patricius, and nephew of Emperor Anastasius; the future emperor Justinian the Comes; the generals Celer and Patricius; the unnamed praetorian prefect of Thessalonica; and elite women, including Julia Anicia, Palmatia, and Anastasia.31 4. Papal legates, who were given extensive instructions (indiculi) on what they were to convey on their various missions to Constantinople. One of the most illustrious of these was Ennodius of Pavia. There are several examples of legates reporting on their embassies to Hormisdas and an indiculus from Bishop John or Epiphanius, presbyter of Thessalonica (ep. 102).32 Reception of Hormisdas by the Chalcedonians

The significance of Hormisdas’s letters can be judged by the use that was made of them in Constantinople, first in the conversations of 532/533 and the second in the Fifth Ecumenical synod of 553, which dealt with the next major controversy to consume the eastern and western churches, that over the Three Chapters.33 The CAv also preserves valuable sources by other bishops, including Pope Gelasius, on this dispute (CAv 82–93). It could be that this collection was intended as an extension of the Collectio Thessalonicensis, designed to rein29. CAv 148 and 156. 30. Epp. 41, 42, 66, 101, 108, 116 and 145; see text 7. 31. On Pompey, see PLRE 2/2, 898–99, s.v. Pompeius 2, and text 13 below. For Hormisdas’s interactions with these elites and his female correspondents, see Julia Hillner, “Preserving Female Voices: Female Letters in Late Antique Letter Collections,” in A Late Antique Experiment in Roman Canon Law: The Collectio Avellana and Its Revivals, eds. Rita Lizzi Testa and Giulia Marconi (Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2019), esp. 225–31. 32. Epp. 59, 60, 61, 64, 65, 75, 76, 77, 98, 110, 111 and 115; see text 13. 33. See Celia Chazelle and Catherine Cubitt, eds., The Crisis of the Oikoumene: The Three Chapters and the Failed Quest for Unity in the Sixth–century Mediterranean, Studies in the Early Middle Ages 14 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2007).

42   The End of the Acacian Schism

force the bishop of Rome’s claim to jurisdiction over the contested territories of Dardania and Illyricum, compiled in the context of the Three Chapters dispute. One would not surmise this from a scrutiny of Hormisdas’s letters alone, of which only a dozen are addressed to the Dardanian and Illyrican churches, including bishops of Nicopolis (CAv 122, 123, 124), Old Epirus (CAv 120), Thessalonica (CAv 133 and 209), and the so-called “eastern” bishops (CAv 129). The most inflammatory letters to the East on the Acacian question from the fifth century were not included in CAv. Regardless of the intention of the compiler of this section of the Avellana Collection (which we can have no way of knowing from the sources currently available), it could have been used later not just as the record of a schism but as a roadmap for resolving a schism, in the context of another unfolding dispute between Justinian and the bishops of Rome, the Three Chapters controversy. 34 The Illyrican origins of both Emperors Justin I and Justinian may have been considered relevant to the compilation of the latter parts of the CAv, including Hormisdas’s letters on the schism. What makes Hormisdas’s letter-collection unique among western documentations of conflict with the eastern churches is its inclusion of so much eastern material, including letters by emperors and other members of the imperial family, as well as bishops of Syria, legates of Alexandria, and archimandrites of Constantinople. In Hormisdas’s letter-collection, there are twenty-eight letters by other authors, predominantly eastern. The inclusion of these (sometimes in Greek versions) in the CAv results in a more even-handed, balanced account of the schism. At the same time, one must admit that the inclusion of forged letters which condemned Peter of Antioch in the Avellana Collection (CAv 71–79) bolstered the western position at the expense of Constantinople. The compiler’s selection of letters shows that there was intransigence on both sides, but also a willingness to accommodate the other’s point of view in the case of Hormisdas and the Byzantine emperor Justin. It is for the libellus that bears his name that Hormisdas was long remembered (text 5). Not only was it repeated and reworked by 34. E.g., Felix III’s ep. 8 to Emperor Zeno, Gelasius’s ep. 12 to Emperor Anastasius, and Anastasius II’s ep. 1 to Emperor Anastasius.



The End of the Acacian Schism 43

such contemporary writers as John II, patriarch of Constantinople (518–520) (CAv 159), but it also appeared at the fourth Council of Constantinople in 869 and was extensively discussed at the First Vatican Council in 1870.35 Note on Critical Editions

There are two critical editions of Symmachus’s and Hormisdas’s letters. The first was made by Andreas Thiel in 1867, which contains eleven letters by or addressed to Hormisdas that are not found elsewhere.36 The second is Otto Günther’s edition of the sixth-century Italian Avellana Collection (CAv), made in 1895 on the basis of Vaticanus latinus 4961 (eleventh century), used by Thiel, as well as a newly discovered manuscript also dating to the eleventh century, Vaticanus Latinus 3787. The Greek letters of two patriarchs of Constantinople, John II the Cappadocian (Text 9) and Epiphanius (Text 15), are translated from CAv.

TRANSLATIONS

!

Text 1 Anastasius II of Rome to Emperor Anastasius 496

To Anastasius augustus, most glorious and merciful son, [from] Anastasius the bishop37 I announce the beginning of my pontificate for the first time with peace offered to the people. Consequently, I present myself to Your Piety as a humble beseecher for the catholic faith. First, I trust, divine favor has approached me in you. [I mean] that the harmony of 35. See further Fortescue, The Reunion Formula of Hormisdas, 13–14. 36. Epp. 9, 24–26, 88, 125, 142, 143, 148–50. Thiel, 741–990. 37. Sc. Anastasius II, bishop of Rome (496–98). Thiel, 615–23.

44   The End of the Acacian Schism

your most august name offers secure aid in me, so that—just as the outstanding word of Your Piety shines out through all races in the entire world—so the see of most blessed Peter holds onto its leadership, having been assigned it in the whole church by the Lord God, through the service of my humble self, as [humble] it always remains. Nor on account of one death did the Savior’s tunic, woven as one piece [cf. Jn 19:23], suffer the uncertainty of evil division for a long time, which [tunic] was the only one that was not able to be torn apart, on account of its strength, with Your Serenity governing the republic,38 especially to one who had in your own life so much zeal for true religious belief that, as most reliable rumor had it, no one even among the head priests is said to have given more protection to the rules set down by the holy Fathers for the church. We trust that such holy zeal has increased with the greatness of imperial rule. 1. And so we are dispatching an embassy on behalf of Christ, lest we allow those whose merits or actions cannot be hidden from that Judge to whose judgment they have now been committed, be named in public for offense or scandal. Nor can that rash presumption still insinuate itself there in the mortal body in which not only confession has made known the merits of individuals, but even the secret of its silence cannot be hidden. For both our predecessor Pope Felix and even Acacius are there beyond doubt, where each cannot lose the quality of his merit, under such a Judge. 2. And so as the most blessed apostle Paul warns us, lest anything be a stumbling block for this reason in the church, when we try to judge what we cannot [cf. Rom 14:13] concerning those who have died, Your Tranquility should recognize what must be observed. For he said of those who presume to judge those things which pertain only to God: “for none of us lives for himself or dies for himself. For if we live, we live in the Lord; if we die, we die in the Lord. For whether we live or die we are the Lord’s. For this reason, Christ rose from the dead, that he should rule both the living and the dead. But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you scorn your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written: We live, said the Lord, when 38. Lat. Res publica, which here and elsewhere in this volume we have translated as “republic.” The term refers to the empire, East and West.



The End of the Acacian Schism 45

every knee shall bow to me and every tongue confess to God [Is 45:23]. And so each of us shall render his account for himself to God. Therefore, let us no more judge one another but judge this instead, that you do not pose a stumbling block or a cause of offense for your brother” [Rom 14:7–13]. Therefore, the blessed apostle issues a warning, that no one, by presuming to judge those things which no one can judge better or more truly than God, should employ rash acts of daring, and on account of this that the peace and unity of the church be disturbed. For in the Book of Kings, it is said: “For God does not see as humans see: because humans see the face, but God sees into the heart” [1 Kgs 16:7]. Likewise in Book 1 of Chronicles: “And now, Solomon, know the God of your fathers and serve him with perfect heart and willing mind, since God looks into all hearts and knows every thought” [1 Chr 28:9]. Likewise, in Ezekiel, “The Lord God says this: So you have spoken, house of Israel, and I know the thoughts of your spirit” [Ezek 11:5]. Whence also it is said in the Gospel about the Lord [our] judge: “But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said: Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts?” [Mt 9:4]. 3. Therefore, we beseech Your Mercifulness that in particular the name of Acacius should not be spoken, as for many reasons it has aroused a cause of offense or something of a stumbling block in the church. Let it not be spoken of in special mention, since, as I said, in the general category of priests the special merits of each cannot be hidden from that Judge who knows what should be awarded to each in accordance with the tally of his allocated merits. And to [that Judge] alone have thoughts been revealed. But so that it does not perhaps seem burdensome to Your Mercifulness to list them one by one—how many were the trespasses and presumptions of Acacius, about each case against Acacius, what kind it was—we have given the fullest information to Cresconius and also Germanus, my brothers and fellow bishops,39 whom we have sent to Your Serenity. Your Mercifulness can reconsider them in more detail, if it pleases Your Piety to investigate more fully, lest in any suggestion of ours the truth might appear to be incomplete. And so, in 39. Also, the bearers of text 2.

46   The End of the Acacian Schism

keeping with your divine wisdom, you can see most clearly that the apostolic see went ahead with such a sentence against Acacius not out of pride or high-mindedness, but aroused more by zeal for the Divinity against his actual crimes, as far as we can be sure, beyond that judgment which alone cannot be deceived. 4. But we do not wish there to remain controversy in the church, humbly beseeching you, since conflict is greatly to be avoided, as is said in Proverbs: “Conflict arouses hatred but all those who do not dispute, protect [their] friendship” [Prv 10:12]. And also the apostle to the Corinthians: “For since there are rivalries and conflicts between you, surely you are of the flesh and behave as men?” [1 Cor 3:3]. And likewise to the Philippians: “Therefore, if there is any consolation in Christ, if there is any talk of love, if there is any fellowship of the spirit, if there is any affection and pity, make my joy complete by all speaking the same thing, having the same love, holding nothing in dispute nor out of empty pride but in humble mind valuing each other as better than yourselves, each looking out for not his own interests but those of others” [Phil 2:1–4]. 5. I especially indicate this, however, to Your Serenity, most praiseworthy and merciful son, augustus, that when the charges of the Alexandrians are laid open to your ears of good faith, by your authority, wisdom, and your divine warnings, you make them return to the true and catholic faith.40 For what should be held in the catholic religion, according to the definitions of the Fathers and the preaching of all the priests who have flourished in the church, if you command this also, we will renew it for those who are learned by pressing it into memory. We will offer it to the unlearned to be learnt in accordance with our office of teaching, so that no boasting of the intelligent or crookedness can be heard, apart from these [instructions]. 6. But we preach on behalf of the apostolic office (more particularly for the love of your empire and blessedness which could attend on [your] kingdom) that, as is fitting and as the Holy Spirit dictates, obedience should be offered to our warnings, so that all good things may befall your republic, as is promised in Exodus: “If you hear the 40. On the problems in Alexandria at this time, see our introduction to this chapter.



The End of the Acacian Schism 47

voice of the Lord your God, and you do what is pleasing to him and obey his commands and protect all his statutes, I will not inflict on you every disease which I inflicted on the Egyptians: for I am the Lord who saves you” [Ex 15:26]. And there again the most powerful trumpet sings: “And now Israel, what else does the Lord your God demand of you, than that you fear the Lord your God, and you walk in all his ways, and you love him, and you serve the Lord your God with your whole heart and your whole soul, keeping the commandments of the Lord your God and his statutes, which I give to you?” [Dt 10:12–13]. May Your Piety not despise me for mentioning this too often, keeping before your eyes the Lord’s words in the Gospel: “The one who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me, rejects the one who sent me” [Lk 10:16]. For the apostle too, agreeing with our Savior, says thus: “For this reason, the one who rejects these things, rejects not a human being but God who gave his Holy Spirit to us” [1 Thes 4:8]. The heart of Your Mercifulness is a consecrated chamber for public happiness, so that through your presence, which God ordered to rule over the lands as his proxy, harsh pride may not resist the Gospel and apostolic teachings, but the things that bring salvation may be fulfilled through obedience. 7. For according to the custom of the catholic church, Your Serenity’s most holy heart should recognize that none of these people whom Acacius either baptized or ordained as priests or deacons according to the canons attract any share of injury from the name of Acacius, through whose sin perhaps the grace handed down in the sacrament might seem to be weakened. For even baptism, which might be given far from a church, whether by an adulterer or a thief, arrives untainted to the one receiving the gift. Because that voice which spoke through a dove ruled out every stain of human contamination, when it spoke declaring: “This is he who baptizes in Spirit and in fire” [Lk 3:16]. For if the rays of that visible sun, when they pass through fetid places, are stained by no polluting contact, how much more will the power of Him who made the sun visible not be limited by any unworthiness of the minister? For Judas too, whatever he did among the apostles through his entrusted office, although he was sacrilegious and a thief, the beneficence he gave (though unworthy) felt no lack for this reason, and the Lord declared this very point in

48   The End of the Acacian Schism

a loud voice. “Scribes,” he said, “and Pharisees sit on the seat of Moses: do what they say, but do not do what they do. For they speak but do not act” [Mt 23:2–3]. Therefore, whoever seems to act on behalf of his office, ministering anything to the profit of people in the church, this is all contained in fulfilling the effect of the Divinity in such a way as Paul affirms, through whom Christ speaks: “I planted, Apollo watered but God gave growth. And so it is not he who plants anything, nor he who waters it, but God who gives growth” [1 Cor 3:6–7]. So it is no cause for complaint who preaches or how he does it, so much as the one whom he preaches; so much so that he affirms that even those hostile to Christ preach him well, and cast down the Devil himself down by their evil, and he falls headlong without end by this same [preaching]. 8. Therefore, in this way Acacius too, whose name we say should be silenced, harmed only himself by serving good things badly. For the inviolable sacrament, which was given through him, made his power complete for others. But if the suspicious curiosity of some people goes so far as to imagine those sacraments to be ineffectual which Acacius presumed to perform after Pope Felix offered his judgment, and so to fear those who had accepted the mysteries he handed down either in ordinations or baptism, let them remember (lest the divine gifts appear a laughing stock) that in this respect the discussion above similarly applies, because the accused did this after taking up for himself the priesthood, by which he gained his power to conduct the mysteries. By that [action] also the guilty person harmed none but himself. For what David sounded on his horn referred to him: “But God will smash the heads of his enemies, the hairy scalp of the ones who go on with their sins” [Ps 68:21]. For pride always spells ruin for oneself, not for others, as the whole authority of heavenly Scripture testifies. But even the prophet says through the Holy Spirit: “For he who practices deceit 41 will not live in my house” [Ps 101:7]. And so, since the condemned [sc. Acacius] assumed the name of priest for himself, the swelling of pride42 was brought down upon his head, because no one who thirsted for his gift in the sacraments 41. Lit. “pride” (superbia). 42. Again, superbia.



The End of the Acacian Schism 49

was excluded. That soul alone which had sinned was harmed, by the fitting judgment of his own guilt, as the instructions throughout the Scriptures frequently testify. And so, after excising human zeal and craftiness, although the weakness of those in positions [of power] is still present, offer to our God one apostolic and catholic church, with the approval and authority of the emperor, in accordance with our prayers. Because He alone is the one by whom you can triumph eternally, not only on land but even in heaven. May Almighty God keep your reign and your health under eternal protection, ever most praiseworthy and merciful augustus.

Text 2 Dioscorus and Chaeremon to the Roman Legates 497

Libellus which the ambassadors of the Church of Alexandria delivered to the dispatched legates to Constantinople from the city of Rome43 [From] Dioscorus, the priest of the revered Church of Alexandria, and Chaeremon the reader, who serve as respondents of the same church [of Alexandria] to the most glorious and excellent patrician Festus44 and the revered bishops Cresconius and Germanus,45 who were sent on an embassy from the city of Rome together with his authority to the most merciful and beloved-of-Christ, Emperor Anastasius. Venerable saints of the church of the city of Rome and of Alexandria have always kept the peace, not only in the correct and stainless faith, by which the homily of salvation was preached among them, but also in divine ministry. Indeed, since the foundation of the faith in each city was built by one man—we remember Peter the blessed apostle, who was imitated in every respect by the holy evangelist 43. Thiel, 628–33. Translated from Greek into Latin by Dionysius Exiguus. 44. On the ambassador, consul, and patricius Festus, see PLRE 2/2, 467–69. 45. Cresconius and Germanus were mentioned as bearers in text 1. They have now been sent to Constantinople with the authority of the bishop of Rome.

50   The End of the Acacian Schism

Mark46—in such a way that if it ever happened that a certain council of bishops were to be held on a matter of doubt, that most holy man who presided over the Roman church chose the most revered archbishop of the city of Alexandria to take his place. But the enemy of humankind, to whom good things are hateful, who was always lying in wait for our ruin, in a wicked rage was not slow to sow tares through his own assistants among each [church] so that he could bring about discord in such harmony. For while the most wicked Eutyches believed and was trying to teach against the faith which was preached among the most blessed apostles, it happened at the same time that Leo, leader of the apostolic see, then dispatched a letter to the Council of Chalcedon. The translators of the letter were those who were then followers of the Nestorian heresy, along with Theodoret, bishop of the city of Cyrrhus, and they proved the aforementioned letter stood against that faith which the 318 venerable Fathers had promulgated. They offered no small opportunities as well to these men who championed the blasphemies of the same most abominable Nestorius, in such a way that they alleged very boldly that the same Nestorius had thought nothing that was perverse. For these reasons, therefore, our people, beloved of God, were offended and figured that the Greek translation had the same meaning as the Latin, and we separated ourselves from union with the Roman church. And the Roman overseer,47 thinking we had conspired against that faith that was handed down by the most blessed apostles, suspended himself from communion with us. However, wishing to satisfy His Holiness that we hold fast to the same faith as the most blessed chief of the apostles Peter and his most blessed disciple Mark believed, and the 318 revered bishops afterwards promulgated, our church took care to dispatch legates to the city of Rome. But there a certain person of our city48 who was 46. Another appeal to the authority of the apostle Peter and to the see of Rome. See our introduction above. 47. Antistes is translated “overseer” consistently throughout these letters. It can used for any bishop but is mainly used of the bishop of Rome and the patriarchs of Alexandria and Constantinople. 48. Here is meant John Talaia, Chalcedonian bishop of Alexandria, who was deposed in 482 in favor of Peter Mongus. On John and his role in the Acacian Schism, see Thiel,



The End of the Acacian Schism 51

found disagreeing with the right faith and being estranged from it for various reasons was also seen to arrange that no facilities be offered for the reception of legates. Those who were not admitted to the face of salvation were turned away without any ado. But a short time earlier Photinus, the pious deacon of the holy church of Thessalonica, joined with us in discussions about peace between the churches and said that he had been dispatched a short time ago by Andreas, the most holy archbishop of the church of Thessalonica, to the Roman Pope Anastasius. Photinus affirmed concerning these matters which particularly offended us that he was satisfied with the translation of the letter by the aforementioned leader of the Roman church, because the errors in the translation of the letter were of course completely approved, but the Latin letter itself corresponded with the faith promulgated by the 318 holy Fathers. Especially he recounted what had been said by the same overseer about his rejection of those [mistakes] which were put into the translation and of those men also who tried to destroy those things, to the satisfaction of those who do not neglect to preserve the correct and stainless faith. Fully restored by this and longing to recover the former state of harmony, we preferred also to be informed by you if those things that Photinus, the religious deacon, told us were true. We wanted to meet Your Holiness and have a conversation about all these matters. But Your Holiness, not once but often, deigned to educate us in interpreting the letter and its introduced errors, which were not expressed in the Latin text. On this account we have beseeched you to accept our confession of faith, for which we are dispatching an embassy of our revered church. This faith also the most holy archbishop made known everywhere and received replies of approval from everyone.49 But if you see that also your holy church agrees with this faith, may you order us to consent, so that when scandals 630n8; Charles Pietri, “D’Alexandrie à Rome: Jean Talaïa, émule d’Athanase au Ve siècle,” in ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΙΝΑ: Hellénisme, judaisme et christianisme à Alexandrie, mélanges offerts à Claude Mondésert (Paris: Cerf, 1987), 277–95; Blaudeau, Le siège de Rome et l’Orient, 206–18. 49. The reference is to Athanasius of Alexandria (328–393) and his outspoken opposition to Arius.

52   The End of the Acacian Schism

are removed from our midst the revered churches, both of Rome and Alexandria, may return to their former state of unity.50 And we offered you this confession of faith containing the following, the one true and correct faith by divine inspiration of the Gospel and apostolic proclamations, which the 318 venerable Fathers who gathered at the Nicene synod promulgated and to which also the 500 equally revered pontiffs51 assented when they met together in the royal city [sc. Constantinople]. Following this [faith] the Fathers who gathered at Ephesus, by approval also of the most holy Celestine, pope of the apostolic see, condemned the sacrilegious Nestorius, inflicting punishment on those who attempted to set up another faith. We too condemn with the penalty of anathema that Nestorius, together with Eutyches, as believing things contrary to those which are said above. We accept the twelve anathemas which Cyril of venerable memory, the former archbishop of the Church of Alexandria, wrote.52 We confess the only-begotten son of God, and God who was made human according to the truth, our Lord Jesus Christ, consubstantial with the Father according to his divinity and consubstantial with us according to his humanity. He descended [from heaven] and was made flesh by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary theotokos, that is, the God-bearer, one son not two. And we speak as well of the miracles and sufferings of the one, onlybegotten son of God, which he undertook willingly in the flesh for our sake. But those who introduce division or confusion or any delusion we do not accept in any way whatsoever, because that incarnation, which the God-bearer bore from herself in truth, did not make an increase in the Son. For the Trinity remained, even in the incarnate Word of God, which is one of the Trinity. And so we wrote down those facts, not making a new faith but wanting to satisfy you for the sake of harmony. But everyone who thinks otherwise or has thought 50. On the problems in Alexandria, namely, the papal condemnation of Patriarch Timothy and his successor, Peter, together with Acacius, see our introduction above. 51. Pontifices (literally “bridge-builders”). The singular pontifex was often applied in the fifth-century church to any bishop (not only to the bishop of Rome, as developed later). 52. Lit. “little chapters.” The reference is to Cyril of Alexandria’s twelve anathemas, delivered in his third letter to Nestorius. See Lionel R. Wickham, Cyril of Alexandria: Select Letters, OECT (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983), 13–33.



The End of the Acacian Schism 53

so, either now or ever in any place or in any council, we strike with the punishment of anathema, but especially Nestorius and Eutyches and all those who agree with them. Therefore, Your Reverence, upon accepting our faith, has said he will relay this to the leader of the Roman church, Anastasius, whom he mentioned was also prepared to make satisfaction to those who had been sent over by us for this cause. He was also affirming that Dioscorus, Timothy, and Peter, former archbishops of our city, believed things contrary to this faith, and that their names should not be mentioned in the diptychs. We have demanded the opposite: that either those who oppose them should be produced who can assert and demonstrate that they oppose them; or else, if those who could convict them cannot be found, he should agree to let us offer satisfaction on their part. If we demonstrate and can prove that they held fast to this faith, they shall make it known. And they shall hand down our aforementioned ancestors and archbishops, Timothy, Dioscorus, and Peter [sc. in the diptychs]. But Your Holiness refused, saying that he had not been ordered by the overseer of the apostolic see to make an investigation into these persons. For the sake of this matter, we call you to witness before almighty God and our Savior Jesus Christ—who was made flesh and born of the holy virgin and God-bearer Mary, and who willingly represents and undertakes the simultaneous bringing to glory and servitude of the faithful—and before his holy angels this same stainless faith which is from him: that when you arrive in the city of Rome, with God’s indulgence, you will present this little document53 to Anastasius, overseer of the apostolic see, which was presented to you on the part54 of the holy Alexandrian church. The result will be that His Holiness, upon reading what should please him, deigns to make [this] clear, whether in the letter given to our most holy archbishop or through some intermediary. For since by this holiness the confession of the right faith, which was ordained by the blessed Fathers, had been preserved, we declare ourselves prepared to dispatch am53. Lat. chartulam. Presumably a letter from the patriarch of Alexandria to the bishop of Rome. 54. “On the part of” is expressed in Latin as ex persona.

54   The End of the Acacian Schism

bassadors to the city of Rome, men who ought to act on behalf of the unity of God’s holy churches. But we trust in our Lord Jesus Christ that His Blessedness [Anastasius] will agree with this faith, according to those things which were attached in the answer, that he may value our people also as his own and let him bring his concern to their rule, in his longing to prove useful to everyone, according to God. But we have kept a copy of this little document with us, thinking it necessary that—if there should be any delay whereby the unity of the holy churches does not come about, in the event of the glorious [second] coming from heaven of our Lord Jesus Christ when he comes to judge the living and the dead before his court, where there is no esteem for persons— with this document we [can] help to refute those who have neglected the unity of the holy churches.

Text 3 Symmachus to the Eastern Bishops55 8 October 512

To all my most beloved brother bishops, priests, deacons, archimandrites, and all the ordained and laypersons throughout Illyricum, Dardania, and each of the Dacian provinces,56 Symmachus [sends greetings] 1. No one should be surprised that we have now broken the silence we preserved for so long concerning what we fully long to be done (if anything we write should be put into effect), since the voice of Solomon, the most wise, announces: “There is a time for speaking and a time for keeping quiet” [Eccl 3:7]. The present time overcomes reticence: for in the current circumstances, it is clear that it is a great contempt to refrain from speaking and not to apply goads to faith. Indeed, when respect for religion and its whole content is shaken, it is appropriate to say, in accordance with divine Scripture, that those who are meek ought to join the fight [cf. Lk 22:36]. Indeed, there is 55. Thiel, 717–22 = PL 62, 61–64, ep. VII (olim VIII). 56. These contested provinces were claimed under the jurisdiction of both churches, Rome and Constantinople, from the time of Pope Innocent I (401–17).



The End of the Acacian Schism 55

also a certain spiritual rapprochement, acceptable to God, whereby everything is tolerated in a praiseworthy manner, lest anyone be separated from divine love. To teach you what to teach is a heavy burden of shame, but necessary because of its usefulness. For it is also not fitting to present dogmas of religious doctrine to those from whom complete perfection is demanded by virtue of their position itself. But let us touch briefly on what is clear. 2. Who does not know that the Church of Constantinople has labored under the infection of Nestorius? Of Nestorius, I say, who has been cut off from the fellowship of catholic communion like a rotten bodily organ. Where on earth is the convening of the holy Council of Chalcedon not preached which condemned Eutyches and Dioscorus—two infamous names of great perfidy—with a single sentence of punishment, conspirators of wickedness who struggled against the divine teachings with one mind? Who has not heard of the little slaves of the aforementioned Peter and Timothy,57 attackers of dedicated purpose, the instigators outdoing even their teachers by their frequent errors? We call that Timothy a parricide,58 who, when Proterius of sacred recollection was overseer, not only took over his church with irreligious instigators, but even added the spilling of pious blood to the crime of invasion. Lately the voice of the whole church affirmed his condemnation when it stripped him even of the title of Christian office. Peter, his successor, was renowned for the many sufferings of the orthodox, in which he took pride as showing his strength of spirit. Ephesus got to know him with all the friends of Dioscorus when, with the aforementioned instigator of sin, he achieved notoriety after bringing about the end of holy Flavian.59 There should be silence upon the evils of Antioch where, because of the criminal wantonness of the other Peter,60 the rever57. Sc. Peter Mongus and Timothy Aelurus. 58. On the use of this term, particularly when the murder of a priest or bishop was involved, see Neil and Allen, The Letters of Gelasius, 91n29. On Timothy Aelurus, see our introduction above. 59. On Flavian, patriarch of Constantinople, see Henry Chadwick, “The Exile and Death of Flavian of Constantinople: A Prologue to the Council of Chalcedon,” Journal of Theological Studies, new series 6/1 (1955): 17–34. 60. Peter Mongus is meant.

56   The End of the Acacian Schism

end name of priest was mocked. Who could weep with fitting sorrow for the groans of Apamea and Tyre, comparable to tragic crimes, even if he busied himself with these alone? And what about Acacius, who, burdened by the spell of his own goodness, as it were,61 seized upon what he had promulgated when Basiliscus was emperor, for a new instance of punishment, and pronounced the verdict against himself, defending with a volte-face those whom he had first thought to condemn as prideful and working to associate with the faithful those whom he had long shown to be heretics of obvious duplicity? On account of them, he is to be avoided most of all and relegated to the ranks of the condemned as named above, because he destroyed those things on account of which he had been proven faithful and mixed with those through whom general damage to the church came about. 3. If reason persuades that the teachings of the Fathers should be preserved, against their wishes, ponder whether they are able to be trampled down with a greater trespass than [they are] now by those who revive the recidivist teachings of Eutyches in your region. But if the verdicts, on the grounds that they are weakly established, are neglected without danger, the substance of our credulity abides without any strength, while our ancient constitutions are always destroyed by successive innovations. For when the findings of our Fathers’ rules are despised and the strength of those things which were well established is not defended, it is inevitable that impiety of this kind always troubles the faith. For where the destruction of a reasonable decision is easy, there every form of holiness is corrupted, Christ is attacked, and—who among the faithful can patiently accept this?—the venerable institutions of the Fathers are trampled underfoot. 4. And who, as one of the righteous elect, does not value death over life? Where is worshipful veneration for the catholic faith? When were the teachings of the saints established with much bloodshed? Where is the faithful authority of the ancient teachers? Where is that amazing patience of the religious mind, content to 61. Qui quasi boni sui fascino gravatus (Thiel, 719.5–6). The translation of this phrase is quite loose.



The End of the Acacian Schism 57

be stripped of its own goods, lest it fall from hope of eternal inheritance, going through any sufferings at all, lest it be judged unworthy of that incorruptible good? For there are no more important proofs of faith than when the thinking of the time persuades life to submit to suffering. And for that reason, the one who deserves to undergo for it the danger of persecution shows himself worthy of the army of heaven. Christ bought us with the holy price of his blood, given freely by grace, with human efforts finding nothing deserving of such a reward. And so, when there is an insult to religion, the love of faith ought to override every emotion. Therefore, let each person regard exiles and peregrinations as his home and fatherland, lest, held back by human desires, he be deprived of the company of Christ. Behold the time when faith seeks out her soldiers and calls them to her defense, who have pursued their fervor for grace! Let us resolve that faith itself speaks: “Behold, the long-awaited time, behold the gathering of fruit, longed for by the faithful; great gifts will be the reward for minor sufferings!” 5. We would long to encourage Your Love in more [words] on behalf of the mission entrusted to us; but what need is there for verbal goads, when we are taught by the examples of the apostles and the Fathers to endure sufferings for Christ’s sake with great strength of mind? They have shown us that by the ruin of human affairs, spiritual virtues are increased. Therefore, let us pronounce fearlessly the brilliant teachings of the church with great confidence. Let the saying of the prophet be far from us: “And the priests hid the truth” [Lam 2:10]. For who is unaware that students draw their knowledge from the learned, and that which is unconfessed wounds the impressionable [and] is dangerous for those who remain silent? For it is necessary that the truth suffer in the presence of those among whom an obscure lie hides under the mask of truth, a great strength for the faith of those who assail them, as long as the verdicts brought down against them are not strongly declared. 6. But I long to speak better things concerning you, so that those matters which were rendered confused by wicked men may receive the cure of your correction. For it is not so hard for someone to be deceived as to persist in his error, once deceived. This evil is more

58   The End of the Acacian Schism

serious than all evils, since the members are in disagreement with their body. For even if weakness does not take hold of all the features, one by one, it is necessary, however, according to the words of the apostle, that the whole body is weakened by a single part [cf. 1 Cor 12:26]. And so communion with the condemned should be avoided, according to the blessed apostle: “Let no one be ashamed to confess the faith, for it is the power to every believer” [Rom 1:16]. Let us reject the sacrilegious error of Eutyches, on a par with the malice of the Manichees. Let us also with equal purpose avoid being in communion with those who were taught by such people. This [communion] is now trying to creep in upon the churches in your region as if by means of a sickness from contagion. For no one [fearing] 62 separation along with the aforementioned [heretics] can pretend to endure the storm, until he enters the haven of true faith by being separated from their communion. 7. Out of love I make you this warning in fact, not pursuing out of hatred do I accuse. For he who curses blameworthy things achieves nothing useful, having the zeal of an accuser rather than the affection of a lover. And he who encourages sources of profit shows his good intentions more ardently by inviting them to seek out what is advantageous more eagerly. On account of this, brothers, out of desire for the good, that is, unity of the church, and putting on that blessed ornament of saintly harmony, let us say with holy David: “How good and how pleasant it is to live with brothers as one” [Ps 132:1], and as the apostle Paul said about you: “But you are all brothers in one Christ” [Gal 3:28]. For as long as unity does not return, no one should doubt nevertheless that the same things are about to eventuate that recently happened in the Church of Constantinople.63 On those matters it is equally necessary for me to groan and keep quiet. For those who believed that the warning of the apostolic see should be ignored have deservedly happened upon those events which customarily occur as a comfort to those in need. 62. Following Thiel, 721n27, we have supplied this word. 63. This is a reference to the tumultuous deposition of Patriarch Macedonius in 511, on which see our introduction above.



The End of the Acacian Schism 59

8. Therefore, if anyone wants to observe apostolic judgment, thinking of his own salvation, since he had separated himself from the ruin of the aforementioned [heretics], let him know without any hesitation that he shares in our communion; but if he does not remove himself from the company of those whom the apostolic see has condemned, let him know that no excuse, pretext, or craftiness can sneak in under the church’s guard; because, just as we gladly embrace those who dissociate themselves from the poisons of the above-written [heretics]—that is, Eutyches, Dioscorus, Timothy, Peter, and Acacius—so our care and concern is always vigilant around their followers lest it is possible for them to sneak in. In another hand: God keep you safe, dearest brothers! Given on the eighth Ides of October after the consulship of Felix, vir clarissimus.64

Text 4 Hormisdas to Bishops Ennodius and Fortunatus65 11 August 515

A list of instructions given to Bishops Ennodius and Fortunatus, the presbyter Venantius, the deacon Vitalis, and the notarius Hilary66 When, with the help of God and the prayers of the apostles,67 you arrive in Greek territories, if bishops should wish to meet you, receive them with reverence, as is appropriate. And if they should want to provide hospitality, do not reject it, in case the lay people judge that you do not want to be on good terms with them. But if they should wish to invite you to a party, turn them down with an affable excuse and say: “Pray that first we may deserve to have that mystical table in common, and then that will be more delightful for us.” But if they should wish to offer you food or something else (ex64. An honorary title, meaning literally “most noble man.” 65. Translated from CAv 116, 513–20. Cf. Thiel, ep. 7, 748–55. 66. Papal secretaries, or notarii, were prime choices for the office of legate, given that they were already privy to papal correspondence on sensitive matters. 67. Presumably Peter and Paul, emphasizing once again the apostolic connection with the see of Rome. See further in this document and our introduction.

60   The End of the Acacian Schism

cept transport, however, if the circumstance should require it), do not accept: rather, make excuses like this, saying that you need nothing, hoping too that they bring their souls into conformity with you, where there are gifts and wealth and love and unity, and whatever it is established pertains to religious joy. When, according to that arrangement, with God’s favor you arrive in Constantinople, withdraw to the place where the most clement emperor has arranged; and before you see him, do not give permission for anyone to approach you, apart from those whom His Piety has sent. However, after you have seen the prince,68 if those who are orthodox and belong to our communion or have a passion for unity should wish to see you, receive them with all caution— through them perhaps you will be able to discover what is afoot. And when you have been presented to the emperor in this way, hand him the letter, with a speech like this: “Our Father greets you, beseeching on a daily basis and commending your reign to the confessions of the holy apostles Peter and Paul, so that God, who gave you a desire of this kind so that you chose to be sent for the sake of the church and to take counsel with His Beatitude, should also bestow the accomplishment of good will.” And if, before he receives the papers, he should wish to ascertain the rank69 of the embassy, avail yourselves of these terms: “Give orders to receive the writings.” If he should say: “What is in the papers?,” you respond: “They contain greetings to Your Piety and give thanks to God, because he realizes that you are concerned about the unity of the church: read them and you will ascertain this.” And you should not make any mention at all of any case unless the letter has first been received and read through. And after the letter has been received and read through, you add: “For he sent a letter also to your attendant Vitalian70 who, after a free hand was agreed by Your Piety, as he wrote, dispatched his men to your Father, the holy pope. But because it was right that he should direct [them] first to 68. Principem, i.e., the emperor. 69. On the importance of rank in such embassies as these, see Gillett, Envoys and Political Communication, 234–36, 244. 70. On Vitalian, see our introduction above.



The End of the Acacian Schism 61

Your Clemency, he did this, so that with your command and ordinance we should convey to him with God’s favor the writings which we brought.” If the emperor should ask for the letters which we addressed to Vitalian, you are to reply as follows: “Your Father the holy pope did not give these instructions to us, nor can we do anything without his command. However, so that you may know the frankness of the letter—because it contains nothing other than prayers addressed to Your Piety in order that you bring your spirit into conformity for the sake of the unity of the church—bring us into contact with the person in whose presence the letter which we handed over is read through.” But if the emperor should say that Vitalian should read it, you reply: “It has already been brought to your attention that this was not prescribed for you by the holy pope.” If he should say: “That is all that is contained in the letter? For things other than injunctions can be reported too,” then you reply: “May it be far from our conscience! That is not our way of doing things: we have come for the cause of God, and are we to fight against God? The embassy of the holy pope is straightforward and that request of his, his very prayers, are known to all: that the ordinances of the Fathers not be ruined, that heretics be removed from the churches. Apart from those points, our embassy has no remit.” Should the emperor say: “Hence I have invited the holy pope too to a synod, so that if there is any ambiguity, it can be cleared up,” you must reply: “We give thanks to God and to Your Piety, because we realize that you have this affection and spirit, so that what was ordained by the Fathers is preserved as a whole; because then true and holy unity is possible between the churches of Christ, if, with God’s assistance, you should choose to preserve what your predecessors Marcian and Leo safeguarded.” Should the emperor say: “And what are those points that you are talking about?,” you reply: “That the synod of Chalcedon and the letters of holy Pope Leo, which were written against the heretics Nestorius and Eutyches and Dioscorus, should on no account be brought to ruin.” Should the emperor say: “We both accept and hold fast to the synod of Chalcedon and the letters of Pope Leo,” quickly thank him and embrace His Clemency’s breast, saying: “It is only when you are quick to take such action that

62   The End of the Acacian Schism

we have realized that God favors us, because these points are the catholic faith, they are what the apostles preached, without which nobody can be orthodox; to these the priesthood as a whole should hold fast and preserve through its preaching.” Should he say: “The bishops are orthodox, they do not resile from the ordinances of the Fathers,” you reply: “Therefore, if they preserve the ordinances of the Fathers and what was confirmed in the holy synod of Chalcedon is not ruined in any way, what is the reason that there is so much discord among the churches in those regions? Or what problem has occurred that the bishops of the East do not agree to be one?” Should the emperor say: “The bishops were calm; there was no discord disturbing them internally. The predecessor of the holy pope71 stirred them up with the letter he sent and, making them uneasy, led them into confusion,” you must reply: “We have at hand the letter which Pope Symmachus of holy memory addressed [text 3]. If there is anything additional that Your Piety has said, it is this: ‘I follow the Council of Chalcedon, I accept the letters of Pope Leo’; the letter contains nothing other than an exhortation that these points be preserved. It is true that it is through Symmachus that confusion has come about! But if this—which even Your Father hopes and Your Piety agrees on—is contained in the letter, what seems to be blameworthy in his case with regard to what he has done?” Add to these arguments prayers and tears, as you petition: “Lord Emperor, take thought for God, envisage his judgment to come. The holy Fathers, who made these ordinances, followed the faith of the blessed apostle Peter, through which [ordinances] the church of Christ was built.” Should the emperor say: “What you want me to do through your efforts, I have done. Look, have communion with me, who receive the synod of Chalcedon and embrace the letters of Pope Leo. Now have communion with me!,” you must reply: “By what arrangement does Your Piety desire to be in communion? We for our part do not shun Your Piety when you make those pronouncements, because we know that you fear God, and we rejoice because it is acceptable to you to preserve the ordinances of the Fathers. Therefore, we request you 71. On Symmachus, bishop of Rome, see our introduction above.



The End of the Acacian Schism 63

confidently that through your offices the church return to unity. Let all the bishops know your wish, and the fact that you preserve the synod of Chalcedon and the letters of Pope Leo, or the ordinances of the apostolic see.” Should the emperor say: “You need to recognize by what arrangement this should be done,” you add your prayers again, saying in humility: “Your Father wrote to the bishops as a whole; attach your sacred letter to his, indicating that this vindicates you, because the apostolic see declares it as well. Do this in order that those who then are orthodox least of all be separated from unity with the apostolic see, and that those who are on the opposite side to them may be investigated. When these points have been ordained, if it should be necessary, your Father is prepared to make his presence conform, and not to deny whatever is profitable, once the ordinances of the Fathers have been preserved for the wholeness of the church.” If the emperor should say: “Very well; receive the bishop of our city again!,” again add your prayers, saying in humility: “Lord emperor, with the help of God, while you are making efforts and are eminent, we have come to make peace, and to settle the tension in your city. The tension concerns two persons: that case has its own momentum. Bishops as a whole have been constituted from early times so that there should be one catholic communion; and on the following subject concerning them or possibly others outside the churches the case can then be investigated rather carefully.” If the emperor were to say: “You are speaking about Macedonius—I recognize your circumlocution. He is a heretic; on no account can he be recalled,” you reply: “For our part, lord emperor, we do not point the finger at anyone personally. And if Your Piety looks carefully, we are speaking rather in favor of your soul and opinion, so that there be an examination, and if he is a heretic, it should be recognized by a verdict, and he should not be indicted unjustly, overpowered by the opinion of an orthodox person.” Should the emperor say: “Just say what you want: do you mean the synod of Chalcedon and the letters of Pope Leo? Look, the man who is the bishop of the city agrees on these points!,” you must reply: “If he safeguards those points, in the consideration of the case they will be able to assist him the more. And because you have given your

64   The End of the Acacian Schism

servant Vitalian, the magister militum, such a free hand, so that, if he hopes for an examination of the case by the most holy pope in his presence, as in such cases, for these persons, for whom the tension can be about the location, everything may be preserved as a whole.” Should the emperor say: “Is my city in a condition to be without a bishop? Do you like the fact that there is no bishop where I reside?,” you must reply: “We have said before that there is tension between two persons in this city. As far as the canons are concerned, we have already made previous suggestions: to nullify the canons is to commit a crime against religion. There are many cures, many devices, whereby Your Piety could not be without communion and the proper framing of the judgments be preserved.” Should he say: “What are those cures?,” you reply: “They have not been initiated by us of recent date. If the case of the other bishops is left in abeyance, a person who agrees to the confession of Your Piety and the ordinances of the apostolic see may hold the place of the priest of Constantinople as an interim measure until he is eventually recognized.” If, with the help of God, the bishops should wish to conform to the apostolic see, you have the text of the libellus which was published by the scrinium72 of the church, according to which they should make an open confession. If, however, in opposition to the other bishops, the petitions should have been given to the catholics, you are to receive earnestly the petitions against those who shamelessly anathematize the synod of Chalcedon and do not accept the letters of holy Pope Leo; however, reserve the case for judgment in the apostolic see. The purpose is for you to hold out hope of an audience and yet to have due authority reserved to us. If, however, the most serene emperor should promise that he will do everything, to the extent that we make our presence conform, first by any means address his Sacra73 to the provinces to the bishops, or else our letter, with one of your number as the bearer, together with persons whom 72. The scrinium was the place where letters were composed, copied, and kept. On the papal scrinium in this period, see Neil, “Papal Letters and Letter Collections,” 450–51, and Neil, “De profundis: The Letters and Archives of Pelagius I of Rome (556–561),” in Collecting Early Christian Letters: From the Apostle Paul to Late Antiquity, ed. Neil and Allen (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 206–20. 73. Latin Sacra, the imperial command or invitation to attend an ecumenical conference.



The End of the Acacian Schism 65

the emperor has designated. The purpose is that in this way it should be noted by all that he preserves the Council of Chalcedon and the letters of holy Pope Leo. If these things work out in this way, address documents to us with the sign of Christ, so that we may take care of an approach. Apart from that, it is the custom for all bishops to be presented to the emperor by the bishop of Constantinople.74 If their cunning way of consultation should bring this to light, acknowledge the composition75 of the embassy of willing men so that you may see the emperor in the company of Timothy, who now seems to govern the Church of Constantinople.76 Do it in this way, so that if you recognize, before you go in to the emperor, that these matters are being arranged by certain people, when you have not yet been presented to him, say: “Such commands and instructions the father of Your Piety gave us, so that we should see Your Clemency without any of the bishops.” Then keep doing this until the emperor distances himself from this custom. But if he should completely refuse, or if something deceitful should happen so that unexpectedly you see Timothy before you see the emperor, make the following suggestion: “May Your Piety give instructions to give us a private hearing to that we can explain the cases for which we have been sent.” If the emperor should say: “Look, tell me in front of him!,” you reply: “We are not insulting you, but making known what is relevant to the cases. In addition, our embassy contains a person of his, and he is unable to be present for our suggestions.”77 And if he is present, do not make an allegation in any way, but as you go out show the rank of the embassy. Likewise short chapters on particular cases 1. That the holy synod of Chalcedon and the letters of holy Pope Leo be preserved. Regarding those points which the most clement emperor agrees to, he should address Your Piety’s open Sacra78 to 74. As stipulated in Justinian, Nov. 123.9; ed. Rudolf Schoell, Corpus iuris civilis, vol. 3, 13th ed. (Hildesheim: Weidmann, 1993), 602. 75. On the importance of rank in these embassies, see Gillett, Envoys and Political Communication, 234–36, 244. 76. On Timothy, patriarch of Constantinople, see our introduction. 77. It is not obvious who this person is, but it is probably a fictional legate. 78. Cf. n. 73 above on the Sacra.

66   The End of the Acacian Schism

bishops as a whole, in which he makes known that he both believes and defends what is said above. 2. In addition, if the bishops agree, they should declare these points in church in the presence of the people: that they have embraced the holy faith of Chalcedon and the letters of the most holy Pope Leo, which he wrote against the heretics Nestorius and Eutyches and Dioscorus, but also against their followers Timothy Aelurus, Peter, and against those who in the same case are held to be liable, together also with Acacius, who was once bishop of the Church of Constantinople, and they anathematize as well Peter of Antioch together with his associates. Writing these points in their own hand in the presence of the venerable men who have been chosen, let them make a second text of the libellus which we have published through our secretaries.79 3. That a judgment and true investigation can be conducted about those who have been relegated to exile because of an ecclesiastical case, when they have been recalled to an audience with the apostolic see, such that their case be reserved for a complete enquiry. But it is fair that those who truly are in communion with the holy apostolic see, since they declare and follow the catholic faith, should be recalled before anything else, whether they are fugitives or are detained in exile. 4. Apart from that, we have given instructions to our ambassadors, among the rest of the matters, that if it should happen that libelli are delivered against those bishops who have persecuted catholics, a verdict in their regard should be reserved to the apostolic see, so that the ordinances of the venerable Fathers should be preserved concerning them, through which instruction may accrue to the people as a whole.

79. Latin notarii.



The End of the Acacian Schism 67

Text 5 Libellus of Hormisdas80 Sent with Text 4, on 11 August 515

Copy of the libellus [sent] through Bishops Ennodius and Fortunatus, the presbyter Venantius, the deacon Vitalis, and the notarius Hilary81 The primary way to salvation is to keep safe the rule of faith and in no way to deviate from the ordinances of the Fathers. And because the saying of our Lord Jesus Christ cannot possibly be passed over, which says: “You are Peter and on this rock I shall build my church” [Mt 16:18], these words are proven by the results of events, because in the apostolic see the catholic religion has always been preserved without blemish. Being desirous, therefore, of not at all being separated from this hope and faith and following the ordinances of the Fathers in all respects, we anathematize all heresies, particularly the heretic Nestorius, who formerly was the bishop of the city of Constantinople, condemned at the Council of Ephesus by Celestine, pope of the city of Rome and by holy Cyril, overseer of the city of Alexandria. Together with Nestorius we anathematize Eutyches and Dioscorus of Alexandria, who were condemned at the holy synod at Chalcedon, which we follow and embrace. We add to these the parricide82 Timothy, nicknamed Aelurus,83 and also his pupil and follower [[in all respects, Peter of Alexandria. Likewise we condemn and anathematize their accomplice and follower, Acacius, former bishop of Constantinople, who was condemned by the apostolic see]],84 as well as those who have remained in association with his communion. The reason for 80. Translated from the text in CAv 116b, 520–22. There are several versions of this libellus, known as the Formula of Hormisdas even though it is an anonymous document: see Haacke, Die Glaubensformel, 7; Menze, Justinian and the Making of the Syrian Orthodox Church, 68n47 with lit.; and our introduction above. 81. These were the five papal legates listed as recipients of Hormisdas’s previous letter of instruction (text 4 above). 82. On the use term parricide, see n. 58 above. 83. Latin Ellurum. 84. The text in double square brackets has been supplied by Günther, Cav. It is a variant reading from the version of the libellus in MS Berol. lat. 79: see 521 note ad l. 15.

68   The End of the Acacian Schism

this is that one who has become involved in their communion has deserved the same verdict of condemnation. No less do we condemn Peter of Antioch together with his followers and all those mentioned above. For this reason, we accept and approve in their entirety the letters of blessed Pope Leo, which he composed on the subject of the Christian religion. Consequently, just as we said before, following the apostolic see in all respects and proclaiming all its ordinances, I hope that in one communion together with you, which the apostolic see proclaims, I shall be considered worthy, in which see the firmness of the Christian religion is whole and true. We also promise that the names of those who have been removed from communion with the catholic church, that is those who are not in agreement with the apostolic see, should not be read out during the sacred mysteries.85 I have signed this, my profession, with my own hand and given it to you, Hormisdas, the holy and venerable pope of the city of Rome, on the fifteenth Kalends of April86 during the consulship of the vir clarissimus Agapitus.

Text 6 Hormisdas to Emperor Anastasius87 3 April 517

Hormisdas to Anastasius augustus, through Bishops Ennodius and Peregrinus88 While Your Mildness’s ambassadors are returning, I have replied to your letter and injunctions, admittedly not arranging them in full as a whole, as the importance of the matter demanded, but nevertheless drawing together for the time being what is resolved. But even if it were to happen that I could bring everything together satisfac85. On the significant role played by the diptychs in the Acacian Schism and beyond, see Menze, Justinian and the Making of the Syrian Orthodox Church, 76–86. 86. 17 March 515 (?). Neither Thiel nor Günther comments on this date. It is not clear who signed this copy. 87. Translated from CAv 126, 540–44. Cf. Thiel, ep. 27, 796–800. 88. This pair of papal ambassadors features frequently in CAv: see nos. 115, 116, 116b, 125, 127, 134, and 135.



The End of the Acacian Schism 69

torily, in pursuing the cause of faith with Your Clemency, could I be reproved for repeated prayers which are unsuitable? Let those whose task it is to accomplish the study of worldly business fear the mark of this ingratitude! The one who thinks that it is possible graciously to withdraw from preaching does not fulfil the work of the Gospel. It is necessary to keep a close watch on ministers and for their loins to be girded [cf. Jb 38:6] without letting up. Just as it is established that the fruit of good advice is sweet, so an aversion to it is not fitting. And otherwise why would somebody say that the frequency of my petitions to Your Mildness is troublesome, when through them [sc. the petitions], which come about through my official position, I exercise care for your imperial rule by safeguarding the faith? Indeed, the care which burdens me relieves you; it oppresses me but will benefit you; it is possible that from a different seed there will be one fruit for both parties. For just as it is an offense neither to say nor do what has been accepted by God, so there is an agreed reward both for those who have preached spiritual matters and for those who have not scorned what they have heard. Indeed, Your Clemency gave, as it were, a pledge of your intention under the witness of an imperial address and enhanced it, so to speak, by a certain promise of good will, but there is a need to increase the solidity of what we have begun: let the foundations we have laid assume their full glory, let the hands that fight on behalf of God’s churches not relax. Every time the Israelite enemy killed, Moses did not relax his arms [cf. Ex 17:11]. When he had done his work, the end commended the beginnings. There is no advantage in having begun what is left in abeyance, because it is only perseverance in faith that bestows salvation [cf. Mt 10:22]. We bless God, through whose ardent zeal Your Piety openly makes a declaration against the impious transgressors Nestorius and Eutyches and pursues them with enmity, along with their cursed and sacrilegious teachings. It proves that you hate defects, you who condemn those who stray and do not leave them room for deviation, who have not spared the one who has transgressed. The first step in innocence is to hate what should be blamed; but it is important for truth, my lord son, and for catholic teaching that you hate also their followers and partners,

70   The End of the Acacian Schism

whose chiefs you judge worthy of being cursed. That is, charges are to be pursued not only in the case of the verified names of those to be condemned, but also in the case of those who follow the condemned. In vain does a person who has made an exception of one man among those who are judged worthy of detestation declare that many people are against him; for it is not the number of people in error that is under consideration but the punishment of errors. By this, therefore, may Your Clemency not think that the person of Acacius is to be passed over lightly. Is he not that Acacius who was immersed in the filth of Peter, Dioscorus, and Eutyches while he was united with the teaching and communion of the polluted one, upholding the punishment of condemnation of the one whose association he chose in communion? It is necessary for the person who hates those men individually, one by one, because of their acts of impiety, to hate Acacius in them and not to love all of them in Acacius. Through him the ferment of unspeakable error grew on the eastern churches. From there the pride of the treachery of Alexandria and the East was nourished, such that, as you wrote,89 Acacius did not agree to the salutary commands of the one whose empire he was serving, and sliding down in error he did not follow the warning of one who in conducting business put the advantage of his power to the test. Hence it is appropriate that people were avoided by a significant execration of this kind, because they took upon themselves what they should have taught and not because they are instructed by others. In these actions they rejected the warnings of the one in power, in which imperial rules only are decreed not to be feared, and they were unmindful of devotion running contrary to the salvation of the soul, which they should have been obstinate about for the sake of their salvation. The communion of Acacius, which is united with traitors, nourished these attempts with their ruined minds, and thus he is rated in the place of originator, by whose example the sin is all the more grievous. For there is nothing that fosters acts of wrongdoing more than imitation, while the things which others also seem to agree with are not believed to be blameworthy. The mortal state is 89. In Emperor Anastasius’s letter to Hormisdas of winter 515: CAv 125, 537–40 (at 539.13–18).



The End of the Acacian Schism 71

fragile and transitory: with difficulty do abominable thoughts perish while they are held in check. Often a poisonous seed sprouts where there is fear and does not fail: it spreads wide its access for those who offend, an access which unites agreement with crookedness. If only, most Clement Emperor, among those very beginnings of apostolic punishment, the churches of the East had avoided the cursed contagions of Acacius! That error would not have spread its poisonous venom among many; also the very necks90 raised now in Alexandria perhaps would have fallen then, if he had acknowledged his dispirited treachery by condemning his imitator and had seen himself displeased in his accomplices. But while poorly nourished errors are being fostered and a useless agreement of the crooked is being feigned, on the basis of justice that should be corrected, with the impunity of his followers he has multiplied the bad teachings of the originators. And for your part if you order effectively what is pleasing to God, you recommend your proposal concerning error from outside. But, most Clement Emperor, thought must be given to the fact that, if it is enough for him to have censured before God what he has done in error, he has given him the possibility of correction. The cure should not be put off: let healing hands be moved by the deep wounds! Before Acacius only Alexandria was soiled with the filth of his treachery. Observe how many territories the correction that was ignored has polluted! How long, lord son, will you put up with the fact that the church of God is mourning the division of its members? May the sighs that are coming to God’s attention anticipate your good works. Take on yourself the care of the faith and, as you lift up the banner of salvation, rise up to remove the errors from Israel, like another Hezekiah [cf. 2 Chr 18:4]. It is lawful for you, by praise of new works, to be equal to honorable appellations of the old. Hezekiah scattered the heights: you must deflect the pride of the impiety that has been set up; he caused images to crumble: you must break the hard hearts of the unbelievers; he cast out the memory of the brazen serpent: you must cast out the slime of the present [situation]. Offer to God the 90. I.e., prideful heads.

72   The End of the Acacian Schism

correct things which he made, and hope for the gifts of which he has judged you worthy. “For the Lord is faithful, who repays individuals according to their works” [Mt 16:27]. The extent of the expectation of the faithful, the extent of the trembling of the traitors, is a public matter. The former go about to rejoice with angels regarding those who have been accepted back; the latter are afraid that they will remain abandoned to the punishments prepared by those whom they beguiled. The hearts of all are suspended in anxiety. From furthest Gaul an embassy that has been dispatched to us, following rumor, has deliberated if Our Solicitude has accomplished anything regarding the restoration of unity. It is not a difficult task for Your Clemency: God knows how to support the works of his people. It has come about by custom that God turns hearts to princes who are subject to him. The recent example of Emperor Marcian of religious memory gives a signal indication by its splendor. On that occasion what did the crowd or the people do? There is no need to repeat what is known:91 that treachery grows through inconstant people, is settled by the just. Imitate by the soundness of your religious resolution what you have equaled by your zeal for politics. To these charges, with our tears, with our prayers, we have dispatched in our stead Ennodius and Peregrinus, our brothers and fellow bishops, to extend also our honorable greeting, once thus the man signally elected by his office has been appointed to the second embassy,92 so that the one who delivered to us the beginning of high hopes now, with God’s help, may bring back news of a full accomplishment. Give your assent, we pray, to the faithful warnings of the one by whose ordinances we read just now you have been pleased.93 Given on the third Nones of April, in the consulship of Agapitus, vir clarissimus.

91. Presumably Marcian’s summoning and patronage of the Council of Chalcedon are meant. 92. The identity of this ambassador is not obvious. 93. It seems that Hormsidas is referring obliquely to himself by this circumlocution.



The End of the Acacian Schism 73

Text 7 Emperor Justin to Hormisdas94 7 September 518

The most blessed man John, overseer of this royal city, and the rest of the religious bishops from various places and cities, being found here, have informed Our Serenity out of concord—on behalf of those who cherish the true and orthodox faith and on behalf of the unity of its venerable churches—that a letter has been prepared to be offered to Your Sanctity, and they have very earnestly asked that in addition our epistolary pages too be made known to Your Sanctity.95 We have decided that the requests of these men should be referred to Your Beatitude, inasmuch as they have always been established as lovers of unity, since they have gladly embraced these divine writings. When they have been accepted, by the ardent desire to help of the very reverend overseers mentioned above, on behalf both of us and of the state, the governance of which has been entrusted from heaven to Our Piety, may you deign to appease the Majesty above by your prayers. So that the rights of peace and unity and harmony may be made more apparent to Your Sanctity, may you arrange96 for certain very religious priests who embrace and desire peace to join our most sacred retinue. For this reason we have dispatched Gratus, vir clarissimus, comes of our sacred cabinet and master of the written account of the archive,97 whose splendid reputation we have drawn attention to before on many occasions.98 Given at Constantinople on the seventh Ides of September in the consulship of Magnus, vir clarissimus.

94. CAv 143, 587–88. Cf. Thiel, ep. 42, 831–32. 95. Lit. “it.” 96. Third person singular. 97. On Gratus, see PLRE 2, 519. This is one of the few references to the imperial secretariat in our epistolary sources. The cabinet (consistorium) and the archive (scrinium) were separate offices under the same officer in this period. Here he is given the honorary title vir clarissimus; in text 10 below, he is called vir sublimis. On the title comes, see n. 100 below. 98. See preceding note on the letter-bearer Gratus.

74   The End of the Acacian Schism

Text 8 Justinian the Comes to Pope Hormisdas99 7 September 518100

Divine clemency, out of regard for the sufferings of the human condition, has granted the bestowal of the desired time which we have wished for with most fervent prayers, by which all catholics and those perfectly faithful to God are in a position to commend themselves to God’s majesty. For this reason, I have addressed this letter to Your Apostleship because of the generous freedom already conferred on me by heavenly kindness. Indeed our lord, the most invincible emperor, always embraces the orthodox religion with a most ardent faith and desires to bring back the sacrosanct churches to harmony: no sooner had he obtained the princely insignia by a heavenly decision than he made known to the priests located here that the churches were to be united in conformity to the rules of the apostles. And indeed a great part of the faith is brought together with God as its originator; it is appropriate for Your Blessedness alone to start off a consensus concerning the name of Acacius. For this reason our lord the most serene prince has sent off to Your Sanctity the exalted man Gratus, a friend of one mind with me, together with revered writings, so that by all means it becomes fit for Constantinople to approach the points of harmony which need to be brought together. But despite some delay we await your arrival; if perhaps some unavoidable101 tardiness should detain you, in the meantime be quick in dispatching suitable priests, because the entire world in our territories, which is won over to unity, does not put up with hindrances. Therefore, most holy lords, be quick, lest in your absence affairs are arranged which should be [arranged] with you presiding. Indeed, we know the letter of Your Beatitude and of your predecessors which was addressed to the East, which contains the 99. The honorary title of comes, or companion, indicates Justinian’s membership of the inner circle of Justin. Hormisdas was to address two letters to Justinian, the future emperor. See texts 12 and 14 below. 100. Translated from Thiel, ep. 44, 833–34 (CPG 6865). 101. Lit. “which has to happen.”



The End of the Acacian Schism 75

same matters on this topic. So that nothing is overlooked, the religious business of the case which has often been mentioned to the most invincible emperor has been enjoined on your son, the exalted man Gratus, with the approval of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Text 9 John II of Constantinople to Hormisdas102 7 September 518

A copy of the report103 of John, bishop of Constantinople To Hormisdas, my lord and most holy brother, a lover of God in all things and my fellow minister, John [sends] greetings in the Lord. I greet Your Sanctity, dearest brother in Christ, and in greeting you I announce that the right faith has been saved and love between brothers made firm. This God alone in his power willed to come about through the effort of the Christian and most pious emperors. Therefore, may you regard it fitting to write like an apostle and to accept rescripts in a brotherly way through your love of God. For I, after thorough deliberation,104 holding fast to the teaching of the most holy apostles according to the tradition of the holy Fathers, likewise offer honor in all respects to the consubstantial and all-holy Trinity,105 just as the gathering of the three hundred and eighteen at Nicaea promulgated, and the meeting of the one hundred and fifty in Constantinople made firm, and the meeting of the two hundred in Ephesus made firm, and the meeting of Chalcedon signed. Therefore, by the grace of God holding fast to this faith until our last breath, from my heart I embrace with spiritual embraces both Your Sanctity and also the orthodox churches, feeling together with your truth and hoping together with you in that day to be saved by this faith through the good will of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. All glory is owing to the consubstantial Trinity now and in the ages of ages. 102. CAv 146, 591–92. Cf. Thiel, ep. 43, 832–33. Received on 20 December 518 through the letter-bearer Gratus, on whom see above. 103. Latin relationis. Cf. suggestio in the rubric of text 13 below. 104. Inquisibili ratione. 105. On the reference to the Trinity here and later in this letter, see our introduction on the Trisagion dispute.

76   The End of the Acacian Schism

I and those with me greet very warmly in the Lord the entire brotherhood in Christ that is with Your Sanctity. We have written only to satisfy ourselves both that the venerable name of Leo, of holy recollection, who was once made the archbishop of the city of Rome, is fixed on the sacred diptychs at the time of consecration on account of harmony, and that your blessed name is similarly read out in the diptychs. But in order to satisfy Your Sanctity on all points, seeing that we embrace your peace and look after the unity of God’s holy churches, we ask you to dispatch men who are peace-loving and worthy of your apostolic see, who should take satisfaction and receive our statement of satisfaction, so that also in this territory Christ our God be glorified, who through you has preserved this peace in the world. Received the thirteenth Kalends of January, after the consulate of Agapitus.

Text 10 Hormisdas to Emperor Justin106 Late 518 or early 519

For the firstfruits of your venerable reign, most glorious son, the catholic church sends its congratulations in place of a gift, by the hands of those107 who it trusts confidently will find peace after the considerable weariness of disharmony. There is no doubt either that you have attained the chief office by heavenly providence so that the harm that for so long has affected religion in the eastern territories should be terminated. You have paid the due first fruits of your reign to the blessed apostle Peter, which we received reverently for the reason that we believe that, through you, harmony between the churches will no doubt happen very soon. God, who granted our prayers to speak to the heart of Your Piety, will himself be ready with his disposition in the matter of the genuine practice of his religion, as we hope. You have shown by your unwillingness and reluctance to have 106. CAv 142, 586–87. Cf. Thiel, ep. 45, 834–35. 107. Namely, the legates Alexander and Gratus, mentioned at the end of the letter.



The End of the Acacian Schism 77

the weight of imperial rule imposed on you the reason why it is agreed by heavenly judgment that you were elected, according to what the apostle says: “There is no authority except from God; but those that exist have been instituted by God” [Rom. 13:1]. It remains that, elected by God as we believe you are, you extend your hands in comfort to the church which you can ascertain is struggling. May those who stand in the way of its peace stop; may those who in the guise of shepherds are trying to disperse Christ’s flock be quiet! Their correction makes firm the strengths of your reign, because where God is properly revered, contrary circumstances will not have an effect. We have not neglected to dispatch this congratulatory writing through the vir sublimis Alexander,108 in the hope that with the help of our God, through our son the vir sublimis Gratus,109 we shall receive a reply from Your Clemency concerning the details which are relevant for the unity of the church.

Text 11 Second Libellus to Our Ambassadors110 January 519

List of instructions which our ambassadors above received111 When, with the favor of God, you have entered the eastern territories, if any bishops should go to meet you and wish to offer you a libellus that they have signed, whose contents you have understood, accept it and offer them the fellowship of holy communion. But if the bishops who go to meet you should be unwilling to acknowledge the rank that we have mentioned above,112 let them of course be treated with priestly affection by you. But you should neither have a common table with them nor take it upon yourself to accept provi108. On Alexander, see PLRE 2/2, 57, s.v. Alexander 17, where he is called vir spectabilis, an honorific title equivalent to sublimis here. 109. The legate Gratus is also identified as vir clarissimus and comes in text 7 above. 110. CAv 158, 605–7. Cf. Thiel, ep. 49, 838–40. 111. That is, those mentioned in the first list of instructions contained in ep. 116, text 4 above. 112. On the importance of the rank of such ambassadors, see Gillett, Envoys and Political Communication, 234–36, 244.

78   The End of the Acacian Schism

sions from them, saving only transport (if a reason demands it) and hospitality, lest they believe that they are completely looked down on with scorn. When, with the assistance of God, you have arrived in Constantinople, withdraw to the lodging which the emperor has provided; and until you see the prince himself do not allow anyone first to approach you in greeting, except those whom the emperor himself has sent or whom you know are of our communion. When you are presented to him, as you greet him hold out our letter, reminding him that we have felt great joy concerning his reign and congratulate him abundantly on the fact that almighty God has elevated him to this position, in conformity with his sacred letter. . . .113 The outcome will be that both the desired peace and unity of the churches eventuate in our time, according to what has been ordained by the leaders of the apostolic see, with God as the originator and supporting his reign. But if the emperor should urge you to see the bishop of Constantinople, intimate that you have previously established points that have often been recognized by them too,114 which profession should be celebrated by bishops everywhere who embrace the catholic communion. “If the bishop of Constantinople is prepared to act on these points, we shall go to meet him with joy; but if he looks down on following what the apostolic see has urged, why is it necessary for our greeting to lead to an occasion of dispute for those for whom there is no case of debate or strife in what has been ordered?” But if the emperor should wish that your demand to the bishop be disclosed to him, show him the rescript of the libellus that you are carrying. If, in agreeing with the anathema on Acacius, he should say that his successors should repeat it, on account of the fact that some of them were relegated to exile because of their defense of the synod of Chalcedon, you will insinuate that you can withdraw nothing from the rescript of the libellus, in which the followers of the condemned men are contained as well. But should you be unable to turn them aside from this intention, at least agree on this point, namely that when Acacius in particular has been anathematized by the libellus which we gave you, the names of 113. Here there is a lacuna indicated by Günther, CAv, 605, 27. 114. Sc. the easterners.



The End of the Acacian Schism 79

his predecessors should be kept quiet, after their designations have been erased from the inscription on the diptychs. Since this has happened, receive the bishop of Constantinople into communion. First see to it that the libellus of the bishop of Constantinople115 or of others whom, with God’s will, you have happened to receive be read aloud in the presence of the people. But if this cannot be done, at least let it be read in the secretariat in the presence of clerics and archimandrites. Should all these arrangements be concluded with the will of God, ask the emperor to have it noted that by the Sacra which were dispatched by the metropolitan bishops, with the addition of the letter of his bishop, the bishop of Constantinople has been accepted into the unity of communion, by the emperor’s very own agreement, with an honored profession of faith which the apostolic see dispatched. By this letter the emperor is urged to have them too make a similar profession. But if the emperor should adduce any difficulty in that territory,116 when the bishop of Constantinople has addressed directions to his local bishops or to other metropolitans, which were addressed to you as well, he should note what he has done. You must make these demands from him by any means you can, so that when the evidence of his deed has traveled around to all people, even those who are located far away, he cannot escape detection.

Text 12 Hormisdas to Justinian the Illustrious117 Mid-February 519

We have received the letter from Your Greatness, full of love for the holy faith, in which you report that the chance has come to us from 115. At this stage it was John II (518–20). 116. Sc. the eastern empire. 117. Translated from CAv 154, 601–2. Cf. Thiel, Ep. 57, 848–49. The honorary title vir illustris indicates a high status in the imperial court, the highest rank of senator in the late Roman empire. See Alexander P. Kazhdan, The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, 3 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), 986–87, s.v. “illustris.” Justinian, adopted nephew of Emperor Justin, was to become emperor in 527. Hormisdas’s decision to address two letters to him (texts 12 and 14) shows his knowledge of the circles of power in the Byzantine court.

80   The End of the Acacian Schism

heaven for you to engage the strength of apostolic preaching. Hence, we give thanks inadequately to our Lord, who has given you both the time and the impetus for such outstanding cures. And for our part we recognize over and above that he was ordained, after the divine majesty had delivered imperial power to him, which decides that he has been ordained to arrange the peace of the churches. Therefore, it remains that bishops everywhere in the eastern region should swear that they have arrived at correction according to the progress of the libellus. A way is open to venerable harmony, the cures for the health that has been wished for are known. Priests who have longed for peace among catholics will not refuse a catholic profession of faith; for there is no use in error being corrected partially, but in being cut off root and branch. Therefore, press on, just as you began, so that your reward with God, which takes its beginning from the commencement of good work, may achieve its result from the completion of it. The speeches sent to us testify that your spirit is such that through commendation you will not fall far short of bringing your good intention to fulness. However, that speech which gave hope has kindled the ardor of our desire the more, and we desire more avidly that reasons for joy be fulfilled which we judge to be approaching already from heaven. From that it follows that we humbly beseech the blessed apostle Peter daily that God grant you, through whom the holy church already hopes that its members will be made whole, a quick result and further good health. For our part, in obedience to your purposes, we have dispatched men to strengthen harmony subject to the arrangement of apostolic management. It is up to you that, just as we have not wanted to be lacking in good intention, so you should have them report the desired result to us. The venerable sacristies have accepted your gift, which you will make much more acceptable to blessed Peter the apostle, if through you the churches should receive the hoped-for unity.



The End of the Acacian Schism 81

Text 13 Report to Hormisdas from Dioscorus the Deacon118 22 April 519

Report119 of Dioscorus the deacon, [sent] through Pullio the subdeacon120 The ineffable mercy of the omnipotent God and his piety, which he pours out with indulgence upon the human race, cannot be appraised by human resources nor set forth in speech, but it is enough only for his marvels to be admired by devout feelings and to know that all good things depend only on the cures of his grace. This is proved on a daily basis; however, I boldly take it upon myself to say, my lord most blessed pope, that the present case, which God has preserved for your times and merits, transcends all in the past. What was done in Aulona, what was followed in Scampa and Lignidum, I have supplied in a previous note. We arrived in Thessalonica. Our purposes with the bishop of Thessalonica and what was said or even ordained you will learn from the face-to-face notification of the letterbearer. However, I do not put off notifying you of what should not be passed over in silence: after many discussions121 the bishop already mentioned, who was won over by its argument, wished to subscribe to the libellus. But because the bishops who were established under his administration were not all present, it was fitting in the present circumstances, [and] he promised this, that after the holy days when 118. Translated from CAv 167, 618–21. Cf. Thiel, ep. 65, 858–61. 119. Latin suggestio, indicating a legate’s report on an ambassadorial mission. Cf. relatio(nis) in the rubric of text 7 above. 120. On the final stages of the end of the Acacian Schism see Haacke, Die Glaubensformel, 79–82, who reconstructs them on the basis of this letter and epp. 185, 213, 214, 216, 217, 218, 222, 223, 224, and 225. The subdeacon Pullio seems to have been a frequent letter-bearer, as attested in CAv 121, 122, and 124. On the ranks and tasks of letter-bearers see Pauline Allen, “Prolegomena to a Study of the Letter-bearer in Christian Antiquity,” Studia Patristica 62 (2013): 481–91; Pauline Allen, “Christian Correspondences: The Secrets of Letter-writers and Letter-bearers,” in The Art of Veiled Speech: Self-Censorship from Aristophanes to Hobbes, ed. Han Baltussen and Peter J. Davis (Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2015), 209–32. 121. certamina: see Frend, Rise of the Monophysite Movement, 236n4, on the proper meaning of this term in this context.

82   The End of the Acacian Schism

one of us from the see of the city of Constantinople had been dispatched to the assembled bishops who are established in his diocese, they should subscribe to the libellus. We believe that with God’s help this has been effected. This was ordained in Thessalonica. With the commendation of your prayers we arrived in the city of Constantinople on the second feastday of the original week.122 At the tenth mile-stone from the city already mentioned, lofty and magnificent men came to meet us, among whom were Vitalian the magister militum, Pompey,123 and Justinian. There followed them also many other senators, who were on fire with warmth and desire for the restoration of the peace of the catholic faith. What more can I say? To the great joy of almost everyone we entered the city. On the next day, which is the third feastday, we were presented at an audience with the most pious prince. The entire senate was present there, in which meeting there were also four bishops, whom the bishop of Constantinople had dispatched in his stead. We took the letter of Your Beatitude, which the most clement prince received with great reverence. Statements were made which should have been made known before the investigation of the case. Soon the case was taken up. The most clement emperor was urging us in these words: “Look at the bishop of this city and in turn provide yourselves with an argument in calm order.” We, on the other hand, responded: “Why do we proceed to the bishop to have negotiations? Our lord the most blessed Pope Hormisdas, who dispatched us, did not instruct us to fight. But in our hands we have a libellus which all bishops who wanted to be reconciled with the apostolic see have drawn up: if Your Piety gives instructions, let it be read, and if there is something in it that is overlooked or not believed to be true, let them say so and then we shall show that nothing going beyond the verdict of the church was written in the same libellus, or if they are able to instruct [us] that it is not fitting to the catholic religion, then it is incumbent on us to prove it.” The libellus was read again in sight of the prince and senate. Immediately we added: “Let the four bishops present, who are here to represent the bishop of Constantinople, say if the matters read in 122. hebdomadis authenticae, i.e. Holy Week. 123. On Vitalian and Pompey, see our introduction above.



The End of the Acacian Schism 83

the libellus are at least contained in the proceedings of the church!” They replied that everything was true, after which we added: “Lord emperor, the bishops have also removed a great burden from us and have made the affair speak the truth in a way that is fitting to them.” Soon the most clement emperor said to the bishops who were present: “and if they are true, why do you not carry it out?” In like fashion some of the senatorial order also said: “We are laymen. You say that these matters are true: carry them out, and we shall follow.” After the fourth day of the feast the bishop of Constantinople too received the libellus from us in the palace and chiefly he, so to speak, tried to make out it was a letter rather than a libellus.124 It was deemed suitable, after not many negotiations, to compose a modest preface and thereupon to add the libellus, just as Your Beatitude has recommended. The signature made from the same is appropriate for a libellus, and likewise the date of its issue, of which we have dispatched copies in both Greek and Latin to Your Apostolate. After the libellus was made, the name of Acacius was removed from the diptychs, likewise those of Flavitta, Euphemius, Macedonius, and Timothy, and this [happened] not only in that church alone where the bishop resided, but with great care we even proposed that it be done throughout all churches, with God’s help. Likewise the names of Zeno and Anastasius were removed from the diptychs. The bishops of various cities who could be found likewise presented the libellus, and with extreme caution we proposed that it be safeguarded in case any bishop who originally did not allow the libellus should be in communion with us. In a similar manner all the archimandrites too did [the same]. With these archimandrites we also proposed that we hold negotiations, when they said: “What our archbishop has done is satisfactory; we will follow what he has done.” What more [can I say]? After much negotiation, when they too were won over by argument, they presented libelli by all kinds of methods.125 After all those events, with 124. This comment is an interesting witness to the fluidity of the letter-genre. See further Allen and Neil, Crisis Management in Late Antiquity, 14–23; Roy Gibson and Andrew D. Morrison, “Introduction: What Is a Letter?” in Ancient Letters: Classical and Late Antique Epistolography, ed. Ruth Morello and A. D. Morrison (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 1–16. 125. Modis omnibus.

84   The End of the Acacian Schism

God’s assistance we had a procession in the church, but the nature of the rejoicing which occurred about the unity (thus may God be blessed) [and] the praises also which were referred to blessed Peter the apostle and to you, you will observe by looking at the same event, which my tongue is not capable of setting forth. Nothing has been effected according to the prayers of the enemy—not revolt, not the pouring out of blood, not insurrection, which previously the enemies were predicting like frightened people. The ecclesiastics also of Constantinople themselves, in admiration and gratitude to God, say that they had not remembered on any occasion that such a multitude of people had been in communion. When these events had run their course, the most clement emperor too added his writings to Your Beatitude, while pointing out the sequence of proceedings; likewise, too, the most reverend John, overseer of the city of Constantinople. Also, you will have acknowledged that they are universal holy edicts,126 and we believe that, with God’s favor and your holy prayers, they will be dispatched throughout provinces everywhere as soon as possible. These events took place in Constantinople. Now the Church of Antioch has been investigated and is afflicted up to the present because no suitable person has been elected so far.127 May Your Beatitude therefore pray more earnestly so that God, who, prevailed upon by your prayers, restored the Church of Constantinople to the apostolic see, may also provide a person suitable for ordination in Antioch and may make the constant churches one. If it pleases Your Beatitude, write back to the bishop of Constantinople, mention the condemnations of Severus and his followers, whom you named in that letter which you wrote to Syria Secunda through the monks John and Sergius. If you have done this in writing back to the emperor, too, it seems to me to be necessary. . . .128 126. There is a problem here in the text, the MSS reading “dicta” or “edita” (CAv, Günther, 621 and n. 14). We have chosen to follow Thiel’s emendation, edicta. 127. There was a considerable hiatus between the exile of Severus from Antioch in September 518 and the appointment of his successor, Paul “the Jew.” See Menze, Justinian and the Making of the Syrian Orthodox Church, 43–55. 128. Something has fallen out of the text here.



The End of the Acacian Schism 85

Text 14 Justinian the Illustrious to Hormisdas 17 September 520

Copy of the letter of Justinian illustris129 With the indulgence of our Lord Jesus Christ, the one who reigns in this world is he who bases his imperial rule on holy religion, seeing that the one who was first pleased by divine things governs well in human matters. We render thanks for the fact that this has happened in present times. And indeed your son the most clement emperor,130 who has been allotted the scepter with the privilege of immortality, has complained of cases of the faith that need to be set in order, and having sent an embassy to Your Sanctity, we have won over priests of the apostolic see, by whose arrival, at our insistence, the harmony of the sacrosanct churches has been magnified 131 to no small degree, as was fitting. For when the name of Acacius, which caused the discord, was cut off by the roots, in accordance with the contents of the libelli which you dispatched, the hoped-for unity arrived in this royal city and in many states: it is fitting to revere this harmony, which has come about after supreme struggles, and it is necessary for it to be kept safe in perpetuity; and not for what the everlasting majesty has arranged according to religious observance to be withdrawn by any arguments you like. But because the enemy of humankind is frequently quick to obstruct the prosperous course of events, the region of the easterners cannot be forced by exiles, nor the sword and the flames, to condemn the names of bishops deceased after Acacius: this difficulty involves delays to universal harmony. Thus may Your Sanctity, inspired from heaven, take thought for the nature of the times and events, and when the originators of this error have been condemned, namely Acacius of Constantinople, Peter, and Timothy Aelurus, and 129. CAv 194, 655–56 (CPG 6870). Cf. Thiel, Ep. 120, 920–22. 130. Emperor Justin I, to whom his nephew Justinian served as adviser before his own elevation to emperor in 527. 131. Active verb in Latin.

86   The End of the Acacian Schism

Dioscorus of Alexandria, and Peter of Antioch, deign to put an end to the long-running negotiation concerning the examination of the rest of the names, which has been settled. The upshot will be that you ransom from blood the populace which our Lord entrusted to be ruled, and that you reconcile the people with our God not through persecutions and blood but through the patience of the priests, lest, while we wish to gain souls, we lose both the bodies and souls of the many. Indeed, it is appropriate that errors of long duration be amended by mildness and clemency, particularly because Your Beatitude’s predecessors very often wanted to recall the overseers of our state to communion, if only Acacius could be silenced and the rest mentioned above. Therefore, the recommendation of your see to take the lead is not burdensome. Also we make this request more and more, that having received heavenly grace, Your Sanctity deign to deal with the claims of the eastern bishops and to offer an agreement that is suitable to their faith. Indeed, it seems to us that, inasmuch as our Lord Jesus Christ, son of the living God, was born from the virgin Mary, who the chief of the apostles proclaimed suffered in the flesh [1 Pt 4:1], he is properly said to reign as one of the Trinity with the Father and the Holy Spirit. For just as it seems doubtful to say simply “one of the Trinity,” not passing over the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, so we are in no doubt that his person is in the Trinity with the persons of the Father and the Holy Spirit;132 for truly without the person of Christ the Trinity can neither be believed piously nor adored honestly, as holy Augustine says: “Or is there some person from the Trinity”; and in another passage: “Only he in the Trinity received a body” [cf. Heb 10:5]; and again: “One of three.”133 Therefore, greeting you with the utmost reverence we ask that, being mindful of the judgment to come, you arrange the case in such a way that no doubt will be left in future, so that after every uneasiness from the lack of harmony has been removed, the bonds of the peace we have desired may be restored throughout the whole world and the harmony of the venerable churches may flourish and the 132. Again, it is a question of the Trisagion dispute, on which see our introduction. 133. Augustine, De trinitate, 2.16; Enchiridion de fide 12.



The End of the Acacian Schism 87

members of the one body may be gathered up in its original state. For truly the doctor who makes haste to heal old illnesses in such a way that new wounds do not grow from them is rightly praised. Therefore, may Your Apostleship in particular know that by the same two chapters,134 priests everywhere in that state have gladly embraced communion with us. Received on the fifteenth Kalends of October, in the consulship of Rusticus, vir clarissimus.

Text 15 Copy of a Report of Epiphanius, Bishop of Constantinople135 Epiphanius136 [sends] greetings in the Lord to his most holy and blessed lord brother and fellow minister Hormisdas. God, who lives on high and regards the lowly [Ps 137:6] and provides everything abundantly for the salvation of humankind, out of his goodness and mercy has turned his attention to my poverty, and after the death of the former archbishop and patriarch, John of holy memory,137 has seen it fitting to confer on me the priestly see of the holy catholic church of the royal city. He has done this through the determination and choice of our most Christian and most just prince Justin and his most pious empress, who shares with him all eagerness for the divine, and of his followers. To these people, whose way of life is good and who are loftier than their royal offices, has been added at the same time the approval of the priests and monks and the most faithful people. For this reason, I have reckoned that it was necessary to include this first notice in my letter, in order to show what good will I have towards your apostolic see. I pray with all my heart, Most Blessed, to be united with you and to embrace the divine teachings which have been handed down by 134. This could mean the two references to Augustine noted above. 135. Translated from CAv 195, 652–54. Cf. Thiel, Ep. 121, 923–25 (CPG 6838). Received on 17 September 520, composed on 9 July, it resembles a synodical letter, that is, a letter written by a bishop to his peers on his ordination. The text of this document is problematical in places. For an overview of the genre of the synodical letter see Allen, Sophronius of Jerusalem, 47–51. 136. Patriarch of Constantinople (520–535), on whom see our introduction. 137. John II the Cappadocian, former patriarch of Constantinople (518–20).

88   The End of the Acacian Schism

the blessed and holy disciples and apostles of God, particularly Peter, the head of the apostles, to your holy see, and to regard nothing as more precious. For in no way coming from outside, I am not ignorant of the ordinances of the holy church, but after being brought up in the holy catholic church by the will of God from my tenderest youth, I was subservient throughout periods of time to the most holy priests and patriarchs. For quite often, while superintending those who through the most sacred and inexpressible baptism divested themselves of their sins, I taught the right and true faith of the one essence of the Trinity, which, as I have already said, the gathering of all priests and all Fathers embraces as coming from the disciples of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. For truly I revere and preach the sacred symbol, given by God, of the 318 holy Fathers congregated in Nicaea, and declare it to be a clear judgment of the splendor of Christianity. And I have personally taught, and known others to teach, the venerable synod of 150 holy priests which took place in this royal city, likewise also the 200 God-loving Fathers who convened in Ephesus [and] the synod of the 630 most reverend Fathers and priests which occurred at Chalcedon, to be one and consistent and joined to the holy councils mentioned above. Therefore, in these four holy and sacred synods rests both the great mystery of piety spoken about above and the salvation of all people. For I accept and embrace and choose to unite myself with those who were or are of the same determination. But in turn I regard as exiled from the gathering of the orthodox those who apart from those synods have either thought or proclaimed or attempted anything in past time. Similarly, I totally embrace and accept the correct and truly very religious letters of the venerable Pope Leo, which he wrote on behalf of the correct faith. Therefore, let the holy brotherly love of Your Beatitude make this determination in my regard. For I have made it clear to you and I proclaim these points also to the churches under me, being quick in all respects to be united as one in the bond of charity between me and Your Beatitude with regard to those matters which should be completely united and inviolable, and to keep safe in perpetuity the one and the same body of the common apostolic church. Give orders



The End of the Acacian Schism 89

to weigh carefully the amount of love in everybody for Your Venerable Fraternity, since I shall not mention during the holy mysteries those whom your apostolic see in your condemning has ordered not to be read out in the sacred diptychs. This has been indicated to the most reverend men who were dispatched by you, namely the most holy bishop Germanus, the deacons Felix and Dioscorus,138 and the presbyter Blandus, who effectively carried out what you had enjoined on them. Therefore, may Your Sanctity pray both for me and for the priests under me, that we may be kept safe in perpetuity, as we hold fast to the correct confession of God; likewise also on behalf of our most serene prince and for the most Christian Augusta,139 because their common salvation is the future foundation of the holy churches everywhere. Therefore, it will in no way now be allowed to us who have this purpose, through the grace of the Holy Spirit and the intercessions of the holy and glorious mother of God, the virgin Mary, to have God’s holy church torn asunder. I and also my [clergy] send many greetings to all who are with Your Fraternity. And in another hand: Safe in the Lord pray for us, most holy God-loving brother. Received on the fifteenth Kalends of October, in the consulship of the vir clarissimus Rusticus. 138. The papal legate Dioscorus was the author of a report of his embassy to Constantinople in text 13. 139. Sc. Empress Aelia Ariadne (474–515), wife of both Emperors Zeno and Anastasius: PLRE 2, 140–41.

ANTIOCH, ALEXANDRIA & THE SYRIAN CHURCH

CHAPTER 3

The Conflict between Antioch and Alexandria and the Rise of the Syrian Church

!

Introduction Most of the Syriac texts translated in this chapter appear for the first time in English.1 Their importance lies in the fact that the majority of them derives from a dossier of forty-five letters illustrating the conflicts between anti-Chalcedonians in Syria and Egypt, which had little or nothing to do with the conflicts between Constantinople and Rome during the same period. The letters in this chapter encapsulate many disputes that were to dog the anti-Chalcedonian church in the East during the sixth century: the dispute over the corruptibility or incorruptibility of Christ’s body, the rise of the Agnoetai (“those who do not know,” meaning those who disputed that Christ 1. The exceptions are the letters between Severus and Julian of Halicarnassus (texts 1–4 below), which have been translated from Evagrius Scholasticus, Historia ecclesiastica, ed. Joseph Bidez and Leon Parmentier, The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius with the Scholia (London: Methuen, 1898; repr. Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1964) (hereafter, HE) 9.10–13 of Ps-Zachariah, in Geoffrey Greatrex, ed., The Chronicle of Pseudo-Zachariah Rhetor: Church and War in Late Antiquity, , trans. Robert R. Phenix and Cornelia B. Horn, TTH 55 (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2011), 334–42. Translated from the Syriac text of Ernest W. Brooks, CSCO 84, Scriptores Syriaci 39 (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1921), 102–13 (text), CSCO 88, Scriptores Syriaci 42 (Louvain: Secrétariat du CSCO, 1967), 71–78 (trans.). The minor differences between Brooks’s text and that of the Documenta monophysitica (hereafter, DM ), which we have used, are noted in Greatrex ad loc.

90



Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church 91

did not know facts or events), and the powerful influence of tritheism, or the alleged doctrine of three Gods in the Trinity. In addition, we note that the important roles played by Severus of Antioch, Theodosius of Alexandria, and Jacob Baradaeus in the history of the anti-Chalcedonian church in the East permeate most of these documents. Documenta Monophysitica

Let us first give a brief account of events in the anti-Chalcedonian church in the East during the sixth century, so as to situate this dossier, known as the “Monophysite Documents.”2 In the wake of the continuing conflict around the Council of Chalcedon (451), Emperor Zeno (474–491) devised an instrument of union known as the Henotikon, which, while affirming the common ground between supporters and opponents of the council, left the decisions of Chalcedon in abeyance.3 The Henotikon was successful in some respects during the reign of Emperor Anastasius,4 but was eventually superseded by ecclesio-political negotiations between East and West on the advent of Emperor Justin I. However, adherents to the document remained throughout the sixth century, as can be seen from texts 5 and 7. 2. Syriac texts and Latin translation in Jean-Baptiste Chabot, ed., Documenta ad origines monophysitarum illustrandas (Paris: Typographeo Reipublicae, 1908), repr. CSCO 17, Scriptores Syriaci 17 (Louvain: Secrétariat du CSCO, 1962); trans. Jean-Baptiste Chabot, Louvain, 1933, repr. CSCO 103, Scriptores Syriaci 52, Louvain: Secrétariat du CSCO, 1965 (CPG 7134). On the DM, see Van Roey and Pauline Allen, Monophysite Texts of the Sixth Century, 267–303; Pauline Allen, “Religious Conflict between Antioch and Alexandria c. 565–630 CE,” in Mayer and Neil, Religious Conflict, 187–99. 3. On the Henotikon, see Hanns Christof Brennecke, “Chalcedonense und Henotikon: Bemerkungen zum Prozess der östlichen Rezeption der christologischen Formel von Chalkedon,” in Ecclesia est in re publica, ed. Ute Heil, Annette von Stockhausen, and Jörg Ülrich, Studien zur Kirchen- und Theologiegeschichte im Kontext des Imperium Romanum 100 (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, New York, 2007), 272–75, first published in Chalkedon: Geschichte und Actualität. Studien zur Rezeption der christologischen Formel von Chalkedon, ed. J. van Oort and J. Roldanus (Leuven: Peeters, 1997). 4. On the reign of Anastasius, see Charanis, Church and State; Carmello Capizzi, L’imperatore Anastasio I, 491–518: Studio sulla sua vita, la sua opera e la sua personalità, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 184 (Rome: Edizioni Orientalia Christiana, 1969); Haarer, Anastasius I, 132–36; Meier, Anastasios I, 116–17; cf. chapter 2, n. 3 above.

92   Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church

One of the important developments in the anti-Chalcedonian church of the East, which is mirrored in the translated documents below, was the election of the influential Severus as patriarch of Antioch in 512.5 Severus did much to galvanize the opposition to Chalcedon. Despite his deposition in 518 due to the Chalcedonian restoration under Emperor Justin I, Severus continued to be recognized not only as patriarch of Antioch,6 but as the leader of the antiChalcedonians in the East. Under Justin many bishops opposed to Chalcedon were exiled to Egypt, such as Severus and his sparring partner on the question of the incorruptibility of the body of Christ, Julian of Halicarnassus.7 The Debate between Severus and Julian of Halicarnassus  Although Severus and Julian had met in Constantinople in about 510 and collaborated in unseating Patriarch Macedonius from the see of that city, it was not until both the patriarch of Antioch and the bishop of Halicarnassus were together in exile in Egypt that their dispute over the corruptibility of the body of Christ began. While for Julian calling Christ’s body “corruptible” or subject to human suffering was tantamount to saying that Christ’s suffering was caused by sin, Severus argued that his opponent’s teaching of the incorruptibility of Christ’s body was akin to the doctrines of Manes and Eutyches. This dispute, attested to in texts 1–4 below, was to last through the sixth century in various forms and locations, particularly in Egypt, Syria, and Armenia.8 Emperor Justinian was said by 5. On Severus, cf. chapter 2, n. 5, above; Chesnut, Three Monophysite Christologies, 9–56; Robin Darling (Young), “The Patriarchate of Severus of Antioch, 512–518” (PhD diss., University of Chicago, 1982). 6. For the continuing recognition of his position as patriarch of Antioch, see, e.g., at the end of text 4 below, Subscription. On the importance in imperial eyes of the participation of Severus in the striving for ecclesiastical harmony, see also, e.g., his letter to Justinian, in which he declines the imperial invitation to travel from Egypt to Constantinople to participate in peace talks with the Chalcedonians: Ps-Zachariah, HE 9.16; Brooks, 120–31; Greatrex, 354–61. 7. For a tentative list of expelled anti-Chalcedonian bishops, see Ernst Honigmann, Évêques et évêchés monophysites d’Asie antérieure au VIe siècle, CSCO 127, Subsidia 2 (Louvain: Durbecq, 1951), 146–48. On the debate between Julian and Severus, see the next note. 8. On the debate between Severus and Julian, see Réné Draguet, “Julien d’Halicarnasse et



Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church 93

contemporaries to have lapsed into the heresy shortly before his death.9 Themistius of Alexandria  The rifts within the anti-Chalcedonian party were exacerbated by the doctrine of the Alexandrian deacon Themistius, which arose in the first three decades of the sixth century. In yet another post-Chalcedonian attempt to reconcile the different perceptions of the natures of Christ, the anti-Julianist Themistius proposed that if Christ as a human being was truly subject to corruption, we should then speak of him as being ignorant in some matters, the key text for which was John 11:34, where Jesus asks about Lazarus: “Where have you laid him?” While opponents of the Agnoetai, as they came to be known, argued that Christ’s apparent ignorance in such matters was in conformity with the divine plan, Themistius’s position seems to have been that the ignorance was real and to be attributed not to the one composite nature but to the humanity of Christ.10 It was not, however, only anti-Chalcedonians who embraced or rejected Agnoetic doctrine, as we see from the history of the debate for much of the rest of the sixth century. Emperor Justinian seems to have issued an edict against the doctrine.11 The fact that Themistius was a thorn in the side of anti-Chalcedonians can be seen from his condemnation in the heresiology of Patriarch sa controverse avec Sévère d’Antioche sur l’incorruptibilité du corps du Christ: Étude d’histoire littéraire et doctrinale suivie des fragments dogmatiques de Julien,” Universitas Catholica Lovaniensis. Dissertationes ad gradum magistri in Facultate Theologica consequendum conscriptas, series 2, tome 12 (Louvain, 1924); Aloys Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition, vol. 2, From the Council of Chalcedon (451) to Gregory the Great (590–604), Part 2, The Church of Constantinople in the Sixth Century, trans. Pauline Allen and John Cawte (London: Mowbray, 1995), 79–111. See also Ute Possekel, “Julianism in Syriac Christianity,” in Orientalia Christiana. Festschrift für Hubert Kaufhold zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Peter Bruns and Heinz Otto Luthe, Eichstätter Beiträge zum christlichen Orient 3 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz), 2013, 437–57. 9. Evagrius, HE 4.39; text in The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius with the Scholia, ed. Joseph Bidez and Léon Parmentier (London: Methuen, 1898; repr. Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1964), 190. See further Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition 2/2, 467–72. 10. On the Agnoetai, see in detail Van Roey and Allen, Monophysite Texts, 3–102; Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition, 2/2, 361–84. 11. See Sebastian Brock, “A Monothelete Florilegium in Syriac,” in After Chalcedon: Studies in Theology and Church History, ed. Carl Laga, Joseph A. Munitiz and Lucas Van Rompay, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 18 (Leuven: Peeters, 1985), 38–39.

94   Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church

Sophronius of Jerusalem in 634 and by the council of 680.12 The Agnoetic debate is reflected in Documenta Monophysitica13 and appears tacitly in text 6, below.14 The Discussions at Constantinople (532)  The discussions between

opponents and supporters of Chalcedon organized by Emperor Justinian in Constantinople in 532 resulted in a stalemate.15 They were followed by the condemnation of the person of Severus in 536 and the consigning of his works to the flames. Nonetheless even after his death in 538 the patriarch’s writings lived on, mostly in translations, although there is some evidence that they survived in Greek down to the tenth century.16 The survival of Severus’s works one way or the other did not, however, detract from the odium that they and his person attracted after his death.17 On Severus’s death, the leadership of the anti-Chalcedonians passed to Theodosius, patriarch of Alexandria, during whose tenure until his death on 22 June 566 the disunity among the anti-Chalcedonians became ever more apparent.18 Texts 5–7 below deal with some of the issues.

12. See Allen, Sophronius of Jerusalem, 143: “Themistius, the father and the begetter and most lawless sower of ignorance”; see also pp. 9–10. 13. Nrs. 13, 14 (564 CE), and 44 (575 CE). 14. See Van Roey and Allen, Monophysite Texts, 272. 15. See Sebastian Brock, “The Conversations with the Syrian Orthodox under Justinian (532),” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 47 (1981): 87–121; Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition, 2/2, 230–51. 16. Gilles Dorival, “Nouveaux fragments grecs de Sévère d’Antioche,” in ΑΝΤΙΔΩΡΟΝ: Hulde aan Dr. Maurits Geerard bij de voltooiing van de Clavis Patrum Graecorum (Wetteren: Cultura, 1984), 120–21. 17. See Pauline Allen, “Post-mortem Polemics: The Literary Persecution of Severus of Antioch (512–518),” in Religious Conflict in Late Antiquity, ed. Geoffrey D. Dunn and Christine Shepardson (forthcoming). 18. On Theodosius’s theology, see Aloys Grillmeier with Theresia Hainthaler, Christ in Christian Tradition, volume 2, part 4, The Church of Alexandria with Nubia and Ethiopia after 451, trans. O. C. Dean (London: Mowbray, 1996), 53–59. For a sketch of Theodosius’s career, see Frend, Rise of the Monophysite Movement (index); Tito Orlandi, “Theodosius of Alexandria,” in Encyclopedia of the Early Church, ed. Angelo di Berardino et al., 2nd ed. (Downer’s Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 2014), 829.



Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church 95

Theodosius of Alexandria and the Tritheist “Heresy”  In 535 Theodosius was elected patriarch of Alexandria with the assistance of Empress Theodora, but as leader of the anti-Chalcedonian party he spent most of his episcopal career in Constantinople under the protection of the empress. Theodosius composed a famous tractate against tritheism in 563/564,19 an alleged heresy which was rife among sixth-century anti-Chalcedonians and is referred to repeatedly in our translated texts below. The proponents of this so-called heresy were Bishops Conon of Tarsus and Eugenius of Seleucia in Isauria;20 subsequently John Philoponus, an Alexandrian sophist, gave the movement a philosophical foundation.21 Tritheism arose in 557, and its proponents argued that if there were three hypostases in the Trinity then there were also three natures or essences, meaning three Gods. The logic of this argument attracted many adherents because, as Cardinal Grillmeier pointed out, the “difficulty of understanding the dogma of the Trinity appeared to have been simplified.”22 So far-reaching was the influence of this doctrine that it has 19. For the Syriac text and Latin translation of this work and the documents which accompanied it, as well as a study of the work, see Van Roey and Allen, Monophysite Texts, 105–263. 20. On sixth-century tritheism, see Giuseppe Furlani, Sei scritti antitriteistici in lingua siriaca, Patrologia Orientalis 14, no. 4 (Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1920; repr. Turnhout: Brepols, 2006); Henri Martin, “La controverse trithéite dans l’empire byzantine au VIe siècle” (Louvain: Peeters, 1960); Albert Van Roey, “La controverse trithéite depuis la condamnation de Conon et Eugène jusqu’à la conversion de l’évêque Élie,” in Von Kanaan bis Kerala: Festschrift für Prof. Dr. Dr. J.M.P. van der Ploeg O.P. zur Vollendung des siebzigsten Lebensjahres am 4. Juli 1979, ed. W. Delsman et al., Alter Orient und Altes Testament (Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981), 487–97; Albert Van Roey, “La controverse trithéite jusqu’à l’excommunication de Conon et Eugène (557–569),” Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 16 (1985) 14–165; Rifaat Y. Ebied, Albert Van Roey, and Lionel R. Wickham, Peter of Callinicum: Anti-Tritheist Dossier, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 10 (Leuven: Peeters, 1981); Peter Van Deun, “Une collection inconnue de questions et réponses traitant du trithéisme: étude et edition,” Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik 51 (2001): 105–11; continuation of the work of Aloys Grillmeier, ed. Theresia Hainthaler, Christ in Christian Tradition, vol. 2, part 3, The Churches of Jerusalem and Antioch from 451–600, trans. M. Ehrhardt (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 268–80. 21. See further Uwe Michael Lang, John Philoponus and the Controversies over Chalcedon in the Sixth Century: A Study and Translation of the Arbiter, Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense Études et Documents 47 (Leuven: Peeters, 2001), esp. 5–6, 8–10, 35–36, 63, 159; Uwe Michael Lang, “Patristic Argument and the Use of Philosophy in the Tritheist Controversy of the Sixth Century,” in The Mystery of the Holy Trinity in the Fathers of the Church: The Proceedings of the Fourth Patristic Conference Maynooth, 1999, ed. D. Vincent Twomey and Lewis Ayres (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2007), 79–99 (with updated 2002 bibliography by Theresia Hainthaler). 22. Grillmeier with Hainthaler, Christ in Christian Tradition 2/3, 269.

96   Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church

also been suggested that the tritheist controversy was behind episcopal successions and depositions, particularly in the see of Antioch,23 where the east-Syrian Sergius, of like mind with John Philoponus, was consecrated patriarch by Theodosius in 557.24 Texts 7, 8, 9, and 10 below are concerned with tritheism. Jacob Baradaeus  After the death of Severus and another prom-

inent anti-Chalcedonian bishop, John of Tella, the position of the opponents of Chalcedon was dire. Thus it came about that, once again through the offices of Empress Theodora, the east Syrian monk Jacob Baradaeus was ordained by Theodosius of Alexandria as metropolitan of Edessa in 542/543. His missionary activity was extraordinary; he performed a great number of ordinations and caused the church of the Syrian anti-Chalcedonians, perhaps misleadingly, to become known as Jacobite.25 Jacob’s leadership eventually led to the separation of the Syrian church.26 He died in 578 and is referred to in texts 8 and 9. Paul the Black  So far, we have reviewed the internal doctrinal dis-

putes within anti-Chalcedonian ranks: the differences between Severus of Antioch and Julian of Halicarnassus regarding the corruptibility of the body of Christ; the Agnoetic dispute; and tritheism. When Theodosius consecrated Paul, surnamed “the Black,” as patriarch of Antioch in 564 after a lapse of three years subsequent to the demise of 23. Pauline Allen, “Episcopal Succession in Antioch in the Sixth Century,” in Episcopal Elections in Late Antiquity, ed. Johan Leemans, Peter Van Nuffelen, Shawn W. J. Keough, and Carla Nicolaye, Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 119 (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2011), 23–38. 24. On Sergius (557–61), see further Frend, Rise of the Monophysite Movement, 290 with n. 3; Albert Van Roey, “Une lettre du patriarche Jacobite Serge I (557–561),” in Mélanges offerts au R. P. François Graffin, S.J., Parole de l’Orient 6–7 (1975–76): 213–27. 25. On Jacob and his activities, see Honigmann, Évêques, 157–245; Albert Van Roey, “Les débuts de l’église jacobite,” in Das Konzil von Chalkedon: Geschichte und Gegenwart, ed. Aloys Grillmeier and Heinrich Bacht, vol. 2 (Würzburg; Herder, 1951), 339–60; Frend, Rise of the Monophysite Movement, 285–87, 292, 326; David D. Bundy, “Jacob Baradaeus: The State of Research, a Review of Sources and a New Approach,” Le Muséon 91 (1978): 45–86. 26. See further Menze, Justinian and the Making of the Syrian Orthodox Church; JeanneNicole Mellon Saint-Laurent, Missionary Stories and the Formation of the Syriac Churches (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2015).



Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church 97

Sergius, the political quarrels among the anti-Chalcedonians became even more acute, and nowhere so much as in Antioch and Alexandria. Since the texts translated below are part of the controversy surrounding Paul and belong to the DM dossier that very probably owes its existence to one or more supporters of the patriarch, we need to look briefly at his controversial election and turbulent career here.27 References to Paul are found in texts 7, 10, and 11. The election to the patriarchate of Antioch of Paul, an Alexandrian archimandrite and patriarchal secretary, by Theodosius ran counter to the wishes of Jacob Baradaeus and of the Syrian bishops. Paul was thus dogged from the start, and his tenure as patriarch polarized his followers and those of Jacob. When two years later Theodosius died (22 June 566), Paul was named the heir of his property, which he tried to use to acquire the position of patriarch of Alexandria as an opponent of the tritheist monk Athanasius, a grandson of the late Empress Theodora. Finding no success in this venture, Paul went to Syria and then to his protector, the anti-Chalcedonian Arab sheik al-Harith, and in 570, after disputes against the tritheists, accepted the second Henotikon of Justin II (565–578)28 and communicated with Chalcedonians. The rest of Paul’s career is ignominious, and he lived in hiding in Constantinople until his death in 581. Despite this turbulent areer, Paul was a catalyst not only for the composition of the DM but also for the schism between the Churches of Alexandria and Antioch which broke out in 575 and continued well into the seventh century.29 As we suggested earlier, the 27. The following section on Paul the Black is a reworked version of Allen, “Religious Conflict between Antioch and Alexandria,” 190–91. On Paul see Thomas Hermann, “Patriarch Paul von Antiochia und das alexandrinische Schisma von Jahre 575,” Zeitschrift für neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 27 (1928): 263–304; modified by E. W. Brooks, “The Patriarch Paul of Antioch and the Alexandrine Schism of 575,” Byzantinische Zeitschrift 30 (1930): 468–76. See further Van Roey and Allen, Monophysite Texts, 267–303. 28. Evagrius, HE 5.4, Bidez and Parmentier, 197–201; Frend, Rise of the Monophysite Movement, 366–68. 29. See further Rifaat Y. Ebied, “Peter of Callinicum and Damian of Alexandria: The End of a Friendship,” in A Tribute to Arthur Vööbus: Studies in Early Christian Literature and Its Environment, ed. Robert H. Fischer (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1977), 277–82; Rifaat Y. Ebied and Lionel R. Wickham, eds., Petrus Callinicensus. Tractatus contra Damianum, trans. Albert Van Roey, CCSG 29, 32, 35, 54 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1994, 1996, 1998, 2004); cf. Grillmeier and Hainthaler, Christ in Christian Tradition 2/3, 275–76.

98   Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church

over-riding concern in Syria and Egypt during this period was the (dis)unity among anti-Chalcedonians, rather than the negotiation of conflict between East and West. The Correspondence between Severus of Antioch and Julian of Halicarnassus (Texts 1–4)

Whereas the formal polemical and doctrinal writings of both Severus and Julian on the incorruptibility of Christ are extensive, even though in Julian’s they are preserved only in fragmentary form, this epistolary interchange between the two bishops shows both of them in a more personal light. Julian’s contention that his teaching could be verified in Severus’s The Lover of Truth (Gk. Philalethes; the title refers to Cyril of Alexandria) provoked the patriarch of Antioch to write several works against the bishop of Halicarnassus, including a barbed retort, the apologia for the Philalethes.30 In text 1 Julian writes about people who use the testimonies of Cyril to prove that Christ’s body was corruptible “before the resurrection” and that “it was only after the resurrection that it received immortality.” Even more galling to Severus was that fact that Julian next quoted a passage from his Cathedral Homily 67, which Julian interprets as saying that Christ was not subject to corruption but consented to death and burial. The exiled bishop of Halicarnassus reports that he has sent Severus a copy of his Tome and asks Severus to reply to his questions. Severus’s short reply in text 2 is polite and conciliatory. He writes that he has sent Julian his notes on the subject to prove that the controversy between the two bishops was a charitable interchange and should not be interpreted as strife. Text 3, Julian’s reply to the patriarch of Antioch, is querulous. Julian complains that Severus has “plunged him into anxiety” by his response: the bishop of Halicarnassus does not believe that agreed testimonies declared that Christ’s body was simultaneously corrupt and incorrupt, and he asks his opponent to clarify the seeming con30. See further Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition 2/2, 79–81.



Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church 99

tradictions in Cyril’s pronouncements “in a single word and in a few lines.” Julian concludes that Christ bore our sufferings “willingly and not by necessity of nature.” Text 4 is Severus’s initially sarcastic but long reply to the bishop of Halicarnassus, in which he expresses astonishment at Julian’s great anxiety, as expressed in text 3. It was impossible to respond briefly to Julian in a few words, writes Severus, because Julian’s lengthy Tome accompanied his second letter and required a detailed reply. He admonishes the bishop of Halicarnassus for implying that Scripture and the Fathers are “in contradiction either among themselves or with themselves” on the subject of the incorruptibility of Christ, and he takes as a test case the different presentations of Abraham by James and Paul in order to demonstrate the harmony in the meaning of scriptural passages. Severus points out to Julian that he has decided not to publish what he has written on the subject, but to have it archived. Similarly, he advises Julian that they should not make their altercation public, for “this is not the moment for us to abandon the fight against the heretics and to give the impression that we are speaking or writing against each other.” To be noted is the fact that in this correspondence between the two bishops there is no mention of any altercation between the anti-Chalcedonians on the one hand and Constantinople and Rome on the other. Theodosius’s Synodical Letter and Severus’s Reply (Texts 5 and 6)

In text 5 we have an excellent example of the synodical letter, or the letter which a new bishop or patriarch sent to his fellow-hierarchs outlining his doctrinal beliefs and eliciting a response from them regarding the recognition of his orthodoxy and their intention of being in communion with him.31 The genre of the synodical letter typically includes a profession of faith, as well as a statement by the newly-ordained concerning the councils he acknowledges and the doctrines he espouses or condemns. Usually synodical letters also 31. On Theodosius’s synodical letter, see Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition 2/4, 53n1. On the genre, see the introduction to this chapter.

100   Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church

include a list of heretics and of anathemas. Theodosius’s synodical letter was addressed to the deposed and exiled patriarch of Antioch, Severus, at a time when both of them were in Constantinople under the protection of Empress Theodora. This raises further questions about the ambiguity of the ecclesiastical policies of Emperor Justinian and his consort. As is customary in a synodical letter, Theodosius begins by stating diffidence and even alarm about his elevation to the patriarchate. However, with support from Severus, with whom he has “concord and communion” and “unity and communion,” he accepts his new office. There follow the new patriarch’s doctrinal confessions, based on the Council of Nicaea and Cyril’s Twelve Chapters. The Henotikon of Zeno is endorsed and the Tome of Leo condemned. In the next section of the letter Theodosius broaches the topic of the incorruptibility of Christ, stressing that his passions were natural, blameless, and voluntary—this is an implicit rebuttal of the doctrine of Julian of Halicarnassus, although that bishop is not mentioned by name. Subsequently Theodosius serves a list of anathemas, which is repeated by Severus in his reply (text 6). Finally, the new patriarch affirms once again his communion with Severus and commends the bearers of his letter—no fewer than eleven of them, including five bishops. These multiple bearers, some of high status, testify to the solemnity and importance of the sending and acceptance of a synodical letter. Severus replied at great length to Theodosius and likewise wrote his response in Constantinople. Thus it is important to note that he took the opportunity in this letter to expound the one-nature christology at some length, under the nose, so to speak, of an imperial administration which to all intents and purposes was publicly Chalcedonian. Severus commiserates with the newly elevated patriarch concerning the difficulties which face him in his new role, before comparing him in exaggerated terms to the Old Testament Aaron and describing how he received Theodosius’s synodical letter, placing it over his eyes in order to study it. The imagery of Aaron continues, which leads Severus into an exposition of rods, branches, and almonds, in order to demonstrate the efficacy of leaves and fruits of virtue. The next



Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church 101

section is an unashamed exposition of the one-nature christology, redolent with scriptural quotations, at the end of which the patriarch of Antioch comes to discuss the blameless passions of Christ and his voluntary embracing of his destiny. Severus refers to the ideas of Julian obliquely, before addressing the topic of false christologies and defending the one-nature position against the dyophysites. A section on anathemas of heretics follows, which mirrors that of Theodosius’s synodical letter, and Severus’s long reply ends with exhortation and encouragement to Theodosius, together with salutations to those with him, and a reference to the eleven bearers who had conveyed Theodosius’s letter to him.

TRANSLATIONS

!

Text 1 First Letter of Julian to Severus After 518

Letter of Julian, bishop of Halicarnassus, to holy Severus, patriarch of Antioch32 Some people have sprung up here33 who, making use of the testimonies of Cyril who is among the saints, assert that the body of our Lord was corruptible. One of these testimonies is found in the Letter to Succensus, where he says: “After the resurrection, it was the same body which had suffered, although there were no human infirmities in it anymore, but rather it was incorruptible from then on.”34 They thereby want to prove that before the resurrection it was 32. Robert Hespel, ed., Sévère d’Antioche. La polémique antijulianiste I, CSCO 244, Scriptores Syriaci 104 (Louvain: Secrétariat du CSCO, 1964), Syriac 6–7, French trans. 5–6, which notes the pagination of the Syriac (CPG 7026). 33. The abrupt start surely means that whoever anthologized Julian’s letter omitted its original greeting and introduction. “Here” probably refers to Egypt. 34. Cyril’s First Letter to Succensus (CPG 5345); in Wickham, Cyril of Alexandria, 80–81.

102   Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church

corruptible, in that it was a son of our nature,35 and that it was only after the resurrection that it received immortality. The other is from the Address to the Emperor Theodosius, where he says: “But it is a glorious thing, and no one of all who exist can but wonder, that the body which was corruptible in its nature rose again.”36 This is what they say, once they have abstracted the testimonies. For my part, it is when I have determined the entire passage and studied its thought from all sides that I elucidate it. Then they brought me Homily 67, written concerning the holy Virgin and God-bearer, in which is found: “The body of our Lord was by no means subject37 to the corruption that comes from sin, but it was receptive38 to what comes of death and burial, and in it [the body] he undid it [death].”39 This, in my opinion, is a folly that comes from transcription,40 and that what was said was not that “it was receptive to what comes of death and burial,” but “to death itself and to burial.” In order, therefore, that what pertains to this dispute may be judged accurately, I have sent to you the things written by myself.41 Test, therefore, what accords more closely with the Scripture spoken in the Spirit, for well I know that this was the course followed by 35. Syriac idiom of this literature for “connatural with us.” 36. Cyril of Alexandria, Oratio ad Theodosium imperatorem de recta fide (CPG 5218); ed. E. Schwartz, ACO 1.1.1a (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1924), 55.31–32. The same quotation appears in Julian’s second letter to Severus, below. 37. The word also means “subdued” and even “enslaved,” and certainly implies necessity. 38. Meaning “agreeable to,” “consenting to,” “accepting of,” and perhaps even “susceptible” and “capable of.” This passage is difficult and gives the impression of being disrupted, as Julian himself goes on to suggest. 39. Severus, Homily 67, ed. Maurice Brière, Patrologia Orientalis 8, no. 2 (Paris, 1911, repr. Turnhout: Brepols, 2004), 358–59; on the contents of this homily, see Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition 2/2, 87–89; Pauline Allen, “Antioch-on-the-Orontes and Its Territory: A terra dura for Mariology?,” in Presbeia Theotokou: The Intercessory Role of Mary across Times and Places in Byzantium (4th–9th Century), ed. Leena Mari Peltomaa, Andreas Külzer, and Pauline Allen (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2015), 181–82. 40. I.e., a scribal error in the transmission of the text. 41. This is the Tome of Julian (cf. CPG 7126), the first work devoted by the bishop of Halicarnassus to the problem of the incorruptibility of Christ. This work survives only in fragments, for which see Draguet, “Julien d’Halicarnasse,” nos 6–49, 46*–56*; cf. Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition 2/2, 80 with n. 190, on the fragmentary remains of Julian’s works.



Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church 103

the Fathers, and write to me that I may know what disposition it is fitting that I adopt, for I do not think it should be said of him that he was receptive to corruption, who did not receive corruption. Pray, then, that our life may cleave to the grace of God.

Text 2 First Letter of Severus to Julian From the patriarch to the same Julian42 When at first I received the letter from Your Holiness, I rejoiced to receive the greeting, according to custom, from one who is dear to me. Since, however, you pressed me to read the Tome that you sent along with it, written by you to those who, as you say, assert that the body of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ was corruptible, and you asked me also to send to yourself, once I had read it, an assessment of the question at issue, I have complied with your request and carried out this task with care, while moving about from one place and another, without enjoying the proper leisure or the other circumstances that might allow me facility in this task. Nevertheless, in the measure that it was possible for one in this situation to write, I wrote down a record of passages that I selected from the teachings of the Fathers, having garnered them from such books as I had to hand.43 For I know, yes, I know that the same question was debated in Constantinople44 and that these passages drawn from the teachings of the Fathers settled the dispute. Well then, in one or another point of what was written by you it seemed otherwise to me, and I found points which, from time to time, were contrary to the teachings of the holy church which give us access to the mysteries. I deferred most fittingly, sending my notes on these subjects to Your Holiness, lest 42. CSCO 244, Syriac 8–9, French trans. 6–7, which notes the pagination of the Syriac. CPG 7026. 43. On Severus’s exile, see further Youssef, “Severus of Antioch in Scetis,” with lit. In his Letter 34 (Patrologia Orientalis 12/2, 276) from exile, Severus similarly laments the fact that his access to resources is limited. 44. Presumably when both Julian and Severus were in the imperial capital before the latter’s elevation to the patriarchate of Antioch in 512: see Draguet, “Julien d’Halicarnasse,” 5.

104   Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church

they confirm those who, not allowing the intention and the inquiry of the words used in this pressing controversy, should say and suppose that my probing of this topic with yourself, even if conducted in an abundance of charity, does not avoid the appearance of strife. Write quickly to me, therefore, what seems good to yourself, for I am prepared to undertake whatever may conciliate Your God-loving Self, because there rings in my ears that saying of the apostle who wisely exhorts us: Do all you do in love [1 Cor 16:21].

Text 3 Second Letter of Julian to Severus From the same to the patriarch45 You wrote to me that it seemed to you otherwise in one or another point of the matters I expounded. These points you ought to have immediately indicated to me in your letter, instead of plunging me into anxiety. I at any rate consider that in all things I have taught the true hominization that is from us46 and that I have been careful to show that these statements accord with those of the Fathers and with each other. For I do not think that anything was declared to be simultaneously corrupt and incorrupt. Yet even if we confess passibility47 of him who by his wounds [Is 53:5] suffered for us all, nevertheless, he also transcended the sufferings, and if mortal, nevertheless we confess that he trampled upon death and by his death gave life to mortals. But since you have only plunged me into anxiety, in that it seemed otherwise to you in one or another point, while you did not inform me what these points were, that I might give an account, permit me to write these things to you. Now what the Fathers have said, whether Athanasius, Cyril, or 45. CSCO 244, Syriac: 10–11, French trans. 8–9, indicating the pagination of the Syriac. This letter has clearly had its original introduction and conclusion culled. 46. Or “becoming human,” possibly “humanization.” The meaning here is that the Son/ the Word truly assumed “the human” from us human beings. 47. Susceptibility to suffering, and even in some sense to bodily and emotional necessity. Impassibility is a divine attribute, so that Christ’s passibility can only be understood in terms of the incarnation, or, as Julian puts it, the “hominization.”



Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church 105

the others, I know to some degree.48 I would like to know also what seems good to yourself. Having studied the intention of the Fathers, I think for my part that they are not in opposition either with themselves or with each other, just as Paul, who said that “salvation comes not from works but from faith” [Eph 2:8–9], is not in opposition to James, who said that “faith without works is dead” [Jas 2:26], but rather, that they manifestly complement each other. Please, that we may be illumined by God and not follow our own will in passion, give us an explanation in a single word and in a few lines, in that disposition in which Cyril who is among the saints wrote: “It is not lawful to say that the flesh that had been united to the Word could ever be united to corruption,”49 and five lines later: “It is something glorious and one cannot but marvel at these events, that the bodily frame which was corruptible of its nature, was raised up.”50 And what is the interpretation that shows that he was not in contradiction with himself, if not that that which by common nature was corruptible, was united to him who bore our sufferings and carried our sicknesses [Is 53:4, Mt 8:17] willingly and not by necessity of nature,51 and who lifted up our sins in his body on the Cross [1 Pt 2:24], when he died to sin [Rom 6:10], that is to say, our sin.

Text 4 Second Letter of Severus to Julian From the patriarch to Julian52 What Your God-loving Self said seemed to me truly astonishing, that you fell into great anxiety when you received my modest note. Indeed I carried out the task that you asked for precisely no other reason, but in every way to bring you no disturbance and no anxiety. For if the scope of what you sent was a simple question and a small 48. An understatement of modesty. Julian is very well versed in the Fathers. 49. Cyril of Alexandria, Oratio ad Theodosium imperatorem de recta fide (CPG 5218), ACO 1.1.1a, 55.31–32. 50. Cyril of Alexandria, Oratio, ACO 1.1.1a, 56.5–6. 51. The anti-Chalcedonian emphasis on the voluntary nature of Christ’s incarnation recurs throughout our translated texts. 52. CSCO 244, Syriac 12–19, French trans. 9–14, indicating the pagination of the Syriac. CPG 7026. On the date, see our introduction to this chapter.

106   Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church

request, I would use few words in writing my reply. But since you composed a Tome of many lines and a complete treatise, and sent it to me to examine, by checking each of its statements according to my capacity, I will plainly tell you my judgment on these points. Indeed, I found several statements which I ought to discuss with Your Holiness. This I have done carefully. Not to play false with you, I will cite a portion of the letter to put you in mind of points at issue. For after you indicated a certain matter that became the object of dispute, you added this: “In order, therefore, that what pertains to this dispute may be judged accurately, I have sent to you the things written by myself.53 Examine, therefore, what accords more closely with the Scripture spoken in the Spirit, for well I know that this was the course followed by the Fathers, and write to me that I may know what disposition it is fitting that I adopt.”54 Having granted space to many words, how do you in a second letter request that I, “in a few lines and in a single word,”55 as you said, should make notes on numerous points which of necessity have need of many words? And as the matter requires, the teachings of the holy Fathers are mentioned, and when I say “of the Fathers,” I say “of God,” who spoke through them. For Holy Scripture has said in a certain place: Is it not the Lord who teaches knowledge and understanding? [Dn 2:21], and again in other places: The Lord has given wisdom, and knowledge and understanding are from before his face [Prv 2:6] and: He lays up a store of salvation for the upright [Prv 2:7]. For if Your Holiness and we ourselves are striving equally to show that these same Fathers are not in contradiction among themselves, then there is nothing to hinder us examining their statements with care, and understanding in what sense they are shown never to be in contradiction either among themselves or with themselves. For you said excellently and rightly that these teachers are not 53. I.e., Julian’s Tome. 54. This is a quotation from Julian’s First Letter to Severus, 5, in the same edition of the Syriac text. Only one word differs between the two texts—what is rendered “test” in the translation of Julian’s letter, and “examine” here. 55. Second Letter of Julian to Severus; see text 3 above.



Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church 107

opposed to each other,56 just as Paul and James are not, with the one saying that a human being is justified by faith without works [Gal 2:16, Eph 2:8–9], while the other writes that faith without works is dead [Jas 2:26]. For Paul spoke of the faith that precedes baptism, which requires only the consent of the whole heart to the confession, without its being preceded by a life of good works, a faith that justifies all that partakes in some way of evil, when in the divine laver of regeneration he confesses his faith that comes from instruction. James, on the other hand, speaks of the faith that follows baptism, that it is dead if one possesses it without works, that is, if one does not confirm it by deeds of justice. For baptism is the pledge of a life ordered to the good. Thus even our Lord was the type for us, who, after he had been baptized by John and had sanctified the waters and inaugurated our baptism, went up into the mountain and entered into contest with the Slanderer57 and undid all his power in advance, so giving us through the type a sign and an image by which we understand that after the divine ablution, works are required and that these are the contests we are to expect and that we must contend in them lawfully [2 Tm 2:5] against the enemy through the proof of virtues. But perhaps someone will retort and say: “Look, Paul also took Abraham as a type of the human being who is justified by faith without works when he says: ‘Well then, they who are of faith are blessed with Abraham the believer’ [Gal 3:9] and: ‘For the one who does not work, but trusts in him who justifies sinners, his faith is reckoned to him as righteousness’ [Rom 4:5]. On the other hand, the apostle James takes the same Abraham as a type of the human being who is not justified by faith alone, but also by the works which confirm faith. How, therefore, do they not contradict each other, and how is the same Abraham the image of faith without works and of that which is with works?” But we can easily draw a solution from the divine Scriptures. For it is the one Abraham who at distinct times is the image, now of one faith, now of the other, of that which precedes baptism and does not 56. Second Letter of Julian to Severus; see text 3 above. 57. The original Semitic term for what was translated in Greek as diabolos, the “devil” in English.

108   Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church

require works but only confession and the saving word by which we are justified when we have faith in Christ, and of that which follows baptism and is linked to works. For we know that the circumcision in the flesh of old was practiced as a type, an image that was fulfilled in saving baptism. By the removal of the foreskin it teaches renunciation and rebirth according to the flesh and makes those who are circumcised into sons of God. It was for this reason that the Lord commanded Moses that he was to speak thus to Pharaoh: “You shall say to Pharaoh: Thus says the Lord: Israel is my first-born son” [Ex 4:22]. It was of this that Paul, too, writing to the Colossians, said: “You have been circumcised with a circumcision not wrought by hands, but through the stilling of the body of flesh in the circumcision that is from Christ, when you were buried with him in baptism” [Col 2:11–12]. It was for this reason indeed that he said that Abraham was justified without works by faith, when before circumcision he was with foreskin58 and presenting the image of the faith that precedes baptism, being given life through confession alone, and not through works. For he said, when he wrote to the Romans: “His faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness. How then was this reckoned to him, when he was in circumcision, or when he was with foreskin? It was not with circumcision but with foreskin” [Rom 4:9–10]. And he did not lie. For he bore witness to the expression of Moses who said that God spoke to Abraham when he had not yet been circumcised: “Lift up your eyes to the heavens and count the stars, if you are able to count them,” and he said: “Such will be your seed. And Abraham put his faith in God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness” (Gn 15:5–6). Conversely, in order to demonstrate the faith which follows baptism, and gives life through good works, the godly James chooses the same Abraham, but him as circumcised and without foreskin. One can learn from the texts whose words were spoken in the Spirit. For it is written: “Do you wish to be shown, O vain man, how faith without works is dead? Was our Father Abraham not justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac as a sacrifice? You see that faith was active in his works, and faith was completed by works, and the Scripture was 58. The Syriac idiom is very concrete: “foreskinned,” which is palliated in English translation as “uncircumcision.”



Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church 109

fulfilled which says: ‘Abraham believed in God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,’ and he was called ‘the friend of God’ ” [Jas 2:20–23, citing Gn 15:6]. It is easy for one who reads the writings of Moses to learn clearly from the Book of Genesis that it was after Abraham was circumcised that he was commanded to offer up Isaac on the high place, that he fulfilled the commandment, and that he was justified by works, again prefiguring in his own person the faith that follows baptism—which is the figurative circumcision—and that justifies a human being through works. For it is written that Abraham and his son Ishmael were first circumcised, and those born in his house, and those he purchased for money from foreign peoples, and that it was afterwards that God tested Abraham and said: “Take your son, your only one, Isaac whom you love, and go to a high country and offer him up there as a sacrifice” [Gn 17:26–27]. Thus, manifestly the same Spirit does not contradict himself now here, now there, who by the apostles and by the ancient writings of the Law spoke concerning faith, of that which precedes baptism and that which follows baptism. The one justifies by simple confession alone without works him who approaches the divine ablution as a viaticum that suffices him for salvation, should he suddenly depart this world. The other requires of one who has been baptized the testimony of good deeds, and it raises him to a perfect state and a lofty dignity. It is therefore most fitting that James says concerning this: “Faith is completed through works” [Jas 2:22]. For Paul, wise in all things, also spoke in a way that accords with these passages. He teaches in another place that faith following baptism has need of being completed by works. For the Galatians, having been baptized and reckoned among the sons of God through the adoption as sons that comes from the Spirit, were turning again to Judaism, having themselves circumcised in the flesh, and thinking in their senselessness that those circumcised in the flesh had some advantage in Christ over those with foreskin. He wrote to rebuke their folly: For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith that is completed in love [Gal 5:6]. Therefore, it is demonstrated clearly from this passage that faith following baptism avails and gives life when it is active through the love that is joined

110   Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church

to it. And what is the activity of love? Again it is Paul who proclaims and says: “Love is patient and mild; love is not envious or unquiet; it does not vaunt itself; it does nothing impudent. Love does not seek its own interest; it is not irascible or devise wickedness; it takes no delight in iniquity but delights in righteousness. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never falls away” [1 Cor 13:4–8]. But in order that these things be rightly guided, they need much sweat and toil; if they are to be life-giving and helpful in accord with our rule of faith, who would dare to dispute? It was for this reason that our Lord himself said: “If you love me, keep my commandments” [Jn 14:15]. Therefore, the divine Scriptures and the Fathers concur in the way they instruct us in the meaning of these passages. This they have already done in writing, in which they teach those who do not read their works carelessly. For as it is written: “All is before the face of those who understand, and straightforward to those who find knowledge” [Prv 8:9]. These things were also my concern in what I sent to Your God-loving Self, in an entirely pure disposition and in the love that is becoming to Christians. But as I am clearly informed from the writings received from various quarters, you have published the Tome which you wrote, not only in Alexandria the great Christ-loving city, but have also sent it to other places.59 Again, it is as one seeking after the love of Christ, God and lawgiver, that I, complying with my soul, deemed it necessary for my part not to publish what had been written by myself; moreover, I wrote to an honorable brother, the presbyter Thomas, to make a copy and keep it with him.60 For I thought, after the investigation that took place between us, that those things which were acceptable to both myself and to Your Holiness, as coming from one soul and one mouth, should not be published. For it was with this intention that I, together with Philoxenus and Eleusinius of holy memory,61 examined occasions and scriptural passages and discourses concerning the faith. Not on one occa59. This is evidence of Severus’s disquiet at the spread of Julian’s ideas. 60. Thomas, a presbyter of Alexandria, was a friend of Severus: see Draguet, “Julien d’Halicarnasse,” 11. 61. That is, Philoxenus of Mabbog (mentioned above) and Eleusinius, bishop of Sasima in Cappadocia Secunda, another adherent of Severus, on whom see Honigmann, Évêques, 114–16.



Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church 111

sion, and not on a second, did anyone at all learn of the things that were lovingly examined between us. Furthermore, by the grace of God, we have persevered in our same views and discourse. For I am not at all conscious in my soul that I, insofar as my weakness allows, have ever put forth writing or discourse for the sake of vainglory or to flatter human beings, but for the sake of building up and accomplishing the Gospel, in accordance with the apostolic law and record. Besides, this is not the moment for us to abandon the fight against the heretics and to give the impression that we are speaking or writing against each other, in accordance with that word of the apostle that applies to us, which says: “But if you bite and devour each other, see that you are not finished off by each other” [Gal 5:15]. Those who fear the Lord ought to flee this with all their strength and to be solicitous only for love, in order that the abundance of peace may be extended over the Israel of God [Gal 6:16]. Greet the brothers who are with you. They who are with me greet you in our Lord. I have finished.

Text 5 Synodical Letter of Theodosius June 535

Synodical Letter of the venerable and holy archbishop of Alexandria, Theodosius, to the blessed Mor Severus, patriarch of Antioch, in the month of June62 [Alarm at His Election]

When I contemplate the apostolic warning and ponder the magnitude of the ministry of high-priest, and with what great virtues anyone who comes to the prefecture of the church is commanded to be adorned [cf. 1 Tm 3:1–7, Ti 1:6–9], I tremble, for I find myself on all sides far from and destitute of all this. For which reason when I 62. DM, CSCO 17, Syriac text 5–11; Latin translation CSCO 103, 1–5 (CPG 7134). The letter can be dated to June 535, when Severus was in Constantinople. See further Van Roey and Allen, Monophysite Texts, 271–72. The headings in square brackets in this document are ours.

112   Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church

consider the bitter gall which the Slanderer63 now pours out upon the children of holy church, I am assailed by the deepest sorrow, as the psalmist sings: “I went down into the abyss of waters, and the whirlpool engulfed me” [Ps 68:3]. Yet again, when I turn over in my mind the great mercies of God—of him who made all things, as it is written [cf. Eph 3:20], and does more than we can ask for or imagine [cf. 1 Cor 2:9], and whose power is perfected in weakness [2 Cor 12:9], who brings indescribable help to his servants through the common and contemptible [1 Cor 1:28] such as myself, since the God of Hosts raised up Your Holiness for us, a staff truly capable of bringing forth apostolic and evangelical fruits, in order that impiety, which is now sprouting like a root of bitterness, should not invade the field of the holy church and make her like the salt land of Sodom and Gomorrah—I am raised to good hopes, and I say: “Why are you afflicted my soul, why are you sorrowful?” [Ps 42:5], with the psalmist-prophet, and I command her to have confidence, that with Your Holiness, after God, to help her, as she strives with prayers and other spiritual and wise helps, the storm that has risen over her will abate when Christ himself, the heavenly Savior, rebukes the raging sea and renders it calm again [cf. Mk 4:39] and pilots the rational calamity64 of the church into the haven of his will. [Taking Heart from Severus]

For who in our generation, O Holiness, stands upon his spiritual watch and is divinely lifted upon the rock of hope in Christ, firm and unshakable, and teaches purely the divine mysteries in the likeness of the blessed and holy Fathers like the venerable person of Your Holiness, so watchful and solicitous? Or again, who now among the high-priests, the great servants and ministers of God, is reckoned like yourself to have prepared and encompassed for himself all the spiritual virtues that manifest symbolically the variety and the excellence of the blessed high-priest Aaron’s entire vesture, redolent as a 63. On this term, see n. 57 above. 64. We might say “irrational.” Theodosius means the severe weather of an eclipse of reason and sound doctrine in the church.



Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church 113

type of priestly service? For the many memorable struggles on behalf of the fear of God that you have fought for so long, no less than our venerable Fathers, I do not address now, but refrain from discussing, lest I be found doing something other than what is appointed to our solicitude. Looking therefore to the great help of God and to Your Holiness’s concord and communion, whence I derive indomitable vigilance, I accept fervently the governance of the holy church and assume, I know not by what inscrutable counsels of God’s judgments, the office of her stewardship, now that our Father Timothy, worthy of holy memory, has departed from us.65 Following in the footsteps of the paternal laws, I compose this letter ordered to peace and concord, which by custom is called “synodical,”66 and at the same time notify Your Holiness of the position in which I am placed and, again, at the same time demonstrate unity and communion with you concerning the faith.67 [Doctrinal Confessions]

I declare, therefore, that I accept the one only symbol of faith that our most illustrious Fathers set forth, the three hundred and eighteen who convened at Nicaea, whose deliberations were directed by the Holy Spirit, the same that was confirmed by the holy synod of the hundred and fifty holy Fathers who gathered in the royal city against those who were impious and contentious concerning the Spirit,68 and the other synod that was convened in Ephesus against the impious Nestorius, over which presided our God-loving Bishop Cyril, glorious among all our Fathers, who by means of the faultless and divinely inspired Twelve Chapters shot down the impudent Nestorius.69 65. Timothy IV of Alexandria (518–35). 66. On the genre of the synodical letter, see Allen, Sophronius of Jerusalem, 47–51. 67. On the continuing influence of Severus even in his exile, see our introduction to this chapter. 68. Namely, the participants of the Council of Constantinople in 381 who refuted the doctrine of Macedonius, the pneumatomachos, regarding the divinity of the Spirit. 69. For the text of Cyril’s Twelve Chapters (CPG 5317), appended to his third letter to Nestorius, see Wickham, Cyril of Alexandria, 29–33.

114   Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church

Together with these Twelve Chapters of our holy Father Mor Cyril, I accept also the book Henotikon of the Churches by Zeno,70 who died with a blessed end, and the repudiation of the synod of Chalcedon and of the impious Letter of Leo,71 while I confess that God the Word is Son according to substance72 of the Father and is before the ages, light of light, truth from truth, the living and hypostatic image of his progenitor [cf. Heb 1:2], embodied and hominized73 from the Holy Spirit and from the holy and ever-virgin God-bearer, Mary.74 But what “hominized” is, to those who hear the word faithfully, confesses in full an understanding of the mysteries. For it indicates that the Word, who by nature is God, truly became human while he remained God and willingly stooped to self-emptying [cf. Phil 2:7], for nothing was omitted of what constitutes our humanity. Instead, he hypostatically united to himself without change the flesh that is of our nature,75 and suffered in our likeness, possessed a rational and intelligent soul, and was assimilated to us in all things, except sin. For “he committed no sin,” as the divine Scripture says, “and no guile was found on his lips” [1 Pt 2:22], since it was just, indeed it was just that the nature that was in Adam be justified and be crowned in Christ with the victory over death. Wherefore the rationale of his hominization was as the godly Paul delivered to us, saying: “Since the sons share in the flesh and blood, he likewise shared in the same, that by means of his death he might defeat him who held the power over death, that is, Satan, and deliver all those who were subject to slavery all their lives long through the fear of death” [Heb 2:14–15].

70. On Emperor Zeno and his Henotikon, see the introduction to this chapter. 71. The (in)famous Tomus ad Flavianum (CPL 1656); text ed. Schwartz, ACO 2.2.1, 24–33. 72. Literally translated. The phrase is the Syriac equivalent of homoousios, “consubstantial” or “co-essential.” 73. I.e., his “being made man/human.” It is a single technical term in Syriac, Greek, and Latin (inhumanatum esse). 74. The same preposition (meaning both “from” and “by”) is used of both the Spirit and of Mary, what otherwise would be nuanced “by the Spirit, from . . . Mary.” 75. Literally, “the flesh, a son of our nature,” i.e., the flesh, co-natural to us.



Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church 115

[Avoiding Two Opposing Doctrinal Distortions]

For if we who have been justified76 are of another nature, then the Word of God assumed another,77 but if he rendered the flesh which he assumed from us and hypostatically united to himself, impassible and immortal from its very union with himself, as certain people impiously dare to say,78 then our faith is in vain. For it would not be a great thing that Satan was overthrown by the Lord, unless Christ himself had not also removed our overthrow by means of his body, son of our nature,79 and apt by nature to suffer our passions that are without blame,80 and death, and did so even though the sting of sin was not blunted, nor the sway of death dissolved. Now if he assumed the seed of Abraham, he was made like us, his brothers, in every respect, except sin [cf. Heb 2:16–17, 4:15], as the wise Paul said, and if through the death that he voluntarily endured in his flesh, which was apt by nature to suffer passions that were without blame and natural, and death, he overthrew him who held the power of death, while remaining impassible amidst the passions, since he is recognized as and is God, then it is right that we glory exceedingly in the victory, because we were freed from the yoke of servitude. Who then would not marvel at the accuracy of the holy books, which steer aright on every side? By means of the same words they both reject the fantasy of Eutyches and of those like him and refute the “separating” and “dividing” of Nestorius. For they [the holy books] say in the likeness of sons that Christ participated in flesh and blood, and lest any of them venture upon an illusion or fantasy, 76. The form of the verb in the text here is anomalous. It appears that an alaph has been misprinted for a mem, which latter is needed to make it a participle, as is here translated. It is also missing a duplicated dalath required in the Ethpa’el conjugation, unless it is an anomalous instance of an Ethpe’el. 77. “Another nature” might be understood, but in these fraught christological arguments it is better to keep exactly to what was written, and not written, even in translation. 78. Julian of Halicarnassus and his followers are meant here. 79. I.e., nature co-natural to us. We note how far Theodosius goes in using the term “nature” of what was assumed by God the Word, subscribing to a fourth-century anti-Apollinarianism, while avoiding expressly using the term “nature” of what was assumed. 80. Once again, we have the anti-Chalcedonian understanding of the “blameless passions” in Christ, a recurring theme in our translated texts.

116   Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church

they say like us [Heb 2:17] in a likeness and in a type, not as suffering like us in a sameness of ousia, excluding this folly by what is added to this with the words: that by means of his death he might defeat him who held the power over death [Heb 2:14]. Again, it strives against those who divide the one Christ into two natures in the likeness of any child. For just as a child is like us, a human being constituted from a soul and a body, and, while it is from two, is one hypostasis and is called one nature, without the soul being transformed into the body or the body changed into the ousia of the soul, so also Christ, who is from two, from Godhead and from humanity, which exist perfectly in the principle proper to each, is one and undivided, there is nevertheless manifest in him without confusion an ineffable unity, as the inerrant teaching of our holy books shows. He who is one of the Holy Trinity, the hypostatic Word of God the Father [cf. Heb 1:3], united hypostatically with himself the flesh, son of our nature and suffering like us, animated with a rational and intellectual soul. For the entire time of the divine plan81 he left it passible and mortal, in keeping with the goal of the divine plan, as was foretold, and since it was naturally apt to suffer, he suffered the natural and voluntary82 and blameless passions, and even death, death upon a cross, and through the wonder of the resurrection befitting God, he constituted and rendered it impassible and immortal and, as a result, wholly incorruptible. For our Father, the wise Cyril says: “He was the first to raise his flesh to incorruptibility and the first to exalt it to heaven.”83

81. Greek oikonomia, i.e., the divine dispensation of the incarnation, translated by us in what follows as “divine plan.” On this concept, see further Gerhard Richter, Oikonomia: Der Gebrauch des Wortes Oikonomia im Neuen Testament, bei den Kirchenvätern und in der theologischen Literatur bis ins 20. Jahrhundert, Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 90 (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2008). 82. The sense would seem to require “involuntary,” but in the text as it stands, the negating particle lo only prefaces the following “blamable.” It could be taken to mean that the natural and involuntary passions of our nature, the Word willingly assumed. The willingness of the Word to assume such passions was a particular emphasis of anti-Chalcedonian christology. See Allen and Hayward, Severus of Antioch, 38, on the Cyrillian and anti-Chalcedonian emphasis on the voluntary nature of the submission of the Logos to the human condition. 83. Cyril, Thesaurus de sancta et consubstantiali trinitate (CPG 5215), PG 75, 405b.



Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church 117

[Anathemas]

Such, then, being my way of thinking, I anathematize the mutations coming from either side that are contrary to the truth and those impious and deceiving men who are the heads of this error, I mean Valentinus, Marcion, Manes, Arius, Macedonius, Eunomius, Apollinaris, Eutyches; also those who babbled and impiously taught that from its very union with the Word the flesh that was assumed from us was impassible and immortal, thereby introducing conjecture and fantasy into the great mystery of the true and immutable hominization of our Lord;84 and again, I anathematize Paul of Samosata, and Diodore, and Theodore [of Mopsuestia], and Nestorius, and Theodoret [of Cyrrhus], and Andrew [of Samosata], and Ibas [of Edessa], and Eleutherius [of Tyana], and Alexander of Mabbog, and Irenaeus the digamist, that is, him who had two wives,85 and Cyrus [of Hierapolis], and John who was of Aegiai in Cilicia, and all who dared to speak against the Twelve Chapters of holy Cyril, together with the defiled and irreverent words that were spoken by them in opposition, and Barsauma the Persian with his corrupt canons,86 and together with all these, the synod of Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo, and all those who said or say concerning the one Christ that there are two natures after the ineffable union, and who do not confess that it was one person and one hypostasis of the Word of God that was embodied.87 84. Julian of Halicarnassus and his followers are probably included in the anathemas at this point. 85. Not two wives simultaneously (“bigamy”), but one who re-married after the death of his first wife. Among Christians this practice was strongly disapproved in the ante-Nicene era, as attested by Athenagoras, Supplicatio pro Christianis 33.3 (CPG 1070), in William R. Schoedel, Athenagoras: Legatio and De Resurrectione, OECT (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972), 80 (text), 81 (trans.): “for a second marriage is gilded adultery.” This principle continued to be applied strictly to priests and bishops, 1 Tm 3:2 and Ti 1:6 being regarded as expressing an essential principle. A first marriage before baptism was not counted. 86. Barsauma was in fact bishop of Nisibis in the last quarter of the fifth century, but he had an important role in the ecclesiastical affairs of Persia. A dyophysite, he received opprobrium from Nestorians and, as here, from eastern anti-Chalcedonians. The canons are those of the Council of Bet Lapat, which were of an ecclesiological and ethical, rather than doctrinal, nature. See Stephen Gero, Barsauma of Nisibis and Persian Christianity in the Fifth Century, CSCO 426 Subsidia 63 (Leuven: Peeters, 1981). 87. The theological confusion and ecclesial tragedy are illustrated by the fact that the last statement, “it was one person . . . embodied,” was precisely the profession of the Council

118   Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church

[Affirming Communion with Severus]

In regard to these apostolic and patristic and divine and irreproachable teachings, O Holy Father of ours, I and all the churches under the authority of the evangelical throne of Alexandria extend to you the right hand of communion. It would be fitting, therefore, if Your Holiness were to comfort us by writing to us in reply, and to help me in my weakness with your prayers and in any other way compatible with the priesthood and worthy of your holy life, which honors Christian charity especially, so that I, with the pastoral staff of the Word, might drive away from the rational flock of Christ the ravening wolves and long repel them all and preserve the flock unharmed as it grazes in the place of doctrinal pasture and grows strong by the waters of repose and is feasted on the food and drink of the spiritual fear of God. Greetings of peace to the brotherhood who are with you; the brotherhood that is with me in our Lord greets you also in peace. To the honor of Your Holiness we ourselves have sent as bearers of our letter: Eusebius, Uranius, Thomas, John, Timothy, God-loving bishops; and Ammonius, Theopemptus, Alphaeus, God-fearing presbyters; and John, Epimachus, Epiphanius, reverend deacons; in whose hands is the remit to convey to Your Holiness in the living voice88 how wholly dependent on your love I am. Here ends the synodical letter of the venerable and holy Theodosius, head of Alexandria, to the blessed Severus, head of the city of Antioch.

of Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo—along with a clear distinction between hypostasis and nature. Theodosius does not use the term “one nature” in this statement, because the use of this Cyrillian terminology is precisely the issue. 88. On the status and nature of letter-bearers, see Allen, “Prolegomena to a Study of the Letter-bearer in Christian Antiquity”; Allen, “Christian Correspondences: The Secrets of Letter-writers and Letter-bearers,” 209–32.



Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church 119

Text 6 Severus’s Reply to Theodosius’s Synodical Letter 26 July 535

Again, the letter of the holy archbishop Severus, patriarch of Antioch which he wrote to the Blessed Theodosius, archbishop of Alexandria, which is also called synodical, in the thirteenth indiction, the month of July, on the twenty-sixth [day]89 [The Sorrows of Your Accession to the Evangelical Throne]

Before I received the synodical writings of Your honored and fraternal Headship, when I was told of your divine designation to the evangelical throne, in one way I grieved over the sufferings that befell you in the cause of the fear of God,90 thus fulfilling the apostolic law that commands and says: “When one member suffers, all the members suffer” [1 Cor 12:26]. But in other ways I also deemed you blessed in that you had tasted immediately the peril of the fear of God and by it were straightened to fortitude in travails91 divinely suffused with the Spirit, through all of which you were brought to birth as a highpriest of him who blows where he wills [Jn 3:8]. He wills where there is law, whereas he withdraws from those who invoke him violently and lawlessly, saying to us in the utterances of prophecy: “When you stretch out your hands, I will turn my eyes away from you, and if you multiply your prayer, I will not listen, for your hands are full of blood” [Is 1:15]. It is no wonder that such things befell you, as also the great Paul, who, as soon as he had come up from the waters of the Jordan, on being baptized by Hananiah, and was beginning the work and the apostolate of teaching, he disturbed, as it is written, the Jews who dwelt 89. DM, CSCO 17, Syriac text 12–34; Latin trans. CSCO 103, 6–22 (CPG 7070 [8]), written in Constantinople. See Van Roey and Allen, Monophysite Texts, 272. The headings in square brackets in this document are ours. 90. By “the fear of God,” Syriac conveys what otherwise appears as “piety” and even “religion” in Greek or Latin. The native Syriac idiom will be retained in translation. 91. The analogy is of the agonies of childbirth.

120   Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church

in Damascus [Acts 9:22]. In order to evade the hands of those who were seeking to kill him, the gates of the city then being closed, he was let down in a basket from the wall and made his escape. He was a fugitive who afterwards became the worker of many miracles and of many prodigies and powers, of which he himself wrote and spoke and showed by the proof of deeds. It was right that he be tested by sufferings, and, as if in the workshop of coppersmiths, be beaten with many prior blows, so fulfilling in his own person the divine testimony that Christ had foretold: “He is my chosen vessel, to carry my name before peoples and kings and the children of Israel, for I myself will show him how much he is to endure on account of my name” [Acts 9:15–16]. We ought therefore to believe that these difficulties that have befallen Your Perfection have been permitted as a testing by the ineffable counsels of heavenly wisdom. Of those who are tested in the midst of struggles of this kind, someone divinely wise has said: “God tested them and found them worthy of himself; he proved them like gold in a furnace” [Wis 3:6]. [Theodosius a True Son of Aaron]

In every way, therefore, it is certain that when the holy bishops stood in the Holy of Holies and laid their hands upon your honored head and with mystical92 and ineffable words bestowed the grace, dispensed from on high, of the Spirit who loves humanity, they manifested you as a son of Aaron, that is, the legitimate heir of a priest who departed and passed over to God, for there is no other way to be vested with the vestments of priesthood, concerning which the divine Scripture says: “The vestment of holiness that is Aaron’s shall be for his sons after him, in order that they be anointed in it, and their hands be consecrated” [Ex 29:29]. On account of this, therefore, even the great Moses, minister of these divine commandments and, as it is written, faithful in all God’s house [Nm 12:7], moved strongly and expressly against the assembly of Qorah—which, although it was of the tribe of Levi and was appointed to serve the ministry of the work of the Tabernacle of the 92. Pertaining to the mysteries, i.e., the sacred liturgical rites.



Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church 121

Covenant, nevertheless unlawfully coveted the glory and honor of the high priesthood when it rose up against Aaron, leading several others and fifties, and acquired Dathan and Abiram as its promoters of effrontery and tyranny, men who were greatly inflated and hoping to gain the primacy in the assembly of the sons of Israel [cf. Nm 16]. Moses, first of all, fell upon his face, imitating his God by humility, and by speaking gently, he opened their minds that they might understand truly that it is not by human power that all who desire it may assume to themselves the headships and the gifts that descend from the Father of Lights [Jas 1:27], for he said: “God will take note who is his, and the holy he will bring him near to himself, and those he has not chosen he will not bring near to himself” [Nm 16:5]. And when he had repeated these words [cf. Nm 16:7], he exhorted them to know their own rank, and said: “Hear me, sons of Levi, is it too small a thing for you that the God of Israel has separated you from the congregation of Israel and brought you near to himself, to minister your ministry in the Tabernacle of the Lord and to stand before the congregation to serve them; and that he has brought you near to himself, you and your brothers, the sons of Levi with you? And so you want to serve as priests, you and all your congregation that have assembled against God? And Aaron, what is he that you should murmur against him?” [Nm 16:8–11]. They, however, were neither put to shame nor persuaded by these wise and well-dispensed words but were caught in the presumption of an inflated mind. Confident in their own hand, they stirred up strife and steered all things their way until the judgment of God was provoked to decision. When the ground opened up, some of those who had risen up in opposition were swallowed up in the fearful chasm and descended alive into Sheol, as the divinely inspired book says, while others became fuel for the fire. Such was the penalty that recompensed their lawless presumption. [As I Received Your Synodical Letter]

As I was turning over and pondering in myself these divine judgments and thoughts on the priesthood, there arrived those who had been sent by Your Reverence to my infirmity, God-loving bishops

122   Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church

and sober clerics, bringing the writings of your teaching that befitted a priest93 and in accordance with a canonical and ecclesial disposition.94 And once I gladly saw and embraced them, I joyfully gave glory to the God of peace, Jesus Christ. I took the writings that you had sent and placed them over my eyes, thinking to myself that in them was yourself, reverend pastor and high priest, as if I were seeing you near to me and fraternally embracing you. And when I was alone and no one was with me—for I often like to sit alone, especially when studying topics of divine realities—the things you had written I read far more with my mind than with bodily eyes. From the import of the things written in the sacred histories which I have just been reciting, I also discovered that this narrative reveals you as a perfect image of Aaron. For when the disobedient and stubborn congregation of Israel—with these and similar terms the God of all would call to them, through these fearful chastisements that overtake us95—refused to exchange their impudence for obedience, but exalted themselves to the divine preeminence of the priesthood, Moses was commanded that from each one of the heads of the twelve tribes96—for into these the whole people was divided and delimited—he was to take one rod and place all their rods in the Tabernacle of the Testimony before the Testimony, as is written [cf. Nm 17:1–4]. These were the Ark of the Covenant, the tablets of stone inscribed by God, and the manna stored in a golden vessel, which plainly demonstrated through miracle, and attested and renewed the memory for these forgetful and ignorant men, the power of God which performed mighty deeds ineffably, for which reason it was called Testimonies, and the Tabernacle in which these were placed, to which the name was likewise given. It was with this same understanding that Paul, when writing to the Hebrews, said: “God bore testimony to them with signs and wonders and with various powers” [Heb 2:4]. 93. In this translation, “priest” translates qohono and its field. In this literature it always refers to bishops. The Syriac qashisho, or “elder,” is here always translated as “presbyter.” 94. A reference to Theodosius’s Synodical Letter, text 5 above. 95. This last clause, “through these . . . overtake us,” has the appearance of a gloss that has crept into the text. 96. The same Syriac word serves for rod, staff, branch, and tribe, whose nuances Severus variously uses. Later he will use it in the sense of “branch” or “shoot.”



Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church 123

[Of Rods, Branches, and Almonds]

Moses, therefore, prepared in mind and the revealer of divine realities and head of the assembly, did as it was commanded him. On the following day he inspected the rods as he had been commanded and saw that the rods of the others were, as in fact they were by nature, barren rods, whereas Aaron’s rod had put forth leaves and budded almonds [cf. Nm 17:8]. In this Emmanuel is prefigured to us, as in a type, that is, the rod of kingship, sprung and born from the root of God the Father, without a beginning and without time, who with him and with the Spirit of Holiness reigns over all who are in heaven and all who are on the earth. But in the last days, for our sake, he was incarnate97 and hominized, without alteration, and again, having sprung from the root of Jesse and of David according to the flesh, whence came Mary the God-bearer, he became our high-priest and the apostle of our redemption. It was for this reason that the rod of priesthood was manifested, instructing us to be vigilant in evangelical discipline and to promote “almonds” in those who believe in him: that is, the leaves and fruits of virtue. For they who investigate these matters say that an almond branch and the almonds themselves bring about vigilance naturally in those who make habitual use of them. And the God of the prophets himself said the same allegorically to the prophet Jeremiah: “What do you see, Jeremiah?” And I said, “I see a rod of almond.” And he said, “You have seen well, because I am watching over my words in order to perform them” [Jer 1:11–12]. For just as in the matter of virtue, the preceding labor and sweat are bitter, while its consummation is light and sweet, so also with the almond. Hardness and sharpness are evident in the external shell, while stored within are the white kernel and nourishment. This branch I have found in your writings, O dear and honored brother of ours, which your vocation to the high priesthood assigns and bestows upon you. For “no one takes this honor upon himself, but instead, is called by God, just as Aaron was” [Heb 5:4], as Paul also 97. Lit. “enfleshed.” We keep here to the Latinate term so standard in christological discourse.

124   Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church

says when revealing to the Hebrews the depths of the writings of the Law. Why, does not Isaiah also proclaim this to us clearly when he says: “A branch shall spring from the stock of Jesse, and a shoot shall grow from his roots, and the Spirit of God shall rest and dwell upon him, a spirit of wisdom and understanding, a spirit of counsel and fortitude, a spirit of knowledge and of fitting worship” [Is 11:1–2]? [What the Scriptural “Branch” Teaches Us about Christ]

For it is he who is the hypostatic Word and the substantial Wisdom of God the Father, the only Son through whom all things were made. Although filled with power and glory and with everything befitting God by nature, and no way inferior to God the Father or to the Holy Spirit, he emptied himself [Phil 2:7], not as migrating from what he was perfectly, for he remained ever what he was, but in such a way that he assumed human limitations by the divine plan and participated in what is our own and became like us in all things, in that he truly became a human, and sprang like a branch from the root of Jesse. Now “branch” signifies also the germination and conception without seed from the holy and ever-virgin Mary. For it was proper to the branch that it should sprout from the root naturally98 and not be generated from coition or the mingling of partners. For God the Word himself, the ineffable power of the Father, as the divine plan of the mysteries in the evangelical books shows, rested upon the virgin and both from herself and from the ineffable coming of the Holy Spirit united to himself hypostatically the rationally ensouled99 flesh. He was united with the constitution of the flesh and with the course of the generations in a way befitting God and beyond all understanding and speech. The existence of the flesh neither preceded nor was comprehended by the mind before the union with the Word. Instead, from the two, from divinity and from humanity, 98. The Greek word for nature is hovering over the discourse here, for the Greek phusis comes from the verb phuo, to sprout, spring forth, shoot. 99. Or “animated.” This is an anti-Apollinarian point.



Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church 125

which exist perfectly in the principle proper to each, there came to be one Emmanuel, the name great and indivisible. Truly great is the deep mystery of the fear of God [cf. 1 Tm 3:6], which shows us that it is to be confessed and firmly believed that God the Word, who is beyond every principality and before all the ages, assumed without doubt the properties of the flesh when he became a human, without alteration, and indeed was that which was conceived and was born after the full time of gestation was complete, yet with no diminution of the immutability of the divine nature, and it shows accurately and truly that the virginity of his progenitrix, the God-bearer and ever-virgin, both in the glory of giving birth and afterward, was not lost, and that the Spirit of Holiness was in him substantially as God and also above him in that he became human, for God, from the very womb, constituted his flesh in the Spirit and hallowed it and united it to him, all these things occurring indivisibly and swiftly at once. All this was openly manifested at the Jordan, when he was baptized with our baptism, not that he needed to be baptized, but rather that he might hallow the waters and lay the foundation of our rebirth and receive the Spirit for us, not for his own person. For all these things were effected wisely and by the divine plan on our account, as the second beginning of our race. Accordingly, it was nothing dishonorable to him when it was said that he received his Spirit, which is taught above all through the prophet Isaiah when he said: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, wherefore he has anointed me” [Is 61:1], as if to say: “Wherefore, the Spirit who is in me naturally, was upon me for a reason, that I might be called the Christ,100 since I had become human.” This was our visitation and the healing of our salvation, which is the next truth it teaches, when it says: “He sent me to bring good news to the poor, and to heal the broken of heart, to proclaim release to the captives, and sight to the blind” [Is 61:1]. Although the Spirit was upon him for human and dispensational reasons, nevertheless he was in him divinely and perfectly, as God in God—not as a portion of operation, as in the prophets. Accordingly the prophetic voice of Isaiah said that he rested upon him in a 100. I.e., “anointed.”

126   Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church

fulness of operation which was numbered sevenfold: “And the Spirit of God rested upon him, a spirit of wisdom and of understanding, [a spirit of counsel and of fortitude,] a spirit of knowledge and of fitting worship, and he shall fill him with the spirit of the fear of God” [Is 10:1]. For the number seven, to the Hebrews, has the meaning of completeness.101 So also John the Forerunner and Baptist and greatest of those born of women [Mt 11:11], said of him in the manner of a prophet: “I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize in water said to me: He on whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining on him, this is he who baptizes in the Holy Spirit” [Jn 1:33]. This remaining on him shows luminously that it was not as something extrinsic, but as his own and as son of his nature102 that he [the Spirit] remained on him. Accordingly it was in a manner befitting God that he himself acted in the Spirit of Holiness and bestowed the gift and the participation of the Spirit [cf. Heb 6:4] upon those who believed in him, and through him performed divine signs, since he was in him substantially, not making use of him by an extrinsic power, as is the operation in the prophets. For he was not like those who accomplish signs in the name of the Lord, but rather that he himself was Lord and God [Jn 20:28]. It was with manifest and royal authority that he said to the leper: “I will, be cleansed” [Mt 8:3], and with a single utterance bestowed cleansing from the disease. He commanded the raging of the sea: “Be still, be quelled!” [Mk 4:39], and wrought a great calm, so that no storm, no tempest was to be seen. This was he who in the beginning circumscribed it with bolts and gates, saying: “Thus far you shall come and pass no further, and here your waves shall be stayed” [Jb 38:11]. In the same way, at another time too, when a storm arose blowing a gale of contrary winds and the boat carrying the disciples and apostles was near to capsizing, he appeared to them walking upon the waters, as if the liquid nature had been made to make his steps dry and no longer apt by nature to flow and disperse [cf. Mt 14:26–28]. He attested the same exalted and divine authority when he cried out to the one dead, wrapped in the bands of the grave-cloths: “Lazarus, 101. Or “perfection,” teleiosis in Greek. 102. “Son of his nature”: i.e., the Son was consubstantial with the Spirit, of the same divine nature.



Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church 127

come forth!” [Jn 11:4] and through a miracle manifested him alive and rising swiftly from the grave. In other examples, he made use of lawgiving, but as one in the honor and manner of God the lawgiver, when he established and put forward the evangelical laws, since it was he who had given the earlier Law with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Accordingly, when he raised us from the preceptor of shadows103 to the mind of evangelical plenitude, he said: “You have heard that it was said of old: ‘You shall not kill,’ and that whoever kills is liable to judgment. I, however, say to you that anyone who is angry at his brother rashly is condemned to judgment” [Mt 5:21–22], and again: “I, however, say to you that whoever looks on a woman to lust after her, has straightway committed adultery with her104 in his heart” [Mt 5:27], “I, however, say to you: Never judge”105 [cf. Mt 1:21], “I say to you: love your enemies” (Mt 5:43). Everywhere he showed through the words that he spoke with divine authority that he was God the Word, one of the trinitarian hypostases wherein is one substance and divinity that is uncreated and transcends all. He reigns over every created thing with the Father and the Spirit, was incarnate and hominized, not changing his dominical106 honor through the diminishment of the divine plan, nor changing, through the vicissitude of the flesh, from being the Word and God and Son before the ages, nor changing the flesh into the substance of divinity, because it is impossible, either that the divinity should be changed into something made, since this would become its nature and thus be named that which it is, nor again, that the flesh which is created should pass over to the uncreated nature, like fluid and liquid bodies which, when they blend in a mixture with each other, depart from their identifiable properties. For the pure, true, and unblended power of the ineffable incarnation allows us to 103. As in the sense of “foreshadows.” Moses and the Torah are meant. 104. What has to be expressed in five words in English is here only one word with an object suffix, abbreviated even from the normal Syriac idiom. It has a very vivid direct sense: he has adulterized her. 105. The Syriac word does not quite mean “judge,” but bring to an end, conclude, contain, limit, terminate, etc. 106. One might translate “pre-eminent, supreme, dominant,” etc., but the adjective derives from the Syriac word for Lord. He did not lose the dignity of the divine title kyrios.

128   Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church

understand in mind the difference of natures and the difference of substance, of those things which are brought together into unity—I mean, namely, the divinity of the Word and the flesh, son of our race and son of our nature,107 which he assumed from the holy virgin Mary and united to himself hypostatically, showing also the undivided mystery when he disclosed the one perfected from the confluence of the two and the ineffable composite.108 Certain too is the one nature and hypostasis of the Word, which was incarnate without alteration and hominized beyond all understanding, being rightly seen as one person and as demonstrating to us by works that he was without alteration both God and a human, one and the same, that is, God who had been hominized and the one who, as God and son of God the Father before all ages, did not disdain to become a son of man, of David, and of Abraham. He was not, however, constituted or known after the union as two natures or two hypostases, but that the one should carry the activities,109 while the other should assume human insults and pains separately. [The Real Sufferings and Sinless Passions of Christ]

For these [distinctions] are the hesitation of the Nestorians, or rather, of the Jews.110 For to us there is one from two natures, as we stated earlier, and one Emmanuel, since these things that exist from the two are without mingling or confusion, for they vary according to the rationale proper to each. They are not divided after the union into a duality of natures, but rather, the same performs without division things divine and voluntarily suffers the passions pertaining to the divine plan, and things human, and all that excludes the defilement of sin, for he committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth [1 Pt 2:22]. Accordingly, when he fasted a forty-day fast on our 107. I.e., the flesh is congenital and co-natural with us. 108. Or compound, or complex. 109. On the Severan understanding of the energeiai (activities) in Christ, see Jacques Lebon, “La christologie du monophysisme syrien,” in Das Konzil von Chalkedon, ed. Grillmeier and Bacht, vol. 1, 553–57. 110. In Severus’s works, Nestorians and Jews are often interchangeable, the implication being that both groups denied the divinity of Christ.



Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church 129

behalf, he accepted by his own will the passion of hunger, allowing room for temptation by the Slanderer,111 so that he approached him and proposed to him: “Tell these stones to become bread” [Mt 4:3], and his other corrosive words of seduction, by which Adam was first undone upon the earth and defeated when he [the Slanderer] made war against God who gives food to all flesh [Ps 135:25], weakening us and making it easy for us to be defeated when engaging such contests. For God not only delivered us when he undid the power of death that had prevailed over us, but he also gave us the door and the way to the blessed life. So, then, he was parched with thirst [cf. Jn 19:28] by divine authority and the law of the flesh, when he yielded to his own flesh in order to suffer what belonged to it, he who had once in the time of his proclaiming the Gospel cried out: “If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink” [Jn 7:37], and at an earlier time, as the spiritual rock in the desert, gave to drink, when Israel was parched with thirst, as Paul did say [1 Cor 10:4]. Thus, in keeping with the divine plan, he also feared. When he, willingly and with desire, came to suffer the saving Cross, he only allowed suffering to approach him in order to change it into courage and through the agonies of the fear of God to make us courageous. The purpose of his voluntary and irreproachable sufferings was nothing other than our own resurrection—we who had sickened and fallen upon the earth, for whose sake he was willing to become a human. It was in order to suffer these things and heal us that he accepted the incarnation. Although he was in essence immortal and impassible as God, he united to himself a body that was naturally apt to suffer and to die, that he might accomplish in act what was needful for our healing and prepare for us the victory over passions and undo the power of death through the resurrection. There are those who say that from the very constitution and union in the womb, our Savior’s flesh was impassible and immortal, and they attribute incorruption to it that is indicated by impassibility and immortality, not only by holiness and sinlessness, and they dimwittedly suppose that they are honoring God by these myths 111. This is to translate exactly the Syriac word, conveyed in the Greek as diabolos (= accuser), i.e., the “devil” in English.

130   Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church

of the imagination, and they deprive us of our healing and drain away the victory over the Slanderer and death, even as they rob him of the glory due to him as physician and savior and benefactor. So they become instead an occasion of wicked blasphemy by all, which pierces us and does not save us. For a body that is impassible and immortal does not assume sufferings and death, but suffers and dies, it is supposed, in a phantom of sleep. If the sufferings are a sham and Emmanuel did not willingly die our death, then by all means his resurrection too is a sham, and everything that pertains to salvation, and the hope of the resurrection that is promised to us is lost, and assuredly we are back again under servitude to death, if we are saved by hallucinations of the night and not by the blood of his cross [Col 1:20], or redeemed, as the apostle has said [cf. Col 1:14], by this divine blood and freed from iniquity. Your Holiness, therefore, said most excellently and fittingly that the body of our Lord and Savior is a son of our nature112 and that he suffered like us the natural and voluntary passions that are without sin. In this way you refute those who dare to say that he suffered in an impassible and immortal body, and you demonstrate that they are strangers to the sheepfold of God, since the rational fold of Christians does not recognize the stranger’s voice [cf. Jn 14:30]. For the branch of Jesse and of David, which is Emmanuel, as we said earlier, sprang from the holy and God-bearing and ever-virgin Mary. The writings of Your Holiness describe him as green and fruitful— since in him there was nothing of the ancient sin that withered our race—in that flesh which was hypostatically united to the Word. For since he was incarnate in flesh of this kind, it was right that he should draw nigh even to death and that the Slanderer who held the power of death should, upon finding that no sin of any kind held him, be vanquished in a just victory and be seen to be voided by the resurrection. This was why he had predicted this warfare of death, when through the impiety of the God-fighting Jews, the Slanderer had imagined that he would get him: The ruler of this world is coming, and in me he finds nothing [Jn 14:30]. For since the branch would be 112. I.e., co-natural. See Theodosius’s Synodical Letter to Severus, text 5 above.



Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church 131

of a nut tree and possessed the activity of divine wakefulness, when he was handed over for burial, he manifested the tomb as a place of incorruption and of wakefulness and of resurrection. For his soul was not abandoned to Sheol, nor did his body see corruption [cf. Acts 2:27, Ps 15:10]. Rather, he himself arose in the flesh, and raised us up by his coming, as Paul explains when writing to the Corinthians [cf. 1 Cor 6:14]. Daniel also, the seer of divine visions, prophesied in this way and said: “And many of those who have fallen asleep in the pits of the earth shall be wakened, some to everlasting life, and others to reproach and everlasting shame. And those who are wise shall shine like the beauty of the firmament, and many of the just like the stars for ever” [Dn 12:2–3]. Again, it is a sure pledge of this hope to consider what the evangelist Matthew narrates happened when the willing and saving death was consummated. For he says: “Many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep arose, and going forth from the tombs after his resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many” [Mt 27:52–53]. Indeed our Lord and Savior himself, as he was walking on the way to the precious Cross and coming with desire to his passion, named himself as the green113 wood (Lk 23:31). To the women who were following him, lamenting and wailing, he answered them and said, giving woe to the Jews who in their insolence were contending with God, that in the future they would suffer things for which there would be no cure, because they did not profit from the verdant and tender green, that is, his sinless dispensation: “Blessed are the barren and the wombs that never bore, and the breasts that never gave suck! Then they will begin to say to the mountains: ‘Fall on us!,’ and to the hills: ‘Cover us!,’ for if they do these things to the green wood, what shall they do to the dry?” (Lk 23:27–31). The Withered Branches of False Christologies

The spiritual interpretations of “the branch” found in your writings are true messages of our salvation and pledges of the resurrection in which we believe. The branch of the phantom that deceives and 113. Not strictly the color “green,” but fresh and moist with sap, “verdant.”

132   Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church

is quickly and pyrrhically114 detected from its messengers of deceit is a withered root incapable of germinating the flower of the resurrection. For that which would give birth to a phantom without a body began with the babbling Valentinus and Basilides, passed by way of Marcion and Mani, and culminated in Eutyches and Julian of Halicarnassus. Likewise withered is the branch of Apollinaris, who amputated the mind from the hominization and declared it removed from the inception of our salvation.115 For if the Word of God assumed flesh and a rational soul from what was ours, but he, as he inanely preached, despised the mind as the governor of the human soul, that which is most precious and great in our fashioning, that in which we are made in the image and likeness of God [Gn 1:27], then we did not receive our healing. For what kind of healing did he bring that was not, as their accounts have it, united?—he who came in order to save us, as the prophet David sang in the Psalm and said [cf. Ps 79:3]. Likewise withered and barren of fruits is the branch of those who divide our one Lord and God Jesus Christ into a duality of natures after the ineffable union. How he is called “one branch” by them I cannot understand. For their construction is futile: something that appears to be constituted in two natures individually, and that assigns the sufferings and the Cross to his human nature apart and the impassibility and actions of the divine signs to God separately. In this way the principle of our hope and our salvation, I mean the resurrection, is limited to the human, whereas we hear from the prophet Jeremiah that it is vain for us to place our hope in the human, when he says: “Cursed is the man who puts his trust in a human being, and makes a son of the flesh his arm; whose heart turns aside from the Lord” [Jer 17:5]. On the contrary, far be it from us to turn our heart aside from the one God and Savior, Jesus Christ our Lord, and to exchange our trust in him for trust in a human being. 114. The word is literally “vainly,” or “emptily.” Severus does not mean that the detection of fraud is a vain exercise, but that it uncovers a hollowness. There is nothing to be found there after all, as in a “pyrrhic” or hollow victory. 115. This is the fourth-century bishop of Laodicaea, Apollinaris, who was widely considered to have denied the human soul in Christ.



Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church 133

[Defending Our Confession against the Dyophysites]

One branch then do we confess: the Word who, without change and not in fantasy,116 was perfectly117 hominized, for he is truly one branch, without division, and it was he who worked divine things in a way proper to God, and willingly and according to the divine plan118 and truly suffered things that were human and gave himself as the redemption for many and suffered in a flesh that was naturally apt to suffer and to die, while remaining divinely in the bounds of impassibility. Moreover, in that in which he was God, he did not change what was immutable or admit a single change. Thus he remained one of the Trinity even as he suffered in the flesh. That the accusation of “theopaschites”119 hurled against us is laughable is shown assuredly by that saying of Paul: “The Lord of glory was crucified” [1 Cor 2:8]. Since the number four is not added to the Trinity, he was the one spoken of divinely and humanly in the divine plan of salvation, because he was truly God and truly human. For if it brings shame and diminishment upon him to be spoken of humanly, it put him to shame from the very beginning of his participation in flesh and blood in our likeness. But it does not bring shame to the physician to set aside his glory in some way and to speak and to suffer something human in order to save and to heal the sick. For in what manner do we understand his self-emptying [cf. Phil 2:7] and his humiliation and his poverty with which he became poor for our sake, although he was rich [cf. 2 Cor 8:8], except as human expressions for the voluntary sufferings undertaken according to the divine plan? For just as we understand the difference between the divinity and the humanity from which Emmanuel exists, so also we understand the difference of the terms used of him in the divine and human ac116. The Syriac here transliterates the Greek word phantasia, although several Syriac terms perfectly fitting the meaning have been used before this point. 117. Meaning that the man he became, without ceasing to be God, was a complete and whole human in every respect: anti-Apollinarian. 118. See above n. 81 on the Greek term oikonomia. 119. The charge was that if, as the anti-Chalcedonians held, Christ had only one nature, the divine, this would mean that the divine nature suffered in the Passion, i.e., that God, whose nature is impassible, suffered as God.

134   Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church

tivities, except that we say that all that is his are of one and the same, that is, of God who was hominized. That we should divide them into two natures we do not accept, since a division into a duality [of natures] also leads by all means to a division of everything. These things the great Athanasius and the wise Cyril, teachers of your rational pasture,120 or rather of the whole sheepfold of Christians under the sky, teach us, for nothing shall fail, as it is written, of what the faithful of Israel purposed [cf. 2 Kgs 20:18 LXX]. For these were faithful dispensers of the teachings of the Spirit, since they were both rich in the prophetic, apostolic, and evangelical spirit. [The Pre-Eminent Witness of the Alexandrian Church]

From these precincts, yes, even from Your Perfection, you have sent us the synodical writings. For from of old such was the honored practice of sound teaching in that evangelical throne. From there, those who were lawfully seated on it would send out festal writings into the whole earth, and along with the indication of the annual feast121 they mingled the clarity and accuracy of the faith, which has been safeguarded even until the present time and which shall be safeguarded and shall flourish in your hands, even unto the consummation of the age. For this reason, if anyone should call your holy church the root of orthodoxy,122 he would not be shooting wide of the goal of truth. For Athanasius himself was unwavering in his teachings and in his struggles on behalf of the fear of God and stood at the right hand of venerable Alexander of blessed memory,123 head 120. I.e., the communion of local churches under his mandate, the Egyptian province. 121. I.e., the dating of Pascha/Easter. These are the Festal Letters of the patriarchs of Alexandria, a custom dating from the third century, in which the writers laid down the dates for Lent, Easter, and Pentecost. See further Pauline Allen, “Cyril of Alexandria’s Festal Letters: The Politics of Religion,” in Studies of Religion and Politics in the Early Christian Centuries, eds. David Luckensmeyer and Pauline Allen, Early Christian Monographs 13 (Strathfield NSW: St Paul’s Publications, 2010), 196–202; Krastu Banev, Theophilus of Alexandria and the First Origenist Controversy: Rhetoric and Power, OECS (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015). 122. Although Syriac has its own idiom for expressing “orthodoxy,” here the word is transliterated from Greek. 123. An anti-Arian, Alexander was patriarch of Alexandria from 312–28 and present at the Council of Nicaea in 325.



Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church 135

of the holy assembly of the three hundred and fifty-three Fathers,124 while he himself was as yet reckoned among the deacons, when with the orthodox pastors and the contestants for the truth he took counsel for the accuracy of the definition of the faith, that it should not be caught by any of the schemes and inventions of the heretics and that it should preclude all additions. For which reason I am wounded in my heart with love of the church that is led to pasture by you and your pastors, and I confess to myself that I am weakened with panegyric upon panegyric. For the writings of the apostolic Athanasius and the most wise Cyril are like spiritual quivers that furnish me with arrows aplenty against all who dare to divide the one Christ in two and also against the error of the preachers of illusion, to publish the poor treatises of my wretched self through the verbal contests of writings, and with the weaponry of ink and pen. It is right, therefore, that we should lay hold of and confess the faith which the praiseworthy council of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers defined, and it is fitting that we inscribe this one definition of our confession on the intellectual tablets of our heart and that we openly proclaim it more loudly than any horn, because it is believed in the heart unto justification, as Paul teaches, and it is confessed with the mouth unto salvation [Rom 10:10]. This definition the synod of the one hundred and fifty holy Fathers also inscribed as its own, and the holy and the ecumenical synod in Ephesus which expelled the impious Nestorius and all those who ran after his error. [Anathemas]

Moreover, let us encircle these definitions like a spiritual fortification and an unassailable wall: the Twelve Chapters of the combatant Cyril, which upholds the order of twelve “branches” by which the spiritual Israel is numbered and established. Each of the chapters, like a divine portal, opens to us the doctrine of the divine hominization and indicates the lawful and sure entry into the church, which the prophet Ezekiel foresaw, when he was mystically rapt in a vision of 124. I.e., the Council of Nicaea in 325.

136   Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church

the temple that was shown to him upon a mountain [cf. Ezek 48:30]. It had twelve gates, in accordance with the number and names of the tribes of Israel. These were, as I infer, the divine teaching of the twelve apostles, which breathe like a sweet, spiritual perfume through the Twelve Chapters of the wise Cyril. For this reason we anathematize125 with our full voice all those who make a boast of speaking against them and those who sowed the seeds of old, that is the tares [cf. Mt 13:25] of the Jewish cult of the human being:126 Paul of Samosata and Artemon who preceded him, and Photinus and Diodore and Theodore [of Mopsuestia], and Nestorius who openly declared the impiety of the others, on account of which his name attached to the heresy, and Theodoret, and Andrew [of Samosata], and Ibas of Edessa and Alexander of Mabbog and Eutherius of Tyana and Irenaeus the digamist,127 him who had two wives, and Cyrus and John who were from Aegiai in Cilicia, and Barsauma the Persian, who not only grew sick with this impiety, but also was zealous in his canons of depravity to debase the purity of the evangelical life128 and was condemned along with his commentaries and his depravity; and anyone else like them. Such as these the divine chapters of our Father Cyril rebuke, which are proclaimed by the entire church of the orthodox throughout the world and which confirm the soul of the faithful, so that all who read them are illuminated with the light of divine knowledge and are not lacking in praise from us. Since the teachers remembered above repudiate the cult of a human being,129 it is right that we should reckon up and anathematize even the Synod of Chalcedon and the blasphemous Tome of the impious Leo of the church of Rome, whom the same synod called a pillar of orthodoxy, since the synod set down a definition of the faith apart from the rule of the God-endued Fathers and divided the 125. The Syriac term also means “putting under the ban or a curse,” or excommunicating. 126. I.e., that can only tolerate Christ as a prophet, or inspired man, which idea Severus assimilates to a Nestorian and Chalcedonian christology of anthropolatry, namely that in worshiping Christ one worships a “human being.” 127. On Irenaeus, see above. 128. E.g., by favoring the marriage of bishops. On Barsauma, see note 86 above. 129. Or the worship of the human, “anthropolatry.”



Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church 137

divine and indivisible incarnation into a duality of natures after the ineffable union, together with their activities and properties, as the Tome itself reveals to those who read it. [The Tome] openly and plainly explains why it is that our one Lord and God, Jesus Christ, is to be acknowledged in two natures. We receive, however, and hold in praise the correct confession of the writing the Henotikon which the blessed emperor Zeno, worthy of praise, announced.130 Moreover, those who wax strong against the true faith through erring on the other side,131 these we also place under anathema, I mean Valentinus, Basilides, Marcion, Mani, Apollinarius, the senseless Eutyches who slipped many times into snares of every kind and became leprous with a permanent and incurable leprosy; and those also who later sickened with the disease and spread the pestilence, when by an impassible and immortal body they strove to disfigure the true and salutary sufferings of Emmanuel as with ulcers and were confounded in their own many ways, as the prophetic word says (cf. Ezek 36:32), since they ignored the unique and upright way of truth, which proclaims one and alone our Lord and our God and our Savior Jesus Christ, who suffered in flesh naturally apt to suffer until he undid death and trampled it down entirely through the resurrection, while, again, he himself was impassible in his divinity, as it is said. Exhortation and Encouragement to Theodosius

When you also, therefore, by continuing in this same teaching with which you began in your first letter of brotherhood and salutation132 and amplifying it with your wise warnings and showing clearly the rendings and misleadings of all the heresies shall build up the whole edifice upon this foundation, which is Christ, then you shall be called repairer of the fences [Is 58:12]. Your care shall be for the middle path, and a man shall not oppress a man, and a man shall not be a stumbling block to his neighbor, or a youth to an elder, or the disreputable 130. On Zeno and the Henotikon, see our introduction to this chapter. 131. I.e., those underplaying or vaporizing the reality of Christ’s humanity. 132. Theodosius’s Synodical Letter, text 5 above.

138   Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church

to the honored [cf. Is 3:5]. And when all these ills have ceased, the light shall shine in the entire virtue of your Israel, according to the prayer of Deborah the prophet who said to God: “Strengthen righteousness in Israel” [Jgs 5:11 LXX]. Even those who have risen up against you, wicked men and nopriests, who speak their calumny with an inflated air, shall perish even until the consummation [of the age]. Of these it is said in the book of Job the just: “The pleasure of the impious is set for a fall, and the mirth of transgressors for ruin. Though his gifts mount up to the heavens, and his sacrifice reach the clouds, when he thinks to himself that he is securely set, then he shall utterly perish; those who once saw him shall say: ‘Where is he?’ Like a dream that has fled, he shall not be found, and as a phantom of the night” [Jb 20:5–8 LXX]. For since they impiously confess the true hominization of the Word of God while they suppose it is a phantom, it has befallen them and again it shall befall them: the things in which a man sins, by them he shall also be chastened [Wis 11:17], as it is written. But as for you, let the fear of God possess you and encircle you as a strong tower from before the face of the hater, concerning which one of the wise has said: “He is great who has discovered wisdom, but he does not surpass one who fears the Lord. The fear of the Lord is more excellent than all things . . . and he who possesses it, to whom shall he be likened?” [Sir 25:10–11 LXX]. Solomon also teaches in Qoheleth that to anyone who fears the Lord, all things, even those that are difficult and have no way out, shall be easy and have their way out. For he says: “He who fears the Lord shall come out from them all” [Eccl 7:18 LXX]. But since you lean confidently upon the head of all good things, which is true faith, you shall stand forever. Neither honor nor defrauding gifts nor the gold being spread about shall prevail with you. The wise man whom we remembered a little before also teaches us this: “All bribery and iniquity shall be blotted out; but faithfulness shall endure forever. The mammon of the unjust shall be dried up like a river, and [vanish] like the great thunder that cracks in the rain; and in the opening of his hands he shall be refreshed. Thus too the iniquitous shall utterly perish” [Sir 40:12–14]. You, however, according to the prophetic word of Isaiah, “shall rule, and there shall be none to speak in opposition” [Is 22:22 LXX], so that “all the house of Israel shall understand that it



Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church 139

is good to follow the Lord” [Sir 46:10 LXX]. Fittingly, this also shall be loudly proclaimed far more by you than by the wise man. [Farewell Salutations]

Do pray, O my beloved brother, yes, even for my deficiency, that it may be adequate to the temptations by which it is continually buffeted, and do fix in your mind on every occasion with dread that word of our Lord which says: “He who perseveres to the end, he shall live” [Mt 10:22]. May this come about for myself, I beg you, by means of your holy prayers. And I, as long as I breathe this air, will never be separated from spiritual union and concord with you in the godly struggles for the orthodox faith. Greetings to the brotherhood which is with you; that which is with me in our Lord sends greeting to you. Those who brought your loving and priestly script I have gladly received: Eusebius, Uranius, Thomas, Timothy, John, venerable bishops; and the God-loving presbyters Ammonius, Alphaeus, Theopemptus; the sober deacons John, Epimachus, Epiphanius; I knew that they were worthy who ministered to your commands so befitting the priesthood. Here ends the synodical letter of our God-bearing father, Severus, to the reverend and holy Mor Theodosius.

Text 7 Theodosius’s Letter to the Eastern Bishops 564 or shortly after133

Letter of the patriarch, Mor Theodosius of Alexandria, to the bishops of the East134 133. This letter gives the background to the preferment of the ill-fated Paul the Black, “the God-fearing abba Paul the archimandrite,” whose election to the patriarchate of Antioch, says Theodosius, is not being discussed openly because of the problem of the unity of the churches. However, Theodosius states that there is unanimous opinion that Paul should be designated as the successor of Peter of Alexandria. Peter III Mongus of Alexandria, the anti-Chalcedonian patriarch of Alexandria in 477 and 482–490, was condemned as a “Eutychian heretic” by Acacius. His Chalcedonian counterparts in the patriarchate were Timothy Salofaciolus and John Talaia. 134. DM, CSCO 17, Syriac text 86–89; Latin trans. CSCO 103, 60–62. This confidential

140   Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church

To the brothers and sons of our ministry, holy in every way, Jacob [of Edessa],135 Conon [of Tarsus], Eugenius [of Seleucia in Isauria], and to the other venerable bishops dwelling in the East, Theodosius. Our Lord and God Jesus Christ, since he is good and the stay of all things, fulfills justly his solicitude for the salvation of all and especially for the perfecting of holy church, for whose sake he poured out even his own blood—who, having died in the flesh, lives now in the Spirit [1 Pt 3:18]. But we should not on that account slacken in our practice of the virtues, presuming by our negligence upon the divine solicitude, but instead put forth all the more whatever is in our power, so that, if nothing else, we may be counted worthy of at least some forgiveness for sins from his goodness. We say these things to Your Reverence, because when our blessed brother and son of our ministry136 who is among the saints, Sergius, passed over to God, we did not cease with much vigilance to ponder many thoughts on his account. We considered not only that we were deprived of his familiar converse, so befitting his priesthood and his way of life—for it was enough to cause us deepest distress to which we are no stranger—but also the state of things that now prevails among the holy churches and our old age and the poor health of the body. I tell you truly that the sleep fled from my eyes, as the admirable Jacob somewhere said [Gn 31:40]. For it has not escaped you, honored brothers, that after they have toiled through such vicissitudes of the day as these, human beings are wont, even in the sweetness of tranquility, on many occasions to intensify their many and great anxieties, like him who sings in the Psalm: at night I pondered in my heart and my spirit investigated [Ps 76:7]. Indeed from that time until now I have been blown about hither and thither, and it was not granted me to calm my reckoning. For when I looked at my hair, I saw that it was white and ready for the reaping, or again, when I considered the weakness of the body and how the Christ-loving city letter (CPG 7139) can be dated to 564 or shortly after: see Van Roey and Allen, Monophysite Texts, 275. 135. Surnamed “Baradaeus,” from whom the eastern anti-Chalcedonians received the name “Jacobites.” 136. I.e., who shared his ministry, his predecessor. See our introduction to this chapter.



Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church 141

of the Antiochenes is now widowed of her reverend and lawful shepherd,137 my soul was all but undone to death in expectation of the fearful coming of Christ and the judgment to follow. Yet again, when I considered the dilemmas in which I found myself, and whether it was right that they be committed to writing or not as a means to the profitable direction of the community, I was held back not the least by the same fearful weakness, lest perhaps when this became known, it should be a cause of persecution and death and other afflictions for many. From that point on I took refuge in the words of the blessed Susanna: “I am hemmed in on every side” [Dn 13:22], I would say and would call upon the help of heaven. But now my son, the God-fearing abba Paul the archimandrite,138 is being sent by us on visitation to his holy brotherhood. We had considered there was no necessity to write down anything concerning our dealings with the heads of these churches—who at another time would have otherwise sought us in the city itself. Imagining, however, the malice of many, we thought it necessary that by means of the true love of the compassion of God that is in him [Paul], we might write to Your Reverences and disclose our thoughts. For he has the ability by the grace of God—the compassion of God that is in him—to speak in our place and to go through with you lawfully and canonically, because of the suffering of which I spoke earlier, all that is now being discussed secretly concerning the unity of the holy churches of God. Along with these brief writings of ours, we are sending the writings to the Armenians,139 while we pray to Christ, the giver of all good gifts, that not according to the multitude of my sins, but of his compassions and the magnitude of his grace he may present before you all these things that are proposed, through the prayers and supplications of the holy God-bearer Mary and of his saints from all eternity. Amen. 137. That is, the hiatus before the appointment of Paul the Black. See our introduction to this chapter. 138. On Paul the Black, see our introduction to this chapter. 139. On this communication to the Armenians, see Van Roey and Allen, Monophysite Texts, 275 with n. 7.

142   Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church

We also inform Your Holiness of this: we sought to send to Mor Conon himself in regard to these proposals being put forward, but the God-fearing Athanasius objected,140 saying something that especially impressed us, that it would be expedient if His Reverence came straight here and that we should ask Mor Eunomius and secretly send him, since he is exempt from the things said of Mor Conon by the God-fearing man.141 All are of the opinion that he should be designated as the successor of the glorious Mor Peter,142 as it was even the custom for him to go forth every year and after a little while to tour for some days.143 I urge you then, that when Your Reverence reads this letter of ours, return it to him who for a long while has been called archimandrite.144 Pray for us and greetings to the brotherhood of Christ that is with you. The hand of the pope is applied to this.

Text 8 Letter of Jacob Baradaeus to Conon and Eugenius c. 568145

Copy of the writings that were written by the holy Mor Jacob to the holy Conon and Eugenius146 Your147 Holiness wrote accurately that the things that have be140. A monk and the grandson of Empress Theodora. See the introduction to this chapter. 141. In other words, Conon and Eugenius did not agree on the suitability of Paul. 142. Peter was an aged deacon, elected to the patriarchate of Alexandria for a short time. See Honigmann, Évêques, 201–2. 143. The meaning appears to be that Paul was already exercising a pastoral role in the patriarchate of Antioch. See Honigmann, Évêques, 206. 144. This is presumably the archimandrite Paul the Black. 145. This is Jacob’s letter to the tritheist leaders Conon of Tarsus and Eugenius of Seleucia (Isauria), begging for an end to strife and foreshadowing a meeting to effect conciliation, without which “bitter things shall befall us.” Jacob refers to the inviolate nature of Theodosius’s canons and to the agitation about tritheism in Alexandria and elsewhere. 146. DM, CSCO 17, Syriac text 185–86; Latin trans. CSCO 103, 129–30 (CPG 7175). See further Van Roey and Allen, Monophysite Texts, 287. 147. Plural, although much of what is plural in this letter may be actually dual in its reference.



Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church 143

fallen us at this time are worthy of tears and wailings. That our own sins have provoked God’s anger is certain, but that those who have caused these evils for us shall not escape judgment,148 our Lord has said: “It is necessary that scandals should come, but woe to the one by whom the scandals come” [Mt 18:7]. I, at any rate, even if unworthy, pray to our Lord Jesus that he may spare our poverty and grant insight to you and to those rising up against you, and that you may in love even at this late stage come to an agreement and put an end to the reproach that has caused us such suffering. For if we are commanded to love our enemies, and to pray for those who wrong us [Mt 5:44], what excuse shall we have who make war against our own? But since we see that each of you makes everything the reflection of his own thoughts in his zeal to win the wicked victory, I had no wish to write to you at all. But in order not to cause you greater sorrow by my long silence, I make use of these brief writings. I ask for your peace in our Lord, and I entreat you by the mercies of God: spare his church and my old age and your own self! And if you cannot reach a unity in love with your opponents, then depart from there, the two of you, and come back to the places to which you were called. And when you come, let it be said that we shall discover ourselves in common cause with the help of God,149 and we hope that our Lord shall grant a stay to this abyss that is coming upon us and make the scandals cease, because of his mercy. But if you do not consent to do this, many bitter things shall befall us, and again, the evils shall grow much worse, and what answer shall be given for these things does not escape you. It behooves you, therefore, to be persuaded of this, that nothing done by him who is among the saints, our Father and pope, Theodosius, can be shifted or shaken in any way whatever from the order of the canons. But what is being said on this matter, which, due indeed to Your Reverence, is greatly agitated everywhere in Alexandria and in other places, you will learn when you come. If I had not restrained those 148. It seems that Jacob’s addressees are implied. 149. The sentence thus far seems disrupted, a feminine “it/she shall be said” being difficult to integrate.

144   Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church

who closely scrutinize your affairs, perhaps they would have kept silent and not commemorated your names150 in the divine ministry. Ask peace for me of all who are with you, even as I impart our peace to each of you by his name. And pray that our Lord may conciliate our affairs for the sake of his great grace.

Text 9 Letter of Jacob to John, Eunomius, Stephen, and Longinus c. 568

Jacob Baradaeus addressed this letter to Bishops Eunomius of Amida, Stephen of Cyprus, and Longinus of the Nobades. Claiming “I tear at my very heart over the hammering of the church of God,” Jacob requests the addressees and their adherents to forgive the tritheist Eugenius of Seleucia and his followers and to unite with them, “lest there be another schism in our day.” Jacob accepts all that Theodosius did, namely the condemnation of tritheism and the consecration of Paul the Black. Again, by the same holy Mor Jacob to the venerable bishops John, Eunomius, Stephen, Longinus, and to those with them151

At the outset of my letter, my brothers, I ask your peace in the Lord. I confess that due to the distresses that have come upon me, at this time I have remembered the prophet Jeremiah and taken into my mouth the lamentations which he wailed over the sons of the people and over Jerusalem, when they were led captive and left for Babylon. Now if he was afflicted over captivity in the order of the senses, how much more ought we to weep and to wail over the rendings and the outbursts with which we assail each other, that have 150. A major form of attesting ecclesial communion was the solemn rehearsal in the qorbono or diptychs of the names of approved bishops, as we noted in relation to the Acacian Schism in chapter 2. 151. DM, CSCO 17, Syriac text 187–89; Latin trans. CSCO 103, 130–31 (CPG 7176). See Van Roey and Allen, Monophysite Texts, 287–88.



Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church 145

sprung up in our days? I call on God as the witness of my soul, that there was never in me anything of complaint or sorrow concerning anyone of you; I did not write to you before this. Far be it! But I am overwhelmed with great and mounting sorrow, and I am poured out in my mind and my thoughts, and I tear at my very heart over the hammering of the church of God. Such are the evils and bitter seeds that the Evil One has been diligently sowing in her, so as to divide her members and stir up her children to fight against each other until they become the reproach and laughingstock of their enemies. Well then, my venerable brothers, if the sons of Israel mourned over the tribe of Benjamin fallen by the sword [cf. Jgs 21], how much more ought we who are Christians cry out to God with our whole soul and our whole heart and our whole mind, lest a single one be left to perish or that anyone of those who are orthodox should be a scandal. I therefore exhort your true love to overcome evil with good [Rom 12:21]. For it was said by one of the Fathers that it is impossible to conquer evil except by good. But this is also true in our case: evil is not expelled by evil [cf. Mt 12:26–29]. And again I exhort you that if there is some reluctance or passion between you and the followers of Mor Eugenius,152 forbear one another and forgive for the sake of our Lord. If in truth they were caught by heresy, and if they allow themselves to renounce the same, then be united with them, lest there be another schism in our day. Let Your Holiness therefore know this, that whatever we have received and learned from him who is among the saints, Pope Theodosius, whether in the form of teachings or canons or ordinations, we jointly declare. All that he left to us we confirm and accept, as of one of the Fathers and teachers of the church who preceded him. In like manner we receive and carefully lay up what was pleasing in the divine trial of the holy and blessed son of our ministry, Paul the patriarch.153 And we also avert our face with all our strength from the heresy of three gods and three substances and also from the oth152. This was Eunomius of Amida, one of the consecrators of Paul the Black. See further Honigmann, Évêques, 206–7. He has already been mentioned in text 7 above. 153. On Paul the Black, see the introduction to this chapter.

146   Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church

er heresies which have from time to time straitened and contended mightily with the church of God. Ask the peace of all our faithful brothers in the Lord: Mor John the archivist,154 and Mor Andrew the treasurer,155 and Mor Isaac the grammarian,156 and Mor Peter, and Mor Eudaimon the ex-eparch,157 and Mor John the relative-in-law of my lord Antipater, and the lady of Antipater who is, I say, his adornment in every way, and my lady Juliana, and my lady Maria the eparchissa,158 with all those who in the Lord complement you and them. All those who are with me, and Zacharias and Sergius, assuredly ask your peace in the Lord, and the glorious Mor John of Beit Maita.159

Text 10 Letter of the Eastern Bishops to the Bishops in Constantinople160 c. 568161

Letter written by the orthodox bishops of the East to the orthodox bishops dwelling in Constantinople162 To our lords, the all reverend and God-loving brothers who dwell in the imperial city: [from] Theodore, John, Stephen, Ptolomaios, Elishah, Paul, Sergius, and John the lowly. 154. Or record-keeper, lit. “chartularius,” who looks after documents. 155. The Latin equivalent is “prefect” or “procurator.” 156. The Latin equivalent is “governor.” 157. The eparch is high official of a province. 158. The wife of an eparch, or less likely some role of female headship. Such roles in the church might be more likely to have a title of “deaconess.” 159. Location unknown. 160. DM, CSCO 17, Syriac text 187–95; Latin trans. CSCO 103, 131–36 (CPG 7193). See Van Roey and Allen, Monophysite Texts, 288. Section headings in square brackets are ours. 161. The eastern bishops put themselves in the tradition of Athanasius, Basil, the Gregories, Cyril, and others down to Severus and proclaim the witness of Theodosius in refuting tritheism. They include an extract from his Theological Discourse. Next they adduce the witness of Basil to orthodox trinitarian teaching, before denouncing the subtlety of the tritheists. Tracing their own doctrinal pedigree from the apostle Peter down to Sergius of Antioch and Anthimus of Trebizond, they accept everything done by Theodosius and offer their own confession of faith. Apart from Jacob Baradaeus there are eleven episcopal signatories to the letter, who request that the addressees in Constantinople subscribe to its contents. 162. The headings in square brackets in this document are ours.



Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church 147

[The Doctrinal Foundation of the Fathers]

Our holy Fathers, who purified the seeing eye of the soul through the practice of philosophy and kept watch over the rational flock of Christ with a shepherd’s direction, averted from it through consummate vigilance every kind of bestial and abject wickedness of corruptive and heretical teachings and preserved it unharmed from the ambushes of robbers. For day by day they built upon the foundation of the church in the likeness of the godly apostles, not with wood, hay, and stubble [1 Cor 3:12], which are the corruptive teachings of the heretics and worthy of the fire that is never extinguished [Mk 9:48, cf. 1 Cor 3:13], but with gold, silver, and precious stones [1 Cor 3:12], glorious understandings and teachings that impart the light of truth, bedazzling all that is under the sun with illumination through their reflective rays. Such were the godly leaders and teachers of the holy church of God, Athanasius, Basil, the Gregories, Cyril, and others like them, up to the blessed Severus. For these were the pillars and the foundations, after the godly apostles, of the church of God. They educated us to adore and glorify fittingly one God, that is to say, one Godhead and substance and nature, in three unconfused hypostases and persons. They also uprightly and blamelessly delivered and taught what concerns the incarnation and hominization of him who was one of the very Holy Trinity itself: God the Word. [The Witness of Theodosius]

He who is among the saints, our Father Theodosius, bishop of the church of the great city of Alexandria, received their faith with one accord, and their struggles on behalf of the truth, and at the same time also their high priesthood. He cast out anything of separation and division, of a number of substances and natures, of Gods and Godheads in the Holy and consubstantial Trinity, that would corrupt simple souls like a sickness.163 For the sickness at work in bodies that comes from the divine wrath engenders heresy in souls that stray from the truth. 163. Yet another reference to the tritheist controversy, on which see our introduction to this chapter.

148   Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church

When God willed to remove this same sickness from human souls, he roused our reverend father mentioned above and bestowed eloquence in his mouth, so that he refuted the error of heresy and, having it stripped it of all its cover, showed it to be the offspring of pagan polytheism, that we should in any way profess a plurality of substances or natures in the Holy Trinity. The goal of his discourse and the reason for his writing it, he noted in the prefacing inscription, where he said: “That it is right that we do not confess a number of substances or natures in the Holy Trinity, but that one of the Trinity, God the Word, was incarnate, and that neither the Father nor the Spirit of Holiness was incarnate.”164 In the likeness, therefore, of the city conformed to its laws through the testimony of the holy Fathers that it has ratified, the blessed one himself, like a true combatant for the truth, submitted these words in his discourse: “Such things were said by us as an exposition of this: that we adore and glorify one God in one substance and in one nature, yet in three hypostases; and it is right that we admit nothing of number, defined or undefined, into the Godhead, that is into the substance and into the nature of the holy and consubstantial Trinity, except that alone which defines what concerns hypostases and persons.”165 [The Witness of Basil]

And when he had brought many things into public view166 in order to nullify and admonish the error of those who blaspheme against the Holy Trinity with just such a number introduced by them in their haste—whether of substances, natures, gods, or godheads—he cites the exposition of the godly Basil from the letter to the much-praised Amphilochius.167 Just as in ancient times when Moses spoke to the 164. Theodosius, Theological Discourse, in Van Roey and Allen, Monophysite Texts, 148.1–5 (text) and 222.1–4 (trans.). 165. Theodosius, Theological Discourse, in Van Roey and Allen, Monophysite Texts, 159.319– 24 (text) and 231.302–7 (trans.). 166. Lit. “into the middle,” possibly a translation of the Greek legal term εἰς μέσον. 167. We have not been able to trace the following citations from Basil to a precise source. The nearest is Basil’s On the Holy Spirit, addressed to Amphilochius of Iconium, where in chapters 17



Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church 149

sons of Israel concerning what they should do, and again when he established the laws, he called on heaven and earth as witnesses to the truth of the things said, so likewise that teacher and legislator of the church of God that is with us called as witness against us all, not those things, but the maker and creator and Lord of heaven and earth himself, our Lord Jesus Christ, in order to persuade us and confirm the things, speaking thus: “Now that you have heard these few things from the many teachings of the Fathers, we are bold enough to bear witness before our Lord Jesus Christ, that you henceforth avoid all number of whatever kind, whether defined or undefined, in regard to substance or nature, of the Holy Trinity, as is nowhere at all permitted by those approved to make offering in the mysteries, except what is introduced by them concerning the hypostases alone.” And again, a little later: “It is right therefore that we do not receive any number into the divine substance and nature, nor introduce a plurality of substances into the one and indivisible Godhead in Trinity. If however it is discovered anywhere that a number has been named by the holy Fathers, we receive the same concerning the hypostases.” [The Subtlety of Opponents]

Since, then, the introduction into the Holy Trinity of number, defined or undefined, or any plurality of substances or natures, is rejected by our blessed father Theodosius, and since it is right, he says, that nothing of number in the divine substance or nature is to be admitted, and again, since it was judged unfitting by him that we naively allege substances and natures of it, if any sort of number lingers with those who dare to allege substances or natures, or Gods or Godheads, concerning the Holy Trinity, let them speak as those who are wise in vanities and as fighters against the church. But they have nothing to say. Clearly, therefore, they are the kind who concoct for themselves an appearance to deceive the simple and who bring the name of him who is among the saints, the pope, to and 18 he discusses “number” in the Trinity, especially at the beginning of chapter 18, subsection “46” (CPG 2839); PG 32, 144–53, esp. 152A–153A.

150   Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church

their mouth, and put on a face to say that they receive the treatise that exposes the heresy of a plurality of Gods and a plurality of substances, although in reality they are its enemies and antagonists. We are weary of their maneuvers. What need is there for us to say more to you, our brothers? [Our Heritage and Our Confession]

We for our part cleave to those who were appointed by God from the beginning as shepherds and teachers of holy church, from Peter, who we say was head of the godly company of apostles, up to Sergius and Anthimus.168 Of that number who are with us is our thrice-blessed father, Theodosius. We receive everything done by him in the holy church of God that is with us, or that had his permission, from the first day of his ordination even to the consummation of his life, whether in canons or in ordinations or in directions given or in any other matter he was seen to do or receive—and not only that, but also [we receive] the signatures by hand of the God-fearing clerics who dwelt in the city and of the others from his holy synod, against those who grew sick with the heresy of a plurality of substances and against the heresy of those who say that the Holy Trinity was incarnate through one of its hypostases, which [signed document] was given to His Beatitude. We make it known and manifest to all who are in accord with the precious body of the holy church of God, our brothers, and those who love the Lord, that we who, by the grace of God are in good mind, stand firmly upon the rock of the upright and unshakable faith of the holy Fathers. Wherefore, even as we confess one God and one Godhead in three hypostases or persons—not three Gods, not three Godheads, not three Gods in some sense, not three God168. Anthimus, originally a dyophysite of Trebizond, took part in the conversations at Constantinople in 532, at which Severus was present. After his election as patriarch of Constantinople in 535, Anthimus became a follower of Severus, together with whom he was deposed and excommunicated by imperial decree in 536. This explains his inclusion in the doctrinal pedigree of the authors. See further Ernst Honigmann, Patristic Studies, Studi e Testi 173 (Vatican City: Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana, 1953), 185–93; Van Roey and Allen, Monophysite Texts, 61–62.



Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church 151

heads in some sense—we do not consent to think or to speak or to teach three Gods or three Godheads, or “Gods” and “Godheads” of any sort, nor, accordingly, shall we who have been redeemed by the precious blood of Christ our God ever change. Thus do we adore and glorify the one substance and nature of the holy and adorable Trinity in three hypostases. We confess therein not three substances or three natures, not three substances in some sense or three natures in some sense, neither substances nor natures, neither substances nor natures whatever, since such are the theogonies of pagan polytheism. To say or to think that there is one and another Godhead, or again, one and another substance, or one and another nature in regard to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and not to confess one and the same Godhead and substance and nature in the three hypostases, we condemn as the high hand of blasphemy. For these are the spumes of the book now being miserably circulated of the vainly industrious and polytheistic grammarian, John.169 And that it should be said that the Holy Trinity was incarnate through one of its hypostases, or again, that it is one hypostasis with three names, in the likeness of him who was lawfully anathematized by the church of God, Sabellius,170 we apply the same condemnation. To speak in brief, all who think or speak or teach in their likeness, and who through these adverse and heretical teachings attempt to kiss their neighbors the dregs of wrath [cf. Is 51:22],171 thus fighting against the upright and uncontaminated faith—which from above and from the beginning was delivered through the Scripture spoken in the Spirit and through the teaching of the holy Fathers to the church of God—and those who blaspheme against the Holy Trinity, we separate from the holy church of God that is with us and alienate from the holy communion and ministry that is with us.

169. On John Philoponus, see the introduction to this chapter. 170. The third-century Sabellius was regarded as an exponent of patripassian monarchianism and thus, as here, as denying the identity of the Trinity. 171. Such is the elliptical, vivid image as it appears in the Syriac: to kiss one’s neighbors and to pass over to them the dregs/sediment/lees of wrath thereby.

152   Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church

[Invitation to Signatories]

We therefore invite and persuade all our reverend brothers who love the communion that is with us to apply their hand in order to make it known and manifest to all who love the Lord that we all think the same, that we are all sons of a mind together, and that we all run together in the same upright and unswerving way. For, this being the case, may peace and blessings henceforth receive us, of which the chief and greatest is the unity of the holy churches of God and beloved of God. May it be the care of our compassionate and Christ-loving lord emperors. The hand is applied of: Jacob the unworthy, consenting to and embracing all the proposals, that is, the apologia laid out in this letter, which has been read out before me, that it contains such as accords correctly with the apostolic doctrine of our holy Fathers, I subscribe with my original hand; Theodore the unworthy, likewise; John the unworthy of Asia, likewise; John the unworthy, likewise; John the unworthy, likewise; Sergius the unworthy, likewise; John the unworthy, likewise, through the reverend Mor Sergius; Stephen the unworthy, likewise; Longinus the unworthy, likewise; Ptolomaios the lowly, likewise; Elishah the lowly, likewise; Paul the lowly, likewise.



Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church 153

Text 11 Letter of the Anti-Chalcedonian Bishops to the Faithful172 Probably 569173

Letter Written by the Orthodox Bishops to the Orthodox of the Various Provinces174 To the wholly reverend and God-loving fathers and brothers, the bishops, the presbyters and archimandrites, and the rest of the God-fearing order of clerics, and the sober monks, and to the congregations of the faithful: [from] the lowly Jacob, Theodore, John [of Ephesus], John [of Chalcis], John [of Seleucia in Pieria], Sergius [of Haran], John [of Saura], Stephen [of Cyprus], Ptolomaios [perhaps of Laodicaea in Phrygia],175 Elishah [of Sardis],176 Longinus [of the Nobades], Paul [of Aphrodisias]. [Scriptural Exhortations to Unity]

Forasmuch as the godly apostle has said, honored brothers, that we are all one body in Christ, in which everyone of us is a member, one with another [Rom 12:5] and that when one member suffers, all the members suffer with him [1 Cor 12:26], and assuredly because of the cleaving to 172. This letter is addressed not only to bishops but also to presbyters and archimandrites, the clergy, monks, and the anti-Chalcedonian faithful in general. The writers are Jacob Baradaeus and eleven other bishops, who begin by quoting scriptural passages on the topic of unity. The writers’ concern is once again the tritheist controversy and they describe the many attempts they have made to have Bishops Conon and Eugenius listen to their appeals for unity, including censure, anathemas, and even an encyclical letter. Jacob and his fellow bishops then quote from a letter sent to Conon and Eugenius which describes the machinations of the devil to “provide scandals and . . . arm brothers against each other.” Jacob subsequently met Eugenius in Callinicum, where the former tried to put an end to the “scandal” of tritheism, then in Constantinople and Gerbediso—all to no avail. Jacob and his fellow bishops make a final appeal, which is in fact an ultimatum to the effect that the tritheists have a deadline for renouncing their heresy and returning to communion. All the addressees are urged to separate from the tritheists. 173. See Van Roey and Allen, Monophysite Texts, 288–90. 174. DM, CSCO 17, Syriac text 196–204; Latin trans. CSCO 103, 136–42 (CPG 7194). Section headings in square brackets in this document are our own. 175. An opponent of tritheism: see Honigmann, Évêques, 114–231. 176. Honigmann, Évêques, 231.

154   Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church

one another of those who inscribe one head over them, Christ, we deemed it necessary to bring to your knowledge the distresses that at this time have come upon the holy church of God that is with us, that perchance you may also suffer with us in our prayer177 and you may guard yourselves against those who perhaps come to you, in the Lord’s expression, in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves [Mt 7:15], lest by pleasant words and guile they beguile the hearts of the simple. Over these events, our brothers, we groan and shed many tears, and in our pain cry out unceasingly: “Who will give to our head waters, and to our eyes fountains of tears, and we shall weep over our devastation day and night?” [Jer 9:1]. “For we have become the mockery of our neighbors, the laughingstock and scorn of those who surround us” [Ps 78:4]. For behold, those who declared that we should meditate on the commandments of the Lord and rehearse the law of his upright teachings of truth to the rational flock of Christ our God have mightily undermined them. They have endeavored to lead the flock up mountains and hills and into such places that the heavenly [pastor] has not approved by associating themselves with those who have introduced a trinity of gods through a number of substances and with those who have studied how to undermine the abolition and condemnation of this kind of heresy that was enacted during the life of our blessed father and head of the bishops of the great city of Alexandria, Theodosius. [A Long History of Appeals]

Many times therefore and for a long time [we made appeal]—for behold, the space of three years has passed since we began, both in the living voice and by writings, to admonish and persuade the good Conon and Eugenius, whom because of just such activities of theirs we could not call ours—that they consent to those things that were already enacted well by our remembered father, Theodosius, in the holy church of God that is with us, and that they persevere in them 177. The text here is incoherent. The basic ideas are “your suffering with us” and “our prayer.”



Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church 155

and that they not receive the vain rumor of those who would twist the upright ways of the Lord. But they did not consider or accept our appeal. It was not only we who acted so, but also the God-loving archimandrites and the heads of the dwellings of the holy monasteries of the East. For such things—and they were violations—were often committed by those in the imperial city against the ordinances both written and unwritten. And of these matters which, through applications of the hand178 and censures and anathemas and communions, were manifest to everyone, we did not suppose it necessary to speak many words. But finally, after all these things, we composed an encyclical letter exposing the error of the heresy,179 and we asked them, through the Christ-loving and glorious patrician Harith180 and the God-loving men fitted to greatness, who were found with him, that they put their hand to this. We did not181 make mention of what was done by those lawlessly and uncanonically against the sound faith and our holy and blessed father Paul and other reverend men to the disturbance and scandal of the holy church of God that is with us, and we did not182 make appeal, as the letter sent by some of our circle shows, which is word for word thus: [An Earlier Letter to Conon and Eugenius]

We place at the head and beginning of this letter now written by us to you the apostolic word that says: “On behalf of Christ we beg you, as if God were making appeal by our hands: on behalf of Christ we beg you: be reconciled to God” [2 Cor 5:20], “preserving the unity of the Spirit in the bond of love” [Eph 4:3] towards our littleness and preserving it 178. The idiom for co-signing. 179. This is the letter from the bishops in the East to the bishops in Constantinople: see DM, CSCO 17, Syriac text 189–95; Latin trans. CSCO 103, 131–36 (CPG 7193); date probably before 569. See Van Roey and Allen, Monophysite Texts, 288. 180. The leader of the anti-Chalcedonian Arab Ghassanid, al-Harith, who was a friend and protector of Paul the Black. On the role of these Arabs in the sixth century, see Irfan Shahîd, Byzantium and the Arabs in the Sixth Century, vol. 2, part. 1, Toponymy, Monuments, Historical Geography and Frontier Studies (Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Publications, 2002). 181. The negative seems anomalous in the context. 182. This negative also seems anomalous, to judge from the following letter.

156   Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church

ever unbroken. For you know, our brothers, what an enemy is the Slanderer, who is continually on the watch seeking whom he may devour, and that we must stand up to him to oppose him [1 Pt 5:8], according to the apostolic teaching, and fight against his devices. What more evil device does he have, and more wholly wicked a modus operandi, than to disturb the whole church and the believing congregations by means of those who, persuaded by him, provide scandals and who arm brothers against each other? These deceptive impulses of his most wicked operation should from the beginning never have succeeded in passing over to us, if we had cleaved immediately to peace and concord and to thinking with one and the same mind. But the enemy and fighter of our souls did not leave these things to be so. He surmised that he had found the opportune time for his wicked ways after the lying down of him who is among the saints, our Father Theodosius. So he filled with tumults and agitations the holy church of God that is with us and through certain men began again to fan the fire of that heresy, which had been happily extinguished, of those who introduce a trinity of gods or a plurality of gods, through number, defined or undefined, of substances or natures. Wherefore, when such evils began to stir, I, Jacob, betook myself at that time to you in Constantinople and appealed to you with many tears, lest in any way you allow these things to be found making headway among you or you acknowledge those who through envy and ambition are rashly and uncanonically agitating and wish to unsettle us. Do not accept to do so!183 [Subsequent Appeals]

In the city of Callinicum,184 I asked you, God-loving Mor Eugenius, earnestly and with great urging, along with our reverend brothers present there, to make a written apology, that the scandal arising from heresy might be dissolved and that the faithful people of God 183. This is an estimate on the basis of the internal argument, of where the quoted letter ends. Here also a section marker occurs in the Syriac text. The letter quoted here from the orthodox bishops to Conon and Eugenius, which apparently does not survive elsewhere, is registered as CPG 7177. 184. On the Euphrates.



Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church 157

might through these writings accept the apology. And I made no further progress. Then after you went up to Constantinople I made use of a common letter to the God-loving Mor Conon and to yourself, in which I made a similar appeal, that you either calm the uproar and extinguish the scandal that wickedly took its beginning between you or, if this was not to be, you depart and travel to your own places, so that even we and our reverend brothers might be able, by the action and help of the Holy Spirit, to lift the scandal from our midst. And you did not accept to do either of these things. Yet again, when the glorious patrician Harith invited us and our holy and blessed patriarch, Mor Paul, to Arabia, we composed a common letter, I and the reverend Mor Theodosius, and we wrote to Your Fraternity, making appeal that all strife and enmity be lifted from our midst, and that you maintain peace and concord with your brothers, for if this were done, the catholic unity of the holy churches of God would be able to take its first fair beginnings, which very thing our compassionate and Christ-loving emperors especially held in prayer and in great desire. But Your Fraternity did not make a reply to any of these matters, as these very acts cried out for. [The Meeting at Gerbediso]

Again, when those from Aegiai and yourself personally, Mor Eugenius, besought me through writings to come to a meeting with you, and in your letter you indicated to me that you feared the ignorance of the times, I, being persuaded by these things, took with me approved and eloquent men from the holy monastery of Beit Aphthonia,185 among whom were the reverend Sergius and that man of God of reverend memory, Demetrius. We came to the district of Gerbediso186 in the season of winter for the purpose of common advantage. And when many matters had been debated between us, we all asked 185. This well-known monastery was located on the Euphrates: see further Honigmann, Évêques, 191. 186. A staging-post between Doliche and Nicopolis, close to the border of Cilicia II. See Honigmann, Évêques, 185n4. On the meeting see Van Roey, “La controverse trithéite jusqu’à l’excommunication de Conon et d’Eugène,” 164.

158   Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church

that you make apology for those things which had scandalized us concerning the heresies of three gods, that is, of a plurality of gods and a plurality of substances. When in no way you agreed to do so, you turned on the contrary to insults, not only against us and against the whole order of the monks of the East, but also against applying the hand to the holy synod held by him who is among the saints, the pope.187 And when I heard from you things that were not right and wished again to calm you from so great an upset, I said to you: “We composed the common letter to all the faithful brothers in every place, so that we might hold fast to communion with one other. But even so, you have not committed yourself to us.” Accordingly, from then on we were constrained to write briefly through love of the truth to those in Aegiai, Tarsus, and in Isauria and in other places, of what had happened between us. [The Final Appeal]

And even now we appeal to you, I and our reverend brothers, and we all say the same as the godly apostle: “Let there be no divisions between you” [1 Cor 1:10], lest “on account of us the name of God is blasphemed among the peoples” [Rom 2:24], “but that, removing all enmity and love of strife from yourselves you will be concerned to hold fast to unity and concord with one another” [cf. Phil 2:3–4]. On this account we made use of an encyclical letter, to manifest openly to all that we cleave in everything to him who is among the saints, the head of the bishops, Theodosius, and that we consent and hold fast to those things that were done by him or with his agreement in the holy church of God that is with us, from the first day of his ordination to the consummation of his life. We ask and we make appeal to Your Fraternity, that if you hold fast to the unity and communion that is with us, make it known by applying your hands188 in the space from above the said encyclical letter, in the same manner that we and our brothers have applied the 187. It is not clear to what synodical meeting this refers. 188. I.e., by signing above the head of the letter.



Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church 159

hand. For when this is certified by you, every scandal and all occasion for division shall be removed from beneath the feet of the holy church of God that is with us, and that peace which is dear to God shall be received and shall possess the souls of the faithful. But it is right that Your Fraternity should also know this, that if there is any delay or tardiness from you which hinders the course of this letter, in that you do not accept—on the pretext of placating certain persons—to apply your hand to it, and you are persuaded on that account to censure the unity and communion that is with us, then in grief and distress and sorrow of soul we are constrained to say that henceforth we are prepared to do those things which before we were hoping that we would not declare. There shall be for you, then, a time limit in which to apply your hand or not, up to three days after the letter is given to you. I, Jacob the lowly, apply the hand. In like manner, all of us also apply the hand. [Summary Instructions to Followers]

We, then, have not overlooked any of those things that it was right that we do towards them, as towards beloved brothers, although between us and them, whether by congregations of brothers or through letters or through God-loving and faithful persons, very often, or indeed by the hands of the glorious patrician Harith and of the pre-eminent and honored men with him, we made appeal, we admonished, we condemned. We have taken pains to persuade them to withdraw from those who divide the holy and consubstantial Trinity by number of substances or of natures or of gods or of godheads, and to run with us on the upright and royal way [cf. Nm 20:17] of the holy Fathers by keeping unshakable and unalterable the things that were often done and received by him who was constantly remembered, our Father Theodosius of reverend memory, against the heresy of three gods or a plurality of gods or a plurality of substances. But we did not prevail. For which cause, from the unity and communion that is with us we separate those who have had no regard for the things that were

160   Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church

done or written by us to them, nor paid any heed to the appeal of the glorious patrician189 commemorated and of the honored men with him, nor accepted to apply the hand to the encyclical letter composed by us, a copy of which also we add to this letter of ours below.190 We appeal to all of you who love the unity and the communion that is with us, that once you know that we have separated them from the holy church of God that is with us and alienated them from the godly ministry and communion that is with us, do not acknowledge or name them henceforth in the number of bishops. Withdraw from the ministry and the communion that is with them and from those whose care is for their concerns, especially if it happens that they presumptuously perform some action that is out of order and uncanonically tamper with the priestly laws, lest one of you in ignorance should fall involuntarily into ruin. Which far be it through the prayers of the saints! Be on your guard, then, under the powerful hand of him who gives life to all, Christ our God, acting with love and discrimination, and holding fast to the upright and uncontaminated faith. For this is the concern and prayer of our merciful emperors, that we should be united to one another and that time be allowed for the perfect unity of all the holy churches of God, which may God deign in the times of their tranquility, so that from this we may even gain a reward pleasing to God, through the prayers of the saints who have pleased him of old. Amen. We make a copy of these things with the applying of our hand. We have also sent to other places for the assurance and persuasion of those who happen to read. [Co-signatures]

Copy of signatures by hand: Jacob the lowly: having read, I apply my hand; Theodore the lowly: having read, I apply my hand; John the lowly: having read, I apply my hand; 189. Sc. al-Harith. 190. This letter has not survived.



Antioch, Alexandria & the Syrian Church 161

John the lowly: having read, I apply my hand; John the lowly: having read, I apply my hand; Sergius the lowly: having read, I apply my hand; Sergius the lowly, with the permission I have received from our reverend brother Mor John, I apply my hand on his behalf; Stephen the lowly: having read, I apply my hand; Ptolomaios the lowly: having read, I apply my hand; Elishah the lowly: having read, I apply my hand; John the lowly: with the permission I have received from him who is prostrate with sickness, our brother Paul, I apply my hand.

THE ACTIVITIES AND WILLS OF CHRIST

CHAPTER 4

Disputing the Activities and Wills of Christ

!

Introduction The seventh century can be seen as the continuation of the decline of the later Roman empire that began in the sixth century. In the East, Antioch, although no longer the seat of an imperial residence, had continued to play a significant role. That role ended abruptly in 634 with the Arab conquest of Damascus, followed in quick succession by other major Syrian cities. In the West, although Justinian had reclaimed Byzantine territories in North Africa from the Vandals, and southern Italy and parts of northern Italy that had been lost to the Goths, the Lombard invasions had reversed Justinian’s victories in northern Italy within a few decades. Another half century and the Arabs would take Byzantine territories in Africa. In the East, although Byzantine military conflicts with the Persians ended with victories for Heraclius, his dynasty became increasingly unstable and Arab conquests of the Byzantine territories of Sicily, the Holy Land, and the Levant posed an increasing challenge to his successors. The reigns of the emperors after Maurice—Phocas (602–610), Heraclius (610–641), Constans II (641–668)—were overshadowed by the disputed episcopal elections and civil unrest that followed the controversies, discussed in the previous chapters, between Chalcedonians and those who opposed the Byzantine-Roman settlement achieved at the Council of Chalcedon. 162



The Activities and Wills of Christ 163

The rest of this chapter illustrates in broad strokes the major military and social developments from 600 to 700 CE, allowing us to place the participants in the monoenergist and monothelite conflicts within their historical contexts. It is both a survey of the episcopal history of seventh-century Byzantium (which at the time included Roman bishops) and a study of the pressures that shaped their episcopacies. The seventh century started badly in Constantinople. Emperor Maurice (582–602), who had been depending on Byzantine troops stationed at Ravenna to help keep the Avars and Slavs contained in the Balkans, was murdered in 602. His murderer was the general Phocas. Meanwhile pressure was mounting from another direction: the Persian king Chosroes II. The Persian wars cost Byzantium much of its eastern territory, even though Heraclius managed to retrieve the True Cross from the Persian capital, Ctesiphon, in 628.1 This symbolic victory was short-lived, however, as the Arab tribes launched the next wave of attacks on Byzantine territory in the 630s. Just three years after the death of Muhammed in 632, Damascus and Emesa fell to the Muslim forces. The rest of Syria followed soon afterward, and Jerusalem was surrendered to the Arabs by Patriarch Sophronius in 637 or 638.2 The Byzantine defeats were compounded by Muslim conquests in North Africa from 642.3 These were turbulent times in which internal, external, and ecclesiastical politics overlapped.4 Three of the five patriarchates quickly passed out of the Byzantine emperor’s 1. On the symbolic significance of the restoration, see Mary Whitby, “Defender of the Cross: George of Pisidia on the Emperor Heraclius and His Deputies,” in The Propaganda of Power: The Role of Panegyric in Late Antiquity, ed. Mary Whitby (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 247–73; Jan Willem Drijvers, “Heraclius and the restitutio crucis: Notes on Symbolism and Ideology,” in The Reign of Heraclius, ed. Gerrit J. Reinink and Bernard H. Stolte (Leuven: Peeters, 2002), 175–90. 2. Andrew J. Ekonomou, Byzantine Rome and the Greek Popes: Eastern Influences on Rome and the Papacy from Gregory the Great to Zacharias, A.D. 590–752 (Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books, 2007), 60. 3. Walter E. Kaegi, Muslim Expansion and Byzantine Collapse in North Africa (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 116–44. 4. See Walter E. Kaegi, Heraclius: Emperor of Byzantium (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 126–33, 214–15; Friedhelm Winkelmann, “Die Quellen zur Erforschung des monenergetisch-monotheletischen Streites,” Klio 69/2 (1987) 515–59, repr. in Winkelmann, Studien zu Konstantin dem Grossen und zur Byzantinischen Kirchengeschichte (Birmingham: Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Greek Studies, 1993), nr. 7; Booth, Crisis of Empire, esp. 186–224.

164   The Activities and Wills of Christ

jurisdiction, leaving only Constantinople and Rome. As a result of wars, there were huge numbers of displaced people within the empire as many Greeks fled from the eastern provinces to the West, especially to Carthage, Sicily, southern Italy, and Rome.5 The Main Protagonists in the Controversy

The Greek patriarchs involved in epistolary exchanges with Rome on monoenergism and/or monothelitism included Sergius I (610–638),6 Pyrrhus (638–641, briefly restored in 654),7 Paul II (641–653),8 Peter (654–666),9 Thomas II (667–669),10 John V (669–675),11 Con5. Jean-Marie Sansterre, Les moines grecs et orientaux à Rome aux époques byzantine et carolingienne (milieu du VIe–fin du IXe siècle), 2 vols (Brussels: Palais de academies, 1983). 6. Letter of Sergius to Honorius of Rome, ACO 2.2/2, 534–47; Allen, Sophronius of Jerusalem, 182–195 (CPG Suppl. 7606, CPG 9374, 9431 [2]). See Friedhelm Winkelmann, Der monenergetischmonotheletische Streit, Berliner Byzantinische Studien 6 (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2001), 77–78 nr. 43, and prosopographical profile at 258–60. 7. Letter of Pyrrhus to Pope John IV, a Libellus to Pope Theodore, and an encyclical letter (CPG Suppl. 7615–7617). Fragments of the first are found in ACO 2.1, 168; ACO 2.1, 338.16–22; ACO 2.2/1, 110.7–9; ACO 2.2/2, 620.6–8; 626.1–9. See Winkelmann, Der monenergetischmonotheletische Streit, 99n nr. 70, and prosopographical profile at 257–58; also R.-J. Lilie et al., eds., Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit: Erste Abteilung (641–867) (Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2000), nr. 6836. The Libellus is mentioned in ACO 2.1, 18.1–5. Pyrrhus’s Encyclical Letter is partially preserved in ACO 2.1, 168.7–170.7. 8. Letter of Paul to John IV, mentioned in PL 129, 577C (Text 2 below), and two letters to Pope Theodore, one hypothetical (see Jankowiak, “Essai d’histoire,” 534, nr. 23) and one from May 645 surviving in ACO 2.1, 196–204, Richard Price, trans., Acts of the Lateran Synod, 254–60. See Jankowiak, “Essai d’histoire,” 534 nr.25; on the dating, cf. Winkelmann, Der monenergetischmonotheletische Streit, 121 nr. 104. 9. LP 1, 341.5–7 refers to the synodical letter of Peter to Pope Eugenius (dated to 654 by Jankowiak, “Essai d’histoire,” 536–37 nr. 36). A dogmatic letter to Pope Vitalian is mentioned among “a collection of various letters” of Patriarch Peter in ACO 2.2/2, 586.19–20; see Jankowiak, “Essai d’histoire,” 539 nr. 44. 10. The Synodicon of Thomas II to Pope Vitalian, dated 17 April 667, was read at the Third Council of Constantinople, ACO 2.2/2, 614.16–23. CPG 9432 [9]. See Pietro Conte, Chiesa e primato nelle lettere dei papi del secolo VII (Milan: Editrice vita e pensiero, 1971), 459 nr. 188; Venance Grumel, Les regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople, Bd. 1: Les actes des patriarches, fasc. 1: Les regestes de 381 à 715 (Paris: Institut français d’études byzantines, 1972), 234 nr. 307; Jankowiak, “Essai d’histoire,” 539 nr. 46; van Dieten, Geschichte der Patriarchen, 117–20; Winkelmann, Der monenergetisch-monotheletische Streit, 158 nr. 155. 11. Synodical Letter of John V to Pope Vitalian, dated 15 November 669, ACO 2.2/2, 616.5– 10. See Grumel, Regestes, 235 nr. 308; Jankowiak, “Essai d’histoire,” 539, nr. 47; van Dieten, Geschichte der Patriarchen, 121–22; Winkelmann, Der monenergetisch-monotheletische Streit 158 nr. 155.



The Activities and Wills of Christ 165

stantine I (675–677),12 and Theodore (677–679).13 Their letters are included in the Acts of the Lateran Synod (649), recently translated by Richard Price with commentary,14 and in the Acts of the Council of Constantinople III (680–681), whose translation by Price is soon to appear in the same series, Translated Texts for Historians. We have excluded these from the translations offered in this chapter with one exception—the letter of the churches of Africa to Pope Theodore (text 6)15—because it provides the context for Pope Martin’s reply to the church of Carthage (text 7). Imperial Interventions: Heraclius and Constans II

It is not surprising that Heraclius (610–641), faced by a serious military challenge from followers of a new faith which claimed to be the original Abrahamic religion, sought a way to unite the disaffected Christians of Alexandria and Palestine. The means chosen 12. Synodical Letter of Constantine I to Macarius of Antioch, read at the 13th session of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, ACO 2.2/2, 616.11–17; Ottorino Bertolini, Roma di fronte a Bisanzio e ai Langobardi, Storia di Roma 9 (Bologna: Istituto di studi romani, 1941), 364; van Dieten, Geschichte der Patriarchen, 123–24; Winkelmann, Der monenergetisch-monotheletische Streit, 158 nr. 155. 13. Mentioned in the Sacra of Emperor Constantine IV to Pope Donus (12 December 678), ed. ACO 2.2/1, 2–10, at 4.3–8 (CPG Suppl. 9416). See Conte, Chiesa, 469, nr. (220); Franz Dölger, Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des oströmischen Reiches von 565–1453, 1. Teil; Regesten von 565–1025 (Munich: C. H. Beck), 1924, 28–29 nr. 242; van Dieten, Geschichte der Patriarchen, 125–27; Winkelmann, Der monenergetisch-monotheletische Streit, 158 nr. 156. Theodore I served for a second period as patriarch (686–687): see van Dieten, Geschichte der Patriarchen, 146–48. 14. Price, Acts of the Lateran Synod, 398–417, with introduction, 389–99. See also Catherine Cubitt, “The Lateran Council of 649 as an Ecumenical Council,” in Chalcedon in Context: Church Councils 400–700, ed. Richard Price and Mary Whitby, TTH Contexts 1 (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2011), 133–47, with bibliography. Martin’s Letter to Constans II (PL 87, 137–46) and the following ten letters of Martin are to be found in the single Greek manuscript of the Acts of the Lateran Synod, Vaticanus graecus 1455 (see PL 87, 137 note a; the PL 87 texts are based on the Greek edition of J. Hardouin, Acta conciliorum et epistolae decretales, ac constitutiones summorum pontificum, vol. 3: Ab anno 551 ad annum 787, Paris, 1714, with Latin translation). The only manuscript of the Latin version of the Acts is Laudunensis latinus 199 (c. 820–40), which also contains Martin’s cover letter to Amandus of Maastricht. This ninth-century manuscript from Laon shares the same provenance as BN Parisinus Latinus 5095, which can be dated to c. 874. On the Cathedral School of Laon and its manuscript production, see John J. Contreni, The Cathedral School of Laon from 850 to 930: Its Manuscripts and Masters, Münchener Beiträge zur Mediavistik und Renaissance-Forschung 29 (Munich: Arbeo-Gesellschaft, 1978). 15. Price, Acts of the Lateran Synod, 161–64.

166   The Activities and Wills of Christ

was the new doctrine of monoenergism, or “one activity” in Christ. This and its corollary, monothelitism, or “one will” in Christ, were presented to the monoenergist patriarch Cyrus of Alexandria in 633 and endorsed by him in the Nine Chapters, or Pact of Union16 between the imperial Chalcedonians and the anti-Chalcedonian Severans, theological heirs of the sixth-century patriarch Severus of Antioch. Although Cyrus willingly signed the Pact of Union, the goal of political unity remained elusive. Sophronius, not yet bishop of Jerusalem, began to object to the Pact of Union’s statement of two activities, sending an embassy to Rome and going to Alexandria and then Constantinople to confront Sergius. Soon afterwards, in late 633 or early 634, Heraclius issued the Psephos, an edict banning any talk of activities of any number. However, they were not able to put the genie back in the bottle. Heraclius and Sergius then received Sophronius’s Synodical Letter, which he composed as the new patriarch of Jerusalem in 634.17 In 641, after a brief dynastic struggle between the sons of Heraclius and the brief joint rule of Constantine III and his younger half-brother, Heraklonas, son of Heraclius’s niece and second wife, Martina,18 Heraclius’s grandson Constans II (also known as Constans Pogonatus) took the throne.19 Constans was intent on destroying eastern and western opposition to the new doctrine and took drastic steps against the dyothelites Pope Martin, Maximus the Confessor, and their followers. Constans’s rule was dogged by opposition, not least from his step-grandmother Martina, who tried to raise her own son to the throne in his stead. Two exarchs plotted against Constans II: Gregory, the exarch of North Africa (who was said to have been helped by 16. CPG 7613 Suppl.; Allen, Sophronius of Jerusalem, 168–77. 17. Greek text with translation, Allen, Sophronius of Jerusalem, 66–157. 18. Heraklonas was crowned in February and was mutilated and exiled in September 641, after Constantine III died prematurely in May 641. The regent, Martina, already unpopular due to charges of incest with her late husband, was accused along with her son Heraklonas of murdering his rival to the throne. 19. Constans II was the eldest son of Constantine III: Lilie et al., Prosopographie, nr. 3691. On the careers of these emperors, who both met unnatural deaths, see Winkelmann, Der monenergetisch-monotheletische Streit, 221–25.



The Activities and Wills of Christ 167

Maximus the Confessor), and Olympius, exarch of Ravenna (649– 652), who perhaps led an army to Sicily supposedly against Muslims in 651 or 652.20 David Woods has pointed out that there were no Arab settlements on the island at this time and that Olympius must have had another reason for raising an army from Rome with Pope Martin’s help.21 Martin was accused, at his show trial in Constantinople in 654, of conspiring with Olympius against the emperor and also of sending money to the Saracens. In his Narrationes de exilio, Martin complains about Theodore’s accusation that “at the arrival of the impious Olympius, a certain stupid fellow, I was [not] able to repel him with arms.”22 Martin was sent into exile, where he died within a year. His successor Eugenius had already taken his place in 653, with imperial approval. The Monastic Circle of Sophronius and Maximus the Confessor

Sophronius (d. 638 or 639) spent several years from 519 as a monk of the monastery of St. Theodosius in Palestine, the same monastery whose archimandrite George was later the recipient of a letter from Martin I (text 11 below). Sophronius’s most outstanding pupil in the monastery was Maximus the Confessor, whom he met in North Africa around 526. Maximus (580–662) was one of those monastic refugees who flooded into the West in the wake of the Arab invasions.23 20. On Gregory, exarch of Carthage: John F. Haldon, Byzantium in the Seventh Century: The Transformation of a Culture, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 307; Lilie et al., Prosopographie, nr. 2345; Winkelmann, Der monenergetisch-monotheletische Streit, 208–9. On Olympius: Andreas N. Stratos, “The Exarch Olympius and the Supposed Arab Invasion of Sicily in A.D. 652,” Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik 25 (1976): 63–73; Andreas N. Stratos, Byzantium in the Seventh Century, vol. 3: 642–668, trans. Harry T. Hionides (Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert), 1975, 104–11; Haldon, Byzantium in the Seventh Century, 57–58; Lilie et al., Prosopographie, nr. 5650; Winkelmann, Der monenergetisch-monotheletische Streit, 246–47. 21. David Woods, “Olympius and the ‘Saracens’ of Sicily,” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 27/1 (2003): 262–65. 22. Narr. 6, Neil, Seventh-century Popes, 176–77; see discussion of textual emendation at 111. 23. For recent bibliography, see Mikonya Kneževic´, ed., Maximus the Confessor (580–662): Bibliography, Bibliographia serbica theologica 6 (Belgrade: University of Belgrade, 2012); Pauline Allen and Bronwen Neil, eds., Oxford Handbook of Maximus the Confessor, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015).

168   The Activities and Wills of Christ

His forced sojourns in the West helped his efforts to fight imperial heresy. Maximus’s ties with Africa were particularly strong: he was there between 626 and 630; in 632, 633, or 644; and again, at the latest, in 641 and 645, arguing for orthodox doctrine.24 To Maximus and others, Byzantine military defeats were directly caused by the monoenergist and monothelite policies of Emperors Heraclius and Constans II. Maximus’s Letter 12 offers a memorable example of this rhetoric, in which the advent of the Antichrist looms large.25 On the ecclesiastical front, the repeated imperial efforts to secure religious unity that had been attempted from 451 onward continued, albeit in other guises and with different goals. Emperor Tiberius and his successors had failed to reconcile not only anti-Chalcedonians with pro-Chalcedonians but also various anti-Chalcedonian groups with each other, in particular those in the patriarchates of Antioch and Alexandria.26 Heraclius assumed an energetic role, first of all trying to broker a deal between the patriarchates of Antioch and Alexandria, a union which Theophanes dismissed as “wishy-washy” (ὑδροβάφη).27 24. An amplification of our introduction here may be found in the introduction to Pauline Allen and Bronwen Neil, eds., trans., Maximus the Confessor and His Companions: Documents from Exile, OECT (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002), 8–21. See further Cyril Hovorun, Will, Action and Freedom: Christological Controversies in the Seventh Century (Leiden: Brill, 2008), and Carlo Dell’Osso and Claudio Moreschini, Monoenergiti/monoteliti del VII secolo in Oriente (Rome: Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 2017), 17–30. 25. Maximus, Ep. 12 (PG 91, 497D). See the discussion of this letter and similar references to the Arab invasions by Maximus in Ryan Strickler, “The Wolves of Arabia: A Reconsideration of Maximus the Confessor’s Epistula 8,” Byzantion 86 (2016): 419–39. See also Max., Ep. 7 (PG 91, 433A–40B); Ep. 8 (PG 91, 440C–45B), Ep. 14, the Dogmatic Tome to Peter the illustris (PG 91, 540B): the Muslim conquests are indicative of collective sin and the imminent coming of the Antichrist; Amb.Io. (PG 91, 1132A). According to the anonymous author of Disputatio Bizyae, monoenergism and monothelitism, “the innovations that have happened in our times,” had resulted in evil and apostasy, as predicted by the apostle Paul before the coming of the Antichrist; Disputatio Bizyae, lines 210–12, in Pauline Allen and Bronwen Neil, eds., Scripta saeculi VII vitam Maximi Confessoris illustrantia, CCSG 39 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1999), 93. See Jankowiak and Booth, “A New Date-list,” 33n5. Both sides of the debate interpreted apocalyptic events as punishments for the opposing party. 26. Allen, “Religious Conflict between Antioch and Alexandria,” 187–99. 27. Theophanes, Chron. AM 6121, Iohannes Classen, ed., Theophanis Chronographia, vol. 1, Corpus scriptorum historiae byzantinae (Bonn: Weber, 1839), 507.5–7; Cyril Mango and Roger Scott, trans., The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor: Byzantine and Near Eastern History AD 284–813 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), 461; Vita Maximi (graece), recension 2, in PG 90, 77C; Vita Maximi (graece), recension 3, in The Life of Maximus the Confessor. Recension 3, ed. and trans. Bronwen Neil and Pauline Allen, Early Christian Studies 6 (Brisbane: St Paul’s



The Activities and Wills of Christ 169

While this union has been traditionally dated to 616,28 it is now argued that in fact it occurred in 617.29 A well-documented meeting in Mabbog in 629/30 between Heraclius and Athanasius Gammal, the anti-Chalcedonian patriarch of Antioch (593–631), demonstrates that by that stage the focus of internal religious conflict had shifted from tritheism to monoenergism,30 also masterminded by Emperor Heraclius, with the aid of Sergius, patriarch of Constantinople.31 They took this formula to Cyrus of Phasis, metropolitan of Lazica, who embraced it and was rewarded with the patriarchate of Alexandria in 630. In 633, Cyrus published the Nine Chapters, or Pact of Union, of which Article VII stipulated adherence to monoenergism as conditional for union: “If someone . . . does not confess that . . . one and the same Christ and Son performed things befitting God and things human by one theandric activity, according to Dionysius [now] among the saints, distinguishing in contemplation alone the elements from which the union came about . . . let him be anathema.”32 Only the monk Sophronius, who was by 633 in Alexandria, found fault with the monoenergist formula. He traveled to Constantinople to petition Sergius, but received no acquiescence, and continued on to Jerusalem, where he was elected patriarch in 634. At this point he made his opinion known to all his fellow bishops in his Synodical Letter.33 Sergius began to cast around for eminent supporters and turned to Honorius, whom he addressed in the most flattering terms in a letter of winter 634 or 635: Publications, 2003), 54–55. A new edition of all three recensions of the Greek Life of Maximus is being prepared by Bram Roosen for CCSG. 28. E.g., by David Olster, “Chalcedonian and Monophysite: The Union of 616,” Bulletin de la société d’archéologie copte 27 (1985): 93–108; Allen, Sophronius of Jerusalem, 24–26. 29. Jankowiak, “Essai d’histoire,” 18–20; cf. Booth, Crisis of Empire, 104–5, 237. 30. Christian Lange, Mia Energeia: Untersuchungen zur Einigungspolitik des Kaisers Heraclius und des Patriarchen Sergius von Constantinopel, Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 66 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 531–622; Allen, “Religious Conflict between Antioch and Alexandria,” 198; Booth, Crisis of Empire, 202–5, 221, 237. What Robert Devreesse called “the lamentable history of tritheism” (Le patriarcat d’Antioche depuis la paix de l’église jusqu’ à la conquête arabe [Paris: Gabalda, 1945], 76) was dealt with in chapter 3 of this volume. 31. On Sergius, see van Dieten, Geschichte der Patriarchen, 1–56. 32. Allen, Sophronius of Jerusalem, 170–73. 33. Allen, Sophronius of Jerusalem, 65–157.

170   The Activities and Wills of Christ

We exhort Your All-sacredness to read all of this, and as we now too follow the God-pleasing and most full love which is in you, [we beg you] that, if there is anything which is perhaps found wanting, to complement this by the grace which has been given to you by God and by your holy words with your hoped-for support and to indicate the matters which you judge right.34

In the same letter Sergius says he had written to Cyrus, now patriarch of Alexandria, telling him to stop any talk of one or two activities: “because the expression ‘one activity’ (even if it was used by some of the holy Fathers) still alienates and confuses the ears of some, who suppose that it has been proposed in order to do away with the two natures which have been united without confusion and hypostatically in Christ our God.”35 Sergius subsequently persuaded Heraclius to sign an edict, the Ekthesis, which forbad any talk of one or two activities in Christ, since one activity suggested one nature, and two activities suggested two persons with contrary wills.36 The Ekthesis did, however, contain an ill-advised statement of one will: “Hence, following the Fathers closely in all things, and in this too, we confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ, true God. . . .”37 In the course of Maximus’s trial of 655, the monk cited a lost letter in which the emperor admitted that he had issued it but insisted that Sergius was the sole author of the Ekthesis.38 The Typos, composed by Patriarch Paul and promulgated by Constans II in 648, went further and adjured silence on the question of one or two activities or wills, and was posted on the doors of the Church of Hagia Sophia for all to read. Honorius’s successors without exception condemned the Ekthesis and its follow-up, the Typos, until Eugenius, the successor of Martin I. 34. Letter of Sergius to Honorius, CPG Suppl. 7606; ACO 2.2/2, 546.21–25; Allen, Sophronius of Jerusalem, 195. For the dating, see Jankowiak, “Essai d’histoire,” 529 nr. 1. 35. ACO 2.2/2, 542.7–10; Allen, Sophronius of Jerusalem, 190–91. Cf. Sergius’s Letter to Cyrus of Alexandria, CPG Suppl. 7605; ACO 2.1, 136–38, and his earlier Letter to Cyrus, then bishop of Phasis, ACO 2.2/2, 528–30. 36. CPG Suppl. 7607; Allen, Sophronius of Jerusalem, 208–17, at 212–15. See further Neil, Seventh-Century Popes, 18–20; Price, Acts of the Lateran Synod, 11–16, 196–99, et passim. 37. Allen, Sophronius of Jerusalem, 214–15. 38. Relatio Motionis, in Allen and Neil, Maximus the Confessor and His Companions, 66 (PL 87, 645D).



The Activities and Wills of Christ 171

The Roman Response Honorius of Rome (625–638)  Honorius’s reply to Sergius of Con-

stantinople on the validity of the doctrine of monoenergism unfortunately made matters worse,39 as it contained the original and infamous formulation of “one will in Christ.” In brief, his reasoning was as follows: there is one Godhead, both human and divine. Because it is one, we can say that God was crucified and suffered and that the humanity came down from heaven in Jesus. Therefore, “it follows too that we confess one will of the Lord Jesus Christ, since manifestly our nature was assumed by the Godhead, there being no sin in it.”40 Preserved in the Acts of the Council of Constantinople III (680/81), it eventually led to the condemnation of the pope at that council, 41 a fact which Protestant theologians made good use of during the Reformation and subsequent debates about papal fallibility. Honorius’s attempt to clarify matters in his second letter to Sergius failed to improve the situation.42 In Rome, meanwhile, the late Pope Honorius was accused by the Byzantines of hoarding wealth in the vestry of the Lateran Palace (episcopium) and of withholding imperial stipends intended for the army.43 The episcopium was plundered by Byzantine troops led by Maurice the chartularius and Isaac the exarch of Ravenna, who sent a portion of the spoils to Emperor Heraclius. Only after this imperial tribute was obtained could his successor, Severinus, be ordained, at the end of May. Already an old man, Severinus died two months later. John IV of Rome (640–642)  Born in Dalmatia, John IV was a

convinced dyothelite who “gave money for ransoming captives in Dalmatia through the very holy and most faithful abbot Martin,”44 most likely the later pope Martin I. John IV wrote one surviving let39. In reply to a letter from Sergius of Constantinople of 634 or 635 (CPG Suppl. 7606), Allen, Sophronius of Jerusalem, 183–95. 40. Allen, Sophronius of Jerusalem, 197–99. 41. ACO 2.2/2, 548–58 and 620–24. 42. Fragments are preserved in ACO 2.2/2, 620–25; Allen, Sophronius of Jerusalem, 205–9. 43. LP 1, 328.4–7. 44. LP 1, 330.2–3.

172   The Activities and Wills of Christ

ter to Pyrrhus, the then-monothelite patriarch of Constantinople, and an apologia for Pope Honorius in spring 641.45 In his apologia to Emperor Constantine III, he attempted to play down Honorius’s originality, saying: “[Sergius wrote to Honorius] that certain men were speaking of two opposing wills in our redeemer and Lord Jesus Christ. When the aforementioned pope found that out, he wrote back to him that, just as our Savior was one monad, in such a way also he was conceived and born miraculously above the whole human race.”46 The addition of the critical word “opposing” justifies Honorius’s objection, but unfortunately was not part of Sergius’s account of the objection of Sophronius. John IV was the recipient of a letter from Heraclius, informing him that he had written an inscription for an icon of the crucifixion in the patriarchate of Constantinople. The inscription contained a formulation of two natures and “one independent will” of Jesus Christ.47 Theodore of Rome (642–649)  A Greek-born dyothelite bishop of Rome and son of a bishop from Jerusalem, Theodore began his pontificate by sending a synodical letter to Paul of Constantinople (text 2 below) 48 condemning monothelitism and the Ekthesis, which supplied the first imperial formulation of the doctrine. The emperor replied with polite deference (text 3 below). In 645 or 646, Theodore received Pyrrhus at Rome after the patriarch’s debate with Maximus the Confessor in Carthage ended in defeat, only to depose him in 646 or 647, since Pyrrhus had recanted on his return to Constan45. Fragments are preserved in the Collectanea of Anastasius Bibliothecarius, Jacques Sirmond, ed., Anastasii Bibliothecarii sedis apostolicae collectanea (Paris, 1620), 13–25, reprinted in PL 129, 561–66. Jankowiak and Booth, “A New Date-list,” 148, date it thus and cite parallels between John’s letter and Opusc. 20, the dogmatic tome to the priest Marinus. 46. Our translation with emphasis; the whole letter is translated below (text 1). See also the Arabic version with German translation, Joseph Schacht, ed., “Der Briefwechsel zwischen Kaiser und Papst von 641/2 in arabischer Überlieferung,” Orientalia, n.s. 5 (1936): 235–46. 47. See the text edited by Alexander Alexakis, “Before the Lateran Council of 649: The Last Days of Herakleios the Emperor and Monotheletism (Based on a New Fragment from His Letter to Pope John IV [CPG 9382],” Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 27/28 (1995–96): 93–101. 48. PL 129, 577–82, only in Latin, translated in Anastasius Bibliothecarius’ Collectanea for John the Deacon, under Pope John VIII. See further Neil, Seventh-Century Popes, 93–121.



The Activities and Wills of Christ 173

tinople.49 Theodore also wrote to the bishops who had consecrated Patriarch Paul, condemning their patriarch (text 3 below) 50 and offering a proposed condemnation of the Ekthesis that he hoped would be signed by the eastern bishops. In 648 or 649 he pronounced Patriarch Paul deposed, a condemnation which Martin repeated in November 649.51 During the archdeacon Martin’s several years in Constantinople as papal ambassador (apocrisiarius) for Pope Theodore, the monoenergist controversy gained momentum, culminating in the expulsion of all apocrisiarii from the city after the Typos was posted by Patriarch Paul.52 Theodore started to organize a dyothelite conference of Italian bishops at the Lateran, but died before his plans were realized, early in 649. Martin of Rome (649–653)  Martin did not bother to seek imperial endorsement of his election as bishop of Rome (perhaps to avoid the tax that was owed to Constantinople with such an announcement) but immediately went ahead with Theodore’s planned synod at the Lateran that roundly condemned four eastern patriarchs and their role in upholding the doctrines of monoenergism and monothelitism.53 Thirteen letters from Martin’s hand survive from this period. Only three of these were incorporated in the Acts of the Lateran Synod.54 The other ten were appended to copies of the Acts of the Lateran Synod, sent to various bishops in East and West. Eight of these are translated below (texts 6 to 13). The Acts included a florilegium of the Lateran synod, known as the Testimonia Patrum, consisting of 123 quotations from the writings of the church Fathers which supported the dyothelites’ claims.55 49. See Theophanes, Chronographia, AM 6121, de Boor, vol. 1, 509. 50. PL 129, 581–84, only in Latin. 51. LP 1, 332. Martin, Ep. 10, PL 87, 182–91. 52. LP 1, 332. 53. Cyrus of Alexandria, and the three patriarchs of Constantinople, Sergius, Paul, and Pyrrhus. 54. Encyclical Letter of Martin, Letter to Bishop Amandus of Maastricht, and Letter of Pope Martin and the Roman Synod to Constans II, in Price, Acts of the Lateran Synod, 398–408, 408–12, and 412–17, respectively. 55. ACO 2.1, 258.9–314.5.

174   The Activities and Wills of Christ

Two letters of Martin are not translated here. The first is Martin’s brief letter to Peter the illustris,56 commending his manner of life and asking him to support his vicar in the East, John of Philadelphia, as he sought to appoint new bishops to replace the dyothelites; it is not included here because its content is peripheral to the monothelite dispute. The second is Martin’s letter to Paul of Thessalonica, who had followed Constantinople’s lead in endorsing the Ekthesis and condemning the Lateran Synod, substituting for it his own statement of faith. For these faults, he was anathematized by Martin.57 This letter, dated 1 November 649, is not included here because it covers much of the same material as text 13, Martin’s letter to the clergy and people of the Church of Thessalonica, written in the same month. As a result of Martin’s steadfast adherence to dyothelitism and his support for Maximus and his circle of Greek monks in Rome, he was captured by the exarch’s forces in the Church of John Lateran and taken to Constantinople for trial. Two letters survive from his imprisonment.58 After the inevitable guilty verdict was reached, his death sentence was commuted, and he was sent into exile in Cherson, where he died in isolation. Two of Martin’s letters to an anonymous supporter in Constantinople survive from Cherson.59 Martin’s orientation was rather against the rulers of the East, though he was no stranger to eastern influence in the person of Maximus the Confessor and his monastic contingent of dyothelites.60 Martin reserved the right to make his own judgments on matters of ortho56. PL 87, 174–75. Peter, the recipient of letters from Maximus the Confessor (including Ep. 14, which exists only in the Latin version of Anastasius Bibliothecarius, yet to be edited), was likely a former government official, probably Peter the former general of Numidia, now residing in Palestine or Arabia. See Jankowiak and Booth, “A New Date-list,” 24–25. 57. Regesta pontificum romanorum ab condita ecclesia ad annum post Christum natum MCXCVIII, edited by Philipp Jaffé, Samuel Löwenfeld, Friedrich Kaltenbrunner, Paul Ewald, and Wilhelm Wattenbach, 2 vols, rev. ed. (Leipzig: Veit, 1885–1888), 2071 (hereafter, JW); Sacrorum conciliorum noua et amplissima collectio, edited by Giovanni D. Mansi, 16 vols (Florence, 1759–1771; repr. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 1960–1961), 10, 833 (hereafter, Mansi); PL 87, 181–92. 58. Epp. 1 and 2, in Neil , Seventh-Century Popes, 166–71, 172–83. 59. Epp. 3 and 4, in Neil , Seventh-Century Popes, 223–25, 225–31. 60. Heinz Ohme, “Maximos Homologetes († 662): Martyrium, Märtyrerbewusstsein, ‘Martyriumssucht’?” Zeitschrift fur Antikes Christentum 20, nr. 2 (2016): 306–46, persuasively



The Activities and Wills of Christ 175

doxy, rather than following Constantinople’s lead, as Honorius had done to his great cost.61 Martin I seems to have been responsible for beginning a series of freschi, later completed under Pope John VII (705–707), that upheld dyothelitism in a local Roman church, Santa Maria Antiqua.62 The freschi showed four figures of orthodoxy, Leo I, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Basil the Great, each holding a scroll with an allegedly anti-monothelite text.63 Only a fragment of one scroll survives today. Eugenius (654–657), Vitalian (657–672), Adeodatus (672–676), and Donus of Rome (676–678)  No letters survive from Martin’s succes-

sor Eugenius (654–657), who assumed the papal throne with imperial approval in the year before Martin died in exile. Eugenius probably notified the emperor in a letter that must have arrived in the capital around 655. The next pope, Vitalian (657–672), also took care to announce his election to Constantinople and welcomed the emperor himself to Rome in July 663. He celebrated mass in the four major churches of Rome for Constans II, who was entertained royally at the papal palace and reciprocated by stealing all the city’s portable bronze, even the bronze roof tiles of Santa Maria ad martyres, and sending them to Constantinople.64 Vitalian sent Theodore and Hadrian to Britain to continue Pope Gregory I’s mission to the Anglo-Saxons.65 Adeodatus’s pontificate was consumed by invasions of Sicily, first of the rebel Armenian general Mezesius, who was murdered after argues that Maximus actively sought out his martyrdom. Both Maximus and Martin I were posthumously awarded the title of “confessor of the faith.” 61. The same could be said of Popes Leo the Great (440–61) and Vigilius (537–55). 62. See Eileen Rubery, “Conflict or Collusion? Pope Martin I (649–54/5) and the Exarch Olympius in Rome after the Lateran Synod of 649,” Studia Patristica 52 (2012): 339–73. 63. See the reconstructions of Eileen Rubery, “Papal Opposition to Imperial Heresies: Text as Image in the Church of Santa Maria Antiqua in the Time of Pope Martin I (649–654/5),” Studia Patristica 50 (2011): 3–29. The texts are discussed by Leonela Fundic, “Evidence of Christological Polemic from Early Byzantine Art,” Journal of Late Antiquity, forthcoming. 64. This is the church now called the Pantheon. Mark Humphries, “From Emperor to Pope? Ceremonial, Space and Authority at Rome from Constantine to Gregory the Great,” in Cooper and Hillner, Religion, Dynasty, and Patronage, 56. 65. LP 1, 343–44; Paul the Deacon, Historia Langobardorum, 5.11; Bede, HE, 3.29.

176   The Activities and Wills of Christ

attempting to seize the Byzantine throne in Syracuse, and then of the Saracens, also in Syracuse. These returned victorious to Alexandria, “taking with them enormous booty and the bronze which had been brought there by sea from Rome.”66 Presumably this was the Roman bronze that Constans II had been taking home when he was murdered, also in Sicily, in 668. The Church of Ravenna returned to Rome’s jurisdiction during the pontificate of Donus (676–678), although the presentation of Archbishop Theodore of Ravenna in Rome “after a passage of many years” is credited to Pope Agatho in LP.67 He discovered that the Syrian monks in the Boethian Monastery were “Nestorians” and divided them up among other monasteries, filling the Boethian monastery with Roman monks.68 Agatho of Rome (678–681)  The Sicilian-born Agatho convened his own synod at Rome against monothelitism in March 680. He received the invitation sent to his predecessor to send legates to Constantinople to resolve the matter of monothelitism at a council and summoned seven papal legates to attend. The Acts of the Sixth Ecumenical Council of 680/1 were endorsed in his single letter to Constantine IV (preserved in the Acts of that council). This synod is given detailed coverage in Liber Pontificalis.69 At his request, the customary fee due to Constantinople for ordaining a pontiff was waived, on the proviso that the general decree of his ordination not be made until it had been announced to the emperor.70 At his prompting, the English bishops condemned monoenergism and monothelitism at the Synod of Hatfield (679).71 66. LP 1, 346.9–11; Davis, Book of Pontiffs, 75. 67. LP 1, 350.2–3. 68. LP 1, 348. “Nestorians” of this time were considered Chalcedonians by the followers of Severus of Antioch, but for Roman bishops from Leo I onward, Nestorians were simply the opposite of Eutychians. 69. LP 1, 351–54. 70. LP 1, 354–55. 71. Bede mistakenly dated it to 680, in HE 4.17; see Catherine Cubitt, Anglo-Saxon Church Councils c. 650–c. 850 (London: Leicester University Press, 1995), 252–56; Catherine Cubitt, “Finding the Forger: An Alleged Decree of the 679 Council of Hatfield,” English Historical Review 114, nr. 459 (1999): 1221.



The Activities and Wills of Christ 177

Leo II (682–683)  Pope Leo II, a Sicilian who was learned in Latin

and Greek,72 took the same first line as Agatho against the monothelites. His Letter to Ervigius (text 15 below) shows him promulgating these views to the king of Spain. Leo II took the trouble to announce his election to Constantine IV, to judge from two letters from that emperor to him.73 However, the date of his election is not clear, with Jaffé concluding that it took place before 13 December 68174 and LP declaring the see vacant for nineteen months after Agatho’s death, making Leo’s ascent in August 682.75 Leo II’s first surviving letter, addressed to Emperor Constantine IV, approves the Acts of Constantinople III.76 Along with his letter to Ervigius, translated here (text 15), Leo wrote to the bishops of Spain approving the Acts of Constantinople III.77 His third letter, to Bishop Quiricus, perhaps of Toledo, also endorses the Council of Constantinople III.78 Finally he wrote to Count Simplicius,79 thanking him for a letter and gifts carried by Peter the notarius (papal secretary). Accompanying the letter were the Acts of the council and its definition of faith. Leo asked that Simplicius make known the contents to all and ensure that the bishops endorsed it. Repercussions for Ecumenical Relations

The “show trials” of Pope Martin I and Maximus before the senate in Constantinople after the Lateran Synod can only be understood in the context of the crisis facing Byzantium in the form of Muslim invasions.80 The trials were designed by the senate to shift the blame 72. LP 1, 359. 73. Constantine IV’s first letter of 681 or 682 (JW 2116) was delivered in July 682; and the second Letter of Constantine IV to Leo II (JW 2117). 74. JW 2116. 75. LP 1, 355; LP 1, 359. 76. JW 2118, PL 96, 399. CPG Suppl. [9441] dates it to September 682, being the first month after his supposed ordination. 77. JW 2119, PL 96, 411. 78. JW 2122, PL 96, 415 79. JW 2121, PL 96, 416. 80. John F. Haldon, “Ideology and the Byzantine State in the Seventh Century: The ‘Trial’ of Maximus the Confessor,” in From Late Antiquity to Early Byzantium: Proceedings of the Byzantinological Symposium in the 16th Eirene Conference, ed. V. Vavr̍ ínek (Prague: Academia,

178   The Activities and Wills of Christ

for the general crisis onto their dyothelite opponents and to present them as criminals.81 Once Maximus, in particular, was out of the way, the imperial government could turn its attention to thwarting the influence of the eastern monks in the West, a process that was aided by the reestablishment of communion between the patriarchates of Constantinople and Rome.82

TRANSLATIONS

!

Text 1 John IV’s Apology for Pope Honorius Spring 641, after the death of Heraclius83

John, the pope of Rome,84 to Constantine the emperor and son of Heraclius85 An apology for Pope Honorius, on account of the one will in Christ, of which his slanderers say he made mention. The Lord who commanded the light to shine forth from the 1985), 87–91; Wolfram Brandes, “Juristische” Krisenbewältigung im 7. Jahrhundert? Die Prozesse gegen Martin I. und Maximos Homologetes, Fontes minores 10 (Frankfurt-am-Main: LöwenklauGesellschaft, 1998), 141–212. 81. Brandes, “Juristische” Krisenbewältigung, 212. 82. Jankowiak, “Essai d’histoire,” 310. 83. JW 2042; CPG [9383]; CPL 1729. PL 80, 602–7 = PL 129, 561–66; Mansi, 10, 682–86. 84. John IV’s Apology for Honorius also exists in two Arabic versions, the unedited codex Vaticanus syriacus 130, fol. 74a–80b, reproduced in Schacht, “Der Briefwechsel,” 258–65, with German translation, 235–46; and in Eutychii Alexandrini Annalibus, ed. L. Cheiko, vol. 2 (Paris, 1909), repr. CSCO 50, Scriptores Arabici 7 (Louvain: Peeters, 1954), 325–32. Comparing the Latin text with the Syriac, Schacht, “Der Briefwechsel,” 231, concluded that the text of Vaticanus Syriacus 130 matches that translated by Anastasius, but see the following note on the different addressees. 85. The Latin version is addressed to the son of Heraclius, Constantine III, while the Arabic version (fol. 74a, Schacht, 235) is addressed to “Constantine and Heraclius together, the dependable brothers and kings,” i.e., Constantine III and Heraklonas. See further Conte, Chiesa, 427–29, nr. 99; Winkelmann, Der monenergetisch-monotheletische Streit, 97–99, nr. 69; Booth, Crisis of Empire, 260–61.



The Activities and Wills of Christ 179

darkness,86 who snatched us from the power of darkness [Col 1:13] into his marvelous light, the light of truth and truth of light—in whom all fulness of divinity is pleased to dwell and through him to reconcile all things, both in heaven and on earth, bringing peace by him through the blood of his cross [Col 1:20]—on account of the eminent and great riches of his goodness, looking on the face of his church, [the Lord] deigned to call Your predestined Kindness to the fulness of faith now and in such a way that through you he makes truth victorious, with every trace of falsehood completely swept away. For all the regions of the West are so troubled by the scandal— from the various letters of suggestion which came to us in a pile and which we dictated also in our own hearing—that our brother, the patriarch Pyrrhus, transmitted certain novelties through his letters hither and thither. He preached outside the rule of faith and its proper meaning, as if hurrying to draw our predecessor, Pope Honorius of holy memory, to what was always completely foreign to the mind of a catholic Father. Therefore, so that Your Kindness can learn the whole case of the matter, I will relate in the truest detail what happened a little while ago. Sergius, the patriarch of venerable memory,87 indicated to the aforementioned pontiff of the city of Rome of blessed memory that certain men were speaking of two opposing wills in our redeemer and Lord Jesus Christ. When the aforementioned pope [sc. Honorius] found that out, he wrote back to him that, just as our Savior was one monad, in the same way he was also conceived and born miraculously above the whole human race.88 And he also taught that our Redeemer, by his incarnate dispensation, just as he was per86. Cf. Gn 1:4, 18. 87. The name Sergius is glossed in the margin of Parisinus Latinus 5092 (f. 6r): “He had not yet been discovered as a heretic or condemned by the holy sixth synod [of Constantinople] as [happened] afterward.” See the introduction to these translations above. 88. Although the letter circulated under the name of Honorius, it was probably written by a member of Maximus the Confessor’s circle. According to Maximus the Confessor’s Letter to Marinus of 641 (Opusc. 20, on which see Jankowiak and Booth, “A New Date-list,” 48–49), John the Councillor claimed that he composed the original letter in Latin for Honorius, but that there was no mention of the will of Christ as being one in number (Maximus, Opusc. 20, CPG 7697 [20], PL 129, 572C). Maximus’s Letter to Marinus was included in Anastasius Bibliothecarius’s Collectanea, and his defense of Honorius is cited in Anastasius’s Preface to John

180   The Activities and Wills of Christ

fect God was also a perfect human being: so that what the first man [Adam] lost through his transgression, he, being born without any sin, might restore the noble original of the first likeness. Therefore, [Christ] was the second Adam, having no sin from his birth or from his way of life among humanity. For indeed the Word made flesh assumed all our [properties] in the likeness of sinful flesh but bore no vice of guilt arisen from the vine-branch of transgression. Therefore, we know that the likeness was not of his flesh, but of sin, for the Lord, who was made of the same substance as us, indeed assumed the true flesh from the pure and blessed Virgin mother of God. Therefore, the blessed apostle says that he assumed the likeness of sinful flesh [Rom 8:3] in the same way as we sinners [assumed it], together with the rational soul.89 And for that reason our Lord Jesus Christ deigned to assume one will in his humanity according to the first natural creation of Adam, not two contrary [wills] in such a way as we are understood to have now, since we were born from the sin of Adam. Since the first man was made corruptible through his transgression and by scorning to be subject to his Creator experienced nevertheless the rebellion of his flesh, which previously had been subject to him, and made the whole human race guilty of his sin, so says the apostle: “Death ruled from Adam up to Moses, even in those who did not sin, in likeness of the transgression of Adam” [Rom 5:14]. On account of this, even we, who are born through his transgression and sin, are recognized to have two contrary wills: but two, I say, one of the mind and one of the flesh, struggling against each other, as the same blessed apostle teaches: “The flesh desires what is against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh. And these are opposed to each other, so that you do not do what you want to do” [Gal 5:17]. And the whole human race suffers this, being established under sin [Rom 3:9], since no one is pure of transgression from this sin [cf. Rom 5:18] as it is written, not even the child whose life on earth is a single day the Deacon, in Neil, Seventh-Century Popes, 152–53 and n. 7, evidence that it was still a live issue in the late ninth century. 89. In making a point of “the rational soul” of Christ, John IV opposes Apollinaris of Laodicea’s theory that Jesus did not have a human soul, but that the divine Logos took its place in the incarnate Christ.



The Activities and Wills of Christ 181

[cf. Is 65:20]. And just as the Holy Spirit said through David, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me” [Ps 51:5], according to the apostle, “For, just as all have sinned in Adam, so in Christ all will be justified”90 [1 Cor 15:22]. And “just as many were made sinners through one man, so also by one man will many be made just” [Rom 5:19]. Therefore, there is only one sinless mediator between God and humanity, the man Jesus Christ [1 Tm 2:5], who was conceived and born free among the dead. And so in the dispensation of his holy flesh, he never had two contrary wills, nor did the will of his flesh fight against the will of his mind. For nor did he who came to take away the sin of the world [Jn 1:29] have any sin, as he himself said: “Which of you convicts me of sin?” [Jn 8:46]. And he speaks thus elsewhere: “The prince of this world came and he finds nothing against me”91 [Jn 14:30]. Knowing this, that there was no sin at all in him when he was born and lived, we say rightly and truly confess one will in the humanity of this same holy dispensation. And we do not preach two contrary wills of the mind and flesh, as in an unmixed human, as certain heretics are known to have decided.92 Therefore, in this manner our previously mentioned predecessor is known to have written to the aforementioned contender, Patriarch Sergius, to the effect that in our Savior there are definitely not two contrary wills, that is in his body, since he picked up no trace of vice from the transgression of the first man [Adam]. For that Scripture befits us, not him: “For I know that good does not live in me, that is, in my flesh” [Rom 7:18]. And again: “For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it” [Rom 7:19–20], and after this: “but I see another law at work in my 90. Revised Authorised Version: All shall be made alive. 91. Revised Authorised Version: in me. 92. Reading the correction deliberare in BN Parisinus Latinus 5095, f. 6v, manu secunda; cf. the edition of Sirmond, Anastasii bibliothecarii sedis apostolicae collectanea, p.17: delirare “to be mad, insane.” The most recent edition of this section of BN Parisinus Latinus 5095 judged its corrections reliable improvements to the original text. See the manuscript description in Neil, Seventh-Century Popes, 136–39. The codex, which is from the cathedral library of Laon, dates to 875–95.

182   The Activities and Wills of Christ

body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my body” [Rom 7:23]. Therefore, it follows from this that our Savior absolutely did not have these two contrary wills of the mind and flesh, which the apostle teaches, because the goad of the struggle here took its beginning from the transgression of the first man. Since our nature has been assumed by our Redeemer,93 there is no guilt of any offense. But lest anyone of little understanding should someday criticize it, let him know why he is known to teach this concerning the human nature and not also concerning the divine nature. In fact, Christ is understood, worshiped, and adored in two natures united in one person, [being] God and perfectly human. Whoever disputes this ought to know that an answer was already made on this to the question of the aforementioned patriarch [Sergius]. And besides this, it is also customary to apply the aid of medicine to the place where there is a wound, of course. Surely even the blessed apostle is known often to have done this, adapting himself to the custom of his listeners: and sometimes when he taught about the highest nature, he remained absolutely silent on human nature; but sometimes when he argued concerning [Jesus’] human dispensation, he did not touch on the mystery of his divinity. In fact he himself said of the divine nature, “Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God” [1 Cor 1:24], but elsewhere he spoke thus about his incarnation: “The foolishness of God is wiser than human beings; and the weakness of God is stronger than human beings” [1 Cor 1:25]. Wisdom and foolishness, power and weakness are counterpoised as opposites, without a doubt. Therefore, does the apostle teach contradictions to himself? By no means! By adapting himself wisely to his hearers, he teaches according to the times, indeed just as a prudent nurse offers milk to small children but gives solid food to the grown. Why therefore does he say, “The foolishness of God is wiser than human beings; and the weakness of God is stronger than human beings” [1 Cor 1:25]? This whole little chapter about the dispensation of Christ appears not to teach about his heavenly na93. Gregory of Nazianzus, Ep. 101.32 to Cledonius: τὸ γὰρ ἀπρόσληπτον, ἀθεράπευτον, “what is not assumed is not redeemed”; Paul Gallay, ed., Grégoire de Nazianze: Lettres théologiques, SC 208, 2nd ed. (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1998), 50.



The Activities and Wills of Christ 183

ture. He wants to show that God-made-man had a human soul and a human body, which he calls foolish and weak. For human wisdom is stupidity when conferred on the divine, but strength of the flesh is weakness compared with the power of God. Therefore, joining both [concepts], we confess the nature of his divinity, being both Christ as the power of God and the wisdom of God according to his divinity; and according to the dispensation of his holy flesh, which is foolish and weak for God, we preach with truth the nature of his humanity, since this weak and foolish one is stronger and wiser than everyone [cf. 1 Cor 1:27]. For everyone, as was said above, is born under the transgression of sin [cf. Rom 5:18]. But our Lord Jesus Christ, coming into existence without sin and bringing no ancient vice with him is not only stronger but also wiser than any human being, although he deigned to assume our weakness and foolishness out of mercy alone. But those who are born from the sin of the first man are called children of wrath [Eph 2:3] and of darkness, by the highest authority of holy Scripture. But truly Christ, who is the true light, has deigned to bring light to those dwelling in the darkness and shadow of death. For let us hear what the apostle teaches when he writes to the Ephesians: “As for you,” he says, “you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you walked when you followed the ways of this world and of the prince of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in the children of disobedience. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature children of wrath” [Eph 2:1–3]. See, those are the two contrary wills of yours—of the mind and of the flesh, of course—which were not in our Savior in any measure. We are recognized to have them from the sin of our ancestor Adam, who made himself and every human being guilty, so that indeed sometimes the spur of the flesh appears to resist the mind, but sometimes the will of the mind is enough to counteract the will of the flesh, so that groaning in the same way as the apostle, we confess: “I serve the law of God in my mind, but in my flesh the law of sin” [Rom 7:25]. But our Lord deigned to assume one natural will of humanity, which he encompassed in his own flesh and in which he was author-

184   The Activities and Wills of Christ

itative as Lord of all, for the reason that everything is subject to God; indeed he has nor bears no sin at all from [Adam’s] transgression, since he alone was born without sin and the guilt of transgression. Therefore, my aforementioned predecessor [Honorius], in his teaching on the mystery of Christ’s incarnation, was saying that there were not in him opposing wills of the mind and flesh, as there are in us sinners. But certain people, changing it to their own meaning, suspected him to have taught one will of his divinity and humanity, which is the complete opposite of the truth. However, I would like them to answer the question: according to what nature do they say there was one will of Christ God? If [they say] “according to his divine [nature] only,” what will they answer about his humanity to avoid being condemned with the Manichean[s],94 since he was also a perfect human? But if, on the other hand, they say “according to Christ’s humanity,” because this will was perfect God, let them beware lest by chance they be judged along with Photinus or Ebion.95 But now, if they say that the one will is from each, they confuse not only the natural wills but even the natures themselves, so that they can understand neither one nor the other, that is, the divine or the human. Just as we do not allow both natures in the union of the one Christ, as does the impious Nestorius, so we absolutely do not deny the difference of natures, but nor do we confuse them, since we 94. The reference is to the Manicheans, a heretical sect who believed that Christ’s body was not real. John IV is relying on the previous condemnations by bishops of Rome in the fifth century, especially Leo I (Ep. 7, in G. H. Schipper and J. van Oort, eds. and trans., St Leo the Great: Sermons and Letters against the Manichaeans, Selected Fragments, Corpus Fontium Manichaeorum Latinorum 1 [Turnhout: Brepols, 2000], 46–49). The edict of Valentinian III and Theodosius II (Constitutio, Schipper and van Oort, 48–51) declared Manicheism a public crime with appropriate penalties. Popes Gelasius I (492–96), Symmachus, and Hormisdas followed suit, although Symmachus was forced to defend himself against the charge of Manicheism in a letter to Emperor Anastasius I (Ep. 10, Thiel, 700–8). See Neil and Allen, Letters of Gelasius, 45–46. 95. Photinus of Sirmium, the Monarchian heretic condemned at the Council of Sirmium in 351. Monarchians emphasized the divinity of Christ as part of the Godhead, while Adoptionists assumed that the human Jesus had been adopted by the Godhead as his son, rather than being created as God’s equal. The Ebionites were an early Jewish-Christian sect who believed that Jesus was human, not divine. See Sakari Håkkinen, “Ebionites,” in A Companion to Second-Century Christian “Heretics,” eds. Antti Marjanen and Petri Luomanen, Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 76, Leiden: Brill, 2008), 247–78. For John IV, these two sectarian doctrines were the polar opposite of the Manichean belief in the solely divine Christ.



The Activities and Wills of Christ 185

confess both natures with the union of one person of Christ God in ineffable harmony. For they say that there is one will of Christ’s divinity and humanity, together with one activity; what else, if not that they also recognize as being in activity one nature of Christ God according to the division of Eutyches and Severus? Finally, the orthodox Fathers who are famous throughout the whole world are shown to teach unanimously in their preaching, just as two natures, so also the wills and activities of Christ. But we have discovered that a certain document96 has been commanded, to which the bishops have been forced to add their signatures against the Tome of Pope Leo of blessed memory and the Council of Chalcedon. In this document certain novelties are laid out, which the teaching of the church altogether refutes. Therefore, may divine clemency inspire you, a most pious97 Christian, and, since you are the guardian of our spotless faith, arouse compunction in you to protect by imperial sanctions those who are going to be destroyed by the new inventions, and to command the aforementioned document, which hastens to put a stumbling block98 in front of the faith and is displayed in public places, to be taken down and destroyed. For everyone in the western regions who has heard of this and even the people of your royal city [Constantinople] were struck to the heart when they found out about the production of the aforementioned document. Through your authority and the apostolic perfection, the aforementioned document, which was composed against the Council of Chalcedon, will be useless now and in every age, and void of all power. But we pray that the perfection of the faith, which has shone forth up to the present day, may continue in its strength by divine aid also through you, as even through Constantine of pious memory. On this account, most Christian guardian of the faith, give this gift to your primordial mother, your church, for 96. Sc. the Ekthesis of 638 (CPG 7607 Suppl.), promulgated by Patriarch Sergius under Heraclius, ACO 2.1, 156–62, and Allen, Sophronius of Jerusalem, 208–17. See further the introduction to this chapter. 97. Pius is translated “pious” or “religious” throughout. 98. We have here translated scandalum literally as “stumbling block.” In general we have translated it as “scandal.”

186   The Activities and Wills of Christ

whose aid you are second to God, so that the serpent’s cunning may not dare to violate the faith of its bridegroom. Offer the Lord our God this life-bringing sacrifice in the firstfruits [of your reign], and dispel from his church every cloud of innovation by a ray of your piety, in order that the Lord our God will trample down with vicarious aid all the nations who are against you, whoever rejects peace and God, who is unable to be beaten. [Offer this sacrifice] in order that God in his kindness may deign to bring to perfection your affairs for you, while you look after those things which pertain to God. For this reason may the whole church pray with me, with bended knee of the mind, that he may deign to take away the storm of new confusions from our perfect immaculate faith, which was handed down to us by the holy apostles and which the most holy Fathers consigned with most resplendent teachings. [And offer this sacrifice] in order that God and our Lord, whose faith is kept immaculate, may bestow his mercies deservedly and most generously upon us. May he who is the almighty and eternal Lord, creator of all, watch over your rule with kindness and obliterate with his irresistible might the nations who trust in their truth.99

Text 2 Synodical [Letter] of Pope Theodore to Paul, Patriarch of Constantinople100 End of 642 or beginning of 643101

We acknowledge receipt of Your Fraternity’s synodical letter,102 given [to us] by George the priest and Peter the deacon. Glancing through 99. Following PL 80, 607D veritate “truth”; cf. PL 129, 566D feritate “savagery.” 100. JW 2049; CPG [9387]; CPL 1732. PL 87, 75–80 = PL 129, 577–82; Mansi, 10, 702–5. In Latin only. 101. Pope Theodore (642–49) was “born in Greece, the son of Theodore, a bishop from Jerusalem” (LP 1, 331), and a staunch dyothelite from the outset of his pontificate, which began on 24 November 642. See Booth, Crisis of Empire, 262. 102. Paul’s synodical letter (the statement of faith issued by a new bishop, patriarch, or pope on his ordination to the bishops of other major sees) of 642 does not survive but is mentioned in ACO 2.1, 18.7–10. Cf. note 97 below, and other examples in Chapter 3. Jankowiak, “Essai d’histoire,” 533 nr. 16, dates it to summer 642; John IV died in October of that year.



The Activities and Wills of Christ 187

the text, we found it between hope and fear, in as much as it equally puts its trust in the secure port of the twin shore103 and hesitates, and not without reason. For the priesthood is a serious responsibility, because caring for the [spiritual] life of others tires one out, as it is written: “Who is weak, and I am not weak? And who is caused to stumble, and I do not burn [with indignation]?” [2 Cor 11:29]. And as much as the mind of the bishop is struck by fear, lest he is marked through his silence or unrestrained speech, to the same degree he is an arrow lifted to the heights by his own hope and strength, when he rejoices in the progress of those set under him. For it is written: “Where there is increase, there the strength of oxen is obvious” [Prv 14:4]. From this, fear beats him on the other side. For it is also written: “My son, if you go guarantor for a friend, you have shaken hands with a stranger. You are snared by the words of your mouth and taken prisoner by your own speech. So do what I say, my son, and free yourself, because you have fallen into the hands of your neighbor. Run, hurry, awaken your friend: do not give sleep to your eyes, nor let your eyelids sleep. Break free like a gazelle from the hand [of a hunter] and like a bird from the traps of the bird hunter” [Prv 6:1–5]. We have heard with fear, most beloved brother, the danger we are in; let us hear with hope the promised comfort of your consolation. God said: “And I am the portion of your inheritance” [Nm 18:20], and again: “Your priests are robed in justice.” But fear strikes, when elsewhere it is said: “From the one to whom much is given, much is expected” [Lk 12:48], and again: “The powerful suffer powerful torments” [Wis 6:7]. And again, our hope is kindled when it says: “The priest’s lips should guard knowledge, and they should seek out the law from his mouth, since he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts” [Mal 2:7]. Therefore, when the deep swells among so many storms and calm waves, what else is it except that we are shaken in the boat of our mind by tempests in the harbor of a most bitter shore? But because we are recognized to have greater faithfulness in the longsuffering of the God of the Gospels, we do not fear at all a swell of this kind, rejoicing in hope. Therefore, what are we if not agents of 103. The “twin shore” means Rome and Constantinople.

188   The Activities and Wills of Christ

the one Shepherd? For when he gives to graze, we give to graze, and when he rules, we rule, since we are all his sheep fit for pasture under the same Shepherd as his flock. For not to our own strength, but to the grace of God do we account what we are. It only remains that with divine aid we seek, we beg, we knock, [and] we can reveal the gift of grace without blame in faith and action, by which [gift] we deserve to attain the promised rewards of strength when our vices have been trampled down. Pride, which is the root of all sin, should be far from the minds of bishops. Again, greed, which is the servitude of idols and the root of all evils, should be destroyed by the dust storm which blinds even the eyes of the wise, after being cut out and totally removed. Therefore, let us hold on to love, the mother of all virtues, without which nothing is achieved and in which all virtues of complete peace are contained with an indissoluble bond, [holding] the right faith and certain hope with unlimited zeal. And since the hearts of people are cleansed by faith, the chosen summit of your clear-flowing love of faith has shown that you have drunk from the springs of the Savior; and as we preach, you preach, and as we believe, you believe, and as we teach, you teach without diminution. Therefore, with things being as they are, since those writings have been destroyed which Pyrrhus published against the apostolic faith for the overturning of the synod’s decrees—as much by the apostolic see’s teaching, which was published by our predecessor, as by the command of our son, the most kind prince—why has Your Fraternity not removed from public places the Ekthesis, which was hung up and began to fall a long time ago? This Ekthesis obviously brought no small scandal to the holy church of God, for it is with the heart that it is believed for justification, but it is with the mouth that confession is made for salvation [Rom 10:10]. If, therefore, Your Fraternity thinks that the efforts of the same Pyrrhus are to be rejected, why have you not pulled down the aforementioned Ekthesis from the wall? Indeed no one worships what is reviled. But if—may it not happen—a writing of this kind is embraced, why did you not make this manifest at all in your own synodical letter104 to us? For neither of these can stand unharmed without the 104. Paul’s Synodical Letter to John IV. See Conte, Chiesa, 431, nr. (*110); Grumel, Regestes, 228nr299; Winkelmann, Der monenergetisch-monotheletische Streit, 103nr76.



The Activities and Wills of Christ 189

condemnation of the other. Surely the right faith, which has been corroborated by so many councils, is corrupted105 by Heraclius and Pyrrhus with certain additions and emendations. Therefore, the faith so closely examined by our Fathers is recognized to have been changed and the dead have died with a vain hope of blessedness because God turns away from the hearts of the faithful. For those who have died have in no way perished. For the death of his saints is precious in the eyes of the Lord [Ps 115:15 LXX], and those who live in this faith are made pure, and the teaching of the Fathers concerning the faith to which they have witnessed is handed down confidently as true and just. Therefore, it remains that what is handed down against the faith should be abolished and, together with its author, destroyed. Moreover, we are amazed that the bishops who ordained Your Fraternity called him “the most holy” in their letters; but also that they indicated that the Church of Constantinople had overturned their renunciation of him due to public unrest and hatred. For this reason, we, having been thrown into doubt, have decided to delay slightly what Your Fraternity wrote, until the aforementioned Pyrrhus is driven from the episcopacy in the Church of Constantinople. For disturbance and public hatred cannot remove the office of a bishop. For, again, there ought to have been published a canonical condemnation of him, meaning the ordination of Your Fraternity would stand blameless and confident. For it is written: “But if her husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress” [Rom 7:2–3]. “For the two shall become one flesh,” the apostle says, “this is a great mystery; but I speak of Christ and the church” [Eph 5:31–32]. In fact, although we are unworthy, however, we fulfil his place among the churches. And while the aforesaid Pyrrhus lives and has not yet been killed by natural causes or by guilt, it ought to have been ensured that there was no chance of a schism. Therefore, so that the priestly office of Your Fraternity should continue even stronger, it is proper to gather against him the required meeting of bishops from the nearby regions. For we have sent commands about this 105. Following PL 87, 78B corripitur; cf. PL 129, 579C corrigitur “is corrected.”

190   The Activities and Wills of Christ

even to our dearest sons, Sericus the archdeacon106 and Martin the deacon and papal ambassador,107 to whom we have entrusted judgment on this matter in our stead, in order that the guilt of the aforementioned Pyrrhus should be examined according to law with Your Fraternity. For his presence is not necessary where his excesses and written rejection of the truth are at hand, so that when he is judged on these, he is condemned in all ways. Indeed, first Heraclius, who condemned the inviolate faith of the orthodox Fathers, made known with various praises and confirmed by his signature his sophistic declaration in which he composed, as it were, a creed of faith, and with covert pressure he compelled certain bishops around him individually to affirm the aforementioned Ekthesis and presumed to hang it in public places to ruin the Council of Chalcedon in a daring and simple action. From this, he spread no small scandal of disagreement among the churches of God, and he valued little the correction by our predecessor with the witness of a synod.108 Therefore, when you have requested these and others [to attend] Your Fraternity’s synod, subject him to canonical enforcement so that, when he is stripped of the priesthood according to law, by the priestly rule and legislation governing bishops, not only will the faith remain unimpaired but the office of Your Fraternity as bishop will be made more secure. But if Your Fraternity attends carefully to the supporters of the abovementioned Pyrrhus, surrounding him with noise during the council, and you notice that they often insolently interfere through delays, so as to carry out their own council at some [other] time, to contradict you, if anything happens not according to its will and if they insult Your Fraternity by this means or they try to cause a schism concerning the same person [sc. Pyrrhus], it is feasible for their cunning purpose to be cut away, even by a small chapter of this kind. And a declaration should be obtained from our 106. The archdeacon Sericus is mentioned as bearer of the Letter of Constantine to Theodore, Text 5 below; “our beloved son the deacon Sericus” is described as the writer of the Second Letter of Honorius to Sergius, excerpts of which are preserved in the Acts of the Council of Constantinople III, session 13 (Greek text in ACO 2.2/2, 620–24; Latin in ACO .2.2/2, 621–25). 107. Martin the deacon is the future Pope Martin I, elected in 649, eight of whose letters are translated below, as texts 7–14. 108. If a Roman synod was held under John IV, as seems likely, details do not survive.



The Activities and Wills of Christ 191

lord and son, the most Christian emperor, that we petitioned him about this quite forcefully indeed through our letters to order the oft-mentioned Pyrrhus to be sent to the city of Rome so that he can be judged for his rashness when we hold our own synod. For so also Your Fraternity’s rank will appear stronger to every future schismatic opponent, and the scandal of innovation will be felled by the blow of the orthodox faith, and the church of God will be given over to eternal peace. For scandals ought to be destroyed by the church of God and rooted out. And surely many tares of disagreement can grow up against the promotion of Your Fraternity if the sickle of canon law does not prevent their growth, cutting it off at the root. Indeed, when one member suffers, the rest of the body suffers with it [1 Cor 12:26]. Therefore, let it not happen that schisms and disputes proceed, according to which, in our letter, we have petitioned our most gentle lord and son, the prince, that all the scandals which have recently arisen be cut back by Your Fraternity’s episcopal office. And indeed may we, [having] a brotherly heart, as it were, appear to [our] fellow sufferers, bringing the remedy of our providential care. Nevertheless, let us deem the aforementioned Ekthesis,109 which is shown to have been composed with sophistic words against the orthodox faith and the Council of Chalcedon, to be canceled for all men and refuted by the bond of anathema, and we have rejected it as abhorrent to us and to all orthodox bishops. And surely that faith is sufficient for us which the holy apostles preached, the councils confirmed, and the holy Fathers authenticated, through which we have been reborn and made learned, and which we teach, accepting no addition to the symbol of the faith, which was confirmed by the synods. Anathema on those who add [anything] and anathema to those who remove [anything] from the holy teaching, that is the creed,110 which was defined at the Council of Nicaea and confirmed at Constantinople and was established by the grace of the Holy Spirit at the First Council of Ephesus and at Chalcedon by the holy and orthodox Fathers who flourished in the catholic faith. These statements and those similar to them may Your Fraternity 109. On the Ekthesis of 638, see notes 36–38 above. 110. Symbolum.

192   The Activities and Wills of Christ

confess with us by preaching in word and deed, with one mind, but similarly anathematizing all heresies and their originators, so that we may all say the same thing, as is written, and no schisms at all may take hold in the churches of God, which have now been cut out by the spiritual and two-sharpened sword of reason. Moreover, we commend the present letter-bearer to Your Fraternity in all respects, since even his behavior demands that we ought to commend him to you, because clearly his venerable status and perfect behavior are discerned to reveal clearly your presence to us. Copy of the statement sent to Constantinople by Theodore the most holy bishop of Rome111 End of 642 or beginning of 643

Our Lord and Savior spoke thus to his apostles in the Gospels: “Whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven” [Mt 5:19]. But another Scripture says: “Do not remove the ancient landmark that your ancestors set up” [Prv 22:28]. Therefore, circumstances being what they are,112 we bring to Your Fraternity’s notice that Pyrrhus— who once snatched the episcopacy of the Church of Constantinople and like a wolf in sheep’s clothing was in hiding, with his horn of war raised against the orthodox faith—put together certain novel inventions and forced certain priests to put their names to documents dictated by him, by secret and covert means. Clothed in treachery, [Pyrrhus did this] so that he might establish the heretical teaching of his boldness with the stolen signatures of others and that he might try to compose a new teaching, as it were, against the adored creed which was handed down by the holy Fathers. 111. JW 2050; CPG [9388]; PL 87, 80–82 = PL 129, 581–82. Latin retroversion of Anastasius Bibliothecarius. No Greek exists. It is not entirely clear that this Copy of the Statement Sent to Constantinople was attached to Theodore’s letter to the new patriarch Paul, where Anastasius Bibliothecarius placed it in his Latin retroversion. It could equally have been attached to Theodore’s Letter to the Bishops of Constantinople (text 3 below), which Anastasius also translated into Latin. Jankowiak, “Essai d’histoire,” 533 nr.20; Conte, Chiesa, 435 nr.115; Winkelmann, Der monenergetisch-monotheletische Streit, 105 nr.80. 112. Or possibly, “with these [words] holding thus”; Lat. His sic se habentibus (PL 87, 80C).



The Activities and Wills of Christ 193

And since the Council of Chalcedon put an anathema on those who added or took away anything in respect to the faith, which was corroborated by so many Fathers, for the sake of this matter we have thought to arm Your Affection so that you can refute whatever the aforementioned Pyrrhus presumed against the apostolic faith, and you may retain the same faith as we too have believed, which you have drunk together with us from the same milk of the breast of the holy church, destroying every crazy and rash novelty. For we anathematize, both through other letters and through the decree of the current statement, everything which was introduced against our apostolic faith by the novel and rash vanity of the same Pyrrhus, together with the document that was proposed by him and hung up in public places.113 We want everyone to know, that is, to hold on to that which the holy apostles handed down and the Fathers who flourished in the orthodox faith confirmed [and] handed down to posterity through the five holy councils.

Text 3 Pope Theodore to the Bishops Who Consecrated Paul, Patriarch of Constantinople, on Account of the Ex-Patriarch Pyrrhus114 c. 643

We received Your Fraternity’s letter which told us that our brother and co-bishop Paul had been promoted,115 and we rejoiced indeed over his ordination. But our soul was greatly shaken by the future sadness which of course is going to come upon him, on account of 113. The Ekthesis promulgated by Pyrrhus’s predecessor Sergius (d. 638). Cf. notes 36–38 above. 114. CPG [9389], CPL 1732. PL 87, 81–82 = PL 129, 581–84. Latin version of Anastasius Bibliothecarius; the letter also exists in an unedited Arabic version, in a manuscript that otherwise contains Syriac texts, Vaticanus syriacus 130, fol. 80b–84a: see description in Schacht, “Der Briefwechsel,” 230. Theodore’s letter is reproduced by Schacht, “Der Briefwechsel,” 265– 268, with Germ. trans. at 249–52. See Jankowiak, “Essai d’histoire,” 533 nr.17; Conte, Chiesa, 431, nr. (*110); Winkelmann, Der monenergetisch-monotheletische Streit, 103 nr.76. 115. Pyrrhus was still patriarch of Constantinople until 29 September 641. His successor, Paul II, was elected at the end of 641. Theodore of Rome was elected on 24 November 642.

194   The Activities and Wills of Christ

the tares which are expected to grow, unless they are rooted out by a most diligent hand and most cautious attention before they grow and suffocate the Lord’s harvest. Therefore, Pyrrhus, who sowed scandal in the holy churches of God, should have been submitted to canonical attention first, and then our brother Paul ordained prelate, lest perhaps, as Your Fraternity’s letter to us indicated, he thinks he can quarrel sometime with his deposition somehow, because he endured the hatred of the people and was forced to submit his libellus under duress116 and denied his church. In fact, people change their minds easily, and some rise sometimes from hatred to affection, but sometimes they slip from affection into hatred. For this reason, therefore, what lies are to be told in future are not planned by careful consideration, lest perhaps a foreseen scandal split the church of God into various rivalries. There are chapters by which the aforesaid Pyrrhus can be expelled from every priestly order, according to the canons: first in fact that he praised Heraclius in his letter, who anathematized the catholic faith and the Fathers of correct belief; and [second] that through usurpation, through certain priests who had signed their names, he presumed to confirm a cunningly devised document against the apostolic faith, and he hurried to hang it in public places, as if taking up a new faith and creed against the holy Council of Chalcedon. He feared not at all the punishment of the eternal judge, and he anathematized the same Council of Chalcedon, to which holy teaching, that is the adored creed, no one ever should attempt to dare to add or subtract anything. But the aforementioned Pyrrhus suffered to retreat from his wickedness and not from the protest of a council. Therefore, we 116. Pyrrhus submitted his Libellus, a statement recanting his previous commitment to monothelitism, to Pope Theodore in Rome soon after his debate with Maximus the Confessor in Carthage, in July 645. This is confirmed in ACO 2.1, 18.1–5; LP 1, 332.10; and Theophanes, Chronographia, AM 6121, de Boor, vol. 1, 509.2–9. See Conte, Chiesa, 439, nr. (*122); Jankowiak, “Essai d’histoire,” 534 nr.26. The debate between Maximus and Pyrrhus is recorded by dyothelite partisans, Marcel Doucet, ed. and Fr. trans., “Dispute de Maxime le Confesseur avec Pyrrhus: Introduction, texte critique, traduction et notes” (PhD diss., Université de Montreal, 1972). On the authenticity of this text, see Ryan Strickler, “A Dispute in Dispute: A Reconsideration of the Disputatio cum Pyrrho Attributed to Maximus the Confessor (CPG 7698),” Sacris Erudiri 56 (2017): 248–65.



The Activities and Wills of Christ 195

reject the document just mentioned and anathematize everything which the oft-mentioned Pyrrhus piled up against the faith, nay even now we anathematize again and again, embracing only what our holy Fathers handed down to us in councils and adding nothing to the faith nor taking anything away. And for this reason you know [what] we have defined against the person of the aforementioned Pyrrhus in letters which we have sent to our just-mentioned brother and fellow bishop [sc. Paul], so that therefore no scandal at all occurs in the future. According to the prefixed measure, sacred providence should look to extinguish it with diligence. And indeed, the matter itself has provoked more trials for us and has raised weeds that will spring up from probable speculation, since throughout your letters you have called the aforementioned Pyrrhus “the most holy.” For if we should be silent on other matters, and he [sc. Pyrrhus] did not sin at all either against religion or against the teaching of the faith, and not one fault condemned [him], then why was he thrown out of his own church? Perhaps someone says that public hatred made this happen. However, popular unrest cannot remove the right of priesthood, nor can hatred strip anyone of a holy order. Rather it is clearly for canonical reasons that rights of priesthood can be rescinded. For unless a bishop is destroyed by reason of his nature, another cannot seize his church without blame. And in fact, we write this, not to disagree with the ordination of our aforementioned brother Paul, but to open with a healing hand the hidden and secret wound, lest it be able to spread through the vital organs. Like a doctor, we draw out all uncleanness of fetid infection and penetrate what might happen by careful and incisive foresight, not because we wish it to happen. For in the interior of our mind we embrace and comfort the oft-mentioned brother, but lest there be schisms, we are alarmed with brotherly care and affectionate concern that the laying on of hands that made him bishop should be in no way marred. Finally, when schisms have been deprived of life and breath, the orthodox faith too, which shone forth through the fields of Christ our God, namely the holy apostles, with so many spiritual scents of flowers of paradise, cannot be wounded at all by the thorns of any tares.

196   The Activities and Wills of Christ

Text 4 Pope Theodore to Emperor Constantine117 c. 643

Theodore patriarch of Rome118 to the orthodox Constantine, crowned emperor119 Seeing that the almighty God, out of his care for his own church, by his divine council gave us control of things which regard Your Piety, O celebrated one, and set us in this place, whence it is permitted to write to you quickly and without delay about those things which concern your religion and the catholic church, that there be a decision for [our] common salvation; we say that Your Majesty has indeed by his rescript to individual apostolic and holy sees assigned pious leaders and custodians of the immaculate faith. Nevertheless, in the rank of patriarch of Constantinople, [we say] you kept that John,120 who adhered to the errors of Heraclius and others of his kind with a double curse and blind ignorance. On this account, the whole catholic church along with me demands and implores Your Piety, O faithful emperor, to stand more firmly on that path of religion, which the Holy Spirit has indicated for you. For if you do this, you have begun to make pure sacrifices to the living God who watches over all. 117. JW 2042; CPG [9386]; CPL 1731. Latin retroversion from Arabic version in Vaticanus Syriacus 130, f. 82b, A. Mai, ed., Nova patrum bibliotheca, vol. 6 (Rome, 1853), 510–11 (the identification as Vaticanus Syriacus 131 by Mai, Nova patrum bibliotheca, is corrected by Schacht, “Die Briefwechsel,” 231). There is also an Arabic summary in Eutychius: see Jankowiak, “Essai d’histoire,” 533nr18. 118. This letter also circulated under the name of Pope John IV (640–42). Cf. text 1 in this chapter. 119. We assume from the date of this letter that it was directed to Constans II (641–68), who took the imperial throne from his uncle Heraklonas towards the end of 641, not to Heraclius Constantine III, who died in May 641. It is possible that the author, Theodore, was confused about the imperial nomenclature at the time of writing and so addressed his letter to “Constantine.” The same applies to the rubric of text 5 below. 120. Probably John Sedrarum, the Jacobite patriarch of Antioch (631– d. 14 Dec. 648) is meant. See Giorgio Fedalto, Hierarchia ecclesiastica orientalis: series episcoporum ecclesiarum christianarum orientalium, vol. 2 (Patriarchatus Alexandrinus, Antiochenus, Hierosolymitanus, Padua: Messaggero, 1988), 688.



The Activities and Wills of Christ 197

And so, in those first writings, you should erase the words which the condemned men with blasphemous mouths dictated against the orthodox, immaculate, and pure faith. Moreover you should order— may God favor your actions!—that Pyrrhus, patriarch of Constantinople, should obey the sacred canons, which he violated—surely resulting in his fall into a pit like unto eternal death—at the time he approved those crimes, not only by his own confession, but what is worse, by his written testimony. And the Lord said: I hate the priests who slip from their places by their imprudence and rashness [cf. Mt 23:3]. And again he spoke through the mouth of his prophet: “Let the frenzied fall down and not get up again” [Jer 25:27].121 Again, finally, the priests who are transformed into rabid and wild dogs are rebuked by the divine oracle. Actually, these maliciously persuaded some other unlearned priests that they should stuff the new and false swindle into a libellus of confession122 against the upright catholic faith. They contradict the general opinion of bishops, who preach the true teaching and who profess a sincere devotion for the apostolic see. Therefore, may it please Your Majesty to order that the writing added to the Council of Chalcedon and—contrary to that council and to sound teaching, which they have put forward to be fixed on that wall and appended to the volume of faith—to command it to be removed (I say), and to order it to be consigned to the flames, along with those other chapters which are opposed to the divine councils and especially those which were attached to the Tome123 of Leo and the Council of Chalcedon. May Your Tranquility, through that celebrated faith by which your radiance shines forth, order all these things to be wiped out and removed. I am certainly very much amazed that Your Majesty has published no decree thus far against the falsehood of these doctrines. Moreover, I would wish those bishops, who together with us confirmed our brother Paul, to be protected by Your Piety, and I 121. Lit. in Jer 25:27: the drunk (vesani). 122. On Pyrrhus’s libellus, see n. 116 above. 123. Lit. libellus. Leo I, Ep. 28, Schwartz, Tomus ad Flavianum, ACO 2.2.1, 24–33.

198   The Activities and Wills of Christ

would like them in turn to have confirmed with anathema your decree against that stupidity of which we have spoken above. [I mean the one]124 whom they do not yet call deposed but pious and whom they judge free of any guilt. But the true great scandal it seems to us [is] the discrepancy of faith. Therefore, why was he pushed from his own church? Perhaps someone will answer [for] these and other [crimes] of this kind, born from hatred of his relation.125 But let it not happen that the hatred of people should harm the validity of priests or prevail over the strength of the priesthood. And, in turn, if any bishop is removed from the government of his church for just reasons or is deprived of the exercise of his ministry, there is no other power that can restore him to his original rank. When we say this, it is not our intention to protect the priesthood of Paul, but we strive to apply suitable remedies rather to the hidden wound, lest the swindle be entrenched and invade the still healthy limbs. Of course, let us be keen to remove any corruption and to wash away any impurity whatsoever. Let us fear, however, lest perhaps he [Paul] has been careful to cut out the schism and unrest among the bishops subject to his law and has conspired even against us. Nevertheless, the orthodox faith is redolent in spiritual office, and may increase the fruits of paradise in us [who are] the disciples of Christ and consecrated to him.126 To us can no share of those thorns and tares be imputed, which are the unwelcome fruits of the one [sc. the devil] who sows discord among people.

124. Pyrrhus is the obvious candidate, since he was recently deposed. Theodore makes a similar point in text 2 above, his letter to Patriarch Paul. 125. The thought seems to be that a fellow church member, and thus a “brother,” pushed Pyrrhus out of office. 126. The implied threat to Constantine is that if the patriarch Paul is guilty of nonorthodoxy, the emperor will be tarred by association with him.



The Activities and Wills of Christ 199

Text 5 Emperor Constantine to Pope Theodore127 c. 643

The letter of reply from the emperor to the [Roman] patriarch128 In the name of Christ the Lord we received Your Fatherhood’s letter, carried here by the blessed archdeacon Barsica [sc. Sericus].129 And we found it worthy of Your Fatherhood, as much for what you indicated with sincerity about the pure, saving, and stainless gift which the apostles handed down to the orthodox as because of the teaching of the sacred councils, which fortifies the church like a wall around it, to the extent that Your Fatherhood revealed all the unclean and impure heretics who are subject to the condemnation that was rightly and justly inflicted on them. Moreover, we praised Your Fatherhood, good man, whom it pleased to introduce nothing at all upsetting or new, nor to commemorate or assert anything otherwise than was set down by those holy and chosen Fathers. For our salvation we have drunk the sweet water that flowed from the clear spring, by which you sated our soul’s thirst today. I say [it is] the water of life, as Christ said in his Gospel: “I am the living water; if anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and he will drink and live forever” [cf. Jn 4:10–14]. And we thought it necessary that the letter of Your Fatherhood should be made known in this great gathering, in the presence of Patriarch Paul of this our [city of] Constantinople, which is protect127. Incorrect identification of the author Constans II (641–68); as in the case of the recipient of text 4 above. The date, if the letter was in fact directed to Theodore, should be after his previous letter of 643. In any case, it refers to the Synodical Letter of Paul, which was sent in summer of 642. 128. Latin retroversion from Syriac, Mai, Nova patrum bibliotheca, vol. 6, 511–12. Germ. trans. Schacht, “Die Briefwechsel,” 246–49. See our note on the rubric of text 4 above. Mai, Nova patrum bibliotheca, vol. 6, 511, notes that a Syriac version of The Apology of John IV for Honorius follows this letter in the Syriac codex (Vaticanus Syriacus 130). See text 1 above and note 78. 129. Mai, Nova patrum bibliotheca, vol. 6, 511, corrects to Sericus on the basis of the name in the Synodical Letter of Theodore (text 2 above) and the mention of the Roman deacon Sericus in the second letter of Honorius to Sergius as the composer of that letter. Allen, Sophronius of Jerusalem, 204–5.

200   The Activities and Wills of Christ

ed by God, in order that no contradiction remain in the manner of speaking about these same issues, along with the ruin of souls (may God turn it aside!). Into this [ruin] our predecessors and better emperors chosen by God stumbled, whose minds our common enemy deceived, of course, and drove them away from that right faith, built on that rock against which the gates of hell will not prevail up to the end of time [Mt 16:18]. And we have all rejoiced with one will, we have all accepted it together in harmony, and we, the same, have adhered to the faith. Moreover, may such matters cause an outpouring of glory and eternal honor to our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen. For the rest, we adhere to the holy and catholic faith with unwavering love and with the favor of heavenly grace. And your brother Paul sent to Your Fatherhood, in the customary manner of a bishop, an encyclical agreeing with your words.130 Therefore, with unanimous consent and one mouth we, the orthodox—together with Your Fatherhood and the aforesaid patriarch and this whole noble company, united for the sake of our salvation—and all the western provinces and these [provinces] of ours profess such teaching and believe it. Nor do we allow any novelty at all or contaminant to be introduced to it. Therefore, may the orthodox faith rejoice, may the catholic church be equally exultant, and may there be an increase always in greater peace. Meanwhile, we command throughout our whole empire that no innovations be made in the church and there be no opinions other than the right ones, that is, apart from that which was handed down by the holy apostles and sacred councils and apart from what Your Fatherhood wrote, holy Father. Nor should anyone admit what has been ruled out by orthodoxy, either in words or chapters. And so, if by chance anything is not right, and anything contrary to the teaching of the holy Fathers, either by the authority of any emperor or in any other way, was decided in previous years or a little before the death of pious Constantine of happy memory,131 if anything 130. Paul’s synodical letter of summer 642; cf. Jankowiak, “Essai d’histoire,” 533 nr. 16. 131. Constantine III; on his brief co-rule with his half-brother Heraklonas in 641, see n. 18 above, and Booth, Crisis of Empire, 252; Lilie et al., Prosopographie, nr. 3708; Winkelmann, Der monenergetisch-monotheletische Streit, 224–25. On the succession crises of the Heraclian dynasty



The Activities and Wills of Christ 201

contrary to the right faith was forced on it either by the emperor, as we said, or by some other irrational reason, we, obeying the power of Christ, and living the Christian life publicly, should destroy it, I say, and let us trample it down by our rule, as if it were weeds on the scrap heap. And let us strictly forbid any indulgence in these matters: because we allow nothing to be introduced, but we wish our church to grow in peace and to sow fruits of unity, that is the most righteous brotherhood, and [to sow] perseverance in Your holy Fatherhood’s teaching. Pray for us, making offerings to God with prayers; and we meanwhile will hurry to make clear to everyone that they should pray avidly to God on behalf of this our rule, that it be peaceable and without calamity of any kind. Amen.

Text 6 The African Churches to the Holy Roman Bishop Theodore 646

To the most blessed Lord, the highest apostolic highness, holy father of Fathers, Pope Theodore, leader of all the bishops, Columbus, bishop of the first see of the Numidian council, and Stephen, bishop of the first see of the Byzacenan council,132 and Reparatus, bishop of the first see of the Mauritanian council, and all the bishops from the three aforementioned councils of the province of Africa. No one can doubt that at the apostolic see there is a great and unfailing spring giving back flowing streams for all Christians, from which little rivers progress in streams, watering the whole world of Christendom most abundantly. For, in honor of the most blessed Peter, the instructions of the Fathers also decreed for it every particular reverence in searching out the things of God, which [matters] ought completely and carefully to be examined by the apostolic overseer more generally, see Walter E. Kaegi, “Byzantium in the Seventh Century,” in Allen and Neil, Oxford Handbook of Maximus the Confessor, 93–98. 132. Stephen sent a similar statement in the name of all the bishops of Byzacena (Mansi, 10, 925–28, CPG 9394) to Constans II in the same period.

202   The Activities and Wills of Christ

himself, whose ancient duty is as much to condemn evils as to approve the praiseworthy. “For it was sanctioned by the ancient rules that anything that occurred, even in remote or far-flung provinces, should not be dealt with or accepted before [and] unless it had been brought to the notice of your Blessed Mother See, so that it might be confirmed by its authority, according to which the pronouncement was made; and from there the other churches should take up the beginning of preaching, as from their birth spring. And through all the different regions of the whole world the sacraments of salvation should remain of pure and uncorrupted faith.”133 For this reason, offering our most humble obedience to Your apostolic Highness, we submit with tears what we cannot remain silent upon without groans in our heart: the hateful invention of novelty in the city of Constantinople that was reported to us to have unexpectedly happened some time before this. Thinking that it had been cut off by the most serene judgment of your apostolic see, we have remained silent up to the present time. [But] we understand it to have become more stubborn there, by reading, namely, the libellus that our brother Pyrrhus and sometime fellow bishop of the same city of Constantinople offered to your reverend throne.134 Necessity demanded some response to our brother Paul, now occupying the Church of Constantinople, [so] we have sent an appeal, encouraging [him] with a great flow of tears to reject the aforementioned invention of novelty, not even invented in his own time, to be refuted by its own author, by him and also by every church over which he presides. And [we have encouraged him] to throw out all the documents hung outside his holy church to create scandals for people, so that the faith, which has remained until now intact, may be preserved and apostolic teaching may remain undiminished. “For it is certain that such novelties of speech are born of an evil love of glory. When some wanted to be seen as smart, perceptive, and wise, they 133. An inexact citation from Innocent I’s letter to the Council of Carthage on the subject of Pelagianism, dated 27 January 417: ep. 29.1, PL 20, 582C-583A. 134. On the libellus of Pyrrhus, see n. 116 above. In the following sentence, Pyrrhus is inaccurately called the author of monothelitism, a distinction owed to his predecessor Sergius.



The Activities and Wills of Christ 203

sought what new thing they might offer, not knowing that our ‘God has chosen the weak ones of the world to throw down the strong and has confounded the wise by what is foolish to the world’ [1 Cor 1:27].”135 Indeed,136 “he should have read the words of the teacher of the gentiles to Timothy, in which he said to ‘avoid the profane’ novelties of words [1 Tm 6:20]—which certainly lead to wickedness, and rest on thorns and tares—and ‘to remain at Ephesus and charge certain people not to preach otherwise’ [1 Tm 1:3]. And that we might offer some words from the ancients, there are the words of the prophet Jeremiah: ‘Terrible things are done on the earth, the prophets foretell wickedness’ [Jer 5:30– 31].” There are many proofs from divine law, which flow into our little rivers from the broad spring of Your Highness. But because our African province is remembered by malicious people at the mentioned royal city for a certain undertaking,137 we have forwarded to your Blessedness, beloved of God, that aforementioned appeal, [the one that we] sent to our brother Paul, the bishop of Constantinople. We humbly ask that you send it on through messengers138 from your apostolic see, by which we will happily find out if the aforementioned brother has returned from the wicked invention of novelty to the intact preaching of orthodox faith. But the authority of your Mother See, with salutary advice according to the sanctions of the Fathers, will work out how to excise the unclean wound from the healthy body if he has [only] pretended [to do so]. And when the breath of raging disease has been turned aside, what 135. A citation from Pope Celestine I to the clergy and people of Constantinople (CPG [8640]), written in 430 (Schwartz, ACO 1.2, 17.5–10), and preserved in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus, where Celestine joined Cyril of Alexandria in condemning the patriarch of Constantinople, Nestorius; cited by Price, Acts of the Lateran Synod, 163 n. 123. 136. The next two sentences are quoted from Pope Celestine’s letter to Nestorius (CPG [8639]), also written in 430 (Schwartz, ACO 1.2, 8.16–22) and also preserved in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus; cited by Price, Acts of the Lateran Synod, 163n126. 137. If this is in fact a reference to the rebellion of Gregory, exarch of Carthage, as seems most likely, then the letter of the African bishops must date to the last months of the indiction, in 646, and the rebellion also occurred in 646, rather than 647. See our introduction to this chapter. A similarly vague reference to disruptive activities which kept him from writing is found in Victor of Carthage’s Synodical Letter (ACO 2.1, 103.29–32), which dates sometime after his consecration on 16 July 646 (ACO 2.1, 101.1–2); cf. Price, Acts of the Lateran Synod, 163n127. 138. Responsales were those who gave answers as representatives of an ecclesiastic, of lower rank than apocrisiarii.

204   The Activities and Wills of Christ

is genuine may endure, more cautious, and the flock will be purer, purged of this evil contagion by the spiritual blade of Your Highness. Finally we must supply in truth this account of what happened, because for us especially, while we were striving to send a full legation with our reports, after electing those brothers from our college [of bishops], certain matters arose which have thwarted our purpose with good reason,139 when we tried to convene venerable synods throughout each province. But this general report on the matter we have discussed has been entrusted happily to Your Highness through the legates of various councils, out of pressing need, by a general decision of the province of Africa. We ask you to blame not us, but necessity itself for what happened. Columbus, bishop of the first see of the Numidian council. Pray for us, holy Lord and most blessed father of Fathers. Stephen, bishop of the first see of the Byzacenan council. Pray. Reparatus, bishop of the first see of the Mauritanian council. Pray.

Text 7 Pope Martin to the Church of Carthage 31 October 649

To the bishop-elect by spiritual consent of the catholic church of Carthage, and to all who are subject to him, bishops, clergy, and people who love Christ.140 Martin, servant of the servants of God, bish139. Again, the rebellion of Gregory seems most likely, as suggested above, although Price suggests it may refer to Berber raids or to the revolt by the exarch Olympius, which did not occur before 650, if it occurred at all: Price, Acts of the Lateran Synod, 163n127. Two witnesses accused Martin of conspiring with Olympius against the emperor, in Narr. 16–17, Neil, SeventhCentury Popes, 194, 196. This was before Olympius allegedly went off to Sicily to fight the Arabs. See the introduction to this chapter, nn. 20 and 21. 140. Prompted by the letter of the African bishops to Pope Theodore (text 6 above) and the letter of Victor of Carthage, in the metropolis of Proconsularis (ACO 2.1, 98–103). Victor had since died, and a new bishop had been elected. The importance of African support for the dyothelite cause is witnessed in the dedication of the Narrationes de exilio sancti papae Martini to “the people of Rome and Africa,” Narr. 10, Neil, Seventh-Century Popes, 182 and discussion at 96, 98. See also Theophanes, Chronographia, AM 6121, de Boor, 508.16–20, where he reports



The Activities and Wills of Christ 205

op of the holy catholic and apostolic church of Rome by his grace [sends greetings].141 Beloved brothers, every virtue indeed is accustomed to advise the most generous love between good people, who by reason of pious thinking and behavior maintain with each other an unbreakable bond of love always. But the word of faith, as a kind of root and foundation of virtues, spiritually accommodates all people to all, both to God himself who is above all and those who believe in him according to orthodoxy. And [the word of faith] so unites them according to the rule of faith, which is preached by them with one voice, that he makes each person understood better by each other than by themselves, through the Spirit’s grace that cannot be divided. And the book of Acts openly testifies this for us, preaching in a clear way: “But the mass of believers was of one heart and one mind. And the apostles with great power continued to bear witness to the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and there was great grace among them all” [Acts 4:32–33]. And so, brothers, knowing that you too share the bond of love by these very attributes, that is faith and virtue, both towards us and to each other and to our Lord and God, the source of goodness, Jesus Christ, as if certain things are mutually transferred, apart from our joint confession, it is a service easily met for us to declare the pious convictions which are in our minds. We embrace you deservedly with a sincere heart, because you especially—as though you were inextinguishable lamps—have expressed the stamp of your confession to us, or to this apostolic see, by means of your synodal letters.142 These the Holy Spirit shaped for us by means of the orator of the catholic church, by whom I mean the glorious Augustine, of course.143 By these [letters] we have discovered you to act the father and to speak out and express that teacher’s honor among you in that bishops in Africa, Byzacena, Numidia, and Mauritania followed John IV’s lead in anathematizing the monothelites, whom he equates with “monophysites.” 141. JW 2063; CPG [9406]; CPL 1733. PL 87, 145–53 = Ep. 4; Mansi, 10, 797–804. In Greek, Hardouin, Acta conciliorum et epistolae decretales, with Latin translation. 142. That is, letters of the Synod of Carthage. 143. On reception of Augustine in the East in the sixth and seventh centuries, and especially how his ideas on the will were taken up at the Lateran Synod of 649, see Johannes Börjesson, “Augustine on the Will,” in Allen and Neil, Oxford Handbook of Maximus, 212–34.

206   The Activities and Wills of Christ

your most righteous teachings. By necessity we praise you all greatly in these words of blessed Jeremiah: “I remember the devotion of your youth and the perfection of your love” [Jer 2:2 LXX]. He means by youth the strength of mercy or the root of faith, as St Paul said: “For he that comes to God must first believe that God is, and that he rewards those seek him” [Heb 11:6]. But the perfection of love is the fulfilment of the commandments. “Surely the one who loves me,” says the Lord, “will keep my commandments . . . and I and the Father will come to him and we will make a mansion for him” [Jn 14:23]. So also those who preserve these things with zeal as you do have arrived at full strength and are a measure of the age of Christ’s fullness. Therefore, we too, mindful of these and of the outstanding teachings united in virtue, have not made your agreement—which is worthy of imitation—fruitless, but by [offering] spiritual prayers to God at the altar, as though we were offering as gifts those actions which you took at the synod, [and] greatly rejoicing and interceding for your salvation, we have offered those things to the Lord as sweet incense, or a display of the genuine confession to this same Lord, and through the profitable rehearsal of those we have shown you as heralds of the truth everywhere, for all people. For there will be the sweet smell of life after life for those who imitate our faith openly. But in order to make you too absolutely certain about the precious work of such an offering of ours, we have sent you (via the legates Theodore and Leontius, pious monks of the holy Lavra),144 [an account of] those actions which were taken by us in the present. The Acts contain, as I said, the splendid and shining [example] of your discussions, together with our encyclical letter. So, by guarding our teachings with knowledge (for our communion is yours according to the undivided Spirit), that is, the apostolic and fatherly preaching of the catholic church, you yourselves—ordained with divine acknowledgment, always vigilant of mind, by no means out of your minds— may even say: “This is now bone of our bones and flesh of our flesh” [Gn 2:23]. And [you may] discover, in fact, your close relation [to us] in thought and words of truth and common cause in all matters. 144. The monastery of St. Theodosius in Palestine. See text 11 below.



The Activities and Wills of Christ 207

This will be called the true faith—pre-known by God indeed before all ages but now made clear because of us—given to us and to all who believe in him with orthodoxy, because, having been accepted from Christ himself (who is truly believed), it was given through the saving preaching for the salvation of our souls, on account of which [true faith] the righteous and orthodox person will give up not only his father and mother, but even his own soul, and will cleave to it alone [cf. Gn 2:24] through the intact and unmarred unity of the Fathers’ teaching. “For I say this is the great mystery of Christ and the church” [Eph 5:32], says the divine apostle. Understand your calling, therefore, dearly beloved, guarding it with force as you have accepted it through the mentioned holy Fathers and the five ecumenical councils, and whenever also, as I said before, you have encouraged us ourselves to offer its fruit to God, showing your zeal for us through what you have written at your synods. Let us not therefore prevaricate over the true confession through coercion or deception of those who either attack or tempt us, as is truly the case, lest we are demanded the reason for our prevarication on the day of judgment at the end of ages. “For if what is spoken by the angels is confirmed, and every prevarication and rebellion received its just reward, how shall we flee, if we have neglected so great a salvation? Which salvation, since it received its beginning in being spoken by the Lord, by those who heard it—namely, by the holy apostles, and from the beginning by their disciples145—is confirmed in us, with God witnessing by signs and portents . . . and distributions of the Holy Spirit” [Heb 2:2–4]. For the Fathers confirmed—now even by proofs from Scripture, now from arguments, and in all those people in whom [dwelt] clearly the herald of truth [sc. the Holy Spirit] in so many times—what we also sanctified in a synod, for establishing and commending the catholic church but condemning the heretics, who both in the past and now opposed it, and especially those [heretics] who have arisen in our own times: I mean Theodore, who was bishop of Pharan,146 145. Or: “and from his disciples” (variant reading ac eius instead of ab eorum). 146. Theodore of Pharan has been identified with Theodore of Raithou, the author of the Preparation, by Werner Elert, “Theodor von Pharan und Theodor von Raithu,” Theologische

208   The Activities and Wills of Christ

and Cyrus of Alexandria,147 and Sergius of Constantinople, and his successors,148 some of whom have not shown repentance up to their last day, some to this day obstinately defend the heresy; and for this reason: that, in line with the impious heretics who preceded them, they confess sometimes one will and activity of the divinity and humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ, but sometimes indeed none. They exchange the orthodox faith of the Fathers for these thoughts they have made up, and they introduce Ektheses and Typoi that are against the catholic church.149 So they will not be immune from those fearful threats which have been called down on them by the holy Fathers and the synods, or rather from the awful judgment of God. “For what iniquity have they found in the orthodox faith that they have distanced themselves from me, says the Lord, and they have walked after vanity, and they have become vain” [Jer 2:5]. “For have their priests not said, where is the Lord? And holding onto the law they have not known me, and their shepherds have lied about me; and their prophets have prophesied for Baal, and they have followed useless ways. On this account I will bring down judgment on them, says the Lord” [Jer 2:8–9]. “For you think hard, and see if this kind of thing has happened, if the people have changed their gods, and they for certain are not gods. But my people exchanged their honor for which nothing will profit them” [Jer 2:10b–11]. So I urge you, most dearly beloved brothers, “to live a life worthy of the calling that you have received, with complete humility and meekness, bearing with each other in love with patience. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Holy Spirit through the bond of peace: there is one body, and one spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called—one Lord, one faith, one baptism” [Eph 4:1–5]. Do not desert your company: their destruction does not flag. Literaturzeitung 76 (1951): 75–76. He was one of the earliest parties to the talks with Heraclius which resulted in the monoenergist compromise, on which see Olster, “Chalcedonian and Monophysite,” 93–108, and Price, Acts of the Lateran Synod, 191–92. In Maximus the Confessor’s Opusculum 10 to Marinus (PG 91, 136C–37B), there is a critique of Theodore’s concept of hypostatic activity: Jankowiak and Booth, “A New Date-list,” 49. 147. Former priest of Phasis, later patriarch of Alexandria, and signatory to the Pact of Union in 633. See our introduction to this chapter. 148. The successor patriarchs of Constantinople were Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter. All were condemned, with Sergius, in the Fifth Session of the Lateran Synod. 149. Note the disparaging use of the plural for these two types of imperial pronouncement.



The Activities and Wills of Christ 209

But we are persuaded that you, beloved brothers, think that heaven and earth will more easily pass away than for one iota, one tittle [Mt 24:35]—that is his divinity and humanity, mystically shaped in the figure of a cross—from those who have intelligently taught the statements of faith handed down to us by the holy Fathers and the synods, which you also have given us in letters and proclaimed in your synod. These things you have preached with piety: that God, the one who alone has power, and our Lord Jesus Christ has two natures in his hypostasis, which are unmixed and undivided,150 and two natural wills, and two natural activities, uncreated and created, divine and human, a coherent unity. That [unity] shows him to be one and the same our Lord and God, perfect in divinity and the same one perfect in his humanity, without any single sin, so that he is consubstantial with God, even the Father, according to his divinity and consubstantial with the perpetual Virgin according to his humanity. And he is entirely the same as [their] properties, forever and from the beginning, and entirely the same as our properties, in recent history, without any diminishment or any figment of the imagination. Surely in this divine preaching the foundation of the church stands entire and strong, holding an unshakable seal of the true confession of the Fathers. Pay close attention, therefore, brothers, lest anyone abandon the grace of God, which has been handed down to us through the saints themselves, and lest any root of bitterness take hold and impede your upward progress and you contaminate many by it. You know that we have not come to a fire [Heb 12:18] that is manageable and glowing, but to the mountain of Zion and Jerusalem, the heavenly city of the living God, and the gathering of many thousands of angels, and the church of the firstborn, who have been enrolled together in heaven, and God, the judge of all, and the spirit of the righteous and perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of the new covenant, and the sprinkling of blood that speaks better than Abel’s [Heb 12:22–24]. And with terror and threats refute those who lie against him who is of orthodox faith. For this 150. Two of the four adverbs applied to the combination of two natures in Christ in the Definition of Faith issued by the Council of Chalcedon, cited in the Acts of the Lateran Synod, ACO 2.1, 225.12–14. Cf. n. 222 below.

210   The Activities and Wills of Christ

reason, let us stand up with our hands lifted and with knees straightened, and making right steps with our feet [Heb 12:12–13]. Let us hurry to the prize of victory, our heavenly destination, completely ignoring the heretics who have wandered off, following their own opinion, but reaching out ourselves to the Fathers, who spoke to us the word of God. Looking at the end of their life, imitate their faith, for the sake of which we always offer a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of the lips that confess his name. . . . For God is pleased with such sacrifices [Heb 13:15–16]. And so, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with awe and reverence, for our God is a fire, consuming [Heb 12:28] our enemies. May you be made worthy to look upon it, as an untouchable light and the splendor of glory and the mark of the Father’s substance, with us in the future, that is, with the saints who have been forever, through their sincere and orthodox faith in him who distributes to you by lot according to the promise [that] “no eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor any mind conceived what God has prepared for those who love him” [1 Cor 2:9]. To him, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, be glory and honor and power and adoration now and always and in the age of ages. Amen.

Text 8 Pope Martin to John, Bishop of Philadelphia151 31 October 649

Martin, the servant of the servants of God, bishop of his holy catholic and apostolic church of Rome, to John, bishop of Philadelphia152 The faithful statement, entirely worthy and welcome, which we received from you, beloved brother, and those [documents] which were written to us by you and by those who now have begun to experience your spiritual life, according to God (namely Stephen our 151. JW 2064; CPG [9407]; CPL 1733. PL 87, 153–64; Mansi, 10, 805–14. In Greek, Hardouin, Acta conciliorum et epistolae decretales, vol. 3, with Latin translation. 152. Philadelphia, in the province of Arabia, is still a titular see of the Roman Catholic church.



The Activities and Wills of Christ 211

beloved fellow bishop153 and his companions, the monks of the house of holy Theodosius),154 made known to us the zeal that you have for those qualities which befit a bishop, as the apostolic word determines: “sound of mind, of moderate behavior, decorous, hospitable, learned, modest, not quarrelsome, not greedy, governing well over his church” [1 Tm 3:2–4]. Hearing this, we give thanks to God, whom we have served from our youth, who has comforted you along with all who love him, that you have reached such a point of virtue, which is beloved of God—since “all things work together for those who are called according to his purpose” [Rom 8:28], “seeing that his divine power has granted us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and virtue; whereby he has granted us his precious and exceeding great promises; that through these you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world by lust” [2 Pt 1:3–4]. Therefore, advancing thus in the Lord and making an ascent to him from glory to glory, we encourage Your Charity, most religious brother, to fulfil our path there, that is, in the eastern regions, in all the church functions and duties, so that you may rekindle the grace of God most of all in this [role], as is fitting, which is in you through your appointment to the offices of priest and our apostolic vicar.155 “For the Lord did not give us a spirit of fear, but of strength and love and good sense” [2 Tm 1:7], for removing every heresy, which is opposed to the word of faith, and for rooting out every vice, which is contrary to divine virtue, so that, prospering in the Lord in this way, 153. Stephen of Dora, papal legate to the East and present at the Lateran Synod, was the delegate of Sophronius of Jerusalem to Rome to promote the cause of orthodoxy. See the Acts of the Second Session of the Lateran Synod, where Stephen presents in person his letter of complaint, Price, Acts of the Lateran Synod, 142–49, and the sympathetic response of Martin, 149–50. See Price’s commentary at 135–38, and the following note here. 154. It seems from the Letter to the Archimandrite George (text 11) that George was the hegoumen of this monastery in Palestine and gave Stephen of Dora protection there. Early in the first decade of the seventh century, Sophronius inhabited this monastery, which is perhaps when he first met Maximus, then a monk at the nearby monastery of Chariton. Sophronius and John Moschus fled the Persian invasion of Palestine, arriving in Alexandria c. 604 or 605. Perhaps Maximus accompanied them there, as Jankowiak and Booth have speculated: Jankowiak and Booth, “A New Date-list,” 20, and Booth, Crisis of Empire, 148n31, 211. 155. As Martin’s vicar in the East, John had the power to ordain bishops and priests, and to restore lapsed clergy to their former rank if they repented.

212   The Activities and Wills of Christ

you might correct what is deficient and appoint bishops and priests and deacons throughout every city of those which are in the sees of Jerusalem and of Antioch. [It is fitting] for you to do this by the direction of our apostolic authority, which the Lord gave us through the most holy Peter, the prince of apostles, on account of the desperate needs of our times and the pressure of the [Arab] tribes, lest the most excellent priestly rank be lacking as far as any border in those regions and lest from this reason the great and revered mystery of our religion be unknown for the future, if there is now no priest or offering or spiritual libation being offered continually to God, a sweet fragrance for the people’s salvation. For it is fitting in this time especially for the catholic churches of God, which are everywhere, to be visited and strengthened in every way by spiritual shepherds, where according to the predictions of the Lord himself, trials have come on account of our sins, such as we have not felt from the beginning of the world until now.156 And [it is fitting] that there do not occur with these [shepherds] great temptations to scandal, so that even the chosen are led into error [cf. 1 Tm 3:7], if such a thing could happen. For this reason, do not delay at all, beloved, to fill the catholic churches which are there, following our command, with bishops and priests and deacons, who have a witness to all their good qualities through their own proper way of life. For “it befits a bishop as the manager of God’s household,” as blessed Paul said, “to be blameless—not proud, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. Rather, he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it” [Ti 1:7–9]; priests [ought to be] sober, self-controlled, of sound faith, hope and love [cf. 1 Tm 6:11]; “deacons ought to be chaste, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money” [1 Tm 3:8]. For if you do this, by the diligence of priests of this caliber you 156. At his trial in 655, it was alleged that Maximus had expressed the view that the Heraclian dynasty had lost God’s favor in its war against the Saracens in Egypt (Relatio Motionis 1, Allen and Neil, Maximus the Confessor and His Companions, 50).



The Activities and Wills of Christ 213

will save both yourself and that rational flock of God, which flees the attack of wolves. It is a great source of grief to me and an endless trouble to my heart that I see this work carried out through your zeal for Christ, since our predecessor in the apostolic see also ordered this to be done, indeed, through our beloved fellow bishop Stephen, whom I mentioned. But this saving intention was not allowed to come into effect by those who proffered themselves as worthy to disallow such things. By their judgment, they did not do what they knew to be edifying, namely the commands of the appointed vicar of this apostolic throne, who ordered elections of those who are to be chosen for the care of a most Christian people to be held there. They only indicated to him the deposition, thinking least of all of the fear of God and not of his formidable indignation against them. Since, therefore, as you know, beloved brother, we have received power from the Lord more for constructing than for tearing down, let it be your zeal to carry out those things which are constructive, by the apostolic power and command given to you by us, his disciple[s]; and by no means hesitate to promote those worthy by grace for safeguarding and securing the catholic church, encouraging them with great affection who, once deposed, now have been converted to the Lord; for it is possible to bring them again into the light of worship, who do this and transform, just as it is more useful. On this point also the prophet gives encouragement, when he says to them: “Come to him and be enlightened, and your faces will not be confounded” [Ps 33:6], being marked by the true light. And: “Though your sins are as scarlet, they will be made white as snow; and if they are red as crimson, they will be as white as wool. If you are willing and hear me, you will eat the good things of the earth” [Is 1:18–19]. Be washed, be made clean; remove the novelties of your thoughts from my sight; rest from your made up doctrines; learn well how to confess, seek out the orthodox faith, and come, “I will receive you, says the Lord” [2 Cor 6:17]. Why am I troubled so much about them, until again Christ is imaged in them through faith? For this reason, I pray for them with tears, day and night without ceasing, that he who suffered voluntarily in the flesh on our account may again unite them to himself and us, by his true virtue and life-giving blood, with true concord that cannot

214   The Activities and Wills of Christ

be broken. Therefore, beloved, recognizing that we grieve in this way for them, do not cease through the mercy of God to encourage them continuously and to sing each day the prophetic verse to them which says: “Does anyone who falls not get back up, and when someone turns away, does he not return?” [Jer 8:4]. “Come near to me and I will come near to you” [Jas 4:8], says the Lord; and, “I am a God nearby, and not a God far away” [Jer 23:23, LXX]. “The Lord is near to all those who call on him in truth” [Ps 145:18], as is preached by the holy Fathers. But do not tire from doing this. For it is written: Do not stop doing good. But best of all hear him saying: “My brothers, if any one of you has strayed from the truth, and someone turns him back, he ought to know that he who has made a sinner revert from the error of his path, will save that soul from death and cover over a crowd of sins” [Jas 5:19–20]. And again: “If you distinguish worthy words from the worthless, you will be my spokesman. Let this people turn to you, but you must not turn to them. I will make you a wall to this people, a fortified wall of bronze” (Jer 15:19–20). So if they will have obedient hearts by the power of grace, and obedient ears so that they are convinced, and they hear the word of the Lord so that they acknowledge it through a true confession, confirm each of them in their proper rank when they give written libelli pronouncing the orthodox faith, that they might bear fruit for God, the conversion and improvement of others, and in bearing much fruit, they be held worthy of greater honor by God. Your Charity should attend entirely to this [issue] in those who are confirmed or elected by you, lest certain other sins familiar from the canons (apart from the heresy which is renounced by them in the libellus they present) prevent either their confirmation or their election in any way. For those things, which do not have consistent grounds for defense, are impossible to cover up or to pass over. But among those who sin gladly and who love to sin, it is completely fitting to deny them the pardon which is given by dispensation in lapses of this kind, lest they too be more gravely injured because of contempt for the canons and lest we become guilty of acting unjustly to them by permitting forgiveness. For we are defenders and guardians of the divine canons, not liars, since indeed there are punishments clearly linked to telling lies. And so we encourage the observance of the canon[s] among those who elected



The Activities and Wills of Christ 215

themselves,157 apart from their decision and without their knowledge, or who have been chosen for the patriarchate of Sophronius of blessed memory, who were obviously improperly elected by certain people before his patriarchate or after his death in the Lord,158 due to (as was said) the difficult times or because there was not enough time. We command such people as have presented written libelli to be confirmed who, with the application of judgment, ought to elect according to the canons or to allow it, thereby making no prejudice to the canon. For the canon acknowledged pardon in the persecutions of troubled times, in which there was no contempt [for it], arguing that it was not prevarication but rather difficulty and poverty that forced full diligence to be passed over, out of mercy, by necessity. But so much for them. You should scorn utterly the overbearing threats or protests in the letters of him who falsely takes the name of bishop for himself, I mean Macedonius,159 as if they were the barking of a rabid or mad dog. Listen carefully to him who says: “Do not fear the disapproval of people or be overcome by their contempt” [Is 51:7, LXX]. For no catholic church acknowledged him as bishop at all, not only because he grabbed this title for himself in a region beyond his own, in contradiction of the canons and without permission, or any decree, but also because he agrees with the heretics who arranged, as an appendix to his heresy, his election accompanied by tumult out of contempt. In the same way, Peter was named by them bishop of Alexandria160 and pretended to be so, so that his heresy would be rendered more secure by all means through greater, written titles. We anathema157. The passive construction in Latin is a translation of a Greek middle verb. 158. Sophronius died c. 638, around the time that Jerusalem fell to the Arab leader Umar (c. 637). On the insecure dating, see Booth, Crisis of Empire, 228–50. 159. Macedonius of Antioch (639–49), on whom see Fedalto, Hierarchia ecclesiastica orientalis, 2, 683. Fedalto lists the monothelite Gregory as patriarch from 649, followed by Macarius (656–81), whereas Winkelmann, Der monenergetisch-monotheletische Streit, 235, dates Macedonius’s patriarchate from 639 to 662 (so also Lilie et al., Prosopographie, nr. 4678). Booth, Crisis of Empire, 323, notes that Macarius identified his predecessor Macedonius as one of those who presided over Maximus’s trial in Constantinople in 662: ACO 2.2/1, 228–230. On Macarius, see n. 226 below. 160. Peter Mongus, who was briefly the anti-Chalcedonian patriarch of Alexandria in 477 and was restored in 482–90. See chapter 3, n. 133.

216   The Activities and Wills of Christ

tized here [in Rome], canonically and in synod, the persons of those present as a group, namely: Theodore who was bishop of Pharan,161 and Cyrus of Alexandria,162 and Sergius of Constantinople and his successors Pyrrhus and Paul,163 and those who held—or hold or will hold—similar opinions and have not repented or corrected themselves right up to the end [of their lives]. And with them [we anathematized] the Typos, which at the suggestion of Paul himself was composed against the perfection of our Christian faith. We decreed that everywhere all the orthodox believe and confess with right faith, as was handed down to the catholic church by the Fathers and the five holy ecumenical councils. That is, two unconfused and undivided natures164 of the one and the same Jesus Christ, our Lord and God, united according to his hypostasis, from which [two natures] and in which he exists. And [we confess] two activities according to nature and two wills according to nature, a divine and a human one, joined by the same nature and preserved in one and the same [Jesus Christ]. So that Your spiritual Love in the Lord may know of them, and through you all the catholic churches which are in your parts, we have sent these same synodal Acts165 by us here for building up and defending the catholic church, together with our encyclical and synodal letters.166 [We have sent them] by our priest and ambassador, abbot Theodore, and the monks of the most holy monastery of holy Theodosius, John, Stephen, Leontius, who were present at our apostolic synod167 and through the grace of God learned from our presence everything which followed and was canonically decided. By keeping these announcements safe and sound, you also remain unwavering for all the 161. See n. 146 above on Theodore of Pharan. 162. Cyrus of Phasis, later the patriarch of Alexandria (630–c.641) and supporter of the Pact of Union, is discussed in our introduction to this chapter; see n. 35 above. 163. These three patriarchs of Constantinople were condemned at the sixth ecumenical council, and their letters are discussed in the introduction above. 164. This phrase comes from the Definition of Faith issued by the Council of Chalcedon: “one person in two natures, unconfused and undivided.” 165. That is, the Acts of the Lateran Synod (649). 166. That is, an encyclical from the pope to be circulated to all churches, together with supporting letters of the Synod of Rome. 167. The Lateran Synod.



The Activities and Wills of Christ 217

faithful people who are there, for the salvation of their own souls. On this account, I testify before God and Jesus Christ and his elected angels that, by preserving these [commands], with every prejudice removed, and doing nothing for the sake of pleasing, but out of a pure conscience, you may hand down to all the Gospel of grace just as you received both from the holy Fathers and from our very selves, who have confirmed their sanctions in our synod.168 Do not be ashamed of the witness, therefore, of our Lord Jesus Christ, but be comforted by his grace, and what you have heard from us through many witnesses or proofs from Scripture and the Fathers, commend these to faithful people who are suited also to teach others. Collaborate with the Gospel by the power of God, like a good soldier. Fight the good fight of faith, seize hold of eternal life [1 Tm 6:12], since indeed the sacrament of piety is clearly great, which was revealed in the flesh, was justified in the spirit, appeared to angels, was preached to the gentiles, was believed in the world, [and ] was taken up in glory [1 Tm 3:16]. On account of this, teach and encourage, bearing witness before God; do not raise useless blows of words, for the subversion of the faith. But if anyone teaches otherwise and does not agree with the saving words of our Lord Jesus Christ and with that teaching which is in accordance with righteousness; he is proud, he knows nothing, but languishes over questions and overbearing blows of words, from which arise rivalry, strife, blasphemy, evil distrust, conflict between people of unsound mind, and which are deprived of the truth [1 Tm 6:3–5], but they will not advance any further after being reproved concerning the faith. The stupidity of these men will be made obvious to all, as was also the stupidity of those people: that is, those who were heretics before these. Avoiding them, dearest, continue in what you have learned and have come to believe, because you know from whom you learnt it [2 Tm 3:14]. Let no one scorn your priesthood, but may you be a model to all—in speech, in behavior, in love, in faith, in holiness . . . . Attend to your reading, your preaching, your teaching. Do not neglect the grace which is in you, which was bestowed on you by the priestly office and the office of our apostolic vicar, that your progress may be a clear witness [1 Tm 4:12–15] 168. The condemnations occurred in Session 5, canon XVIII of the Lateran Synod. See ACO 2.1, 380–81.

218   The Activities and Wills of Christ

and above all to God himself, in whose presence reposes worthy praise and the crown of justice for the virtue and piety of the works you have undertaken. The just judge will grant you this crown—you who keep his orthodox faith completely safe and fulfil his command with a ready heart—when he appears, glorious and fearful. But look, so that Your Charity may fulfil with great zeal and without any obstacle this ministry, which has been entrusted to you by our apostolic authority, we have encouraged the bishops who are beloved of God, I mean Theodore of Esbus and Antony of Bacatha,169 to offer you aid in all respects and to serve your spiritual will in accordance with their powers. And with them also George, beloved priest and archimandrite,170 and Peter who loves Christ, the one from Adra of course,171 and altogether those who in those parts have faith and a true zeal for God, whose rewards with God will be numerous, since they offer you readiness of heart and their zeal in every obedience and perfection of grace.

Text 9 Pope Martin to Bishop Antony of Bacatha 31 October 649

To Antony, bishop of Bacatha,172 Martin the servant of the servants of God, bishop of his holy catholic and apostolic church of Rome173 It is indeed common and proper to human weakness to be deceived and to make a mistake; but to change for the better is the 169. Recipients of texts 10 and 9, respectively. 170. Recipient of text 11. 171. Peter illustris, recipient of Ep. 8, PL 87, 174–75, in which Martin asks Peter to assist John of Philadelphia in his work of appointing new, dyothelite bishops and clergy in the patriarchates of Antioch and Jerusalem. On Peter, also the recipient of a number of letters from Maximus the Confessor, see Jankowiak and Booth, “A New Date-list,” 24–25. Adra, or Adraa (Der’a), in the region of Batania, in northern Arabia, had Christian bishops dating back to 359 at least. See Devreesse, Le patriarcat d’Antioche, 225 and map on 224. 172. Bacatha, in Palestine I, just over the Arabian border (Price, Acts of the Lateran Synod, 395n20), is now a titular Roman Catholic see in Jordan. 173. JW 2066; CPG [9409]; CPL 1733. PL 87, 165–68. Mansi 10, 817–18. In Greek, Jean Harduin, ed., Acta conciliorum et epistolae decretales, vol. 3 (Paris: Ex typographi regia, 1714), with Latin translation.



The Activities and Wills of Christ 219

work of grace alone, which perfectly befits God in his goodness towards those who have been worthy, according to us, in every word and deed. And he steadfastly offers the Holy Spirit to those of the best way of life. What your letter indicates to have come about in you, most religious brother,174 we carry forth through your true confession of the Lord, your good faith of sweet fragrance, upholding [your faith] in the Spirit and delighted by it, according to God. We give back to it the perfume of priestly office, by the sign of apostolic authority,175 but we always encourage you to hold fast to the Word of grace, to strive to be an example to others, to stir up their zeal, and by your enthusiasm to change the minds of all for the better. [Let] those who acceded to the imposed novelty rise up again in the Lord, as they [make straight]176 their paths [Heb 12:13] together with all the saints, making sound steps with their feet, through the righteous teaching of the Fathers, and the efficacious keeping of the commandments. For the sake of this matter I bend my knees to God our Father, by whom every best thing is given and from whom every perfect gift comes down [Jas 1:17], that he may allow those who have readily converted to be strengthened through his Spirit in their inner man, out of the riches of his glory, so that Christ may live in them again through their orthodox faith in him. And [I pray] that there be one flock and one shepherd, the one who is above all, our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who destroys the dividing wall of hostility [Eph 2:14] and gathers those who are far away and those who are near [Eph 2:17], through the cornerstone, to one and the same saving confession. And may you too, holding firmly to this confession together with us, be strengthened, taking your place among the saints, for bringing to fruition those good things which surpass every thought and all understanding. But the Acts of the synod which we held here,177 for the confirmation and defense of the catholic church, that is, its patristic and 174. Antony had confessed in writing to having accepted the Typos, which he had since rejected in a written statement or libellus. 175. Martin assumes the authority to restore the priesthood to Antony, although he is of a different jurisdiction. 176. There seems to be a main verb missing here in the Latin. Cf. Greek ὀρθοτομήσωσι. 177. From this sentence to the end of the letter, the wording is almost identical to the end of his letters to John of Philadelphia (text 8) and to George (text 11).

220   The Activities and Wills of Christ

synodal definitions and decrees, we recently sent to John who was designated our vicar by the canons, our beloved brother and bishop of Philadelphia.178 You do well by assenting to it and rousing all the orthodox together with you to the implementation of its chapters, which were piously entrusted to him for the praise of the catholic church. For a great reward for this action has been stored up for you in the kingdom of heaven.

Text 10 Pope Martin to Bishop Theodore of Esbus179 31 October 649

Martin the servant of the servants of God, bishop of his holy catholic and apostolic church of Rome to Theodore, bishop of Esbus180 There is confusion that results in sin, and there is confusion that results in glory and grace [Sir 4:25].181 You, therefore, most religious brother, being guilty of blameworthy confusion, by the satisfaction of your written declaration according to God, have brought to yourself glory and grace: glory being the orthodox confession of our Lord and God himself, and grace being the splendor of your outstanding acts of zeal for virtue: by which you have made known to us not only that you are perfect in faith but also pleasing to Christ the Savior of all with [your] great freedom of speech, so that in you the apostle’s saying about the saints might be fulfilled: the saints through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, and gained what was promised; who shut the mouths of lions, quenched the fury of the flames. . . . Their weakness was turned to strength; and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies [Heb 11:33–34]. You have conquered, most religious brother, the evil reign of our enemy the devil, you have administered justice to confirm the faith: by his grace you have gained the 178. Recipient of text 8. 179. JW 2065; CPG [9407]; CPL 1733. PL 87, 163–66; Mansi, 10, 815–16. In Greek, Hardouin, Acta conciliorum et epistolae decretales, vol. 3, with Latin translation. 180. Esbus (modern Heshbon) was located east of the Jordan River, now part of Jordan. In modern times, like Philadelphia, Hesebon is a titular see of the ecclesiastical province of Arabia. 181. Only in the Vulgate, not in the Septuagint (LXX) version.



The Activities and Wills of Christ 221

promises of the Spirit; you closed the mouths of the heretics as if they were lions and quenched the force of their heresy, as if a burning flame, by the breath of grace. You were strengthened in such a way by this [breath] that you conquered the stupidity of their opinions, you were strong in the war that you undertook against them, and you overturned their weak camps of adulterated teachings sufficiently, and you were presented as the victor by your own writing to the author of victory, Christ the Savior of all, who confirmed in you the priestly office for that reason, with apostolic authority. But do not cease to voice perpetual praise to him and to offer sacrifices pleasing to him, of your mindful obedience. For thus you will be made worthy of the presence of glory above, and you will be imbued with the heavenly gifts of Christ. But the Acts of the synod which we held here, for the confirmation and defense of the catholic church, that is, its patristic and synodal definitions, we recently sent to him who was designated our vicar by the canons, our beloved brother and bishop of Philadelphia.182 You do well by assenting to it and rousing all the orthodox together with you to the implementation its chapters, which were piously entrusted to him for the commendation of the catholic church. For there will be a great reward for this action for you in the eternal kingdom.

Text 11 Pope Martin to George, Archimandrite of the Monastery of Holy Theodosius183 31 October 649

To George the archimandrite, Martin the servant of the servants of God, bishop of his holy catholic and apostolic church of Rome184 The quality of your virtue, dearly beloved, shows that your spirit is quick and vigorous. For you make known the plain marks of spiritual strength of this kind, in which your zeal for unfeigned love is 182. John of Philadelphia, recipient of text 8 above. 183. One of the greatest monasteries of Palestine; see n. 154 above. 184. JW 2067; CPG [9410]; CPL 1733. PL 87, 167–68; Mansi, 10, 819–20. In Greek, Hardouin, Acta conciliorum et epistolae decretales, vol. 3, with Latin translation.

222   The Activities and Wills of Christ

outstanding and excellent. You have shown yourself to love not in word or tongue, but in deed and truth, as the Lord commanded: you kept safe for us Stephen, bishop of Dora, most beloved of God, the one who was sent by our apostolic throne by means of your own monks.185 Rewarded by the Lord for this deed, take the trouble to direct yourself most zealously to the battle for piety and to defend the queen of virtues, our most holy faith, with every good effort, so that you may convert with mercy those who oppose it, leaving reason behind; or if not convert them, you can argue against them; so that, by protecting the perfect Word of the catholic church, Christ, you may have him for governor and bridegroom, refreshing you in the heavenly kingdom’s bridal chamber by grace, since you have satisfied him who had you marked down for grief and punishment, in the account of the spiritual battle. We recently sent the Acts of the synod which we held here,186 for the confirmation and defense of the catholic church, that is, its patristic and synodal definitions and condemnations, to John whom we delegated as our vicar by the canons, our beloved brother and bishop of the church of Philadelphia. You do well by both assenting to it and rousing all the orthodox together with you to the fulfilment of its chapters, which were piously entrusted to him for the praise of the catholic church. For a great reward for this action will be paid to you in the kingdom of heaven.

Text 12 Pope Martin to Pantaleon, a Cleric in Jerusalem 31 October 649

Martin, the servant of the servants of God, bishop of his holy catholic church of Rome, to Pantaleon187 Every life is always known to be characterized by nothing other 185. George apparently provided monks from his monastery to escort Stephen of Dora to Rome. See n. 154 above. 186. From this sentence to the end of the letter, the wording is almost identical to the end of his letter to John of Philadelphia (text 8) and to Antony of Bacatha (text 9). 187. JW 2068; CPG [9411]; CPL 1733. PL 87, 169–74, Mansi 10, 819–24. In Greek, Hardouin, Acta conciliorum et epistolae decretales, vol. 3, with Latin translation.



The Activities and Wills of Christ 223

than groans and tears, due to the condemnation of sin beginning with Adam, the first parent; and especially now, because of the great number of sins and the infliction of dire rebukes and punishments for them, since God’s mercy applied the medicine of chastisement and correction for error and crimes of madness. As Your Charity clearly knows, you ought not behave thus against him who was sent by the apostolic see, Stephen, the bishop of Dora,188 beloved of God, or to write to us against him through your own account, since the order of our Savior commands [us] not to do that, but advises [us] rather to love with sincerity. Having carefully examined the letters concerning him, we have found them completely out-of-date and unproven. And for that reason we have judged him by [our] apostolic authority, as he deserves; but against those who wrote against him, we have dismissed the charge, tempering the rigor of the canon with mercy and judging the revelation of the tale sufficient for them to recover their senses. To be sure, the other sin of such people requires for its remission our Savior’s goodness alone. For it is written: If a person sins against another person, God can forgive him: but if a person sins against the Lord, who will pray for him? [1 Sm 2:25]. For they have closed the whole catholic church which is in that place, as far as they can, those who either did this or agreed that the commands sent to him by the apostolic see should not be rendered to the mentioned bishop, by which he was made [papal] vicar.189 And due to the difficulty of the times, that is, due to the pressure of the tribes who are invading us,190 he was ordered to ordain bishops and priests and deacons according to the canons, as far as power was lacking to us to appoint the patriarch of Jerusalem, to build up the clerical orders. It was fitting, therefore, 188. Stephen of Dora had sought refuge in the monastery of St. Theodosius under the protection of its archimandrite George. It was by Stephen’s recommendation that Martin appointed John of Philadelphia as his vicar in Arabia, giving him authority to appoint orthodox bishops and clergy in Jerusalem and Antioch. It seems that Pantaleon objected to some of these appointments, on the grounds that the ordinands had lapsed in their faith and endorsed monothelitism, but they were ordained after confessing their error. 189. Stephen of Dora was assisting John of Philadelphia, appointed vicar by Pope Martin. 190. An oblique reference to the Muslim invasions of Palestine and North Africa. Compare text 8 above.

224   The Activities and Wills of Christ

for those who profess to have zeal to show the ardor of that zeal here, so that the horn of Christians should be increased or raised up, by increasing the number of or creating priests. It was fitting for human passion to be overcome because of the saving passion of Christ God. It was fitting to prefer the building up of the catholic church to human strife, not for the apostolic command about him to be broken. For God said to Samuel: They have not rejected you but me, lest I rule over them [1 Sm 8:7]. For they did what no heretics ever dared to do, hiding away those documents which were for the creation and establishment of the church, but handing down what would destroy it. Will they have this for their defense, therefore, when on their account there are now no bishops or priests there who can serve continually at the altar and make sacrifices and offerings for the salvation of souls on behalf of the people, although they should know that the last hour is at hand and the time of scandals draws near? And for this reason it was fitting for more bishops, priests, and deacons to flood into the churches of God everywhere by providence, as it were a boat which is tossed on the sea in a storm, with more helmsmen and sailors; for the sake of this matter we too have been given power by the Lord particularly for building and not for pulling down, so that we might help people who waver with mercy and kindness. Whence, moved by this power, the apostolic see has overlooked nothing which might help the catholic church there recover its priestly honor fittingly, through the pious bishop [Stephen] already mentioned. But those who forbade it will bring judgment on themselves concerning him: for this reason, I go around weeping and saddened, day and night, beseeching God in his goodness with tears that they should not reject his heir up to the end, but should open the door that they have shut, so that the splendor and ornament of his priesthood should arise again there, when the bishops are increased, in order to keep the church’s flock safe with a shepherd’s care and snatch them with zealous vigilance from the snares of wolves. Concerning those who were not canonically elected there in the patriarchate of Sophronius:191 we decree that that canon should be 191. Sophronius died c. 638; cf. n. 158 above.



The Activities and Wills of Christ 225

kept inviolable. That canon was established by the holy apostles and our Fathers concerning those who—in another city without the judgment and knowledge of the pope who has power over that city—either elected or were elected or consented [to elections] or called a council.192 For we cannot dissolve the canons of the church, we who are defenders and guardians of the canons, not transgressors, even if they violate both sees: I mean this apostolic see, which did not give them the right to ordain,193 as was said before, and the see of holy James,194 which they sought to hide [from] Sophronius, so that others could freely control the elections themselves as they wished, and not as the Holy Spirit commands. On account of such people, the canon of the church passes judgment, for our God is not the God of confusion and upheaval but of order and peace [1 Cor 14:33]. But those who were made [priests] either before he was patriarch of that see or after the death of Sophronius of blessed memory195 (whom we mentioned), we wrote about them concerning the difficulty of the times. This [difficulty] thus offers an opportunity of defense for their having been ordained, since there is absolutely no prejudice to the canon of the church; in such a way that, when they presented the one whom we recently appointed there for that purpose with a libellus of their sincere repentance or of their orthodox faith, he confirmed them in their proper office, [and] only those with other sins were prohibited from being confirmed, as proclaimed by the canon. But we condemn the dogmatic documents you have sent, or which were written by our enemy, together with those who wrote them, if indeed they persist in their own perverse opinions, as even [we condemn] all heretics, with all their impious writings. We encourage the orthodox everywhere to remain strong and inviolable in the teaching of the Fathers and in those definitions which 192. Lateran Synod, Canon 20, ACO 2.1, 387. 193. διὰ τὸ μὴ δοῦναι τὰ πραικέπτα τῆς χειροτονίας (quod creationum praecepta non dederint). The Greek appears to be more correct than the Latin here, if “the holy see” is meant to be the subject of the plural verb dederint. 194. I.e., Jerusalem. 195. After the death of Sophronius, there were two patriarchal vicars, Sergius of Jaffa (638–44) and John of Philadelphia, whom Martin appointed by letter in 649. The orthodox see was vacant until 681 or 692, when Anastasius II became patriarch (d. 706).

226   The Activities and Wills of Christ

were made in synods and were confirmed recently by us at a synod here196 for the recommendation and defense of the catholic church; we made them known to all by sending them in brief. And conduct your affairs blessedly, piously keeping watch over these matters with us and professing your faith in the Lord with admirable zeal, and you will be made worthy of the promised heavenly inheritance at last.

Text 13 Pope Martin to the Church of Jerusalem and Antioch 31 October 649

Martin, the servant of the servants of God and bishop of his holy catholic and apostolic church of Rome, [writes] to the beloved brothers who are appointed to clergy of the holy city of Christ our Lord, Jerusalem: the orthodox bishops, priests, deacons, abbots of monasteries, monks, ascetics, and people who love Christ; similarly to those who are counted in the see of Antioch197 Greetings to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ [Phil 1:2], in the Holy Spirit, who lives in your hearts by virtue. I give thanks to my God whenever I think of you, in all my prayers always, on behalf of you all, I pray with joy because of your communion in the Gospel of Christ [Phil 1:3–5], that you may abound in greater charity, knowledge, and all understanding, that you may be able to discern what is best, that you may be pure and without fault on the day of Christ, full of the fruits of justice, for his glory and praise [Phil 1:9–11]. For I want you to know, brothers, about the thieves who have risen up in our times against the orthodox faith, namely Theodore, who was bishop of Pharan, and Cyrus of Alexandria, and Sergius of Constantinople and his successors Pyrrhus and Paul:198 because, through their own heresy, they have striven greatly to dig up and plunder the treasures or teachings of the catholic faith. 196. The Lateran Synod of 649. 197. JW 2070; CPG [9413]; CPL 1733. PL 87, 175–80; Mansi, 10, 827–32. In Greek, Hardouin, Acta conciliorum et epistolae decretales, vol. 3, with Latin translation. 198. Those condemned in Canon 18 of the Lateran Synod, ACO 2.1, 381, 385.



The Activities and Wills of Christ 227

But we, that is, the popes of the apostolic see, hypervigilant for the safety of our household, according to the Lord’s command, have not allowed them to dig up or pilfer the treasure of the faith. By constraining them in the chains of their impious and impure doctrine, by careful proofs and investigation of their writings against the integrity of the Christian faith, we have committed both them and what they impiously taught to the flames of canonical judgment, as if they were noxious weeds. We condemned them in a synod, making public their heresy to everyone everywhere, so that everyone recognizes them to be contrary to the Fathers, and the synodal definitions of the catholic church from those Acts have recently been compiled by us.199 And the orthodox are moved by their zeal for God against the aforesaid heretics, even as we have been, and condemn them and their heresy and everything they impiously did and wrote about it. [They condemn it] together with their pronouncement against the faith, namely the Ekthesis of the Emperor Heraclius200 and the formula of him who now reigns in peace201 and everyone who thought as they do, or does think, or will think. And [they condemn everyone] who persists in such heresy up to the end without repentance, but madly teaches one will and activity of the divinity and humanity of Christ, or none at all, even as [they teach] his nature [as being] from the whole, for the same substance is introduced from the same will and activity, according to the holy and orthodox teaching of the Fathers. Keeping their teaching unharmed and defending it, we condemned and do [now] condemn all those who think otherwise than the Fathers. And so we condemned those aforesaid men, as those who, by what they taught, professed themselves to think otherwise than the Fathers; and they have not up till now corrected themselves or wanted to be corrected. For certain of them ended their life in heresy, while others even now turn their lives upside down through their heresy, even though they were warned with exhortations and 199. I.e., the Acts of the Lateran Synod. 200. On the Ekthesis, see notes 36–38 above. 201. Sc. the Typos of Constans II, issued c. 648 in Constantinople. Richard Price, trans., Acts of Council of Constantinople III, TTH (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, forthcoming).

228   The Activities and Wills of Christ

entreaties by bishops of the catholic see—and by many pious priests living in various places, not only in our own—to shun their own heresy and run back to the Lord through the orthodox faith. They did not want to understand how to act well, and they stubbornly persevered in their own purposes and refused to convert to the Lord. So we have cleared them from the path, like the rocks and stones that cause people to stumble [Is 8:14], and for all those who love the Lord we have furnished a path [cf. Is 40:3] of pure confession towards him from the teaching of the holy Fathers and all five councils. In this way they may keep with us their most holy tradition as they preach two natures of the one and the same Christ our God, united in the hypostasis without division, and two natural wills, and two natural activities, one divine and one human, uncreated and created, united in his nature for a perfect demonstration that he exists as truly the same, perfect God by nature and perfect man by nature, without a single sin [Heb 4:15]. For this reason, we urge Your Affection always to believe and hold thus with us, shunning every heresy which has arisen against the catholic church in times past and present. And [we urge you to shun] those mad originators of heresies, whose example [they follow], the new together with the old, and Macedonius the heretic,202 the one who strayed from true doctrine in our times, [and] whom the aforesaid heretics styled for themselves a false bishop of Antioch, against the canons, just as they created Peter of Alexandria too in a time of tumult.203 For having lit upon those who agreed with them, and rushing together towards the ruin of their own heresy, and accepting as they did the exposition of a new doctrine and a formula imposed from above,204 they imposed on them the false title of priest as an unjust reward for their impious consent and vanity. They imposed it not with any valid election or church succession having led to it, but by their wicked and heretical plotting. They did this, as some think, so as to set up their own illogical and condemned heresy 202. Macedonius of Antioch (639–49), the Chalcedonian patriarch, on whom see Fedalto, Hierarchia ecclesiastica orientalis, vol. 2, 683, and n. 159 above. 203. On Peter of Alexandria, see n137 in chapter 3. 204. Sc. the Typos.



The Activities and Wills of Christ 229

through many people, even enrolled [clergy], and to lay waste the catholic and apostolic church of God.205 Hurrying to build up [this church] in the Holy Spirit, we have tried to instruct it appropriately to improve its stability in the present. According to the power granted to us by the Lord’s grace through Peter, the holy prince of apostles, [we have instructed] our beloved brother John, bishop of Philadelphia, to fulfil our role in all the churches joined in the East and create bishops and priests and deacons in all the cities that are clerically under the sees of Antioch and Jerusalem, lest, as the prophet says, there be no food for the sheep, although there are no oxen in the stalls [Hab 3:17, LXX]. That is to say, [lest there be no food for] the faithful and orthodox people, because the catholic churches have no bishops who might cultivate and offer them spiritual food through the teaching and institution of fitting matters; and especially now, when every woe has gripped us and we have been brought to the most recent times in which many scandals run headlong into us, so that even the elect are struck down, if such a thing can happen, according to the most true predictions of the Lord [Mt 24:24]. For this reason, most dearly beloved, we ought to furnish our rational flock with more ample and diligent care through the priestly office, since our enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. Resist him, staying strong in the faith [1 Pt 5:8–9]. Girding your loins . . . with perfect sobriety (1 Pt 1:13), hope for the grace which is offered to you, in recognition of our apostolic entreaty and encouragement on this matter, so that, as obedient children, you all with one mind and with holy and divine enthusiasm might aid our appointed vicar of the apostolic see, namely John the beloved bishop of Philadelphia, that you may bring to completion in every respect the work of his ministry for the salvation of your souls. Do not conform to the disobedient or those who contradict the truth through their illogical heresy, but just as the one who called you is holy, you yourselves be holy in all your behavior, through faith in the same Word, [through] both obedience and grace.206 205. The idea is that they created a separate clergy who would maintain their heretical beliefs. 206. διὰ τῆς ἐπὶ τῷ αὐτῷ λόγῳ τῆς πίστεως, ὑπακοῆς τε καὶ χάριτος (PG 87, 179C).

230   The Activities and Wills of Christ

Look, we have sent our synod’s Acts to him,207 allowing him to show them to all of you and make known what was confirmed by us there, the just announcements and condemnations of the aforementioned holy Fathers and of the five synods approved by all, and so that he may encourage all you pious and orthodox people, as we do, just as you have accepted from them our Lord and God Jesus Christ, so believe in him and walk in his ways. Therefore, may you be humbled by the powerful hand of God and receive our saving warnings on this subject, that he may exalt you [Jas 4:10] in the time of his most divine revelation, when there will be a great reward [Lk 6:23] above all imagining for those who have kept his faith and his command up to the end without any prevarication. But the God of all faith, who called you to his eternal glory, perfect you, strengthen you, make you strong and firm in the fear of him and knowledge of the truth, as you advance to all good things and continually ascend to him in virtue. To him be the power and the glory, with the Father and the Holy Spirit for ever and ever. Amen.

Text 14 Pope Martin to the Clergy and Laity of the Church of Thessalonica November 649

Martin, bishop of his catholic and apostolic Roman church, servant of the servants of God, to the Christ-loving clergy and people of the holy catholic church of God at Thessalonica208 When the artisan209 of the world, our Lord Jesus Christ, first created human beings, he bestowed his own commandment on them for the safety of their life, ordering that it never be transgressed, lest the fruit of that broken commandment lead to their own dissolution, that is, death. When that happened, he noticed that all people re207. The Acts of the Lateran Synod. 208. JW 2072, CPG [9415]; CPL 1733. PL 87, 192–97; Mansi 10, 843–50. In Greek, Hardouin, Acta conciliorum et epistolae decretales, vol. 3, with Latin translation. 209. In Greek, δημιουργός, the Demiurge. See Geoffrey W. H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961), 342.



The Activities and Wills of Christ 231

garded God with fear and would no longer be easily led to break the commandment by the devil, who first deceived us of old. So, looking kindly towards our salvation, he placed enmity between us and that one who had deceived [us], and wanted those [enmities] to last forever which he increased by design when he was made a human being like us. He was shouting out, saying: I came not to bring peace to the earth, but a sword [Mt 10:34]. Whoever does not accept this in truth becomes a friend to the devil and an enemy to our life. He breaks the enmity which the Lord placed between us and him, and, falling away from the living God, is put to death by sin. By him [sc. the devil], human nature is armed against itself and is corrupted by passions; its artisan, who came to earth wanting to bring peace to it [Mt 10:34], as it is said, brought his own sword. This word of the Gospel preaching means him [sc. Jesus], who always destroys and mows down all impiety and wickedness but commends the right confession of him in those who guard it with strength. Since, therefore, beloved brothers, we priests are entrusted with preaching the word of the Gospel through his grace, so that we protect its home with wisdom and faith, namely the catholic church, intact and spotless from those who hasten to violate and injure it, we make known to you our neighbors, as the Lord himself orders us especially to do, speaking through the prophet: “Comfort, comfort my people, says the Lord: priests, speak to the heart of Jerusalem; console her, because her humiliation is over” [Is 40:1–2]. To be sure, that person who was called its shepherd,210 who changed into a wolf and tried to humiliate [his church] by his impious teachings against us, the one who indeed came as heavenly bread to us on earth through the flesh, did not place before you genuinely and without novelty the bread and wine of eternal life through the teaching of the apostles and the Fathers. Rather, he placed before you the food of the Egyptians, or heretical doctrine, which normally pollutes rather than strengthens peoples’ hearts. For he was zealous not only in the beginning of his purpose to impose the confusing 210. Sc. Paul of Thessalonica, whom Martin pronounced deposed in Ep. 10 (PL 87, 182– 91) in the same month of November 649 (JW 2071).

232   The Activities and Wills of Christ

mess of his pollution on this apostolic see by his letters, as we pointed out at the time to his legates, the bishop Pithanus and the deacon Ignatius;211 but now too, he is keen to make more dirt from his teaching, even if, by the encouragement of the aforementioned legates, we have made his ridiculous errors known to him and we have moreover sent an example of the formula of true and saving teaching,212 which was handed down to us by the holy apostles and the most approved Fathers of the church, so that he might correct his own opinion by guarding it firmly. But also he, after exposure to the truth, did not heed the one who said: The beginning of human pride was to turn away from God. The person who clings to pride will be filled with curses . . . and [the Lord] destroys him completely [Sir 10:12–13]. For this reason, the Lord has despised councils of evil men and destroyed them completely [cf. Sir 10:13]. Who therefore will justify him who sins in his own heart? Who will praise him who dishonors his own life? For with the greatest contempt for divine judgment, he dared to water down and taint the example sent by us and to remove from it the correct confession of the Fathers and the condemnation which we made, that is, which the catholic church made of detestable heretics by law. And [he dared] to inject the poison of his own innovation. Since therefore it is written, brothers: “Who will pity the snake charmer when he is bitten, or all those who go near wild animals? So no one pities a person who associates with a sinner and becomes involved in the other’s sins” [Sir 12:13–14]. “An enemy speaks sweetly with his lips, but in his heart he plans to throw you into a pit; an enemy may have tears in his eyes, but if he finds an opportunity he will never have enough of your blood. . . . Pretending to help, he will trip you up. He will shake his head, and clap his hands, and whisper much, and show his true face” [Sir 12:16–18]. And again he says: “Whoever touches pitch gets dirty, and whoever associates with a proud person becomes like him” [Sir 13:1]. All of you, beloved, as obedient children, attend to it and fulfil the divine commandment, which says: “Save your life; do not look 211. Bishop Pithanus and deacon Ignatius, legates of Paul of Thessalonica, are otherwise unknown. 212. This was the letter to Paul of Thessalonica (on whom see n. 210 above), the contents of which were very similar to those of this letter to the clergy and laity of Thessalonica.



The Activities and Wills of Christ 233

back or stop anywhere in the plain; flee to the hills, or else you too will be consumed at the same time” [Gn 19:17]. And, “Depart from there! Touch no unclean thing; go out from the midst of them!” [Is 52:11]. Break off all contact and affection for such a person, that is, for his most evil heresy; for it is death and separates from God those who follow the teaching of such a man. And for this reason we deposed him by the canons from every priestly rank and office,213 until he corrects himself, and returns to the apostolic faith of the catholic church, in which you yourselves stand always, planted and grounded, who were born and raised through the grace of God. And as you have received from us, or from the holy apostles, and the prophets and teachers and the five universal synods, as befits you to believe and live and please God, so also have you believed and walked up to this point, so that you might abound more in the correct faith. You confess, according to the righteous tradition of those holy men, our Lord Jesus Christ, the true God and at the same time true human being, falling short in nothing of his divine nature, and falling short in nothing of his human nature, alone without sin, but perfect in every way in both his natures, from which and in which he consists, both in the divine and in the human, in the uncreated and in the created,214 as in nature so in his will and activity, for the revealing of his perfect sharing of nature and substance with God the Father and with his mother the Virgin. Therefore, having such a hope, we enjoy much openness,215 and we do not as our adversaries do relish in superimposed formulae and explanations, but, armed with the many patristic and canonical pronouncements of the catholic church, we have shared them every213. Paul was condemned at the Lateran Synod in the fourth session after a prolonged discussion: see the commentary of Price, Acts of the Lateran Synod, 238–39. 214. This is a paraphrase of the Chalcedonian Definition of Faith that was recited at the Lateran Synod of 649. See n. 222 below. 215. In the Greek version (PL 87, 195D), παρρησία, as several lines below (PL 87, 198A). On its range of meanings, see Lampe, Patristic Greek Lexicon, 1044–45. The concept was employed by Maximus the Confessor and in the exilic writings of Martin in relation to the monothelite administration. See Bronwen Neil, “‘Silence Is Also Annulment’: Veiled and Unveiled Speech in Seventh-Century Martyr Commemorations,” in The Art of Veiled Speech: Self-Censorship from Aristophanes to Hobbes, eds. Han Baltussen and Peter J. Davis (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2015), 233–50.

234   The Activities and Wills of Christ

where and to all through the Acts of the synod we recently held.216 We now also share them with you, preaching nothing stitched together or strange or new, but what you have heard and learned and received and what has taken root in you forever. For what is our hope or joy or crown of our glory? Surely [it is] you in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ, both now and when he comes again? Since I enjoy great openness among you, great boasting on your behalf, I am full of consolation [and] my cup flows over with joy in every one of the trials that I have endured on account of the said man [Jesus]. “For who is weakened, and I am not made weak? Who is led into sin and I do not burn?” [2 Cor 11:29], the divine apostle said. Therefore, most dearly beloved, you too know our concern for you to be thus, since you have been diligently taught by the divinely inspired Scriptures that “where there is no sharing of justice with wickedness, nor common ground between light and darkness, nor fellowship between Christ and Belial, nor anything in common between the faithful and the unfaithful” [2 Cor 6:14–15], nor is there agreement of the orthodox with heretics. Guard your hearts with every caution, having no contact or association or agreement or connection with such people, and do not consent to their teaching in any respect, but remain constant in our most holy faith. Serve God with a clear conscience. But may those who are priests and deacons there complete with you the service of the liturgy, [those] who carefully and properly adopt the correct teaching of the catholic church along with us, which we have recently written down for you, and reject every heresy and innovation, which is condemned by the apostolic preaching. [May they celebrate the liturgy] until he either corrects himself, as it is said, or another good and true shepherd is elected instead of him, in accordance with the canons, who will lay down his life for [his] sheep [Jn 10:11] in imitation of the prince of shepherds, Christ, guiding you to places of green pasture and leading you to fresh water [Ps 23:2]. But may he who strengthens you along with us in his most divine confession of faith and who anointed and sealed us with the sign [of the cross] and bestowed the Spirit as a guarantee in our 216. The Synod ended on 31 October 649.



The Activities and Wills of Christ 235

hearts sanctify us in perfection and protect your spirit and mind and body whole and blameless, so as to receive in the age of ages what has been promised to those who love him. Amen.

Text 15 Pope Leo II to Ervigius, King of Spain Late 682–683217

Leo to my Lord the most excellent son, King Ervigius218 Since there is one God, the king of all, who created all things from nothing, but what he created he rules over and holds together, because he is truly king of kings, and lord of lords, likewise unable to be apprehended, by the gravity of his providence he appoints different people to rule on the earth in various times and locations. Even if their kingdoms are divided, he seeks equally, however, from each an account of his rule and expects one sacrifice of praise from them, a true219 confession concerning him. And by this gift alone is his huge power pleased with the human race: when a true confession of him is preached by all, so that, even if there seems to be a variety of worldly attitudes, concerning the orthodoxy of his faith the harmony of unity holds fast. The savior of the world, the Son of God, established this too, even among his holy disciples, when he established the blessed Peter as the prince of his disciples in his stead. By his saving preaching and transmission of his teaching, this whole apostolic church of Christ has been led, as if proceeding from the source, by his preaching; all the places over which your high rank presides [have been led] to the knowledge of truth and life of life, as the peak 217. Leo II was ordained on 17 August 682 by three bishops, including John of Portus. He died on 3 July in the following year. He was of Sicilian provenance and proficient in Latin and Greek, according to LP 1, 359. The LP credits him with translating the Acts of the Sixth Ecumenical Council from Greek into Latin “most carefully” (studiosissime: LP 1, 359.13). 218. JW 2120; CPL 1738. PL 96, 418–20 = Ep 7; Mansi, 11, 1055–57. Latin only. According to Roger Collins, the Visigothic king Ervigius (680–687) was a puppet of the bishops and aristocracy; he assumed the throne in Toledo on 31 October 680, after the retirement of the previous king Wamba to a monastery, perhaps as part of a planned coup by supporters of Ervigius: Roger Collins, Visigothic Spain: 409–711 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 98. Ervigius’s reign is best known for its harsh legislation against Jews in Spain. 219. We read verae.

236   The Activities and Wills of Christ

of your reign illustrates. And since you reign in piety through the grace of God, you obtain from a temporal rule the rule of eternal blessedness; for obtaining it more perfectly, as we urgently pray of you, while we fulfil the office of the Fathers by the grace of God, and with divine aid we fill the commissioned ministry of the blessed Peter, prince of apostles, although we are unequal [to the task]; so we are committed by our preaching and warnings to advance to the reward of blessed life. Indeed, the start of obtaining eternal blessedness is the rule of correct apostolic teaching. Although they tried once to bring it down, striving to introduce heretical errors to the church of Christ, the truth of the Gospel defeated the various snares of suffering by maintaining its subtlety and its unchanging character; this apostolic church of Christ always upheld and upholds and persists unharmed by the favor of heavenly grace. But now, through the ninth indiction lately passed (which we say with rejoicing and thanksgiving to God), our most Christian and most pious emperor, rather the son of the church of God, by the direction of an imperial edict amply encouraged our predecessor, Pope Agatho of apostolic memory and pontiff,220 to send sufficient legates from the holy church of the apostolic see to the royal city of Constantinople from all reverend councils nearby, [chosen] both from bishops of churches and from other ecclesiastical orders.221 They were instructed with letters of doctrine and books and proof texts of the reverend Fathers. This happened and was brought to pass by the approval of God. When the men sent by him arrived there, His Piety convened a council from different regions, and putting aside for a 220. Pontifex was used to mean any bishop, not just the bishop of Rome. The Sacra sent to Agatho on 23 December 681 are preserved in ACO 2.2/2, 856–66. 221. The papal legates chosen for this mission included some unnamed monks, three bishops—Abundantius of Paternum [mod. Tempsa], John of Portus, and John of Rhegium— and two priests, Theodore and George. John the deacon, Constantine the subdeacon, and the priest Theodore of Ravenna were also included. In regard to priest Theodore of Ravenna, an archpriest Theodore is mentioned by Agnellus of Ravenna in Liber Pontificalis Ravennatis, ch. 121, Deborah M. Deliyannis, ed., Corpus Christianorum continuatio medievalis 199 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2006), 293. (Note that the exarch, Theodore II [678–87], Theodore the archbishop of Ravenna [c. 677–c. 691], Theodore the archdeacon, and Theodore the archpriest all held office at the same time.) John of Portus was one of three bishops who later ordained Leo II in 682. LP 1, 350–54, gives a detailed account of each session of the sixth ecumenical council, which must have been compiled from the Acts and the legates’ reports.



The Activities and Wills of Christ 237

little while the concerns of the state committed to him and dwelling in the reverend council of brother bishops, with subtlety and close attention he made an examination of the truth of the apostolic tradition and correct faith through holy synods, the testimonies of the reverend Fathers and statements of our aforementioned apostolic bishops. And he caused the sincerity of the true faith to be shown by the legates of this holy apostolic see. With the guardian of empire allowing it, through the grace of God, it was begun and completed, and the truth of our true faith most perfectly demonstrated that (according to the venerable councils and the approved teachings of the Fathers) just as we confess two natures, inseparable and unconfused, in our one Lord Jesus Christ, son of God, and the same true and complete man—that is, the divine and human—so we all preach in him two natural wills and two natural activities, according to the qualities and properties of the natures occurring together in him. [We confess two] because, even if we believe there is one Christ and one person of the holy Trinity, we also preach that he has divine and human natures and the properties of these natures are “unconfused, undivided, and undiminished.”222 But the most pious emperor, inspired by the grace of the Holy Spirit and undertaking the job of his own free will on behalf of the purity of the Christian faith, has striven to purify the catholic church of God from the stain of heretical error with utmost effort, and he caused to be removed from the midst of the church of God whatever offense could spring forth among Christian people. And every inventor of a heretical statement who was condemned by the venerable council’s judgment was thrown out of the union of the catholic church: namely, Theodore, bishop of Pharan;223 Cyrus of Alexandria;224 Sergius; Paul; Pyrrhus and Peter, former patriarchs 222. A reference to three of the four adverbs (the fourth was “inseparably”) used in the Definition of Faith produced at the Council of Chalcedon and cited at the Lateran Synod of 649, ACO 2.1, 225.12–14: unum eundemque Christum filium dominum unigenitum in duabus naturis inconfuse, inmutabiliter, indiuise, inseparabiliter agnoscendum . . . . 223. Theodore of Pharan was also condemned in Session 5, ch. 18, of the Lateran Synod, ACO 2.1, 384; Price, Acts of the Lateran Synod, 381–82. See n. 146 above. 224. Monothelite patriarch of Alexandria and signatory to the Pact of Union, signed on June 633 (CPG 7613), on which see the introduction to this chapter, and Pauline Allen, “The

238   The Activities and Wills of Christ

of Constantinople; and together with them the Roman Honorius, who agreed that the immaculate rule of apostolic tradition which he received from his predecessors be contaminated;225 but also Macarius of Antioch226 with his disciple Stephen, or rather his teacher in heretical wickedness; and a certain Polychronius,227 a crazy old man, a new Simon [Magus],228 who lately229 was promising to end his reliance on heretical preaching, but again becoming confused, did not wish to be converted to the path of true confession, salvation, [and] was punished with eternal condemnation.230 And all those who together with Arius, Apollinaris,231 Nestorius, Eutyches, Severus,232 Theodosius,233 and Themes[t]ius234 tried Life and Times of Maximus the Confessor,” in Allen and Neil, Oxford Handbook of Maximus the Confessor, 4–5. 225. Cf. the Apology of John IV for Honorius, text 1 above, which defends Honorius’s accidental formulation of the doctrine of “one will” in response to the formula of “one activity.” It was very unusual for a bishop of Rome to condemn a predecessor, and Martin managed to avoid it in his letters. See Elena Zocca, “Onorio e Martino: due papi di fronte al monotelismo,” in Martino I papa: Atti del XXVIII convegno storico internazionale, Todi, 13–16 ottobre 1991 (Spoleto: Centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo, 1992), 103–47. 226. The Chalcedonian (Greek) patriarch of Antioch, Macarius (656–81), professed monothelitism at the sixth ecumenical council, ACO 2.2/1, 218–30, and extracts from the “heretic Macarius” were cited and condemned in the eleventh session: ACO 2.2/2, 506–10. He was deposed on 7 March 681. See Booth, Crisis of Empire, 323; Lilie et al., Prosopographie, nr. 4670. LP 1, 359, lists Macarius of Antioch, Stephen of Byzacena, Polychronius, and Anastasius among those condemned at the sixth ecumenical council and expelled to monasteries. On Polychronius, see the next note below. 227. On Polychronius, the disciple of Macarius of Antioch, see Winkelmann, Der monenergetisch-monotheletische Streit,165 nr. n165, and 255–57. 228. Reading novo Simone for novissimo, as in Leo II’s letter (Ep. 4, PL 96, 414C) to the bishops of Spain: quondam sene Polychronio ex abba presbytero novo Simone. This reading is recommended in PL 96, 419D note [b]. 229. We read per as a duplication after nuper, in the phrase qui nuper per hereticae. Another Spanish codex, edited by Cardinal Joseph Saenz de Aguirre (d. 1699), reads: qui suscitatione mortui, haereticae: cf. PL 96, 419D-420D, note [c]. 230. This passage, from the anathema on Sergius to the condemnation of Polychronius/ Simon, is nearly identical to the Latin version of Leo II’s Letter to Constantine IV, ACO 2.2/2, 877.20–879.10. 231. Apollinaris of Laodicea (c. 315–90), an opponent of Arius, went too far in his opposition to Arius’s human Jesus and invented the single-soul theory of Christ: in Jesus, the human soul was replaced by the Logos. He and his doctrine were condemned at the Council of Constantinople I and again at the Councils of Chalcedon and Constantinople III. 232. On Severus of Antioch, exiled leader of the anti-Chalcedonians there, see chapter 3. 233. On the anti-Chalcedonian Theodosius, successor of Severus, see chapter 3. 234. The anti-Chalcedonian Themistius was the leader of the so-called Agnoetai, who



The Activities and Wills of Christ 239

to defend the heretical teaching with impudence by preaching one will and one activity in the divinity and humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ. For neither were they demonstrating this from the witnesses of the holy Scriptures and Fathers, as was fitting for priests, but they were craftily working to pervert the Gospel of Christ with cunning sophisms. Divine judgment threw all of them out of his holy church, together with their errors. And now, with the heavenly guardian granting it, all overseers of the church of God everywhere are in unanimous agreement on the true faith, and there is one voice and one mouth and one flock and one shepherd, Christ the son of God, who is preached with one mind and with sincerity by all his priests. For this reason the high rank of your Christian rule should strive for piety, in order that these matters should be preached to all the churches of God, overseers, priests, clerics, and people, for the praise of God, on behalf of both the security of your reign and the salvation of all, so that almighty God might be glorified and praised by all people with one mind. Therefore, we have foreseen to send to our holy church there, via Peter, notarius of the regions and bearer of the present letter,235 the holy council’s definition [of faith] and the acclamation of the most pious emperor by the most venerable bishops (which is called the Prosphoneticus)236 and the edict that the most clement emperor devised for the profession of the true faith and imposed everywhere. [We have sent them] so that all the heads of churches in your most religious reign might add their signatures to the same believed that Jesus’ mind was finite and could thus suffer ignorance. This teaching, first promulgated in the 530s, seems to have found some favor also among Chalcedonians and had to be condemned by Justinian. Agnoetic teaching continued at least until the end of the sixth century, and Themistius was condemned at the Council of Constantinople in 680/681. See Van Roey and Allen, Monophysite Texts, 1–15; Allen, Sophronius of Jerusalem, 9–10. 235. The notarius of the regions was one of the most important offices in the papal administration. Gregory the Great (590–604) was the first to organize his notarii (secretaries) into a college (schola), with one for each region of Rome, and many of them performed the office of envoy, or letter-bearer, as well. See Joseph P. Byrne, “Notaries,” in Medieval Italy: An Encyclopedia, vol. 2: L–Z, ed. Christopher Kleinhenz (London: Routledge, 2003), 780. Several notarii regionarii (e.g. Anastasius, Paschal) assisted at the Lateran Synod by presenting documents to be read aloud during the sessions. 236. The acclamation of the emperor at church councils was a common occurrence.

240   The Activities and Wills of Christ

definition of the holy synod, [acting] as fathers on behalf of their spiritual sons, sent there by us according to process, just as each is to be enrolled in the Book of Life through the sign of his confession. [We have sent them] so that peace and harmony may increase and remain in the churches of God, with God permitting the period of your sublime reign and with the favor of Your Christianity. [We have sent them] so that he who planned Your Highness’s reign might allow the one who depends on the stability of his faith to flourish for many ages and to manage the people committed pleasingly to him. May heavenly grace keep Your Excellency safe.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources Acta conciliorum et epistolae decretales, ac constitutiones summorum pontificum, vol. 3, Ab anno 551 ad annum 787. Edited by Jean Hardouin. Paris: Ex typographia regia, 1714. The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon. Translated by Richard Price and Michael Gaddis. 3 vols, TTH 45. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2005. The Acts of the Council of Constantinople of 553. In The Acts of the Council of Constantinople of 553 with Related Texts on the Three Chapters Controversy, translated by Richard Price. TTH 51. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2009. The Acts of the Council of Constantinople III. Translated by Richard Price. TTH. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, forthcoming. The Acts of the Lateran Synod of 649. Translated by Richard Price, with Phil Booth and Catherine Cubitt. TTH 61. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2014. Agnellus of Ravenna. Liber Pontificalis Ravennatis. Edited by Deborah M. Deliyannis. Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Medievalis 199. Turnhout: Brepols, 2006. Anastasius Bibliothecarius. Collectanea. In Anastasii Bibliothecarii sedis apostolicae collectanea, edited by Jacques Sirmond. Paris, 1620. Athenagoras. Supplicatio pro Christianis. In Athenagoras, “Legatio” and “De resurrectione,” edited and translated by William R. Schoedel, 2–86. OECT. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972. Celestine I of Rome. Epistula ad clericos et populum Constantinopolitanum. Edited by Eduard Schwartz. ACO series 1, vol. 2, 15–20. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1926. ———. Epistula ad Nestorium. Edited by Eduard Schwartz. ACO series 1, vol. 2, 7–12. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1926. Concilium Lateranense a. 649 celebratum. Edited by Rudolf Riedinger. ACO series 2, vol. 1. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1984. 241

242   Bibliography Concilium universale Constantinopolitanum tertium. Edited by Rudolf Riedinger. ACO series 2, vol. 2, parts 1 and 2. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1990–1992. Constantine IV. Sacra. Edited by Rudolf Riedinger. ACO series 2, vol. 2, part 1, 2–10. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1990. Cyril of Alexandria. Epistulae. In Cyril of Alexandria. Select Letters, edited and translated by Lionel R. Wickham. OECT. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983. ———. Oratio ad Theodosium imperatorem de recta fide. Edited by Eduard Schwartz. ACO series 1, vol. 1, part 1a, 42–72. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1924. Disputatio cum Pyrrho. In “Dispute de Maxime le Confesseur avec Pyrrhus. Introduction, texte critique, traduction et notes,” by Marcel Doucet. PhD Diss. Montreal, 1972. Documenta ad origines monophysitarum illustrandas. Edited by Jean-Baptiste Chabot, CSCO 17, Scr. Syr. 17. Paris, Leipzig: Typographeo Reipublicae, 1908. Repr. Louvain: Secrétariat du CSCO, 1962. Translated by JeanBaptiste Chabot, CSCO 103, Scr. Syr. 52. Louvain, 1933. Repr. Louvain: Secrétariat du CSCO, 1965. Documenta monophysitica. In Monophysite Texts of the Sixth Century, edited and translated by Albert Van Roey and Pauline Allen. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 5. Leuven: Peeters, 1994. Ennodius of Pavia. Epistulae. In Ennode de Pavie. Lettres, edited by Stéphane Gioanni. 2 vols. Collection des Universités de France 383. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2006. Epistulae Romanorum pontificum genuinae et quae ad eos scriptae sunt a s. Hilaro usque ad Pelagium II. Edited by Andreas Thiel. 2nd ed. Braunsberg, 1867. Repr. Hildesheim: Georg Olm, 2004. Eutychius of Alexandria. Annales. In Eutychii Patriarchae Alexandrini Annales, vol. 2, edited by Louis Cheiko. CSCO 50, Scriptores Arabici 7. Paris, 1909. Repr. Louvain: Secrétariat du CSCO, 1954. Evagrius Scholasticus. Historia ecclesiastica. In The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius with the Scholia, edited by Joseph Bidez and Leon Parmentier. London: Methuen, 1898; repr. Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1964. Gelasius I. Epistulae. In The Letters of Gelasius I (492–496), Pastor and Micromanager of the Church of Rome, translated by Bronwen Neil and Pauline Allen. Adnotationes 1. Turnhout: Brepols, 2014. Gregory of Nazianzus. Epistulae. In Grégoire de Nazianze, Lettres théologiques, 2nd ed., edited by Paul Gallay. SC 208. Paris: Cerf, 1998.

Bibliography 243 Gregory the Great. Epistulae. In Registrum epistularum, edited by Paul Ewald and Ludovicus M. Hartmann. Monumenta germaniae historica, Epistolae 1–2. Hannover: Weidmann, 1891–1899. ———. Epistulae. In S. Gregorii magni Registrum epistularum libri I–XIV, edited by Dag Norberg. CCSL 140, 140A. Turnhout: Brepols, 1982. ———. Epistulae. In The Letters of Gregory the Great, translated by John R. C. Martyn. 3 vols. Mediaeval Sources in Translation 40. Toronto: PIMS, 2004. Innocent I of Rome. Epistulae. PL 20. John IV of Rome. Epistula. In “Der Briefwechsel zwischen Kaiser und Papst von 641/2 in arabischer Überlieferung,” by Joseph Schacht. Orientalia n.s. 5 (1936): 229–68. John of Nikiu. Chronicon. In La chronique de Jean, évêque de Nikiou. Texte éthiopien, edited and translated by Hermann Zotenberg. Paris: Imprimerie nationale, 1883. Justinian. Novellae. In Corpus iuris civilis, vol. 3, edited by Rudolf Schoell. 13th ed. Hildesheim: Weidmann, 1993. Leo the Great. Epistulae, sermones. In St Leo the Great. Sermons and Letters against the Manichaeans, Selected Fragments, edited and translated by Gerhard H. Schipper and Johannes van Oort. CFML 1. Turnhout: Brepols, 2000. ———. Epistulae, sermones. In Leo the Great, translated by Bronwen Neil. The Early Church Fathers. London and New York: Routledge, 2009. ———. Tomus ad Flavianum. Edited by Eduard Schwartz. ACO series 2, vol. 2, part 1, 24–33. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1932. Liber Pontificalis. In The Book of Pontiffs (Liber pontificalis). The Ancient Biographies of the First Ninety Roman Bishops to AD 715, 2nd ed., translated by Raymond Davis. TTH 6. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2000. Maximus the Confessor. Epistulae et opuscula. PG 91. ———. Epistulae et opuscula. Edited by Basile Markesinis. CCSG. Turnhout and Leuven: Brepols, forthcoming. ———. Maximus the Confessor and His Companions: Documents from Exile, edited and translated by Pauline Allen and Bronwen Neil. OECT. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002. ———. Opusculum 20. PL 129, 567–74. Narrationes de exilio sancti papae Martini. In Seventh-century Popes and Martyrs. The Political Hagiography of Anastasius Bibliothecarius,

244   Bibliography edited and translated by Bronwen Neil, 166–233. Studia antiqua Australiensia 2. Sydney and Turnhout: Brepols, 2006. Nova patrum bibliotheca. Edited by Angelo Mai. Vol. 6. Rome, 1853. Peter of Callinicum. Tractatus contra Damianum. In Petrus Callinicensus. Tractatus contra Damianum, edited by Rifaat Y. Ebied and Lionel R. Wickham, translated by Albert Van Roey. CCSG 29, 32, 35, 54. Turnhout and Leuven: Brepols, 1994, 1996, 1998, 2004. Scripta saeculi VII vitam Maximi Confessoris illustrantia. Edited by Pauline Allen and Bronwen Neil. CCSG 39. Turnhout and Leuven: Brepols, 1999. The Seventh Century in the West-Syrian Chronicles. Translated by Andrew Palemer, Sebastian Brock and Robert Hoyland. TTH 15. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1993. Severus of Antioch. Sermo 67. Edited by Maurice Brière. Patrologia Orientalis 8 no. 2. Paris, 1911. Repr. Turnhout: Brepols, 2004. ———. Sévère d’Antioche. La polémique antijulianiste. Vol. 1. Edited by Robert Hespel. CSCO 244, Scr. Syr. 104. Louvain: Secrétariat du CSCO, 1964. ———. Severus of Antioch. Translated by Pauline Allen and C. T. Robert Hayward. The Early Church Fathers. London and New York: Routledge, 2004. Sophronius of Jerusalem. Encomium in S. Joannem Baptistam. PG 87 no. 3, 3321–53. ———. Epistula synodica. In Sophronius of Jerusalem and Seventh-century Heresy. The “Synodical Letter” and Other Documents, edited by Rudolf Riedinger, translated by Pauline Allen, 65–157. OECT. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2009. Theophanes the Confessor. Chronographia. Edited by Iohannes Classen. 2 vols. Corpus scriptorum historiae byzantinae. Bonn: E. Weber, 1839. ———. Chronographia. In Theophanis chronographia, edited by Carol de Boor. 2 vols. Leipzig: Teubner, 1885. Repr. Hildesheim: Georg Olm, 1963. ———. Chronographia. In The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor. Byzantine and Near Eastern History AD 284–813, translated by Cyril Mango and Roger Scott, with Geoffrey Greatrex. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997. Victor of Carthage. Epistula synodica. Edited by Rudolf Riedinger. ACO series 2, vol. 1, 98–103. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1984. Vita Maximi (graece). Recension 2. PG 90. ———. Recension 3. In The Life of Maximus the Confessor. Recension 3,

Bibliography 245 edited and translated by Bronwen Neil and Pauline Allen. Early Christian Studies Monographs 6. Brisbane: St Paul’s Publications, 2003. Ps. Zachariah. Historia Ecclesiastica. In Historia ecclesiastica Zachariae rhetori vulgo adscripta, edited by Ernest W. Brooks. CSCO 84, Scr. Syr. 39. Paris: J. Gabalda, 1921. Translated by Ernest W. Brooks. CSCO 88, Scr. Syr. 42. Louvain: Secrétariat du CSCO, 1967. ———. Historia Ecclesiastica. In The Chronicle of Pseudo–Zachariah Rhetor. Church and War in Late Antiquity, edited by Geoffrey Greatrex, translated by Robert R. Phenix and Cornelia B. Horn, with contributions by Sebastian P. Brock and Witold Witakowski. TTH 55. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2011.

Secondary Sources Alexakis, Alexander. “Before the Lateran Council of 649: The Last Days of Herakleios the Emperor and Monotheletism (Based on a New Fragment from His Letter to Pope John IV [CPG 9382]).” Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum 27/28 (1995–1996): 93–101. Allen, Pauline. “Cyril of Alexandria’s Festal Letters: The Politics of Religion.” In Studies of Religion and Politics in the Early Christian Centuries, edited by David Luckensmeyer and Pauline Allen, 195–210. Early Christian Studies Monographs 13. Strathfield, NSW: St. Paul’s Publications, 2010. ———. “Episcopal Succession in Antioch in the Sixth Century.” In Episcopal Elections in Late Antiquity, edited by Johan Leemans, Peter Van Nuffelen, Shawn W. J. Keough, and Carla Nicolaye, 23–38. Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 119. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2011. ———. “Religious Conflict between Antioch and Alexandria c. 565–630 CE.” In Mayer and Neil, Religious Conflict from Early Christianity to Early Islam, 187–99. ———. “Prolegomena to a Study of the Letter-bearer in Christian Antiquity.” Studia Patristica 62 (2013): 481–91. ———. “Rationales for Episcopal Letter-collections in Late Antiquity.” In Neil and Allen, Collecting Early Christian Letters, 18–34. ———. “Antioch-on-the-Orontes and Its Territory: A terra dura for Mariology?” In Presbeia Theotokou: The Intercessory Role of Mary across Times and Places in Byzantium (4th–9th Century), edited by Leena Mari Peltomaa, Andreas Külzer, Pauline Allen, 177–87. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2015.

246   Bibliography ———. “Christian Correspondences: The Secrets of Letter-writers and Letter-bearers.” In Baltussen and Davis, The Art of Veiled Speech, 209–32. ———. “The Life and Times of Maximus the Confessor.” In Allen and Neil, The Oxford Handbook of Maximus the Confessor, 3–18. ———. “Post-mortem Polemics: The Literary Persecution of Severus of Antioch (512–518).” In Religious Conflict in Late Antiquity: Rivalry and Competition, edited by Geoffrey D. Dunn and Christine Shepardson. Forthcoming. Allen, Pauline, and Bronwen Neil. Crisis Management in Late Antiquity: A Survey of the Evidence from Episcopal Letters (410–590 CE). Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 121. Leiden: Brill, 2013. ———, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Maximus the Confessor. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. ———. The Greek and Latin Early Christian Letter. The Christianisation of a Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming. Alpi, Frédéric. La route royale: Sévère d’Antioche et les Églises d’Orient (512– 518). 2 vols. Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 188. Beirut: Institut français du proche-orient, 2009. Baltussen, Han, and Peter J. Davis, eds. The Art of Veiled Speech: SelfCensorship from Aristophanes to Hobbes. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2015. Banev, Krastu. Theophilus of Alexandria and the First Origenist Controversy: Rhetoric and Power. OECS. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015. Bartos, Otomar J. and Paul Wehr. Using Conflict Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Bell, Peter. Social Conflict in the Age of Justinian: Its Nature, Management, and Mediation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Bertolini, Ottorino. Roma di fronte a Bisanzio e ai Langobardi. Storia di Roma 9. Bologna: Istituto di studi romani, 1941. Blair-Dixon, Kate. “Memory and Authority in Sixth-century Rome: The Liber Pontificalis and the Collectio Avellana.” In Cooper and Hillner, Religion, Dynasty and Patronage, 59–76. Blaudeau, Philippe. Alexandrie et Constantinople (451–491): De l’histoire à la géo-ecclésiologie. Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome 327. Rome: École française de Rome, 2006. ———. Le siège de Rome et l’Orient (448–536): Étude géo-ecclésiologique. Collection de l’École française de Rome 460. Rome: École française de Rome, 2012.

Bibliography 247 ———. “Un point de contact entre Collectio Avellana et Collectio Thessalonicensis? Autour du cas d’Abundantius de Démétrias.” Millennium: Jahrbuch zu Kultur und Geschichte des ersten Jahrtausands n. Chr. 10 (2013): 1–11. ———. “Narrating Papal Authority (440–530): The Adaptation of Liber Pontificalis to the Apostolic See’s Developing Claims.” In Dunn, The Bishop of Rome in Late Antiquity, 127–40. Booth, Phil. “Shades of Blues and Greens in the Chronicle of John Nikiou.” ByzZ 104, no. 2 (2012): 555–602. ———. Crisis of Empire: Doctrine and Dissent at the End of Late Antiquity. Transformation of the Classical Heritage 52. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2013. Börjesson, Johannes. “Augustine on the Will.” In Allen and Neil, The Oxford Handbook of Maximus the Confessor, 212–34. Brandes, Wolfram. “Juristische” Krisenbewältigung im 7. Jahrhundert? Die Prozesse gegen Martin I. und Maximos Homologetes. Fontes minores 10, 141–212. Frankfurt-am-Main: Löwenklau-Gesellschaft, 1998. ———. Untersuchungen zur byzantinischen Administration im 6.–9. Jahrhundert. Forschungen zu byzantinischen Rechtsgeschichte 25. Frankfurt-am-Main: Löwenklau-Gesellschaft, 2002. Brennecke, Hanns Christof. “Chalcedonense und Henotikon: Bemerkungen zum Prozess der östlichen Rezeption der christologischen Formel von Chalkedon.” In Chalkedon: Geschichte und Actualität: Studien zur Rezeption der christologischen Formel von Chalkedon, edited by Johannes van Oort and Johannes Roldanus. Leuven: Peeters, 1997. Repr. in Ecclesia est in re publica, edited by Uta Heil, Annette von Stockhausen, Joerg Ülrich, 259–90. Studien zur Kirchen- und Theologiegeschichte im Kontext des Imperium Romanum 100. Berlin and New York: W. de Gruyter, 2007. Brock, Sebastian. “The Conversations with the Syrian Orthodox under Justinian (532).” Orientalia Christiana Periodica 47 (1981): 87–121. ———. “A Monothelete Florilegium in Syriac.” In After Chalcedon: Studies in Theology and Church History, edited by Carl Laga, Joseph A. Munitiz, Lucas Van Rompay, 35–45. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 18. Leuven: Peeters, 1985. Brooks, Ernest W. “The Patriarch Paul of Antioch and the Alexandrine Schism of 575.” ByzZ 30 (1930): 468–76. Bundy, David D. “Jacob Baradaeus: The State of Research, a Review of Sources and a New Approach.” Le Muséon 91 (1978): 45–86.

248   Bibliography Byrne, Joseph P. “Notaries.” In Medieval Italy: An Encyclopedia, vol. 2: L–Z, edited by Christopher Kleinhenz, 780. London: Routledge, 2003. Cameron, Averil. “Can Christians Do Dialogue?” Studia Patristica 54 (2013): 103–20. ———. Dialoguing in Late Antiquity. Hellenic Studies Series 65. Washington D.C.: Center for Hellenic Studies, 2014. Capizzi, Carmelo. L’imperatore Anastasio I, 491–518: Studio sulla sua vita, la sua opera e la sua personalità. Orientalia Christiana Analecta 184. Rome: Edizioni Orientalia Christiana, 1969. ———. “Sul fallimento di un negoziato di pace ecclesiastica fra il papa Ormisda e l’imperatore Anastasio I (515–517).” Critica storica 17 (1980): 23–54. Chadwick, Henry. “The Exile and Death of Flavian of Constantinople: A Prologue to the Council of Chalcedon.” Journal of Theological Studies, new series 6, no. 1 (1955): 17–34. Charanis, Peter. Church and State in the Later Roman Empire: The Religious Policy of Anastasius I (491–518). Βυζαντινά Κείμενα και Μελέται 11. 2nd ed. Thessaloniki: Kentron Vyzantinon Ereunon, 1974. Chazelle, Celia, and Catherine Cubitt, eds. The Crisis of the Oikoumene: The Three Chapters and the Failed Quest for Unity in the Sixth–Century Mediterranean. Studies in the Early Middle Ages 14. Turnhout: Brepols, 2007. Chesnut, Roberta C. Three Monophysite Christologies: Severus of Antioch, Philoxenus of Mabbug, and Jacob of Sarug. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976. Collins, Roger. Visigothic Spain: 409–711. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Conte, Pietro. Chiesa e primato nelle lettere dei papi del secolo VII. Milan: Editrice vita e pensiero, 1971. Contreni, John J. The Cathedral School of Laon from 850 to 930: Its Manuscripts and Masters. Münchener Beiträge zur Mediavistik und Renaissance-Forschung 29. Munich: Arbeo-Gesellschaft, 1978. Cooper, Kate, and Julia Hillner, eds. Religion, Dynasty and Patronage in Early Christian Rome, 300–900. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Coser, Lewis A. The Functions of Social Conflict: An Examination of the Concept of Social Conflict and its Use in Empirical Sociological Research. New York: Free Press, 1956. Cubitt, Catherine. Anglo-Saxon Church Councils, c. 650–c. 850. Studies in

Bibliography 249 the Early History of Britain. London: Leicester University Press, 1995. ———. “Finding the Forger: An Alleged Decree of the 679 Council of Hatfield.” English Historical Review 114, no. 459 (1999): 1217–48. ———. “The Lateran Council of 649 as an Ecumenical Council.” In Price and Whitby, Chalcedon in Context, 133–47. Dal Santo, Matthew. “Gregory the Great, the Empire and the Emperor.” In Neil and Dal Santo, A Companion to Gregory the Great, 57–81. D’Alton, John, and Youhanna N. Youssef, eds. Severus of Antioch: Life and Times. Texts and Studies in Eastern Christianity 7. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Darling [Young], Robin. “The Patriarchate of Severus of Antioch, 512–518.” PhD diss., University of Chicago, 1982. De Halleux, André. “Philoxène de Mabbog: Sa vie, ses écrits, sa théologie.” Diss., Louvain, 1963. Dell’Osso, Carlo, and Claudio Moreschini. Monoenergiti/monoteliti del VII secolo in Oriente. Rome: Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 2017. Demacopoulos, George E. The Invention of Peter: Apostolic Discourse and Papal Authority in Late Antiquity. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013. ———. “Are All Universalist Politics Local? Pope Gelasius I’s International Ambition as a Tonic for Local Humiliation.” In Dunn, The Bishop of Rome in Late Antiquity, 141–53. Devreesse, Robert. Le patriarcat d’Antioche depuis la paix de l’église jusqu’à la conquête arabe. Paris: Gabalda, 1945. Dölger, Franz. Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des oströmischen Reiches von 565– 1453, 1. Teil: Regesten von 565–1025. Munich: C. H. Beck, 1924. Dorival, Gilles. “Nouveaux fragments grecs de Sévère d’Antioche.” In ΑΝΤΙΔΩΡΟΝ: Hulde aan Dr. Maurits Geerard bij de voltooiing van de Clavis Patrum Graecorum, 101–21. Wetteren: Cultura, 1984. Draguet, René. “Julien d’Halicarnasse et sa controverse avec Sévère d’Antioche sur l’incorruptibilité du corps du Christ: Étude d’histoire littéraire et doctrinale suivie des fragments dogmatiques de Julien.” Dissertationes ad gradum magistri in Facultate Theologica consequendum conscriptas series 2, tome 12. Diss., Louvain, 1924. Drijvers, Jan Willem. “Heraclius and the restitutio crucis: Notes on Symbolism and Ideology.” In Reinink and Stolte, The Reign of Heraclius, 175–90. Dunn, Geoffrey D. “Zosimus and the Gallic Churches.” In Mayer and Neil, Religious Conflict from Early Christianity to Early Islam, 169–85. ———, ed. The Bishop of Rome in Late Antiquity. Farnham: Ashgate, 2015.

250   Bibliography Ebied, Rifaat Y. “Peter of Callinicum and Damian of Alexandria: The End of a Friendship.” In A Tribute to Arthur Vööbus: Studies in Early Christian Literature and its Environment, edited by Robert H. Fischer, 277–82. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977. Ebied, Rifaat Y., Albert Van Roey, and Lionel R. Wickham. Peter of Callinicum: Anti-tritheist Dossier. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 10. Leuven: Peeters, 1981. Ekonomou, Andrew J. Byzantine Rome and the Greek Popes: Eastern Influences on Rome and the Papacy from Gregory the Great to Zacharias, A.D. 590– 752. Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books, 2007. Elert, Werner. “Theodor von Pharan und Theodor von Raithu.” Theologische Literaturzeitung 76, no. 2 (1951): 67–76. Fedalto, Giorgio. Hierarchia ecclesiastica orientalis: series episcoporum ecclesiarum christianarum orientalium, vol. 1. Patriarchatus Constantinopolitanus; vol. 2. Patriarchatus Alexandrinus, Antiochenus, Hierosolymitanus. Padua: Messaggero, 1988. Fortescue, Adrian. The Reunion Formula of Hormisdas. Garrison, N.Y.: National Office, Chair of Unity Octave, 1955. Frend, William H. C. The Rise of the Monophysite Movement: Chapters in the History of the Church in the Fifth and Sixth Centuries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972. Fundic, Leonela. “Evidence of Christological Polemic from Early Byzantine Art.” Journal of Late Antiquity, forthcoming. Furlani, Giuseppe. Sei scritti antitriteistici in lingua siriaca, Patrologia Orientalis 14, no. 4. Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1920. Repr. Turnhout: Brepols, 2006. Gager, John. Kingdom and Community: The Social World of Early Christianity. Prentice-Hall Studies in Religion Series. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1975. Gero, Stephen. Barsauma of Nisibis and Persian Christianity in the Fifth Century. CSCO 426, Subsidia 63. Leuven: Peeters, 1981. Gibson, Roy, and Andrew D. Morrison. “Introduction: What Is a Letter?” In Ancient Letters: Classical and Late Antique Epistolography, edited by Ruth Morello and A. D. Morrison, 1–16. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Gillett, Andrew. Envoys and Political Communication in the Late Antique West, 411–533. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Green, Bernard. The Soteriology of Leo the Great. Oxford Theological Monographs. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Bibliography 251 Grig, Lucy. “Competing Capitals, Competing Representations: Late Antique Cityscapes in Words and Pictures.” In Grig and Kelly, Two Romes, 31–52. Grig, Lucy, and Gavin Kelly, eds. Two Romes: Rome and Constantinople in Late Antiquity. Oxford Studies in Late Antiquity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. ———. “Introduction: From Rome to Constantinople.” In Grig and Kelly, Two Romes, 3–30. Grillmeier, Aloys. Christ in Christian Tradition, vol. 2, From the Council of Chalcedon (451) to Gregory the Great (590–604), part 2, The Church of Constantinople in the Sixth Century. Translated by P. Allen and J. Cawte. London and Louisville, Ky.: Mowbray Press, 1995. Originally published as Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche 2/2. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1989. Grillmeier, Aloys, and Heinrich Bacht, eds. Das Konzil von Chalkedon: Geschichte und Gegenwart, vol. 2. Würzburg: Herder, 1951. ———, eds. Das Konzil von Chalkedon. Geschichte und Gegenwart, vol. 1, 5th ed. Würzburg: Herder, 1979. Grillmeier, Aloys, with Theresia Hainthaler, ed. Christ in Christian Tradition, vol. 2, part 3, The Churches of Jerusalem and Antioch from 451–600. Translated by M. Ehrhardt. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Originally published as Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche 2/3. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2002. ———, ed. Christ in Christian Tradition, vol. 2, part 4, The Church of Alexandria with Nubia and Ethiopia after 451. Translated by O. C. Dean. London and Louisville, Ky.: Mowbray Press, 1996. Originally published as Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche 2/4. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1990. Grimes, Ronald L. “Ritual, Media, and Conflict: An Introduction.” In Ritual, Media, and Conflict, edited by Ronald L. Grimes, Ute Hüsken, Udo Simon and Eric Venbrux, 1–33. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Grumel, Venance. Les regestes des actes du patriarcat de Constantinople, Bd. 1: Les actes des patriarches, fasc. 1: Les regestes de 381 à 715. Paris: Institut français d’études byzantines, 1972. Gwynn, David. “Episcopal Leadership.” In The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity, edited by Scott Fitzgerald Johnson, 876–915. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Haacke, Walter. Die Glaubensformel des Papstes Hormisdas im Acacianischen Schisma. Analecta Gregoriana 20. Rome: Pontificia Universitá Gregoriana, 1939.

252   Bibliography Haarer, Fiona K. Anastasius I: Politics and Empire in the Late Roman World. ARCA. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Håkkinen, Sakari. “Ebionites.” In A Companion to Second-Century Christian “Heretics,” edited by Antti Marjanen and Petri Luomanen, 247–78. Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 76. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Haldon, John F. “Ideology and the Byzantine State in the Seventh Century: The “Trial” of Maximus the Confessor.” In From Late Antiquity to Early Byzantium: Proceedings of the Byzantinological Symposium in the 16th Eirene Conference, edited by Vladimír Vavr̍ ínek, 87–91. Prague: Academia, 1985. ———. Byzantium in the Seventh Century: The Transformation of a Culture. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. ———. The Empire That Would Not Die: The Paradox of Eastern Roman Survival, 640–740. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2016. Head, Thomas, and Thomas F. X. Noble. Soldiers of Christ: Saints and Saints’ Lives from Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995. Henderson, John B. The Construction of Orthodoxy and Heresy: NeoConfucian, Islamic, Jewish and Early Christian Patterns. Albany: SUNY Press, 1998. Hermann, Thomas. “Patriarch Paul von Antiochia und das alexandrinische Schisma von Jahre 575.” Zeitschrift für neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 27 (1928): 263–304. Herrin, Judith. “The Quinisext Council (692) as a Continuation of Chalcedon.” In Price and Whitby, Chalcedon in Context, 148–68. Hervieu-Léger, Daniele. “Individualism, the Validation of Faith, and the Social Nature of Religion in Modernity.” Translated by M. Davis. In The Blackwell Companion to Sociology of Religion, edited by Richard K. Fenn, 161–75. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2001. Hillner, Julia. “Preserving Female Voices: Female Letters in Late Antique Letter Collections.” In A Late Antique Experiment in Roman Canon Law: The Collectio Avellana and its Revivals, edited by Rita Lizzi Testa and Giulia Marconi. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, in press. Honigmann, Ernst. Évêques et évêchés monophysites d’Asie antérieure au VIe siècle, CSCO 127, Subsidia 2. Louvain: Durbecq, 1951. ———. Patristic Studies. Studi e Testi 173, 185–93. Vatican City: Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana, 1953. Horrell, David G. “Becoming Christian: Solidifying Christian Identity and Content.” In Handbook of Early Christianity: Social Science Approaches,

Bibliography 253 edited by Anthony J. Blasi, Jean Duhaime, and Paul-André Turcotte, 309–35. Walnut Creek, Calif.: Altamira Press, 2002. Hovorun, Cyril. Will, Action and Freedom: Christological Controversies in the Seventh Century. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2008. Humphries, Mark. “From Emperor to Pope? Ceremonial, Space, and Authority at Rome from Constantine to Gregory the Great.” In Cooper and Hillner, Religion, Dynasty and Patronage, 21–58. Jankowiak, Marek. “Essai d’histoire politique du monothélisme à partir de la correspondance entre les empereurs byzantins, les patriarches de Constantinople et les papes de Rome.” PhD diss., École pratique des hautes études, 2009. Jankowiak, Marek, and Phil Booth. “A New Date-list of the Works of Maximus the Confessor.” In Allen and Neil, The Oxford Handbook of Maximus the Confessor, 19–83. Kaegi, Walter E. Heraclius, Emperor of Byzantium. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. ———. Muslim Expansion and Byzantine Collapse in North Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. ———. “Byzantium in the Seventh Century.” In Allen and Neil, The Oxford Handbook of Maximus the Confessor, 84–105. Kazhdan, Alexander P., ed. The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, 3 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991. Kneževic´, Mikonja, ed. Maximus the Confessor (580–662): Bibliography. Bibliographia serbica theologica 6. Belgrade: University of Belgrade, 2012. Lampe, Geoffrey W. H. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961. Lang, Uwe M. John Philoponus and the Controversies over Chalcedon in the Sixth Century: A Study and Translation of the “Arbiter.” Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense. Études et documents 47. Leuven: Peeters, 2001. ———. “Patristic Argument and the Use of Philosophy in the Tritheist Controversy of the Sixth Century.” In The Mystery of the Holy Trinity in the Fathers of the Church: The Proceedings of the Fourth Patristic Conference, Maynooth, 1999, edited by D. Vincent Twomey and Lewis Ayres, 79–99. Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2007. Lange, Christian. Mia Energeia: Untersuchungen zur Einigungspolitik des Kaisers Heraclius und des Patriarchen Sergius von Constantinopel. Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 66. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Larison, Daniel. “Return to Authority: The Monothelete Controversy

254   Bibliography and the Role of Text, Emperor and Council in the Sixth Ecumenical Council.” 2 vols. PhD diss., University of Chicago, 2009. Lebon, Joseph. Le monophysisme sévérien: Étude historique, littéraire et théologique. Louvain: J. van Linthout, 1909; repr. New York: AMS Press, 1978. Lebon, Joseph. “La christologie du monophysisme syrien.” In Grillmeier and Bacht, Das Konzil von Chalkedon, vol. 1, 425–580. Lincoln, Bruce. “Conflict.” In Critical Terms for Religious Studies, edited by Mark C. Taylor, 55–69. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998. Martin, Henri. “La controverse trithéite dans l’empire byzantine au VIe siècle.” PhD diss., Louvain, 1960. Mathisen, Ralph W. “The ‘Second Council of Arles’ and the Spirit of Compilation and Codification in Late Roman Gaul.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 5, no. 4 (1997): 511–54. Mayer, Wendy. “Religious Conflict: Definitions, Problems and Theoretical Approaches.” In Mayer and Neil, Religious Conflict from Early Christianity to Early Islam, 1–19. ———. “Re-Theorizing Religious Conflict: Early Christianity to Late Antiquity and Beyond.” In Reconceiving Religious Conflict: New Views from the Formative Centuries of Christianity, edited by Wendy Mayer and Chris L. de Wet, 3–29. Routledge Studies in the Early Christian World. London: Routledge, 2018. Mayer, Wendy, and Geoffrey D. Dunn, eds. Christians Shaping Identity from the Roman Empire to Byzantium. Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 132. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Mayer, Wendy, and Bronwen Neil, eds. Religious Conflict from Early Christianity to Early Islam. Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 121. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2013. Meier, Mischa. Anastasios I: Die Entstehung des Byzantinischen Reiches. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta Verlag, 2009. Mellon Saint-Laurent, Jeanne-Nicole. Missionary Stories and the Formation of the Syriac Churches. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2015. Menze, Volker. Justinian and the Making of the Syrian Orthodox Church. OECS. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. Mews, Constant. “Gregory the Great, the Rule of Benedict and Roman Liturgy: The Evolution of a Legend.” Journal of Medieval History 37, no. 2 (2011): 125–44. Michelson, David A. The Practical Christology of Philoxenus of Mabbug. OECS. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.

Bibliography 255 Moeller, Charles. “Le Chalcédonisme et le néo-Chalcédonisme en Orient de 451 à la fin du VIe siècle.” In Grillmeier and Bacht, Das Konzil von Chalkedon, vol. 1, 637–720. Moorhead, John. The Popes and the Church of Rome in Late Antiquity. Routledge Studies in Ancient History 8. London and New York: Routledge, 2015. Nechaeva, Ekatarina. Embassies—Negotiations—Gifts: Systems of East Roman Diplomacy in Late Antiquity. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2014. Neil, Bronwen. “Introduction.” In Allen and Neil, Maximus the Confessor and His Companions, 1–44. ———. “The Papacy in the Age of Gregory the Great.” In Neil and Dal Santo, A Companion to Gregory the Great, 3–27. ———. “Continuities and Changes in the Practice of Letter-collecting from Cicero to Late Antiquity.” In Neil and Allen, Collecting Early Christian Letters, 3–17. ———. “‘De profundis’: The Letters and Archives of Pelagius I of Rome (556–561).” In Neil and Allen, Collecting Early Christian Letters, 206– 20. ———. “‘Silence Is Also Annulment’: Veiled and Unveiled Speech in Seventh-Century Martyr Commemorations.” In Baltussen and Davis, The Art of Veiled Speech, 233–50. ———. “Papal Letters and Letter Collections.” In Sogno, Storin, and Watts, Late Antique Letter Collections, 449–66. ———. “Addressing Conflict in the Fifth Century: Rome and the Wider Church.” Scrinium 14, no. 1 (2018) 92–114. Neil, Bronwen, and Pauline Allen, eds. Collecting Early Christian Letters: From the Apostle Paul to Late Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. Neil, Bronwen, and Matthew Dal Santo, eds. A Companion to Gregory the Great. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Noce, Celestino, ed. Papa Ormisda (514–523): Magistero cura pastorale e impegno ecumenico. Atti del Convegno. Frosinone: Comune di Frosinone, 1993. Ohme, Heinz. “Maximos Homologetes († 662): Martyrium, Märtyrerbewusstsein, ‘Martyriumssucht’?” Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum 20, no. 2 (2016): 306–46. Olster, David. “Chalcedonian and Monophysite: The Union of 616.” Bulletin de la société d’archéologie copte 27 (1985): 93–108. Orlandi, Tito. “Theodosius of Alexandria.” In Encyclopedia of the Early

256   Bibliography Church, edited by Angelo Di Berardino et al., vol. 2, 829. 2nd ed. Downer’s Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2014. Pietri, Charles. “D’Alexandrie à Rome: Jean Talaïa, émule d’Athanase au Ve siècle.” In ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΙΝΑ: Hellénisme, judaisme et christianisme à Alexandrie, mélanges offerts au Claude Mondésert, 277–95. Paris: Cerf, 1987. Piovanelli, Pierluigi. “Rewriting: The Path from Apocryphal to Heretical.” In Mayer and Neil, Religious Conflict from Early Christianity to Early Islam, 87–108. Pollard, Richard M. “A Cooperative Correspondence: The Letters of Gregory the Great.” In Neil and Dal Santo, A Companion to Gregory the Great, 291–312. Possekel, Ute. “Julianism in Syriac Christianity.” In Orientalia Christiana: Festschrift für Hubert Kaufhold zum 70. Geburtstag, edited by Peter Bruns and Heinz Otto Luthe, 437–57. Eichstätter Beiträge zum christlichen Orient 3. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2013. Price, Richard, and Mary Whitby, eds. Chalcedon in Context: Church Councils 400–700. Translated Texts for Historians, Contexts 1. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2011. Rapp, Claudia. Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity: The Nature of Christian Leadership in an Age of Transition. Transformation of the Classical Heritage 37. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005. Rebillard, Éric, and Claire Sotinel, eds. L’évêque dans la cité du IVe au Ve siècle: image et authorité: Actes de la table ronde organisée par l’Istituto Patristico Augustinianum et l’École française de Rome, 1–2 décembre 1995. Collection de l’École française de Rome 248. Rome: École française de Rome, 1998. Reinink, Gerrit J., and Bernard H. Stolte, eds. The Reign of Heraclius (610– 641): Crisis and Confrontation. Leuven: Peeters, 2002. Richter, Gerhard. Oikonomia: Der Gebrauch des Wortes Oikonomia im Neuen Testament, bei den Kirchenvätern und in der theologischen Literatur bis ins 20. Jahrhundert. Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 90. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2008. Riedinger, Rudolf. “Aus den Akten der Lateran-Synode von 649.” ByzZ 69, no. 1 (1976): 17–38. Roberts, Walter. “Soldiers of Christ from the Byzantine Perspective: Monks, Emperors and Conflict in the Early Byzantine Empire.” Journal of Religious History 41, no. 3 (2017): 291–311. Rubery, Eileen. “Papal Opposition to Imperial Heresies: Text as Image

Bibliography 257 in the Church of Santa Maria Antiqua in the Time of Pope Martin I (649–654/5).” Studia Patristica 50 (2011): 3–29. ———. “Conflict or Collusion? Pope Martin I (649–654/5) and the Exarch Olympius in Rome after the Lateran Synod of 649.” Studia Patristica 52 (2012): 339–73. Ruffini, Giovanni R. Social Networks in Byzantine Egypt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Sansterre, Jean-Marie. Les moines grecs et orientaux à Rome aux époques byzantine et carolingienne (milieu du VIe–fin du IXe siècle). 2 vols. Brussels: Palais des academies, 1983. Sardella, Teresa. “Ormisda, santo.” In Enciclopedia dei Papi, vol. 1, 476–83. 2nd ed. Rome: Treccani, 2000. Sarris, Peter. Review of Giovanni R. Ruffini, Social Networks in Byzantine Egypt. In American Historical Review 114, no. 5 (2009): 1571–72. Sarris, Peter, Matthew Dal Santo, and Phil Booth, eds. An Age of Saints? Power, Conflict, and Dissent in Early Medieval Christianity. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Schacht, Joseph. “Der Briefwechsel zwischen Kaiser und Papst von 641/2 in arabischer Überlieferung.” Orientalia n.s. 5 (1936): 235–46. Schor, Adam M. Theodoret’s People: Social Networks and Religious Conflict in Late Roman Syria. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2011. ———. “Theodoret of Cyrrhus.” In Sogno, Storin, and Watts, Late Antique Letter Collections, 269–85. Sessa, Kristina. The Formation of Papal Authority in Late Antiquity: Roman Bishops and the Domestic Sphere. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Shahîd, Irfan. Byzantium and the Arabs in the Sixth Century, vol. 2, part 1, Toponymy, Monuments, Historical Geography, and Frontier Studies. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, 2002. Shepard, Jonathan, and Simon Franklin, eds. Byzantine Diplomacy: Papers from the Twenty-fourth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Cambridge, March 1990. Variorum Reprints 1. Aldershot and Brookfield, Vt.: Ashgate, 1992. Siecienski, A. Edward. “Maximus the Confessor and Ecumenism.” In Allen and Neil, The Oxford Handbook of Maximus the Confessor, 548–63. Simmel, Georg. Soziologie: Untersuchungen über die Formen der Vergesellschaftung. Leipzig: Duncker und Humblot, 1908. Repr. Nexx Verlag: Villingen-Schwenningen, 2015.

258   Bibliography Sogno, Cristiana, Bradley K. Storin, and Edward J. Watts, eds. Late Antique Letter Collections: A Critical Introduction and Reference Guide. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2017. Sotinel, Claire. “The Three Chapters and the Transformations of Italy.” In Chazelle and Cubitt, The Crisis of the Oikoumene, 85–120. Stratos, Andreas N. Byzantium in the Seventh Century, vol. 3, 642–668. Translated by H. T. Hionides. Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1975. ———. “The Exarch Olympius and the Supposed Arab Invasion of Sicily in A.D. 652.” Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik 25 (1976): 63–73. Strickler, Ryan. “The Wolves of Arabia: A Reconsideration of Maximus the Confessor’s Epistula 8.” Byzantion 86 (2016): 419–39. ———. “A Dispute in Dispute: A Reconsideration of the Disputatio cum Pyrrho Attributed to Maximus the Confessor (CPG 7698).” Sacris Erudiri 56 (2017): 243–72. Sumner, Graham V. “Philippicus, Anastasius II and Theodosius III.” Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 17, no. 3 (1976): 287–94. Ullmann, Walter. The Papacy and Political Ideas in the Middle Ages. London: Variorum Imprints, 1976. Van Dam, Raymond. Leadership and Community in Late Antique Gaul. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985. Van Deun, Peter. “Une collection inconnue de questions et réponses traitant du trithéisme: étude et édition.” Jahrbuch der österreichischen Byzantinistik 51 (2001): 105–11. Van Dieten, Jan-Louis. Geschichte der griechischen Patriarchen von Konstantinopel, Teil 4, Geschichte der Patriarchen von Sergios I. bis Johannes VI. (610–715). Enzyklopädie der Byzantinistik 24. Amsterdam: Adolf von Hakkert, 1972. Van Roey, Albert. “Les débuts de l’église jacobite.” In Grillmeier and Bacht, Das Konzil von Chalkedon. Geschichte und Gegenwart, vol. 2, 339–60. ———. “Une lettre du patriarche Jacobite Serge I (557–561).” Mélanges offerts au R. P. François Graffin, S.J. Parole de l’Orient 6–7 (1975–1976): 213–27. ———. “La controverse trithéite depuis la condamnation de Conon et Eugène jusqu’à la conversion de l’évêque Élie.” In Von Kanaan bis Kerala: Festschrift für Prof. Dr. J. M. P. van der Ploeg O.P. zur Vollendung des siebzigsten Lebensjahres am 4. Juli 1979, edited by W. Delsman et al, 487– 97. Alter Orient und Altes Testament. Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981. ———. “La controverse trithéite jusqu’à l’excommunication de Conon et Eugène (557–569).” Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 16 (1985): 141–65.

Bibliography 259 Viezure, Dana I. “Collectio Avellana and the Unspoken Ostrogoths: Historical Reconstruction in the Sixth Century.” In Shifting Genres in Late Antiquity, edited by Geoffrey Greatrex and Hugh Elton, with Lucas McMahon, 93–103. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2015. Wessel, Susan. Leo the Great and the Spiritual Rebuilding of a Universal Rome. Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 93. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Whitby, Mary. “Defender of the Cross: George of Pisidia on the Emperor Heraclius and His Deputies.” In The Propaganda of Power: The Role of Panegyric in Late Antiquity, edited by Mary Whitby, 247–73. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Winkelmann, Friedhelm. “Die Quellen zur Erforschung des monenergetisch-monotheletischen Streites.” Klio 69, no. 2 (1987): 515–59; repr. in Winklelmann, Friedhelm, Studien zu Konstantin dem Grossen und zur Byzantinischen Kirchengeschichte, no. 7. Birmingham: Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies, 1993. Woods, David. “Olympius and the ‘Saracens’ of Sicily.” Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 27, no. 1 (2003): 262–65. Wright, Jonathan. Heretics: The Creation of Christianity from the Gnostics to the Modern Church. Boston, New York: Houghton, Mifflin, Harcourt, 2011. Youssef, Youhanna N. “Severus of Antioch in Scetis.” Ancient Near Eastern Studies 43 (2006): 142–63. Zocca, Elena. “Onorio e Martino: due papi di fronte al monotelismo.” In Martino I papa: Atti del XXVIII convegno storico internazionale, Todi, 13–16 ottobre 1991, 103–47. Spoleto: Centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo, 1992.

INDEX OF BIBLICAL CITATIONS

INDEX OF BIBLICAL CITATIONS

Old Testament Genesis 1.4: 179 1.27: 132 2.23: 206 15.5–6: 108 15.6: 109 17.26–27: 109 19.17: 233 31.40: 140 Exodus 4.22: 108 15.26: 47 17.11: 69 29.29: 120 Numbers 12.7: 120 16: 121 16.5: 121 16.7: 121 16.8–11: 121 17.1–4: 122 17.8: 123 18.20: 187 20.17: 159 Deuteronomy 10.12–13: 47



51.5: 181 68.3: 112 68.21: 48 76.7: 140 78.4: 154 79.3: 132 101.7: 48 115.15: 189 132.1: 58 135.25: 129 137.6: 87 145.18: 214

Sirach 4.25: 220 10.12–13: 232 10.13: 232 12.13–14: 232 12.16–18: 232 13.1: 232 25.10–11 LXX: 138 40.12–14: 138 46.10 LXX: 139

Proverbs 2.6: 106 2.7: 106 6.1-5: 187 8.9: 110 10.12: 46 14.4: 187 22.28: 192

Isaiah 1.15: 119 1.18–19: 213 3.5: 138 8.14: 228 10.1: 126 11.1–2: 124 22.22 LXX: 138 40.1–2: 231 40.3: 228 45.23: 45 51.7: LXX: 215 51.22: 151 52.11: 233 53.4: 105 53.5: 104 58.12: 137

Judges 5.11 LXX: 138 21: 145 1 Samuel 2.25: 223 8.7: 224 1 Kings 16.7: 45 2 Kings 20.18 LXX: 134 1 Chronicles 28.9: 45 2 Chronicles 18.4: 71 Job 20.5–8 LXX: 138 38.6: 69 38.11: 126 Psalms 15.10: 131 23.2: 234 33.6: 213 42.5: 112

Ecclesiastes 3.7: 54 7.18 LXX: 138 Wisdom 3.6: 120 6.7: 187 11.17: 138

261

262   Index of Biblical Citations Isaiah (cont.) 61.1: 125 65.20: 181 Jeremiah 1.11–12: 123 2.2 LXX: 206 2.5: 208 2.8–9: 208

2.10b–11: 208 5.30–31: 203 8.4: 214 9.1: 154 15.19–20: 214 17.5: 132 23.23: LXX: 214 25.27: 197

Lamentations 2.10: 57 Ezekiel 11.5: 45 36.32: 137 48.30: 136

Daniel 2.21: 106 12.2–3: 131 13.22: 141 Habakkuk 3.17: LXX: 229 Malachi 2.7: 187

New Testament Matthew 1.21: 127 4.3: 129 5.19: 192 5.21–22: 127 5.27: 127 5.43: 127 5.44: 143 7.15: 154 8.3: 126 8.17: 105 9.4: 45 10.22: 69, 139 10.34: 231 11.11: 126 12.26–29: 145 13.25: 136 14.26–28: 126 16.18: 67: 200 16.27: 72 18.7: 143 23.2–3: 48 23.3: 197 24.24: 229 24.35: 209 27.52–53: 131 4.39: 112: 126 9.48: 147

Luke 3.16: 47 6.23: 230 10.16: 47 12.48: 187 22.36: 54 23.27–31: 131 23.31: 131

9.15–16: 120 9.22: 120

1.25: 182 1.27: 183, 203 1.28: 112 2.8: 133 2.9: 210 3.3: 46 3.6–7: 48 3.12: 147 3.13: 147 6.14: 131 10.4: 129 12.26: 58, 119, 153, 191 13.4–8: 110 14.33: 225 15.22: 181 16.21: 104

John 1.29: 181 1.33: 126 3.8: 119 4.10–14: 199 7.37: 129 8.46: 181 10.11: 234 11.4: 127 11.34: 93 14.15: 110 14.23: 206 14.30: 130, 181 19.28: 129 20.28: 126

Romans 1.16: 58 2.24: 158 3.9: 180 4.5: 107 4.9–10: 108 5.14: 180 5.18: 180 5.19: 181 6.10: 105 7.2–3: 189 7.18: 181 7.19–20: 181 7.23: 182 7.25: 183 8.3: 180 8.28: 211 10.10: 135 12.5: 153 12.21: 145 14.7–13: 45 14.13: 44

2 Corinthians 5.20: 155 6.14–15: 234 6.17: 213 8.8: 133 11.29: 187, 234 12.9: 112

Acts 2.27: 131 4.32–33: 205

1 Corinthians 1.10: 158 1.24: 182

Galatians 2.16: 107 3.9: 107



Index of Biblical Citations 263 3.28: 58 5.6: 109 5.15: 111 5.17: 180 6.16: 111

Colossians 1.13: 179 1.14: 130 1.20: 130 2.11–12: 108

Ephesians 2.1–3: 183 2.3: 183 2.8–9: 105, 107 2.14: 219 3.20: 112 4.1–5: 208 4.3: 155 5.31–32: 189 5.32: 207

1 Thessalonians 4.8: 47

Philippians 1.2: 226 1.3–5: 226 1.9–11: 226 2.1–4: 46 2.3–4: 158 2.7: 114, 124, 133

1 Timothy 1.3: 203 2.5: 181 3.1–7: 111 3.2–4: 211 3.2: 117 3.6: 125 3.7: 212 3.8: 212 3.16: 217 4.12–15: 217 6.3–5: 217 6.11: 212 6.12: 217 6.20: 203

2 Timothy 1.7: 211 2.5: 107 3.14: 217 Titus 1.6–9: 111 1.6: 111 1.7–9: 212 Hebrews 1.2: 114 1.3: 116 2.2–4: 207 2.4: 122 2.14–15: 114 2.14: 116 2.16–17: 115 2.17: 116 4.15: 228 5.4: 123 6.4: 126 10.5: 86 11.6: 206 11.33–34: 220 12.12–13: 210 12.13: 219

12.18: 209 12.22–24: 209 12.28: 210 13.15–16: 210 James 1.17: 219 1.27: 121 2.20–23: 109 2.22: 109 2.26: 105 4.8: 214 4.10: 230 5.19–20: 214 1 Peter 1.13: 229 2.22: 114, 128 2.24: 105 3.18: 140 4.1: 86 5.8–9: 229 5.8: 156 2 Peter 1.3–4: 211

GENERAL INDEX

GENERAL INDEX

Aaron, 100, 120, 121, 122, 123 Abraham, 99, 107–9, 115, 128 Abundantius, bishop of Paternum, 236 Acacian schism, 9, 14, 19, 30; and John Talaia, 50; resolution of, 29, 32–43, 68, 81 Acacius, 33–38, 44–48, 52, 56, 59, 66–67, 70, 86, 139; anathema on, 75; 85; contagions of, 71; name of, 74; 83, 85 Adam, 114, 129, 180–81, 183–84, 223 Adoptionists, 184 Africa, 40, 162, 165–66, 201; church of, 203–5; Justinian’s wars in, 26, 30; Maximus Confessor in, 167–8; Muslims in, 163, 223 Agapitus, bishop of Rome, 21, 24, 38 Agapitus, consul, 68, 72, 76 Agatho, bishop of Rome, 21, 24, 29, 176–77, 236 Agnellus, bishop of Ravenna, 236 Alexander, patriarch of Alexandria, 134 Alexander of Mabbog, 117, 136 al-Harith, patrician and sheik, 97, 155, 160 Allen, P., 11 Amandus, bishop of Maastricht, 165, 173 Anastasius II, bishop of Rome, 34, 42, 43 Anastasius II, patriarch of Jerusalem, 225 Anastasius, emperor, 21, 33–34, 36–38,

40–54, 68; letter of, 70; name of, 83; wife of, 89 Anastasius Bibliothecarius, 174, 178, 179, 192, 193 Anastasius of Sinai, 13 Andreas, bishop of Thessalonica, 51 Anglo-Saxons, 175 Anthimus of Trebizond, patriarch of Constantinople, 24, 146, 150 Anthony, bishop of Bacatha, 218, 222 anthropolatry, 136 Antichrist, 168 antistes, 50 apocalyptic, 7, 168 Apollinaris of Laodicea, 117, 132, 180, 238; anti-Apollinarianism, 115 Arab(s), 97, 155; invasions 3, 26, 28, 31, 162–63, 167–68, 212, 215 Ariadne, empress, 89 Arius of Alexandria, 51, 117, 238 Arles, 18, 40 Armenia, 20, 92 Artemon, heretic, 136 Athanasius Gammal, 169 Athanasius, patriarch of Alexandria, 51, 97, 104, 134, 135, 146–47 Athanasius, tritheist monk, 97 Athenagoras, apologist, 117 Augustine of Hippo, 4, 86–87, 205 Avar(s), 26, 31, 163 Avellana Collection (CAv), 9, 19, 32–43, 59

264



General Index 265

Avila, 18 Avitus, bishop of Vienne, 43 Barsauma the Persian, 117, 136 Bartos, O. J., 15 Basil of Caesarea, 146 Basilides, heretic, 132, 137 Basiliscus, emperor, 56 Belisarius, general, 21 Bell, P., 15, 16 Benedict II, bishop of Rome, 10 Berber(s), 204 Blaudeau, P., 3 Boethian Monastery, 176 Boniface II, bishop of Rome, 10 Boniface of Frisia, 18 Booth, P., 5 Caesarius, bishop of Arles, 40 Callinicum, 153, 156 Cameron, A., 25 Chalcedon, council of (451), 27, 34–37, 162, 193–94, 216, 238; Definition of Faith, 23, 38, 66, 209; rejection of, 114 Celestine I, bishop of Rome, 52, 67, 203 Chaeremon, 49 Chosroes II, Persian king, 163 chronicles, 13, 20 Collectio Arelatensis, 40 Columbus, bishop of Numidia, 201, 204 Conon, bishop of Tarsus, 21–22, 95, 140, 142, 153–57 Constans II, emperor, 5, 11, 24, 162, 165–66, 168, 173, 196, 199, 201; in Rome, 175–76; and Typos, 31, 170, 227 Constantine I, patriarch of Constantinople, 24 Constantine III, emperor, 166, 172, 178, 196, 200

Constantine IV, emperor, 5, 11, 22, 25, 29, 165, 176–77, 238 Constantine, bishop of Rome, 23, 24 Constantinople, conversations of, 41, 94 Coser, L., 15 Councils, church: Bet Lapat, 117; Constantinople I (381), 113, 238; Constantinople II (553), 27, 30, 51; Constantinople III (680), 11, 27, 165, 171, 177, 190, 227, 238; Constantinople IV (869), 30, 43; Ephesus I (431), 30, 75, 36, 52, 113, 191, 203; Nicaea I (325), 30, 36, 75, 88, 100, 113, 134, 135, 191; Nicaea II (787), 27, 31; Quinisext in Trullo (691–692), 22, 31; Sirmium (351), 184. See also Chalcedon Cresconius, bishop, letter-bearer, 45, 49 Cyril of Alexandria, 52, 67, 98, 101, 104, 113, 134, 146–47, 203; Cyrillian terminology, 118; Twelve Chapters of, 100, 113–14, 117, 135–36 Cyrus of Hierapolis, 117 Cyrus of Phasis, patriarch of Alexandria, 31, 166, 169, 170, 173, 208, 216, 226, 237. See also Pact of Union Dacia, 35, 54 Daniel, prophet, 131 Dardania, 35, 42, 54 David, 48, 58, 123, 128, 130, 132, 181 Deborah, prophet, 138 definition of faith, 135, 177, 220–22, 225, 227, 239, 240 Demacopoulos, G. E., 17 devil (diabolos), 48, 50, 85, 107, 129, 153, 198, 220, 229, 231 Diodore, bishop of Tarsus, 117, 136 Dionysius Exiguus, 40, 49; Dionysiana, 40

266   General Index Dioscorus, deacon, 38, 81, 89 Dioscorus of Alexandria, 35, 38, 53, 55, 59, 61, 66, 67, 70, 86 Donus, bishop of Rome, 165, 175, 176 Dorotheus, bishop of Thessalonica, 35, 40 Dunn, G. D., 16 Ebionites, 184 Ekthesis, 31, 170, 172–74, 185, 188, 190–91, 193, 227 Eleusinius, bishop of Sasima, 110 Eleutherius of Tyana, 117 Ennodius, bishop of Pavia, 35, 41, 59, 67, 68, 72 Epiphanius, patriarch of Constantinople, 11, 24, 36, 40, 41, 43, 87, 118, 139 Ervigius, Visigothic king of Spain, 22, 177, 235 Eugenius, bishop of Rome, 164, 167, 170, 175 Eugenius of Seleucia, 95, 140, 142, 144, 153–57 Eunomius, heretic, 117 Eunomius of Amida, 142, 144, 145 Euphemia, empress, 40 Eutyches, 35, 50, 52–53, 55–61, 66–70, 92, 115, 117, 132, 137, 185, 238; Eutychianism, 37, 139 Eutychius of Alexandria, 24, 196 Evagrius Scholasticus, church historian, 16, 93 Ewald, P., 10 Ezekiel, prophet, 45, 135 Felix III, bishop of Rome, 33, 34, 42, 44, 48 Felix, vir clarissimus, 59 Festus, patrician, 49 Flavian, patriarch of Antioch, 34, 36, 55

florilegia, 5, 173 Fortunatus, bishop, papal legate, 59, 67 Franks, 5 Gager, J., 15 Gaul, 72; church of, 16, 18, 40 Gelasius I, bishop of Rome, 8, 10, 17, 19, 34, 38–42, 55, 184 George, archimandrite, 167, 211, 218, 221 George of Pisidia, 13, 163 Germanus, bishop, letter-bearer, 45, 49, 89 Great Schism, 27, 31, 32 Gregory, exarch of North Africa (Carthage), 167, 203 Gregory of Nazianzus, 146, 175, 182 Gregory of Nyssa, 146 Gregory the Great, 8, 10, 175, 239 Grig, L., 3 Grillmeier, A., 95 Hartmann, L. M., 10 Head, T., 18 Henderson, J. B., 17 Henotikon. See Zeno, emperor Heraclius, emperor, 5, 11, 13, 162–63, 165–72, 178, 185, 189, 190, 194, 208; and Ekthesis, 227 Heraklonas, emperor, 166, 178, 196, 200 Hervieu-Léger, D., 16 Hilary, notarius, 59, 67 Honorius, bishop of Rome, 11, 12, 22, 24, 164, 169–72, 175, 178, 179, 184, 190, 199, 238 Hormisdas, bishop of Rome, 14, 19, 21, 24, 32, 34–43, 59, 67–68, 71–76, 79, 81, 87, 184 Ibas of Edessa, 117, 136 Illyricum, 35, 42; Illyrican origins, 42



General Index 267

indiculi, 37, 39 Innocent I, bishop of Rome, 10, 17, 39, 54, 202 Irenaeus, bishop, 117, 136 Isaac, 108–9 Isaac, exarch of Ravenna, 171 Isaiah, prophet, 124, 125, 137 Islam, 1, 5, 17 Jacob, 140 Jacob Baradaeus, 12, 91, 96–98, 144, 146, 153 Jeremiah, prophet, 123, 132, 144, 203 Jesse, 123, 124, 130 Jews, 28, 119, 128, 130, 235 Judaism, 17, 109 John I, bishop of Rome, 10, 21 John II of Cappadocia, patriarch of Constantinople, 24, 35, 43, 75, 79, 87 John III, bishop of Rome, 10 John III, patriarch of Constantinople, 13, 87 John IV, bishop of Rome, 21, 24, 171–72, 178, 180, 184, 186, 188, 190, 196, 205 John V, bishop of Rome, 21, 22 John V, patriarch of Constantinople, 24, 164 John VII, bishop of Rome, 175 John VIII, bishop of Rome, 172 John, bishop of Nicopolis, 40, 42 John, bishop of Philadelphia, 174, 218, 219, 221–23, 225 John, bishop of Portus, 235, 236 John, bishop of Rhegium, 236 John, bishop of Tella, 96 John Malalas, historian, 13 John Moschus, 211 John of Ephesus, church historian, 13 John of Nikiu, 13 John Philoponus, 95–96, 151

John Sedrarum, patriarch of Antioch, 196 John Talaia, 50, 51, 139 John the Baptist (the Forerunner), 126 John the Councillor, abbot, 179 Judas, 47 Julian of Halicarnassus, 90, 92, 96, 98–107, 110, 115, 117, 132 Justin I, emperor, 37, 42, 85, 91–92 Justin II, emperor, 30, 97 Justinian, emperor, 11, 15, 21, 26, 30, 38, 40–42, 65, 74, 79, 82, 85, 92–94, 100, 162, 239 Justinian II, emperor, 22, 23 Kelly, G., 3 Larison, D., 5 Lateran Palace (Episcopium), 171 Laurentian schism, 30, 34 Lavra/monastery of St. Theodosius, 206 Leo I, bishop of Rome, 8, 10, 23, 39, 40, 65, 145, 175–76, 184 Leo II, bishop of Rome, 21–22, 25, 177, 235–38 libellus/libelli, 36–39, 42, 49, 64–67, 77–83, 85, 164, 194, 197, 202, 214– 15, 219, 225 Lombards, 5, 26, 30 Lupercalia, 17, 34 Macedonius, heretic, 113 Macedonius, monothelite patriarch of Antioch, 215, 228 Macedonius, patriarch of Constantinople, 35, 36, 58, 92 Manes/Mani, 92, 117, 132, 137; Manichees, 58, 184 Marcellinus, count and chronicler, 12 Marcian, emperor, 61, 72 Marcion, heretic, 117, 132, 137

268   General Index Marinus, priest, 172, 179, 208 Mark, evangelist, 50 Martin, bishop of Rome, 5, 8, 11, 24, 31, 163–65, 169–71, 173–75, 177, 190, 204, 210, 218–31, 233, 238 Martina, regent, 166 Mary (God-bearer), 52, 53, 86, 89, 102, 114, 123, 124, 128, 130, 141 Maurice, chartularius, 171 Maurice, emperor, 162, 163 Maximus the Confessor, 6, 11, 13, 28, 31, 166–79, 194, 208, 211–12, 218, 233 Menas, patriarch of Constantinople, 24 Mews, C., 10 Michael the Syrian, chronicler, 13 Monarchians, 151, 184 monoenergism, 6, 10, 24, 29, 163–69, 173, 208; formula, 169 monothelites, 6, 13, 22, 164, 166, 168, 172–73, 177, 194, 220, 223; at Sixth Ecumenical Council, 238; author of, 202; equated with monophysites, 205; formula, 5; revival, 24; Roman synod against, 176. See also synods, Lateran Muhammed: death of, 163 Muslims, 1, 163, 167, 168, 177, 223. See also Saracens Narses, general, 5 Neil, B., 16 Noble, T. F. X., 18 notarii, 59, 67, 177, 239 oecumene, 1, 27, 34 oikonomia (divine plan), 116, 133 Olympius, exarch of Ravenna, 167, 175, 204 Ostrogoths, 19, 26–27, 30 Ottomans, 28

Pact of Union, 31, 166, 169, 208, 216, 237. See also Cyrus of Phasis Pantaleon, cleric in Jerusalem, 222, 223 papyryi: Aphrodito collection, 14; Oxyrhynchus, 14 Pascal, papal candidate, 22, 23 Paul II, patriarch of Constantinople, 6, 24, 26, 164, 172–73, 186, 188, 192– 98, 199–203, 208, 216, 226, 237 Paul, apostle, 17, 37, 44, 48, 58, 60, 105, 107–10, 114, 115, 119, 122, 129, 131, 133, 135, 206, 212 Paul, bishop of Thessalonica, 25, 174, 231–32 Paul of Samosata, 117, 136 Paul “the Black,” 96–98, 139–42, 144–45, 155 Pelagianism, 34, 202 Peter, apostle, 17, 23, 50, 80, 84, 88, 146, 235 Peter, illustris, 168, 174, 218 Peter, notarius, 177, 239 Peter, patriarch of Antioch (the Fuller), 33, 36, 38, 42, 66, 68, 86 Peter, patriarch of Constantinople, 24, 237 Peter Mongus, 35, 38, 50, 55, 139, 215 Pharaoh, 108 Philippicus Bardanes, 24 Philoxenus of Mabbog, 30, 33–35, 110 Phocas, emperor, 162, 163 Photinus, deacon of Thessalonica, 51 Photinus of Sirmium, 136, 184 plague, 15, 27 Plato, exarch, 23 Pollard, R. M., 10 Polychronius, disciple of Macarius of Antioch, 238 Pompey, consul, patricius, 41, 82 pontifices, 52, 236 Possessor, bishop of North Africa, 40



General Index 269

Proterius, patriarch of Alexandria, 55 Ps. Dionysius the Areopagite, 169 Ps. Zachariah Rhetor, 13, 90, 92 Psephos (judgment), 31, 166 Quiricus, bishop of Toledo, 177 Ravenna, 27, 30; church of, 31, 176, 236; exarch of, 18, 22, 167, 171; soldiers of, 23 relationes (reports), 35, 75, 81 Reparatus, bishop of Mauritania, 201 Robert Grossteste, bishop of Lincoln, 4 Ruffini, G. R., 14 Sacra, 64, 65, 79, 165, 236 Salustius, bishop of Seville, 40 Samuel, 224 Saracens, 5, 167, 176, 212. See also Muslims Satan. See Devil scrinium, 64, 73 senate: of Constantinople, 82, 177; of Rome, 41 Serdica, 40 Sergius I, bishop of Rome, 25 Sergius I, patriarch of Antioch, 96–97, 140, 146, 150, 152 Sergius I, patriarch of Constantinople, 21–24, 164, 166, 169–73, 179, 181, 182, 185, 193, 199, 202, 208, 216, condemnation of, 226, 237–38 Sergius, Syrian monk, 84 Sergius of Jaffa, vicar, 225 Sericus/Barsica, archdeacon, 190, 199 Severinus, bishop of Rome, 171 Severus, patriarch of Antioch, 12, 30, 33–36, 84, 90–119, 122, 128, 130, 132, 136, 146–150, 166; and Eutyches, 185, 238; and “Nestorians,” 176, 238 Silverius, bishop of Rome, 5, 10, 21

Simmel, G., 15 Simplicius, count/comes, 177 Sinai, 20 Slanderer, the, 107, 112, 129–30, 156 Slavs, 26, 31, 163 social conflict theory, 13–15 social network theory, 13–14 Solomon, 45, 54, 138 Sophronius of Jerusalem, 94, 163, 166–67, 169, 172, 211, 215, 224–225; Synodical Letter of, 31, 166, 169 Spain, 18, 26, 27, 177, 235, 238 spatharius, 23 Stephen, bishop of Byzacena, 201, 204, 238 Stephen of Dora, papal legate, 211, 213, 222–24 suggestio, 38, 40, 75, 81 Symmachus, bishop of Rome, 32, 34–36, 43, 54, 62, 184 synodical letter: genre of, 87, 113. See also Sophronius of Jerusalem synods: Carthage, 202, 205; Hatfield (679), 176; Lateran (649), 9–11, 19, 24, 31, 164–65, 171, 172, 177, 203, 205, 208, 209, 211, 216–17, 225–27, 230, 233–34, 237, 239 Theodore, bishop of Esbus, 218, 220 Theodore, bishop of Pharan, 207, 216, 237 Theodore, bishop of Rome, 23, 26, 165, 173, 186, 193, 194, 196, 199, 201, 204 Theodore of Mopsuestia, 117, 136 Theodoret of Cyrrhus, 8, 14, 50, 117, 136 Theodoric, Gothic king, 36, 37 Theodosius of Alexandria, 91, 74, 95, 97, 99–101, 102, 111–18, 139–40, 142–59 Theophanes Confessor, 13, 168, 173, 194, 204

270   General Index Thessalonica, 18, 41–42, 81–82, 231; church of, 51, 230, 232, 174 Thiel, A., 43 Thomas II, patriarch of Constantinople, 24, 164 Three Chapters, 5, 41–42 Tiberius, emperor, 23, 168 Timothy IV, patriarch of Alexandria, 113 Timothy Aelurus, 33, 35–38, 55, 66–67, 85 Timothy Salofaciolus, patriarch of Alexandria, 139 Torah, 127 Trisagion, 36, 38, 75, 86 Typos, 31, 170, 173, 216, 219, 227, 228 Umar, Arab leader, 215

Valentinus, heretic, 117, 132, 137 Venantius, presbyter, 59, 67 Victor, bishop of Carthage, 203, 204 Vienne, 18, 40 Vitalian, bishop of Rome, 11, 12, 24, 164, 175 Vitalian, magister militum, 36, 60, 61, 64, 82 Vitalis, deacon, 59, 67 Wehr, P., 15 Woods, D., 167 Zacharias, spatharius, 23 Zeno, emperor, 30, 42, 91; Henotikon, 33, 100, 114, 137; name of, 83; wife of, 89 Zosimus, bishop of Rome, 19

! Conflict & Negotiation in the Early Church: Letters from Late Antiquity, Translated from the Greek, Latin, and Syriac was designed in Vendetta with Hypatia Sans display type and composed by Kachergis Book Design of Pittsboro, North Carolina. It was printed on 60-pound Maple Eggshell Cream and bound by Maple Press of York, Pennsylvania.