The Separation of the Monophysites 9781463226336

Citation preview

T h e Separation of the Monophysites

Syriac Studies Library

93

Sériés Editors Monica Blanchard Cari Griffïn Kristian Heal George Anton Kiraz David G.K. Taylor

The Syriac Studies Library brings back to active circulation major reference works in the field of Syriac studies, including dictionaries, grammars, text editions, manuscript catalogues, and monographs. The books were reproduced from originals at The Catholic University of America, one of the largest collections of Eastern Christianity in North America. The project is a collaboration between CUA, Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute, and Brigham Young University.

The Separation of the Monophysites

W. A. Wigram

1 2010

gorgias press

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2010 by Gorgias Press LLC Originally published in 1923 All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC.

ISBN 978-1-61719-185-5

Reprinted from the 1923 London edition.

Digitized by Brigham Young University. Printed in the United States of America.

Series Foreword

This series provides reference works in Syriac studies from original books digitized at the ICOR library of The Catholic University of America under the supervision of Monica Blanchard, ICOR's librarian. The project was carried out by Beth Mardutho: The Syriac Institute and Brigham Young University. About 675 books were digitized, most of which will appear in this series. Our aim is to present the volumes as they have been digitized, preserving images of the covers, front matter, and back matter (if any). Marks by patrons, which may shed some light on the history of the library and its users, have been retained. In some cases, even inserts have been digitized and appear here in the location where they were found. The books digitized by Brigham Young University are in color, even when the original text is not. These have been produced here in grayscale for economic reasons. The grayscale images retain original colors in the form of gray shades. The books digitized by Beth Mardutho and black on white. We are grateful to the head librarian at CUA, Adele R. Chwalek, who was kind enough to permit this project. "We are custodians, not owners of this collection," she generously said at a small gathering that celebrated the completion of the project. We are also grateful to Sidney Griffith who supported the project.

PREFACE.

THE fortunes of this book have been somewhat peculiar. I t was commenced in the year i g 10, to serve as a thesis for the author's degree of D . D . at Cambridge, and was largely written in Kurdistan, where the writer then resided. Some of the material used was, in fact, gathered during wanderings in the J a c o b i t e monasteries of J e b e l Tur. In 1 9 1 4 it was finished and the MS. was despatched, in the J u n e of that fateful year, to Professor Swete at Cambridge, that he and his brother professors might pass judgment on it according to the statutes of the University. It was passed by them as sufficient for the Degree sought, and the official intimation of the fact, forwarded b y the Professors to the writer, reached him when he was a civil prisoner in T u r k e y , and quite unable to take any action in the matter. The writer did not return home till late in 19x9, and then had the pleasure of finding that the MS. of the thesis had vanished, with much that was more valuable, in the general confusion of the war. Fortunately, the mass of the notes and references from which the book had been composed had survived, and from these the book was re-written, and submitted afresh to a new generation of Professors at Cambridge, who again honoured it with their approval. The question of its printing remained. T o find a publisher, at the then rate of prices, for a book which is not in the least likely to make a n y popular appeal, was by no means an easy thing : this difficulty, however, was at last overcome b y the enterprise of the " Society of the F a i t h , " and by the generosity of the trustees of the " Hort Memorial F u n d " at Cambridge, to both of whom the author wishes to make his grateful acknowledgments. The book, having undergone these vicissitudes, is now submitted to the public, in the hope that it m a y fill w h a t appears to the writer to be a gap in existing Church histories, and also m a y perhaps rouse some interest in the present descendants of those of

viii

Preface

whom it treats, those " Jacobites " who are among the most innocent victims of the war. In conclusion, the writer would wish to express his thanks to Professor Burkitt of Cambridge, who not only read the MS. as a part of his official duty, but who offered to the author many helpful criticisms and amendments on points of detail. W . A. WlGRAMAthens.

October,

1922.

SYNOPSIS

OF

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER CHURCH

AND

STATE

IN

I.

THE

5TH

CENTURY.

C h r i s t i a n i t y t h e e s t a b l i s h e d religion in t h e 5 t h c e n t u r y ; l i n e s of t h e i m p l i e d a g r e e m e n t , 1 . T h e p o l i t i c a l t h e o r y of it ; s t r e n g t h a n d w e a k n e s s of S t a t e c h u r c h i d e a l , 2—3. S c h i s m s r e s u l t i n g f r o m i t s a p p l i c a t i o n , 3 . C a u s e s of t h e breakdown, 4. (a) National spirit resenting Greek uniformity, 5. (¿1) A l e x a n d r i n e s c h o o l of t h e o l o g y versus A n t i o c h e n e ; C y r i l a n d T h e o d o r e , 6—7. T h e d e f e c t of b o t h schools, 7. (c) J e a l o u s y of t h e i n e v i t a b l e rise of C o n s t a n t i n o p l e t o e c c l e s i a s t i c a l r a n k , 8. I m p e r i a l s u p p o r t of it f r o m m o t i v e s of S t a t e p o l i c y , 9. CHAPTER CHALCEDON,

II.

AND

AFTER.

C h r i s t o l o g i c a l c o n t r o v e r s y , a n d q u a r r e l s of g r e a t sees, c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s v a r y i n g f o r t u n e of c o n f l i c t ; C o u n c i l of E p h e s u s ; e p i s o d e of " L a e t e n t u r Coeli " ; " L a t r o c i n i u m , " 1 0 — 1 1 . C h a l c e d o n a v i c t o r y f o r A n t i o c h e n e S c h o o l , 11. The decision, sound but premature, 1 2 . A p a r t y verdict enforced b y government, 13. C o n j e c t u r a l r e s u l t of a p o s t p o n e m e n t , 1 4 . Feeling on t h e m a t t e r in " O r i e n t " a n d E g y p t , 1 5 . R e s u l t s in E g y p t , 1 6 . In Palestine, 17-19. I " Constantinople and Antioch, 20. Decision hated by monks, 2 1 . D r i f t of t h o u g h t in a g e g e n e r a l l y M o n o p h y s i t e , 2 2 . CHAPTER FIRST

ATTEMPTS

OF

THE

III.

MONOPIIYSITES

TO

CAPTURE

THE

CHURCH.

C o n s e c r a t i o n of T i m o t h y A e l u r u s , 2 3 . M u r d e r of P r o t e r i u s , 2 4 . Question r e f e r r e d t o B i s h o p s , 2 5 . E x i l e of A e l u r u s , 2 6 . T i m o t h y S a l a p h a k i o l u s , 2 7 . His tolerance, 28. P e t e r the. F u l l e r a t A n t i o c h , 2 9 . Unrest; commencement of M o n o p h y s i t e d i v i s i o n s , 2 9 - 3 0 . Monophysite restoration under Basiliscus, 30-31. P o s i t i o n of A c a c i u s , 3 1 . M o m e n t a r y M o n o p h y s i t e success, 3 2 . P o l i t i c a l v i c t o r y of A c a c i u s a n d r e t u r n of Z e n o , 3 3 . Their joint policy ; Antiochene difficulty, 3 4 - 5 . Calendio as Bishop, 36. F a i l u r e of f i r s t Monophysite effort, 37. C H A P T E R THE

HENOIICON

AND

IV. ITS

CONSEQUENCES.

Z e n o ' s p o l i c y , t o m a k e p e a c e in t h e E a s t a n d d i s r e g a r d t h e W e s t , 38—9. C o n s e c r a t i o n of P e t e r M o n g u s a t A l e x a n d r i a , 3 9 . Q u e s t i o n of h i s r e c o g n i t i o n , 40. T h e H r n o t i e o n , 4 1 . Its character as a government creed, 42. Attitude of K o i n e , 4 3 . D e p o s i t i o n a n d m a r t y r d o m of Gulrndto, 43—4. Monophysite triumph within Empire, 44-5. Acacius a n d Peter Mongus ; their difficulties, 4."5-7. I m p o s s i b i l i t y of p e a c e , 4 7 . C l e a r - c u t p o s i t i o n of R o m e , 4 7 - 9 . Open b r c a c h of c o m m u n i o n , 49. C o n d u c t of F e l i x I I . , 50. CHAPTER MONOPHYSITE

V.

SUPREMACY.

M o n o p h y s i t e e x t r e m i s t s d e m a n d a n a t h e m a on C h a l c e d o n , 5 1 . Euphemius of C o n s t a n t i n o p l e , o p e n l y C h a l c e d o n i a n ; h i s b r e a c h w i t h P e t e r M o n g u s o n p o i n t ; t h e a c k n o w l e d g e d M o n o p h y s i t i s m of E g y p t , 5 2 . Breach with R o m e c o n t i n u e s , 52—3. A n a s t a s i u s E m p e r o r , h i s p o l i c y , 5 3 . P e a c e i m p o s s i b l e , 5 3 . Suggested reconciliation with R o m e fails, 54. Antiochene troubles, intrigues against Flavian, 54-5. E x i l e of M a c e d o n i u s , 5 5 - 6 . Constantinople Monophysite ; e x i l e of F l a v i a n ; e l e c t i o n of S e v e r u s a t A n t i o c h , 5 7 . Previous career, 58. F r i e n d of P h i l o x e n u s ; c h a r a c t e r , 5 9 . H i s e p i s c o p a t e , 60. D e s i r e of Anastasius for peace with R o m e , 6 1 . D e m a n d s of H o r m i s d a s , 62—3. M o n o p h v s i s m s u p r e m e in " I m p e r i a l C h u r c h , " 6 3 . P o p u l a r f e e l i n g o n t h e m a t t e r , 64.

Synopsis

X

of

Contents.

CHAPTER SIDELIGHTS

ON

VI.

SIXTH

THE

CENTURY.

Empire and Christianity, 65. Established Religion, 66. Importance of Monasticism, 6 7 . I t s relations t o officialism, 68. Peter the Iberian, son of t r i b u t a r y prince of " buffer state," 68-9. Escape f r o m abduction t o Persia,69. L i v e s as ascetic at court of C'ple, 70. Escape to monastic life, adventures at Jerusalem, 7 1 . Position of a prince-monk, 7 1 - 2 . Becomes Bishop, consecrates T i m o t h y Aelurus, visit to Beyrout, and interview with Calendio, 7 3 . L i f e at the U n i v e r s i t y ; the pagan lad Pralius at Alexandria, 74. Converted t o Christianity and mobbed, 7 5 . Discovery of the secret temple, 76. " Heathenism scandal " of 5 7 9 ; existence of pagan hierarchy, 7 7 . Consequent riot at A n t i o c h and Constantinople, 78. Effects of episode, 79. Instances of practice of magic, 8 0 - 1 . L i f e of ordinary folk at the time, 8 2 . E f f o r t s of Severus t o rouse them, 83. Clerical life ; episode of Callistus, 84. Severus' difficulties with his own extremists, 8 5 - 6 . The Theological quarrel as an expression of nationality, 87.

CHAPTER JUSTINIAN

AND

THE

VII. JACOBITES.

Justinian, emperor quoad ecclrsastica ; " O r t h o d o x y Sunday " riot ; Proclamation of Chalcedon, 8 8 - 9 . Petitions against Severus, 90. Negotiations with R o m e ; Hormisdas' inflexible attitude, 9 1 - 2 . Imperial Church accepts Chalcedon, 9 2 . Severus exiled ; Orthodoxy imposed at Antioch, 93-4, and throughout empire, excepting Egypt, 9 5 . General outward acceptance and passive resistance, 96. John of Telia organizes malcontents, 9 7 . Monophysite lack of Bishops, 98. Paul of Antioch, persecutor, 99. His policy continued by Ephraim of Amida, 1 0 0 , Monophysite countermeasures, l o r . Arrest of John of Telia, 1 0 2 . Debates with his c a p t o r s ; the merely verbal difference between them, 1 0 3 - 4 . Limitations of the persecution ; the semi-official refuges, 1 0 4 - 5 . CHAPTER EMPEROR

AND

EMPRESS.

A

VIII. SERIES

OF

CONCESSIONS.

Justinian, politically Chalcedonian, but desirous to reconcile Monophysites, 107. Theodora, frankly Monophysite, 1 0 8 . Her monastery at Constantinople, 108—9. A refuge for zealots, and a reservoir of organizers, 1 0 9 . Episode of John of Hephaestus, no—11. Series of concessions; formula " One of the T r i n i t y was crucified " allowed ; Condemnation of Euphemius and Macedonius dropped, 1 1 1 - 1 1 3 . First " Collatio " with Monophysites, (53x), 1 1 4 . Second " C o l l a t i o , " presence of Severus and Anthimus, 1 1 5 . Reconciliation only stopped b y the embassy of Agapetus and the political argument, 1 1 6 . Death of Agapetus, 1 1 7 . Council of 5 3 6 condemns Monophysites, 1 1 7 . Charges against their leaders, 1 1 8 . Death of Severus; compact of Theodora w i t h Vigilius, 1 1 9 . Death of Silverius, 1 2 0 . W o r k of Leontius (note on), 1 2 0 . CHAPTER MONOPHYSITE

DIVISIONS.

THE

IX. 5TH

GENERAL

COUNCIL.

Aphthartist dispute among Monophysites, 1 2 1 . Gaianist dispute at Alexandria, 1 2 2 . Theodosius consecrated, and expelled, 1 2 3 . Residence at Constantinople, 1 2 4 . Paul of Tanis consecrated, but proves impossible. 125-6. T h e Plague, 126—7. Origenist dispute ; Justinian lured in, 1 2 8 , Starting of the " T h r e e Chapters " controversy, 1 2 9 . T h e 5 t h Geneial Council ; its concessions t o Monophysites, 1 3 0 - 3 1 .

SYNOPSIS

OF

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER CHURCH

AND

STATE

IN

I.

THE

5TH

CENTURY.

C h r i s t i a n i t y t h e e s t a b l i s h e d r e l i g i o n i n t h e 5 t h c e n t u r y ; l i n e s of t h e i m p l i e d agreement, 1. T h e p o l i t i c a l t h e o r y of i t ; s t r e n g t h a n d w e a k n e s s of S t a t e church ideal, 2-3. S c h i s m s r e s u l t i n g f r o m i t s a p p l i c a t i o n , 3. C a u s e s of t h e breakdown, 4. (a) National spirit resenting Greek uniformity, 5. (6) A l e x a n d r i n e s c h o o l of t h e o l o g y versus A n t i o c h e n e ; C y r i l a n d T h e o d o r e , 6-7. T h e d e f e c t of b o t h s c h o o l s , 7. (c) J e a l o u s y of t h e i n e v i t a b l e rise o f C o n s t a n t i n o p l e t o e c c l e s i a s t i c a l r a n k , 8. I m p e r i a l s u p p o r t of it f r o m m o t i v e s of S t a t e p o l i c y , 9 . CHAPTER CHALCEDON,

II.

AND

AFTER.

C h r i s t o l o g i c a l c o n t r o v e r s y , a n d q u a r r e l s of g r e a t s e e s , c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s ; v a r y i n g f o r t u n e of c o n f l i c t ; C o u n c i l of E p h e s u s ; e p i s o d e o f " L a e t e n t u r Coeli " ; " L a t r o c i n i u m , " 1 0 - 1 1 . Chalcedon a victory for Antiochene School, 11. T h e decision, s o u n d b u t p r e m a t u r e , 12. A party verdict enforced b y g o v e r n m e n t , 13. C o n j e c t u r a l r e s u l t of a p o s t p o n e m e n t , 1 4 . Feeling on the m a t t e r in " Orient " a n d E g y p t , 15. R e s u l t s in E g y p t , 1 6 . In Palestine, 17-19. I n C o n s t a n t i n o p l e a n d A n t i o c h , 20. Decision hated by monks, 21. D r i f t of t h o u g h t in a g e g e n e r a l l y M o n o p h y s i t e , 22. CHAPTER FIRST

ATTEMPTS

OF

THE

III.

MONOPHYSITES

TO

CAPTURE

THE

CHURCH.

C o n s e c r a t i o n of T i m o t h y A e l u r u s , 2 3 . M u r d e r of P r o t e r i u s , 24. Question referred t o Bishops, 25. E x i l e of A e l u r u s , 26. T i m o t h y Salaphakiolus, 27. H i s t o l e r a n c e , 28. P e t e r t h e F u l l e r a t A n t i o c h , 29. Unrest; commencement of M o n o p h y s i t e d i v i s i o n s , 2 9 - 3 0 . Monophysite- restoration under Basiliscus, 30-31. P o s i t i o n of A c a c i u s , 31. Momentary Monophysite success, 32. P o l i t i c a l v i c t o r y o f A c a c i u s a n d r e t u r n of Z e n o , 3 3 . Their joint policy ; Antiochene difficulty, 34-5. Calendio as Bishop, 36. F a i l u r e of first Monophysite effort, 37. CHAPTER THE

HENOTICON

AND

IV. ITS

CONSEQUENCES.

Z e n o ' s p o l i c y , t o m a k e p e a c e i n t h e E a s t a n d d i s r e g a r d t h e W e s t , 38—9. C o n s e c r a t i o n of P e t e r M o n g u s a t A l e x a n d r i a , 3 9 . Q u e s t i o n of h i s r e c o g n i t i o n , 40. Tlio H e n o t i c o n , 41. I t s c h a r a c t e r a s a g o v e r n m e n t creed, 42. Attitude of K o i n e , 4 3 . D e p o s i t i o n a n d m a r t y r d o m of C U c n d i o , 43—4. Monophysite t r i u m p h w i t h i n E m p i r e , 44—5. A c a c i u s a n d Peter M o n g u s ; their difficulties, 45-7. I m p o s s i b i l i t y of p e a c e , 4 7 . C l e a r - c u t p o s i t i o n of R o m e , 4 7 - 9 . Open b r e a c h of c o m m u n i o n , 4 9 . C o n d u c t of F e l i x I I . , 50. CHAPTER MONOPHYSITE

V.

SUPREMACY.

M o n o p h y s i t e e x t r e m i s t s d e m a n d a n a t h e m a on C h a l c e d o n , 5 1 . Euphemius of C o n s t a n t i n o p l e , o p e n l y C h a l c e d o n i a n ; h i s b r e a c h w i t h P e t e r M o n g u s o n p o i n t ; t h e a c k n o w l e d g e d M o n o p h y s i t i s m of E g y p t , 5 2 . Breach with Rome c o n t i n u e s , 52—3. A n a s t a s i u s E m p e r o r , his policy, 53. P e a c e impossible, 53. S u g g e s t e d reconciliation w i t h R o m e fails, 54. Antiochene troubles, intrigues a g a i n s t F l a v i a n , 54—5. E x i l e of M a c e d o n i u s , 55—6. Constantinople Monophysite ; e x i l e of F l a v i a n ; e l e c t i o n of S e v e r u s a t A n t i o c h , 57. Previous career, 58. F r i e n d of P h i l o x e n u s ; c h a r a c t e r , 59. H i s e p i s c o p a t e , 60. Desire of Anastasius for peace w i t h Rome, 61. Demands of Hormisdas, 62—3. M o n o p h v s i s m s u p r e m e in " I m p e r i a l C h u r c h , " 63. P o p u l a r f e e l i n g 011 t h e m a t t e r , (14.

Synopsis

X

of

Contents.

CHAPTER SIDELIGHTS

ON

VI.

SIXTH

THE

CENTURY.

Empire and Christianity, 65. Established Religion, 66. Importance of Monasticism, 67. Its relations to officialism, 68. Peter the Iberian, son of tributary prince of " buffer state," 68—9. Escape from abduction to Persia,69. Lives as ascetic at court of C'ple, 70. Escape to monastic life, adventures at Jerusalem, 7 1 . Position of a prince-monk, 7 1 - 2 . Becomes Bishop, consecrates Timothy Aelurus, visit to Beyrout, and interview with Calendio, 73. Life at the University; the pagan lad Pralius at Alexandria, 74. Converted t o Christianity and mobbed, 75. Discovery of the secret temple, 76. " Heathenism scandal " of 579 ; existence of pagan hierarchy, 77. Consequent riot at Antioch and Constantinople, 78. Effects of episode, 79. Instances of practice of magic, 80-1. Life of ordinary folk at the time, 82. Efforts of Severus to rouse them, 83. Clerical life ; episode of Callistus, 84. Severus' difficulties with his own extremists, 85-6. The Theological quarrel as an expression of nationality, 87. CHAPTER JUSTINIAN

AND

THE

VII. JACOBITES.

Justinian, emperor quoad ecclesastica ; " Orthodoxy Sunday " riot ; Proclamation of Chalcedon, 88-9. Petitions against Severus, 90. Negotiations with Rome ; Hormisdas' inflexible attitude, 9 1 - 2 . Imperial Church accepts Chalcedon, 92. Severus exiled ; Orthodoxy imposed at Antioch, 93-4, and throughout empire, excepting Egypt, 95. General outward acceptance and passive resistance, 96. John of Telia organizes malcontents, 97. Monophysite lack of Bishops, 98. Paul of Antioch, persecutor, 99. His policy continued by Ephraim of Amida, 100. Monophysite countermeasures, 101. Arrest of John of Telia, 1 0 2 . Debates with his captors; the merely verbal difference between them, 1 0 3 - 4 . Limitations of the persecution ; the semi-official refuges, 1 0 4 - 5 . CHAPTER EMPEROR

AND

EMPRESS.

A

VIII. SERIES

OF

CONCESSIONS.

Justinian, politically Chalcedonian, but desirous to reconcile Monophysites, 1 0 7 . Theodora, frankly Monophysite, 108. Her monastery at Constantinople, 1 0 8 - 9 . A refuge for zealots, and a reservoir of organizers, 109. Episode of John of Hephaestus, 110-11. Series of concessions; formula " One of the Trinity was crucified " allowed ; Condemnation of Euphennus and Macedonius dropped, 1 1 1 - 1 1 3 . First " Collatio " with Monophysites, (53x), 1 1 4 . Second " C o l l a t i o , " presence of Severus and Anthimus, 1 1 5 . Reconciliation only stopped by the embassy of Agapetus and the political argument, 1 1 6 . Death of Agapetus, 1 1 7 . Council of 5 3 6 condemns Monophysites, 1 1 7 . Charges against their leaders, 1 1 8 . Death of Severus; compact of Theodora with Vigilius, 1 1 9 . Death of Silverius, 1 2 0 . Work of Leontius (note on), 1 2 0 . CHAPTER MONOPHYSITE

DIVISIONS.

THE

IX. 5TH

GENERAL

COUNCIL.

Aphthartist dispute among Monophysites, 1 2 1 . Gaianist dispute at Alexandria, 1 2 2 . Theodosius consecrated, and expelled, 1 2 3 . Residence at Constantinople, 1 2 4 . Paul of Tanis consecrated, but proves impossible. 1 2 5 - 6 . The Plague, 126—7. Origenist dispute ; Justinian lured in, 128, Starting of the " Three Chapters " controversy, 1 2 9 . The 5 t h Geneial Council ; its concessions to Monophysites, 130-31.

INDEX

OF

NAMES.

A. ACACIUS. P a t r i a r c h of C o n s t a n t i n o p l e . M a s t e r of O r p h a n s in c a p i t a l , 2 9 . P a t r i a r c h of C'ple, 3 1 . A t t i t u d e t o Chalcedon, 3 1 . D e p o s i t i o n , 3 1 . A c c e p t s C h a l c e d o n , 3 2 . P r o c u r e s recall of Zeno, 3 3 . J o i n s h i m in p o l i c y , 3 8 . D r a w s up H c n o t i c o n , a n d s u p p o r t s P e t e r Mongus, 4 3 . T r i e s t o e x p l a i n t h i s t o R o m e , 45. His difficulties, 4 6 . C o n d u c t in t h e m a t t e r , 49, 5 2 . D e a t h , 5 2 . JESCULAPIUS. B i s h o p of E d e s s a , 99, 100 (note). AGAPETUS. P o p e . A t t e n d s Conference of 536, 1 1 5 . H i s d i p l o m a t i c e r r a n d a t C'ple, 1 1 6 . Considered as a m a g i c i a n , 116. His d e a t h , 1 1 7 . ANASTASIOS I I . P o p e . P r o p o s e s a reconciliation w i t h E u p h e m i u s of C'ple, 54. H i s d e a t h , 54. ANASTASIOS. E m p e r o r . H i s previous career a n d p o l i c y , 5 3 . Appoints S e v e r u s B p . of A n t i o c h , 59. H i s uneasiness, a n d p r o p o s a l s for p e a c e , 60-61. Dealings with Hormisdas, 62. Death, 88. ANASTASIUS. B i s h o p of A n t i o c h . R e s i s t s t h e " A p h t h a r t i s t " p o l i c y of Justinian, 141. ANASTASIUS. B p . of A n t i o c h ( I I . ) . Deposed a n d r e s t o r e d b y J u s t i n I I . , 1 8 3 . H i s p i c t u r e s q u e c a r e e r , 183, 11. ANATOLIUS. C r y p t o - p a g a n g o v e r n o r of E d e s s a , 7 7 . ANDRONICUS. M o n k of E g y p t , 177. ANTARCHIUS. P r e f e c t of A l e x a n d r i a , 75. ANTHIMUS. B p . of T r e b i z o n d . T r a n s l a t e d t o C'ple, 1 1 4 . P r e s e n t a t C o n f e r e n c e of 5 3 6 , 116. D e p o s e d , 1 1 6 . Condemned b y a s y n o d , 1 1 7 . B a n i s h e d f r o m C'ple, 1 1 8 . APOLLINARIS. h e r e s i a r c h , 7. APOLLINARIUS. B p . of A l e x a n d r i a , 126. ARETAS (HARITH). K i n g of G h a s s a n i d A r a b s . M o n o p h y s i t e , 1 3 2 . Quarrel w i t h Ephraicn of A n t i o c h , 133. M a k e s choice of J a c o b u s B a r a d a : u s a s Bp-. I33A t t e m p t s t o h e a l t h e M o n o p h y s i t e divisions, 1 6 0 , seq. ASCLEPIODOTUS. P a g a n t u t o r a t t h e university of A l e x a n d r i a , 7 4 . ATHANASIUS THE CAMEL-DRIVER, FMono. B p . of A n t i o c h . His consecration, 185. H i s w o r k a s organizer, 186. H e a l s t h e A l e x a n d r i n e s c h i s m , 1 8 7 . I n t e r v i e w w i t h H e r a c l i u s , 189. B. BARSOMA. N e s t o r i a n B p . of Nisibis, 44. BARSUMAS. A b b o t , 2 7 . BASILISCUS. Pseudo-emperor. E n c y c l i c a l of, 2 6 . P e r i o d of R e c a l l s T i m o t h y Aelurus, 3 1 . His failure and d e a t h , 3 3 . BELISARIUS,

BENJAMIN. BOSMARIOS.

GENERAL,

119,

rule,

30-31.

120, n.

B p . of A l e x a n d r i a , 189. K i n g of I b e r i a , 68, 6 9 .

C. CALENDIO. B p . of A n t i o c h . Consecration a n d c h a r a c t e r , 3 6 . A t t i t u d e of R o m e t o w a r d h i m , 3 6 , n. R e j e c t s H e n o t i c o n a n d P e t e r M o n g u s , 4 3 . Is accused at C'ple a n d exiled, 44. Interview with P e t e r the Iberian, 73. Death, 44. CALLISTUS. D e a c o n of A n t i o c h , 8 4 - 5 . CHOSROES I I . K i n g of P e r s i a , 187.

CHRYARIUS.

Magician

at

Beyrout,

80-81.

CHRYSOSTOM. J o h n , B p . of C o n s t a n t i n o p l e , see, 1 0 . CONON. " T h i e f - t a k e r . " 60.

6, 8, 9, 2 0 .

J e a l o u s y of h i s

Index of

Names.

xiii

CONON. M o n o . B p . Consecrated, 134. W o r k in Church, 137. L e a d e r of a s c h i s m in h i s p a r t y , 1 5 7 . A t t e m p t at a reconciliation, 159-60. Anathematizes J a c o b u s Baradaeus, 160. A r g u e s his case before John Scholasticus, 161 CYRIL OK ALEXANDRIA. A S t h e o l o g i a n , 6. Quarrel w i t h Constantinople, 10. C o n d u c t a t E p h e s u s , 10, n. Q u o t e d a s a u t h o r i t y in " A p h t h a r t i s t " c o n t r o v e r s y , 154 R e g a r d e d a s t h e p r i m a r y M o n o p h y s i t e a u t h o r i t y , 163, 1 9 2 . CYRIL. A b b o t of " s l e e p l e s s " m o n k s a t C ' p l e , 49. CYRUS

OF

PHASIS.

Bp.

of

Alexandria,

189.

D. DAMIANUS. B p . of A l e x a n d r i a . Consecration, 179. A t t e m p t s to consecrate a n a n t i - p a t r i a r c h of A l e x a n d r i a , 180. Repudiates agreement made, 181. A l l e g e s h i s d i s l i k e of t h e t e r m " t r i n i t y a s h e r e t i c a l , " 182. DIOSCURUS. B p . of A l e x a n d r i a . Conduct at " Latrocinium," II. At C h a l c e d o n , 13, 15, 16. D e a t h in e x i l e , 24. N a m e o n t h e d i p t y c h s , 28. B o d y b r o u g h t t o A l e x a n d r i a , 3 2 . T h e o l o g i c a l p o s i t i o n , 195—96. DIOSCURUS I I . B p . of A l e x a n d r i a , 95. DIOSCURUS. P a p a l l e g a t e a t C o n s t a n t i n o p l e , 92. l Y o p o s e d as Bp. for A l e x a n d r i a , 93—94. DOMINITIAN OF A N C Y R A . C o n d e m n s Origen, 129. Starts the " Three Chapters " controversy, 129. E.

ELIAS.

Bp.

of

Jerusalem,

55.

ELISIIA OF L Y D I A . Monophysite Bishop. Arrested by John Scholasticus, 165. Reconciliation and death, 167. EPHRAIM OF AMIDA. B p . of A n t i o c h . C o m e s O r i e n t i s , b e c o m e s B i s h o p , 100 ; a p e r s e c u t o r , 100. His measures, in general, 1 0 0 - 1 0 1 . A t Amida, 101, 1 0 1 , n . A r r e s t s J o h n of T e l i a , 1 0 1 . H i s g e n e r a l o r d e r s , 104. H i s d i f f i culties, 105. His power as persecutor, 121. N e a r a p p r o a c h t o success, 132. His personal quarrel w i t h A r e t a s , 133. EPIPHANIUS. B p . of C'ple, 113-4. 48.N. ESAIAS AND THE ESAIANISTS,

EUDOCIA. EUGENIUS

Empress, OF

71.

ISAURIA.

Monophysite

Bp.,

134,

137.

EULOGIUS. B p . of A l e x a n d r i a . A c c u s e d of p a g a n i s m , 78. H i s c o n d u c t a s B i s h o p , 184. H i s f r i e n d s h i p a n d correspondence w i t h G r e g o r y t h e G r e a t , 184.N.

EUPHF.MIUS. B p . of C o n s t a n t i n o p l e . As Chalcedonian, has breach with P e t e r M o n g u s , 52, a n d a l s o w i t h F e l i x of R o m e , 52. Crowns Anastasius, 53. His p r e v i o u s d e a l i n g s w i t h h i m , 53, n. H i s e x i l e , 53. P r o p o s a l of R o m e t o e n d s c h i s m . 54. R o m e insists on a n a n a t h e m a on him, 92. Proposal d r o p p e d , 93. EUPHRASIUS. B i s h o p of A n t i o c h , 99. EUSTATHIUS

OF B E R Y T U S .

His time-serving

policy,

26.

EUTYCIIES. Heresiarch. P o s i t i o n a m o n g M o n o p h v s i t e s , 1 2 1 , 148. Repudia t e d as heretic, 194. A n a t h e m a t i z e d b y T i m o t h y A e l u r u s , 193. EUTYCHIUS. B p . of C ' p l e . P r o v e s t h e l e g a l i t y of a n a t h e m a t i z i n g t h e d e a d , 130. Resists Justinian. Arrest, deposition, and exile, 141. His restoration, 171. R e f u s a l t o stir u p trouble, 172. Persecutes t h e Tritheites, 173. His controversial works, 173. Death, 173. F.

FELIX. Defensor. L e g a t e of R o m e a t C ' p l e , 49. FELIX I I . Pope. E l e c t e d , 49. Denounces Peter Mongus, and Peter the F u l l e r , 49. S e n d s h i s e m b a s s y t o C ' p l e , a n d e x c o m m u n i c a t e s A c a c i u s , 49. C r i t i c i s m of his a t t i t u d e , 50. H i s r e f u s a l of r e c o n c i l i a t i o n w i t h E u p h e m i u s , 52. FLAVIAN. B p . of A n t i o c h . H i s v a c i l l a t i o n , 54. A c c u s e d b y M o n o p h y s i t e s 54. Y i e l d i n g p o l i c y , 55. Forced resignation, 57. FRAVITTA. B p . of C ' p l e . 52.

Index of

XIV

Names.

G.

GAIANUS. M o n o p h y s i t e s c h i s m a t i c , 1 2 2 . H i s e x i l e a n d s u p p o s e d sub mission, 123. H i s tenets, 153. His controversy w i t h Severus, i 5 3 ~ 5 6 GREGORY, ST. P o p e . A t t i t u d e t o m o n a s t i c property, 72, n. Apocrisarius at C'ple, 1 7 2 . H e a c c u s e s E u t y c h i u s of h e r e s y , 1 7 3 . His dispute with John t h e Faster, 174. Correspondence with St. Eulogius, 184. GREGORY. B p . of A n t i o c h . A c c u s e d of p a g a n i s m , 7 8 . H i s p e a c e a b l e d i s p o s i t i o n , 1 6 5 . S a i d t o h a v e - s u p p r e s s e d a d e c r e e of t o l e r a t i o n , 1 8 0 . H. HERACLIUS. E m p e r o r . A t t e m p t s at concordat w i t h Monophysites, 189. M o n o t h e l i t e s c h i s m , 1 8 9 . T e m p o r a r y s u c c e s s of t h e p o l i c y , 1 9 0 . HILARY, ST. H i s a n t i c i p a t i o n of t h e " A t p h t h a r t i s t " s p e c u l a t i o n s , 1 5 2 . n . HORMISDAS. P o p e . E m b a s s y of B p s . t o A n a s t a s i u s , 62. S u b m i s s i o n of t h e I l l y r i a n B p s . , 62. A p p e a l s of t h e Orientals, 63. S e c o n d E m b a s s y , 6 3 . S e n d s his legates t o Justinian, 92. A c c e p t s the s u b m i s s i o n , 93. Reception of J u s t i n i a n ' s e f f o r t a t a c o n c o r d a t , 1 1 2 - 1 1 3 . ILLUS, C o m e s O r i e n t i s , 44.

I.

JJACOBUS BARADÄUS. Monophysite organizer. M o n k , 59. Characteristics, a n d e a r l y life, 1 3 3 . Consecrated Bishop, 134. H i s m a n n e r of life, 1 3 5 . H i s m e n t a l limitations, 136. His organizing work, a n d reputed miracles, 136—7. T h e n a m e " J a c o b i t e , " 1 3 7 . C o n s e c r a t e s S e r g i u s , a n d P a u l " t h e Black " to the episcopate, 137. His relations w i t h Paul a n d w i t h t h e monks, 138. Left alone by the state authority, 142. Present at the C o n f e r e n c e of C a l l i n i c u s , 1 4 4 . H i s e x t r a o r d i n a r y c o n d u c t , 1 4 5 . Refuses i n v i t a t i o n t o C o n s t a n t i n o p l e , 146. C o n d u c t i n t h e " T r i t h e i t e " s c h i s m , 158—60. H i s p e r s o n a l a n a t h e m a o n t h e T r i t h e i t e s , 1 6 0 . P a u l t h e B l a c k asks absolution, 171. Jacob gives penance and absolution, and repudiates his o w n act, 175. H i s conduct in Alexandrine quarrel, 1 7 7 . His obstinacy, 178. His mysterious death, 179. JOHN OF EPHESUS. A u t h o r of Laetentur Coeli, 10. JOHN B A R B U R .

Monophysite Monk,

183.

JOHN OF CALLINICUS. C o m e s Orientis. G a t h e r s c o n f e r e n c e of M o n o p h y s i t e s at Callinicus, 144. H i s h o p e s of s e c u r i n g p e a c e , 1 4 5 . His failure and death, 145. JOHN OF CAPPADOCIA. B p . of C o n s t a n t i n o p l e . Conduct on " Orthodoxy S u n d a y , " 88-90. H i s s u b m i s s i o n t o t h e Pope, 92. His letter to R o m e a n n o u n c i n g t h e fact, 93. His death, 1 1 2 . His concordat with Jerusalem, 1 r 3JOHN, T H E CHARITABLE. B p . of A l e x a n d r i a , 188. T h e t r u e P a t r o n of t h e K n i g h t s H o s p i t a l l e r s , 188, n . D e a t h , 189. JOHN OF HEPHAESTUS. M o n o p h y s i t e M o n k . S e n t a s B i s h o p t o S y r i a , 1 1 0 . H i s failure, 111. JOHN OF EPHESUS. H i s t o r i a n , 98, n . , 100, n . , 1 0 1 . I n T h e o d o r a ' s M o n a s t e r y , 1 0 9 . O n c h a r a c t e r of T h e o d o r a , n o , n . E v a n g e l i s t i c w o r k in A s i a , n o . A c c o u n t of p l a g u e , 126—7. H i s M i s s i o n a r y w o r k , 1 3 8 - 9 . On t h e Tritheites, 158—9. A t t a c k e d b y t h e m , 160. A r g u e s b e f o r e J o h n S c h o l a s t i c u s , 1 6 1 . A r r e s t e d , 1 6 5 . T r e a c h e r y u s e d t o w a r d s him, 169. S u f f e r i n g s in p r i s o n , 170. I n t e r n m e n t at Prinkipo, re-imprisonment, 172. Accuses Eutychius of h e r e s y , 1 7 3 . D e s p a i r o v e r t h e A l e x a n d r i n e q u a r r e l , 181—2. JOHN THE FASTER. B p . of C o n s t a n t i n o p l e , 1 7 3 . A d o p t s t i t l e of " U n i v e r s a l Bishop." Q u a r r e l w i t h G r e g o r y t h e Great, 1 7 4 . JOHN, B p . of J e r u s a l e m . C o n d e m n s S e v e r u s , 90. H i s c h a r a c t e r , 9 1 .

J O H N OF N I C I O T A .

B p . of A l e x a n d r i a ,

57.

JOHN PHILOPONUS. L e a d e r of " T r i t h e i t e s , " Quarrel w i t h his o w n party, 159.

157.

His

mentality,

157.

Index JOHN

HIE

RHETORICIAN.

of

Names.

Ultra-Monophysite

tcaclicr,

XV 19,

121,

150.

JOHN SCHOLASTICUS ( J o h n of S i r m i n ) . B p . of C o n s t a n t i n o p l e , 142. A c t s a s u m p i r e i n " T r i t h e i t e " c o n t r o v e r s y , 160—1. C o m m e n c e s a persecution, 164. Arrests various Bps., 165. H i s m e t h o d s in p e r s e c u t i o n , 166. Reordinations, 167. A t t e m p t s t o w i n o v e r J o h n of E p h e s u s a n d P a u l " t h e B l a c k , " 168. H i s t r e a c h e r o u s c o n d u c t , 1 6 9 . H i s illness, 1 7 0 . Triumph over P a u l t h e B l a c k , 170. His penitence and death, 171. JOHN T A L A I A . E l e c t e d B p . of A l e x a n d r i a , 4 1 . R e c e i v e d a t R o m e , 48. R e j e c t i o n b y a m i n o r i t y a t A l e x a n d r i a , 48, n . JOHN OF T E L L A . Career as M o n o p h y s i t e organizer, 97. H i s arrest, 1 0 1 - 2 . F r i e n d l i n e s s of h i s a c t u a l c a p t o r , 102. I m p r i s o n m e n t a t A n t i o c h , 1 0 3 . T h e o l o g i c a l a r g u m e n t , 103. D e a t h , 104. A p p a r e n t p r e s e n c e a t J u s t i n i a n ' s " collatio," 113. F e l l o w - t o w n s m a n of J a c o b u s Baradaeus, 1 3 3 . Supposed a p p e a r a n c e t o h i m a f t e r d e a t h , 134. JULIAN OF HALICARNASSUS. Monophysite Bishop. F l i g h t t o E g y p t , 94. F o u n d e r of " A p h t h a r t i s m " ; d i s p u t e w i t h S e v e r u s , 1 2 2 . His " Aphthartist " tenets, 151. JUSTIN, E m p e r o r , 88. JUSTIN I I . Emperor. L e a v e s M o n o p h y s i t e s alone, 142. Tries t o reconcile t h e m b y C o n f e r e n c e , 1 4 4 . A n g e r a t f a i l u r e , 146. A n x i o u s f o r r e c o n c i l i a t i o n , 163-4. T o o l of J o h n S c h o l a s t i c u s in h i s p e r s e c u t i o n ; h i s m a d n e s s , 1 6 6 . Lucid intervals, 168-9. A n s w e r t o J o h n S c h o l a s t i c u s , 1 7 1 , n. JUSTINIAN. Emperor. Makes peace w i t h Pope, 91. Writes announcing the f a c t , 93. E x i l e s t h e M o n o p h y s i t e B p s . , 9 4 - 5 . D e t e r m i n e s on persecution, 100. H i s t h e o l o g i c a l p o s i t i o n , 106. H i s o b j e c t s , 1 0 7 . D e s i r e f o r a c o n cordat, i n . First effort t o secure one, 1 1 2 . Calls a " collatio," 113. S e c o n d C o n f e r e n c e (536 A . D . ) , 1 1 5 . His w o r k through various agents, 120. Inclined t o be " Caesar-Pope," 127. Decoyed into starting the " T h r e e C h a p t e r s " c o n t r o v e r s y , 129. Sends Mission t o N u b i a . 139-40. C o n t i n u e s T h e o d o r a ' s M o n a s t e r y o n h e r d e a t h , 140. Lapse into " A p h t h a r t i s m , " 1 4 1 , 163. A r r e s t s B p . of C o n s t a n t i n o p l e , 1 4 1 . His death, 142. JUVENAL OF JERUSALEM. Conduct at Chalcedon, 17. In Palestine after C o u n c i l , 18. H i s l e n i e n c y , 19. B u i l d s C h u r c h of S t . S t e p h e n ; i n s t i t u t e s s e p a r a t e s o l e m n i t y of '* N a t i v i t y of C h r i s t , " 1 9 . C o n s e c r a t e d P e t e r t h e Iberian, 72. L. LEO. LEO.

Emperor. A t t i t u d e t o w a r d s C h a l c e d o n , 25. P o p e , 39, 62, 163.

LEONTIUS.

His work.

120,

n.

LONGINUS. B p . of N u b i a . Consecration, 143. Starts for Nubia, 165. Asked to consécrate a patriarch for Alexandria, 175. Comes to Mareotis, 176. Meeting witli P a u l the B l a c k ; c o n s e c r a t i o n of a B i s h o p , 1 7 7 . A t t e m p t o n h i s life, 1 7 8 . R e t u r n s to N u b i a , 179. M. MACEDONIUS. donian, 55. MARCIAN.

B p . of C o n s t a n t i n o p l e . W a v e r s , b u t b e c o m e s firmly C h a l c e S e r i e s of a c c u s a t i o n s a g a i n s t h i m , 56. A b d u c t i o n a n d e x i l e , 5 6 .

Emperor,

14,

20,

23.

MARTYRIUS. B p . of A n t i o c h . E x i l e d b y M o n o p h y s i t e s , 29. MARTYRIUS. B p . of J e r u s a l e m . C o n s e c r a t i o n , 40. A c c e p t s H e n o t i c o n , 4 1 . MAXIMUS. l i p . of A n t i o c h . A t C h a l c e d o n , 2 on the whole, failed of success. Chalcedon was still of faith in Constantinople and Antioch, though it was soon to be recognized that there was no profit in attempts to disturb the Monophysites in their Egyptian stronghold, and at the moment another patriarch of that party, Anastasius, ruled at Jerusalem. The Emperor, however, who had defeated this first attempt, was soon to encourage the malcontents to make a second, and one that was to be attended with a greater measure of success.

CHAPTER

THE

HENOTICON

AND

ITS

IV.

CONSEQUENCES.

ZENO, if we may judge of his policy by his actions, came back to the throne resolved to conciliate that Monophysite party, which was making government impossible by its discontent : he regarded Italy and Africa as lost, and as having become independent Teutonic kingdoms, and therefore there was no need to consider what effect any proposed measure might have upon the Church there, any more than on the hardly more remote Church in the Sassanid Persian Empire. Both of these were, as a matter of fact, profoundly affected by what Zeno did, but both lay outside his mental horizon. Events had shown that, if only the patriarchal position of Constantinople were safeguarded, then its patriarchate (roughly, Asia Minor at large) would accept any definition of the faith that Csesar decreed. The Emperor being sure of this, there appeared no reason for him to refuse to conciliate the Orient and Egypt, for the sake of avoiding offence to subjects who were lost aire.idy. The policy was most likely Zeno's own, but il is not. likely (hat he, a rough Isaurian of dissipated life, superintended the theological details. Royal theologians are, mercifully, a rarity. His instrument in this was Acacius the Patriarch, an ecclesiastical politician whose main concern was, as we have seen, to secure the patriarchal rank of his own see, and who would not stand out for the doctrines of Chalcedon, if he could secure otherwise the dignity that the Council had conferred on his own throne. Moderate opinion on both sides tended towards a concordat, and the opportunity for making one was good, supposing always that that concordat was worth having, which left the most important single see in Christendom out of count altogether ! Moderate Dyophysites desired only a confession that should guard the perfect manhood and perfect deity of Christ, the one 38

The Henoticon

and its

Consequences

39

Person, provided that an absolute anathema on Chalcedon and the Tome were not required of them. Moderate Monophysites were prepared to accept as much as that, as instanced by their most important leader, Timothy Aelurus. The extreme section among them (the Eutychians proper, soon to be known as Acephali, or Julianites) might be disregarded, and the extremer Chalcedonians, who would be content with nothing less than a full acknowledgement of the " Council of 630 fathers," had lost influence with the loss of Italy, though Simplicius wrote letters in a lofty tone, and the sect had its stronghold in Constantinople, in the monastery of the " sleepless " monks.* So the position appeared to ecclesiastical politicians of the day. Really, as facts were to show, no concordat could be final that did not include Rome, and Rome would never abandon Chalcedon and Leo. Her ecclesiastical importance was not diminished by the fact that she was for the time outside the Empire, and ruled politically by a barbarian heretic ; but this was not realized by men who limited their ideas of the Church to that portion of it that was within the Empire. Zeno had left Timothy Aelurus at Alexandria, as stated, undisturbed. Both the rival Timothies were very old men, and the Emperor seems to have hoped that when the one died the z.m. v. v. other would be generally accepted for the remainder of his life, Eva « n ' a and that on his death one patriarch with a clear title would be elected. lie might have known his Al«\\:in'ti>ti>Q>i iv irap«' i n s t e a d of t h e of i T i m . iii, 16. T h e c h a r g e has some t e x t u a l interest, b u t it does n o t appear t o h a v e m u c h doctrinal p o i n t , a n d w a s n o t pressed. I t w a s a q u e s t i o n of C o n s t a n t i n o p o l i t a n as a g a i n s t A l e x a n d r i n e readings.* T h e n he w a s a c c u s e d of rioting, or of b e i n g responsible f o r the " religious " riots (so t o call them) w h i c h w e r e of c o n s t a n t o c c u r r e n c e b e t w e e n the " blue " and " g r e e n " f a c t i o n s of the city. T h e s e w e r e s u f f i c i e n t l y disgraceful, as m a y be j u d g e d f r o m an i n c i d e n t in St. S o p h i a itself, w h e n d u r i n g t h e a c t u a l E u c h a r i s t the t w o sides of t h e choir s a n g (or shouted) t h e r i v a l v e r s i o n s of t h e T r i s a g i o n a g a i n s t one another, and a free l i g h t r e s u l t e d in the c h u r c h . H o w e v e r , M a c e d o n i u s w a s no more responsible for t h i s than w a s a n y o t h e r of the c l e r g y , and this a c c u s a t i o n h a d to be d r o p p e d likewise. H e w a s accused of p e r s o n a l i m m o r a l i t y , but t h e f a c t t h a t he w a s a e u n u c h m a d e the a c c u s a t i o n a b s u r d . It is s t r a n g e t h a t t h i s d e f o r m i t y w a s not itself urged a g a i n s t him, as r e n d e r i n g h i m (by the Nicene Canons) i n c a p a b l e of receiving o r d i n a t i o n at all ; still, it w a s not so urged, a n d , f a i l i n g a good F° d e p o s i n g M m , M o n o p h y s i t e z e a l o t s t r i e d t o murdei h i m in the o p e n street. A t last t h e E m p e r o r h a d t o a b a n d o n all p r e t e n c e , a n d o p e n l j o r d e r t h e P a t r i a r c h t o a n a t h e m a t i z e C h a l c e d o n a n d t h e " twe natures." H e replied b y a n a t h e m a t i z i n g all w h o d i d n o t accept ^ ' secretly arrested, a n d c o n d u c t e d into e x i l e , as C a l e n d i o h a d been. T i m o t h y of A n t i o c h w a s his successor, a n o p e n M o n o p h y s i t e w h o i n t r o d u c e d t h e a m e n d e d E X C U S E

vii, viii.

Separation

T

I E M

R

A N C L

O N

T } L I S

W

A

S

* The rivalry between the sees apparently extended to points of textual criticism.

Monophysitc

Supremacy

57

version of the Trisagion into regular use at Constantinople, and inserted the name of " J o h n of N i c i o t a , " then the B i s h o p of Alexandria, in the diptychs.* Monophysites of the Orient now felt able to make a combined attack on F l a v i a n of Antioch, being the more sure of success because that already unpopular man had offended his former friends, the Dyophysites, b y corresponding with the " Acephali " about an anathema on Chalcedon ; he had also enraged the Emperor b y a chivalrous, but rather imprudent, disapproval of Lib. xviu. the exile of Macedonius. The Monophysites held a local synod for his deposition at j.m. vn, Sidon in 5 1 2 , and Philoxenus, who was the principal accuser, presented a portentous list of 77 anathemas, including a general one on the Council of Chalcedon and all its works, every one of which he required his Patriarch to sign. F l a v i a n naturally demurred, and it was soon seen that Philoxenus had overshot the mark, and scared even the moderate men of his own p a r t y , for Z M the Council broke up without arriving at any decision. R i o t s ^t«. sev^n, followed in Antioch, the rioters being Monophysite monks, who were admittedly stirred up b y Philoxenus, " because good men could not abide the communion of their P a t r i a r c h . " Flavian was frightened, and offered to anathematize both Chalcedon, and " the three n a m e s , " but his enemies were resolved that that concession should not save him now, and Philoxenus applied to the Emperor, asking for an edict of deposition. B e f o r e it arrived the governor of Antioch had " requested " the B i s h o p to withdraw from the city, " for the sake of peace," and as soon as he was outside the gate his opponents declared the see vacant, and elected the strongest and ablest man of their p a r t y , Severus of Gaza. Severus was a Pisidian b y birth, of an old pagan family, educated at A l e x a n d r i a and B e r y t u s as a lawyer, and, said his enemies, an idolater and magician. I t seems, indeed, that he h a d been inclined to the old religion of his f a m i l y as a young man : it is true that his Boswell, the monk Zachariah (to whose delightful life of him we must refer later) repudiates this * Timothy was not the most consistent of men. While his embassy in Alexandria was anathematizing Chalcedon, he was himself consenting to acclaim that Council at the insistence of one of the Constantinople monasteries (presumably of the " sleepless " monks) because the brethren had refused to allow him to instal their Abbot till he should do so. (Theoph. 6005.)

58

The Separation

of the

Monophyútes

accusation with wrath, being unwilling even to hear such a thing of his hero, and old fellow-student. " How could he be inclined to idolatry ? He came to hear my first sermon, and clapped louder than anyone else." Still, in spite of the irrefragable nature of this proof, most modern men will think it neither improbable nor discreditable that a powerful mind should fairly weigh the whole matter before deciding, and face the question whether " the old Faith " could or could not s a t i s f y its yearnings. In any case, the man was a zealous Christian before he left the university, and after his baptism, which took place there, he gave up a promising career as a lawyer and adopted the monastic life at G a z a in 488.* In this he was much influenced by Zachariah, a man who, though of f a r smaller mould than Severus, had the influence over him that simple piety often exercises over a keen intellect. He became a close friend of Peter the Iberian, mentioned above, and adopted the extremest form of Monophysitism, rejecting even the Henoticon. He anathematized Peter Mongns for accepting this document, which he called (with some justice) the " Diiereticon " or Divider, and thus became connected with the Acephalist party. For some years he lived as a solitary, but, entering a monastery in E g y p t , he was inevitably drawn into the various theological quarrels argued in and between the monasteries of the land, and gradually rose to being one of the most prominent men in his faction. About the year 500 he came to Constantinople-)', and resided there as the representative, formal or informal, of his party, and won the respect and liking of the Emperor. Thus, while residing there, he was undoubtedly the most prominent figure among the Monophysites at the capital, and as such he was much concerned in the deposition of Macedonius. During this period he wrote several works of controversial * F o r the statements in this section, see Evagrius I I I , 33. ; Zach. Mit. V I I , x ; Liberatus X V I I I , X I X ; V i t a Severi ; Severus, E p . I, 3. t Disputes for the possession of monasteries and churches were constant, and intrigues with local authorities, to procure orders for the expulsion or restitution of malcontent monks, were perennial. A s there was as y e t no definite division between parties, and no law to determine the custody of endowments, individual cases were constantly coming before the Emperor for decision. I t was one of these that brought Severus to Constantinople, and he seems to have stayed to look after the constantly recurring cases of the kind, in the interests of his party.

Monophysilc

Supremacy

59

theology*, and might have been nominated to the patriarchate of Constantinople, had he wished for the post. vuaScv.,105 Now, with the full approval of Anastasius, he was elected J - B . - A . , S 6 . Patriarch of Antioch in place of F l a v i a n , and his theological zeal having been a little modified b y experience, he accepted the Henoticon, w i t h the addition of a special a n a t h e m a on Chalcedon. This confession w a s ratified b y a synod of all the Bishops Z M V I i of the Orient, which met at T y r e in the y e a r of his accession, only the prelates of Cilicia and Isauria dissenting; it was accepted b y his brother Patriarchs of J e r u s a l e m , Alexandria, and Constantinople. Philoxenus was, of course, the helper of S e v e r a s in all the work, and thus the two men whom the J a c o b i t e historian couples together as " the Doctors," and who did more than any others to give J a c o b i t e Christology the form in which it exists to-day, were together as the joint managers of the Antiochene patriarchate. A t the same time, another great organizer of their communion, who was, in f a c t , to stand godfather to it in history as " J a c o b u s B a r a d s e u s , " was a young monk making a name for himself as saint and ascetic in the S y r i a n monastery of " the Quarry," near Edessa. We approach the time when Monophysitism, a f t e r failing in an all but successful attempt to establish itself as imperial orthodoxy, begins to organize itself on a footing of complete separation. Severus was a vigorous ruler, was, in f a c t , w h a t his opponents Evng. m, ^ . xxxiii-xxxiv 3

would call a tyrant, and his adherents a peerless saint. In his own letters, to which we must refer later for the picture of the Church life of the d a y that they present to us, we see something of the real character of the man. He is an enthusiast, of course, for his own t y p e of religion, and is a bigot on t h a t point, though far less of one than m a n y who worked with and under him. On other sides he is a shrewd and kindly man, with a hot temper, a tongue, and some sense of humour. In his own personal Ufe he was an ascetic, but it was no mere ascetic who could write to a f ^ e n ' x ¡ friend, " Y o u r wife has been no worse than giddy, and is your own record stainless ? D i d not the Incarnation raise our whole nature ? J u d g e not y o u r own flesh harshly, but forgive her, and be not pharisaical, remembering that, if you h a v e cause for * N o t a b l y t h e P h i l a l e t h e s , a d e f e n c e of the m e m o r y of Cyril against an accusation of E u t y c h i c n i s n i .

6o

The Separation

of the

Monophysites

jealousy, y o u need m e r c y t o o . " His theology we deal with elsewhere. In m a t t e r s ecclesiastical, toleration was, of course, no principle w i t h him, or w i t h a n y o n e else in that day, and, as he writes in I ' 3tv a n o t h e r letter, " it is not for a B i s h o p to advise massacre, but n o t h i n g t h a t the J e w s suffer is likely to be worse t h a n t h e y EVAG. H I , d e s e r v e , " it seems to be at least probable t h a t he sometimes xxxiii-xxxiv. c o n n i v e d at m o b violence towards heretics ! T h e orthodox historian declares t h a t he forced the Bishops of his province to Mansi V I I I r e i e c t Chalcedon b y force and compulsion. Of this force he 996-1000. ' alleges one instance, viz., a massacre of 300 m o n k s at A p a m e a w h e n on pilgrimage to the Shrine of S. Simeon Stylites. A massacre there certainly was, but, as he expressly tells us t h a t A n a s t a s i u s refused to allow persecution, it w o u l d seem t h a t the compulsion w a s usually that exercised b y a strong mind over w e a k ones. On the whole, his letters bear this out, for t h e only evidence of persecution in t h e m (and the compiler would h a v e reported all instances of pious zeal w i t h admiration) is a letter to one " Conon the t h i e f - t a k e r , " reminding him that he h a d been ordered to s u p p o r t the " o r t h o d o x , " and t h a t he ought therefore to show all l > Ilv possible zeal against the " enemies of God ! " Vita Sev., S o m e B i s h o p s , n o t a b l y those of Damascus, B o s t r a , and T y r e , "4and those of the province of Isauria at large, refused t o follow the rest of the prefecture, and remained Chalcedonian. I t is not likely, however, t h a t the wild hillmen of the latter district had a n y reasoned opinion on the theological problem, and one suspects t h a t their D y o p h y s i t i s m was rooted in the n a t u r a l cont e m p t of the mountaineer for the plainsman. Of course, there w a s feeling against Severus. In fact, two B i s h o p s (those of A r e t h u s a and E p i p h a n i a i n S y r i a Secunda) w e n t so far as t o meet solemnly in s y n o d b y their t w o selves, and u n a n i m o u s l y v o t e his deposition ! Notice of the f a c t w a s solemnly served on h i m L^tten, I, u n d e r t h e S u i s e o f a petition, b u t even the authors of the docuxxi. ' ' m e n t could h a r d l y h a v e expected him to pay a n y attention to it ! B u t , t h o u g h Monophysites were supreme and t r i u m p h a n t , and t h o u g h t themselves secure, Anastasius w a s uneasy. Ecclesiastics are seldom good political judges, and the four patriarchs, w h o h a d found themselves able, w i t h I m p e r i a l

Monophysitc

Supremacy

61

support, t o d i c t a t e a theological s e t t l e m e n t t o all their B i s h o p s , did not see t h e signs t h a t m a d e the E m p e r o r anxious and their own position unsafe. These were : the discontent w i t h recent policy, a n d t h e g r o w t h of reverence for the n a m e of Chalcedon, that were increasing j u s t where those sentiments m a t t e r e d most, viz., in the E u r o p e a n provinces. A s i a Minor could be trusted neither t o rebel against a u t h o r i t y , nor t o resist an a t t a c k , for the only soldierly race in it (viz., t h e Isaurian Highlanders) were an almost ideal people f r o m the administrator's point of view, in that t h e y were excellent soldiers, and were n e v e r politically formidable as rebels.* T h e men and troops of T h r a c i a , on t h e other h a n d , could a l w a y s be used in a political rebellion, and were so used in the y e a r 5 x 3 - 1 4 , w h e n V i t a l i a n rebelled, and w o n for himself t h e position of leader in the first religious w a r in Christian history. T h e m o v e m e n t t h a t he h e a d e d w a s l a r g e l y for reconciliation w i t h R o m e and for the Council of Chalcedon : already it w a s clear t h a t the n e x t E m p e r o r w o u l d n o t follow the political line of Zeno and Anastasius. M o n o p h y s i t e s u p r e m a c y depended on the person of Anastasius, and in t h e y e a r 5x4 he was s e v e n t y - s e v e n years old. T h u s t h e E m p e r o r w a s uneasy. I t is said t h a t dreams p«oph. J . . 6008-60 .haunted him, m w h i c h he saw an angel striking fourteen y e a r s from his life on a c c o u n t of his heresy (though he really h a d no ground to complain of the shortness of his span) while Macedonius, d y i n g in his exile at G a n g r a , sent w o r d to t h e effect t h a t Anastasius w o u l d soon follow him. In his uneasiness the old man e v e n w r o t e t o Severus, to the n a t u r a l horror of t h a t prelate, to ask him w h e t h e r he t h o u g h t a c c e p t a n c e of Chalcedon j^,"*™' quite outside the bounds of a n y possible compromise. Foiled there, the E m p e r o r began to seek for a reconciliation w i t h R o m e , on terms t h a t should not be quite d e s t r u c t i v e of his politicoecclesiastic w o r k in the eastern part of the E m p i r e . Here he m e t an opponent w h o w o u l d m a k e no concession. Hormisdas of R o m e w a s a h a r d m a n , c o n v i n c e d of his o w n principles a n d position, and one w h o had, m o r e o v e r , this great a d v a n t a g e in t h e negotiation, t h a t he h a d little t o gain b y a * I t is t r u e t h a t t h e y rebelled n o w and then, b u t t h e y o n l y carried on a guerilla w a r f a r e in their o w n hills. T h e i r A r m e n i a n r e l a t i v e s w e r e also a tough fighting s t o c k (strange t h o u g h t h e s t a t e m e n t m a y sound in these days), b u t t h e y were for the m o s t p a r t Persian s u b j e c t s a t this t i m e .

62

The Separation

of the Monophy sites

reunion, wliile Anastasius had much. Rome might feel that it was not quite dignified to be under an Arian ruler, but Theodoric gave her quite as m u c h respect as and a great deal more independence than an orthodox ruler was likely to do ; indeed, union might (as the fate of Hormisdas' successor John was to show) alter the Pope's personal position for the worse, b y exciting the suspicions of the ruler. So, when Anastasius in 515 suggested a Council to discuss the schism, and the possibility of P.L. Lxiii, ending it, Hormisdas replied b y sending a schedule of the terms on which he was prepared to admit the Emperor and his Church to communion, and t h e y amounted to complete surrender on all the points at issue. Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo were to be accepted as of faith ; T i m o t h y Aeluras, Peter the Fuller, Peter Mongus and Acacius were to be anathematized, all religious exiles, particularly those w h o had been in communion with Rome, were to be Indiculus " recalled, and all w h o had persecuted the orthodox were to be 374».LXVn' sent to be judged at Rome. H o w e v e r , previous experience had taught Hormisdas that the dictating of severe terms at Rome was one thing ; to secure that the legate sent to Constantinople should insist on their acceptance, was quite another. Hence, a schedule of instructions of absolutely cast-iron stiffness was given to the delegates sent to the capital w i t h the above letter. T h e y were even told at w h a t point of their interview they were to burst into tears ! The legates seem to h a v e carried out their instructions faithfully. Anastasius was, after all, a courteous old gentleman, less formidable than Zeno, and the fate of Misenus and Vitalis was a wholesome warning. Still, as the Emperor refused the anathema on Acacius, nothing was done, and the embassy returned, re infecta. T h e m a t t e r w a s allowed to rest for the time, but the fact t h a t f o r t y of the Illyrian Bishops shortly after sought to be Theoph. reconciled w i t h Hormisdas, showed which way setting, and other individual cases followed. Honnisdas, A second a t t e m p t was made two years later, 1 Ep" the Sibylline policy of raising her terms after E o n l y the T o m e , b u t all that Leo ever wrote on tl to be accepted as of authority, and not the name c b u t those of Euphemius, Macedonius, and all " w h o had died out

Monophysite

Supremacy

63

of Catholic c o m m u n i o n " we r e t o b e a n a t h e m a t i z e d . T h i s w a s to insist o n t h e c o n d e m n a t i o n , n o t o n l y of m e n w h o h a d accepted Chalcedon, b u t w h o h a d suffered exile, n o t t o s a y d e a t h , f o r their confession, a n d w a s felt to be h a r d in e v e n t h e m o s t o r t h o d o x circles. A n a s t a s i u s refused again, a n d m a t t e r s r e m a i n e d w h e r e t h e y were for a y e a r , d u r i n g w h i c h time t h e Monophysites, h a v i n g the ear of t h e G o v e r n m e n t , w e r e able to inflict a t least some persecution on the D y o p h y s i t e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y in t h e " O r i e n t . " The sufferers a p p e a l e d p i t e o u s l y t o t h e " pious e c u m e n i c a l patriarch " (a title w h i c h did n o t seem so impious to H o r m i s d a s as i t did to some of his successors), b u t he could o n l y urge p a t i e n c e , and a d m i t his powerlessness to help. T h u s w e reach and pass the h i g h - w a t e r - m a r k of M o n o p h y s i t i s m , Hormisd«. the period w h e n all the p a t r i a r c h a t e s , R o m e e x c e p t e d , w e r e held x^'h*'»"*^.'' by its votaries, a n d t h e w o r d s " one n a t u r e i n c a r n a t e , " if n o t officially recognized, w e r e t h e fashionable c a t c h w o r d of w h a t w e m a y call the official Church of the E m p i r e . R o m e w a s outside practical politics for the m o m e n t (or it could be so counted), Gothic A r i a n i s m a n d Persian D y o p h y s i t i s m w e r e s i m p l y disregarded, for w h o could be e x p e c t e d to look outside the E m p i r e ? Chalcedon, s i x t y y e a r s a f t e r the passing of its decree, w a s still a n a t h e m a t i z e d b y the G o v e r n m e n t ' s Church. Of course, this s u p r e m a c y w a s artificial. It rested, as t h e restoration of Chalcedon w a s soon to rest, on the p r e j u d i c e s a n d p o l i c y of t h e Emperor. M o n o p h y s i t e s w e r e no more t h a n a p a r t y e v e r y where (except in E g y p t , w h e r e t h e y were all-powerful), b u t t h a t party w a s the m a j o r i t y in Palestine a n d S y r i a , a n d w a s n o t negligible in the Capital, a n d in A s i a Minor. If the e v i d e n c e of t h e letters of S e v e r u s c a n be t r u s t e d f o r other provinces t h a n for t h a t for w h i c h t h e y w e r e w r i t t e n , t h e great mass of Christian feeling w a s i n d e t e r m i n a t e on the point, and it t o o k a g r e a t while for a decision t o sink d o w n into and take root in the religious consciousness of t h e Oriental. N o t h i n g could re move the c o n v i c t i o n w h e n once it h a d t a k e n root, a n d then the G o v e r n m e n t m i g h t do its w o r s t w i t h o u t d i s t u i b i n g i t , but till then f o l k w e r e content, w i t h O r i e n t a l respect f o r t h e " H u k u m e t , " t o abide b y the rulings of t h e G o v e r n m e n t . Certain provinces h a d m a d e u p their m i n d s , a n d E g y p t , foi instance, w a s as M o n o p h y s i t e as R o m e w a s Chalcedonian. - I n F

64

The Separation

of the

Monophysiles

Syria the Greek towns were Chalcedonian, the Oriental countryside was Monophysite. Asia Minor followed the Government, and any decision t h a t the Government chose to give was cheerfully accepted there. Generally, the Emperors cared more for peace than for theology, and while there was no political reason for making sacrifices to sccure peace with the Pope, there was good reason for conciliating E g y p t and Syria. Leo, Zeno, and Anastasius were more attracted to, and paid attention to, the Eastern portion of the Empire, and they were for that reason naturally Monophysite in policy. Now, there was a change of dynasty, and men ruled who were Chalcedonian both b y policy and by conviction. The Emperors who sought to recover Italy could not estrange the Pope, and that coloured all their ecclesiastical policy. The question would soon arise, could the Emperor, who was bound to despise the convictions of E g y p t and Syria maintain his rule over those provinces ?

CHAPTER SIDE-LIGHTS

ON

THE

VI. SIXTH

CENTURY.

THE accession of J u s t i n and the Dacian dynasty marks a change in the foreign and ecclesiastical politics of the Empire that can only be compared to a change of trumps at whist. All the old figures remain, but their values and relations to one another have undergone a radical change, and the change has lasting results on the subject of this history. At this turning point it is possible to pause, and insert what is not indeed a general excursus on the general Christian life of the period, but a collection of various points of detail, which, when taken together, present something like a picture of the life of common Christian men in a period that was just passing away. The main feature of that period was simply the Empire itself, that Empire which included what was the whole world of common thought, and in which Christianity was the established religion, and the greatest political fact. There might be an internal question as to what was the true Christianity, but no man dreamed of questioning its right to be the governing factor in the great machine. The notion of a later civilization, the idea of a congeries of independent states, had not arisen in the minds of men ; the ideal of one world-empire, and one faith, that ideal which dominated the mind of Europe, in spite of facts, until the Reformation, was not only unchallenged, but seemed past challenge altogether. I t was true that the spirit of inchoate nationalism was abroad, and the theological quarrel of the age was to prove irreconcilable simply because the national spirit of the various parts of the Empire sought expression in the religious sphere, and expression was denied it by the uniformityloving officials of the State. This, however, was not understood until too late : the thought of the Empire, which was Roma Dea in a new form, had a complete possession of men's minds ; all kings must owe allegiance to the Emperor b y the law of nature, and there was no possible rival in the world to divide that claim s

66

The Separation

of the

Monophysites

with him, and no religion but the religion of the Empire. Zoroastrian Persia was, indeed, a possible exception and menace, but that power was as remote to the mind as is China to the mind of our day ; it was a sort of " yellow peril " that could not be taken seriously. Goths to the north might wrest a province from its governors, but they came to the Empire for religion and civilization, and a Gothic King's highest ambition was to be given the title of " patrician " by the Emperor. Arabs were like Armenians and Iberians, a convenient and half-savage " buffer State " against the only real enemy—Persia ; and, like Numidians and Moors in Africa, they felt the attraction of the great Empire, and of the religion that knit its whole system together. It was an attraction that was partly worldly, for, if a chief became Christian, he was pretty sure of a resonant title, and might obtain a substantial subsidy ; still, it was genuinely religious in part, for Christianity was still one, and had no rival to fight, against whom she had to stand upon a not too successful defence. There was no second religion, able as Islam undoubtedly is able, for reasons of varying quality, to present itself to races at a certain stage of evolution with an attractive power that the higher faith cannot exercise ; and Christianity was still apparently one, even though the permanent divisions were actually beginning, so that none could say that Christians must first agree as to what their faith was, before asking those outside it to consider its claims ! It is difficult for us to realize—even with the thought of a mediaeval papacy in the mind—how magnificently imposing a fabric the Christian Church presented, at the time when the youth Mahommed Ibn Abdallah was conducting Khadijah's caravans to the Mecca bazaar. Naturally, many cracks and blemishes could be seen on a closer inspection, for the great ruin of the seventh century would never have come to pass otherwise, but the building was still whole and imposing. Meantime the Church may have had all the possible vices of an " establishment," but at least it was allowed the advantages of that condition, a state of things that is not always the lot of those who suffer under that privilege ! Not only were the Church officials State-paid, but the State sent and paid missionaries to foreign powers, and secured them political backing in their

Side-Lights

on the Sixth

Century

67

work. Thus mission work among the fringe of small nationalities known to the Empire throve apace, and if the resulting Christianity sat lightly on some of those who accepted it (e.g., on the Nubians, Arabs and Moors), at least it won its way into the heart of others, and has left Georgian and Armenian Churches as its witnesses to this day. We trace elsewhere the history of the theological fray within the Empire ; apart from that, the main religious force and interest of the day was undoubtedly asceticism. This filled the space occupied by monasticism and the community life in thirteenth-century England, or b y philanthropy in our own days. It is hardly too much to say t h a t a lad who comes forward to be confirmed now would probably have turned monk then and looked forward to the day when, released from even the loose form of community life practised in an Eastern monastery, he could retire to a solitary's cell and begin a truly " monastic " and " ascetic " life. I t must be remembered t h a t the monastery of those days was not—and the Oriental monastery has never become—the elaborate organization for Church service and work that the Benedictine system developed into in the West. It was a collection of ascetics, of men seeking to save their own souls by solitary wrestlings with evil, whose common life was limited to the strictest minimum required by Church services and sacraments, and who regarded those as most advanced on the way, who dispensed with even t h a t amount of fellowship. The monasteries were everywhere, and in incredible numbers, for we know of forty in one district of Arabia, and as m a n y as o^g.'xu, six hundred in the immediate neighbourhood of Alexandria. Of 9 ' course, they varied in size, for some might contain no more t h a n eight or ten inmates, while the presence or memory of a' distinguished leader attracted large numbers, so t h a t at Dara and Rabban Hormizd in Mesopotamia, the rock-hewn cells t h a t remain in situ number several hundred. Their characters varied as much as their numbers, for, while some might be filled with meditative mystics, here was to be found the fighting force of every p a r t y in the Church, in the persons of men whom no power could keep in order. They recognized no law but their own interpretation of religion, and no authority save the Bishop whom they favoured, and whom they obeyed for just so long as he agreed with them. They

68

The Separation

of the

Monophysitcs

must have been the despair of any orderly-minded official, for there was absolutely nothing to be done with them. Folk who have no property cannot be fined ; exile is nothing to a man who is nothing but a stranger and a pilgrim anywhere, and who sees in the whole world nought but a collection of sites for hermits' cells. Imprisonment is no penalty to such an one, for one cell is just as good as another ; death has no terrors for him, but the thought of the consequences of making a martyr by inflicting it has terror in plenty for the magistrate, and the enthusiasm he excites brings an endless stream of recruits to his standard. He is a government problem with no solution. A grand S t a t e establishment of Christianity, most imposing without, but gravely defective within ; a struggle to enforce theological uniformity on Egyptian and Syrian recusants, whose nationalism was really taking that method of protesting against the official Greek uniformity that the Government prescribed ; a general religious life in which the fashionable movement of the day look the form of asceticism. These were the most conspicuous features of the religious life of the day. Under the surface, the " old faith " in " the old gods," though superseded and driven underground, had still much influence over the minds of the conservative classes, and more over those of the most orthodox Christians than their owners always understood. These being the surroundings and background that must be assumed, we can proceed to put forward certain episodes, which may show what history often fails to show : namely, how people lived when these great movements were passing over and around them. First in our list we may put the experiences of Peter the Iberian, who united in his own person the extremely various characters of barbarian prince, hostage, ascetic, and heretical Bishop ! The man was born under the shadow of the Caucasus, as son, and apparently heir of the kinglet of those parts, Bosmarios ; this man was ruler of one of the several States, of which it can hardly be said whether they were in the " sphere of influence " of the Roman or the Persian Empires. The little kingdom was Christian, having been apparently converted en masse (very much after the fashion of our own ancestors) by the

Side-Lights

on the Sixth

Century

69

predecessor of this ruler. Nor did the resemblance stop witli the conversion, for in reading the account of Peter's life we find ourselves back once more in the atmosphere of the Venerable Bede, and living with characters like Oswald and Edwin of Northumbria. W e read of royal ascetics, who turned from the work of kingship to find refreshment in personal tendance of the poor in almshouses of their own building ; of queens who distributed food of their own preparing to the beggars who gathered at the palace door, of crowned pilgrims who left their thrones to go afoot to the tombs of the Apostles. As in England, a race of children had been brought to the Church, and their conversion manifested itself in acts of childlike zeal. Bosmarios' political position was harder than that of his English parallels, for the two great powers of his world, Rome and Persia, were both anxious to obtain him as a subordinate ally, and apparently neither felt too sure of his loyalty. Perhaps, like a certain Duke of Savoy, he m a y have been of exemplary piety in private life, but yet have felt that one who sat in his seat could not afford a political conscience ! In any case, both powers claimed the person of his son Nabarnugios as a hostage, and the Shah-in-shah made vigorous efforts to secure the boy, b y the use of strong diplomatic pressure, if not b y force. He had perhaps the most reason to suspect an ally whose religion would naturally attract him to Constantinople, and Bosmarios' Christianity was at least strong enough to make him enter an open protest against the sun-worship of his suzerain, an act that might have had serious consequences if he had not happened to be so very necessary as an ally. It was this episode that made the K i n g of Persia, probably Yezdegerd I, resolve to secure the person of the b o y b y any means available. He took steps accordingly, and the boy would most certainly have been carried off to Persia (a step t h a t would have altered his whole life), had it not been for the promptness of his nurse Zuzo. This good woman concealed the lad, without the knowledge of his parents, and the dangerous crisis passed over. To the end of his days the Prince-Bishop never failed to remember the act of his benefactress in his prayers. To save him from a repetition of the danger, the b o y was sent, vu. petH at the age of twelve, to Constantinople, partly as a hostage, partly also to receive the education of a prince at that court.

70

The Separation

of the

Monophysites

Several lads of the blood royal of various nations were gathered in the palace in this way, and it is at least possible—though the d a t e s are not certain—that one of the contemporaries of the young Nabarnugios was a youth who had a high and strange destiny before him, Theodoric, the Prince of the Ostro-Goths. The Court of Anastasius must have been rather like t h a t of Louis X I V when le grand monarque had grown elderly and pious. Religion was the mode, and everybody about the Court discussed theology, and had some favourite ecclesiastic. I t is impossible to tell how such surroundings m a y affect an impressionable lad ; an English boy might probably be surfeited with religiosity, and throw off religion altogether in consequence; an Oriental may take to it enthusiastically. Certainly this was the case with the Iberian, who lived as an ascetic at Court, indulging in the private luxury of a sackcloth undershirt and a rule modelled on t h a t of Daniel at the Court of Nebuchadnezzar. He was only desirous of entering a monastery, but the Emperor (however Bishop-ridden he might be in some matters) had not brought the Prince from Iberia just to add one more recruit to the numerous body of monks, and he vetoed the scheme. The young enthusiast was not to be baulked, however, and fairly ran away from Court with a like-minded companion, named John, intending to go to Jerusalem. " They took nothing with them," says the biographer, " save the relic of a Persian saint, and a copy of St. J o h n ' s gospel : " as a matter of fact, they took a boat also, and one t h a t did not belong to them, and as boat-sailing seemingly formed no part of the palace curriculum for princes, and Bosphorus currents are notoriously tricky, the two would-be hermits very nearly terminated their career altogether before they landed on the Asiatic shore. Even when they started on their land journey, their adventures were not over. A certain farmer, finding two fine young men who could give no account of themselves, wandering in his fields, took them as a gift of the gods to his worthy self, and made oath before the local authority t h a t they were his runaway slaves ! Appeal to Government implied revealing their true character, and forcible return to the palace, which was too ignominious. Running away, if it no longer meant the cross, still meant the whip ; but fortunately the Gordian knot was cut by a dream, which so terrified their proprietor t h a t he thought it better to release the pair.

Side-Lights

on the Sixth

Century

71

Ultimately t h e wanderers reached J e r u s a l e m a n d lived for a time in t h e house of a Constantinople friend, a l a d y of t h e n a m e of Melania. However, t h e y were soon formally enrolled as monks, a t t h e r a t h e r early age of t w e n t y years ; t h e a c t u a l f o r m of the ceremony consisted in t h e t a k i n g of t h e black monastic robe f r o m t h e stone of t h e H o l y Sepulchre, a n d vesting t h e candidate therewith, w i t h p r a y e r for the gifts of " f a i t h , holiness and t e a r s . " I t was a t this time t h a t Nabarnugios d r o p p e d his rather ponderous n a m e , a n d became P e t e r ; he also left t h e house of his friend, a n d settled in a cell in " t h e Tower of D a v i d , " which was in all probability t h e existing citadel. I t soon became clear t h a t , t h o u g h P e t e r h a d all t h e t a s t e s of the ascetic, a n d was " a born m y s t i c , " he neither w a s n o r ever could be an o r d i n a r y m o n k ; he continued t h e Prince in his ragged m o n k ' s robe, even as Ignatio Loyola remained always t h e Spanish soldier a n d gentleman. All obeyed t h e lad of t w e n t y , and he was outside all o r d i n a r y rules. A n u m b e r of followers gathered round him, a n d as he could always c o m m a n d m o n e y from some source, he w a s soon t h e recognized head of a considerable c o m m u n i t y , living in buildings built on l a n d of his own at Maiumas, near Gaza. There was a n o t h e r reason w h y he m a y not h a v e been sorry t o leave J e r u s a l e m . Eudocia, t h e exEmpress, was resident there, as noted above, a n d she v e r y soon showed her readiness t o b e f r i e n d and patronize a n old friend from t h e Court. The biographer, w i t h unconscious h u m o u r , discloses t h e fact t h a t Peter, t h e t r u e ascetic and mystic, was p r o f o u n d l y bored b y the a t t e n t i o n s a n d p a t r o n a g e of t h e fashionably pious lady, who could never forget t h a t she was, or h a d been, t h e Empress. Perhaps, too, t h o u g h P e t e r t h e ascetic could see a b r o t h e r in a n y poor Christian, Nabarnugios, descendant of a h u n d r e d kings and a few gods, resented t h e p a r v e n u r o y a l t y of t h e B y z a n t i n e lady ! Presently t h e Chalcedonian quarrel became a c u t e in t h e Church, a n d Peter, as m o n k s and mystics were generally prone to do, took t h e Monophysite side a n d carried his m o n a s t e r y w i t h him. H e was e x e m p t , b y v i r t u e of his r a n k , f r o m a n y o r d i n a r y official interference, a n d t h u s he a n d his m o n a s t e r y were left undisturbed ; a f a c t which m a d e him a m o s t valuable asset to his party. I t m u s t be owned, too, t h a t non-interference was t h e

72

The

Separation

of the Monophy

sites

rule in m a n y a n o t h e r " d a i r a . " M o n a s t e r i e s h a d n o t then a t t a i n e d a n y r e c o g n i z e d place in C h u r c h m a c h i n e r y , a n d m o n k s w e r e in t h e e y e of t h e law j u s t i n f o r m a l g a t h e r i n g s of l a y m e n , w h o h a p p e n e d t o b e l i v i n g a d e v o t i o n a l life t o g e t h e r . Any building that the monastery owned was o f t e n — i n l a w — t h e p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y of s o m e one of t h e n u m b e r . T o interfere with p r i v a t e p e o p l e l i v i n g in a p r i v a t e h o u s e w a s o b v i o u s l y a more d i f f i c u l t t h i n g t h a n t o d i s p l a c e a p u b l i c official like a B i s h o p ; still, t h e t h i n g c o u l d b e done, a n d w a s done a t t i m e s , a n d theref o r e t h e e x i s t e n c e of an a b b o t w h o held P e t e r ' s r a n k , w i t h w h o m n o o r d i n a r y official c o u l d m e d d l e , w a s m o s t v a l u a b l e t o t h e party.* I t is, i n d e e d , t o b e r e g r e t t e d t h a t ecclesiastics of P e t e r ' s h i g h s o c i a l r a n k w e r e n o t m o r e c o m m o n in t h e C h u r c h . F o r the C h u r c h t o b e c o n t r o l l e d b y social d i s t i n c t i o n s m a y b e the m e r e s t " s n o b b e r y , " b u t t o refuse t o t a k e a c c o u n t of t h e m brings the Nemesis that a neglected fact never fails to bring a l o n g w i t h it. T h e r e is no d e n y i n g t h a t m e n " f r o m t h e r a n k s , " w h o w e r e u n q u e s t i o n e d s a i n t s in cell a n d C o u n c i l , o f t e n failed w h e n t h e y w e r e a d m i t t e d , as B i s h o p s , i n t o a s o c i e t y of w h i c h t h e y h a d n o e x p e r i e n c e as l a y m e n . P a r t of t h e s e r v i l i t y s h o w n b y B i s h o p s t o t h e E m p e r o r , a n d (worse) t o t h e E m p e r o r ' s w o m a n k i n d , is p r o b a b l y t r a c e a b l e d i r e c t l y t o this f a c t . Somet i m e s — a s in S t . J e r o m e , f o r i n s t a n c e — t h e d e f e c t w o r k s t h e o t h e r w a y , a n d f e a r of b e i n g servile m a k e s t h e s a i n t m e r e l y badmannered. T h u s it w a s a real loss t h a t t h e r e w e r e n o t more B i s h o p s of t he N a b a r n u g i o s t y p e . N a t u r a l l y P e t e r b e c a m e a B i s h o p in d u e course. J u v e n a l of vit Pet, 3r, J e r u s a l e m > i n d e e d , w a s a n x i o u s t o c o n s e c r a t e h i m w h e n he w a s 33.' " ' s t i l l a v e r y y o u n g m a n , b u t he refused. T h i s w a s , n o d o u b t , p a r t l y f r o m a g e n u i n e nolo episcopari, b u t partly, no doubt, f r o m t h e s u s p i c i o n t h a t e v e r y m a n of M o n o p h y s i t e s y m p a t h y felt * Monasteries continued in this a n o m a l o u s position for some t i m e longer and a s t h e y were quasi-private property, " founder's kin " had some sort of r i g h t s in t h e m . T h u s , a m o n k c o n v e r t e d f r o m Monophysitism t o O r t h o d o x y w r i t e s to S t . G r e g o r y of R o m e (Letters XII, 50 ; P . L . Ixxvii) : " I t w a s m y f a t h e r who b u i l t t h e m o n a s t e r y in w h i c h I h a v e lived hitherto. Surely, n o w t h a t I h a v e c o m e t o t h e t r u t h , t h e P a t r i a r c h o u g h t t o t u r n all t h e heretics out of my m o n a s t e r y , unless, of course, t h e y will come o v e r . " G r e g o r y entirely agreed t h a t he o u g h t to d o so. One wonders w h a t the decision would h a v e been, if the man h.id been converted from O r t h o d o x y to Monophysitism.

Sidc-Lights

on the Sixth

Century

73

of Juvenal. Tlieodosius called upon him in later days, saying that, in a time of stress and scandal, one who could render such services must not hold back, but even then he concealed himself, and meditated suicide(!) when brought for consecration. " Warned by a supernatural voice," however, he consented to receive the order, and did good service to his party for the rest of his life. His rank conferred upon him permanent exemption from the attentions of officials, and when others were arrested he came and went unchallenged. Thus, on the death of Dioscurus ™ P e t " 6 5 , he was able, as stated above, to make the consecration of Timothy Aelurus possible ; also he was able to come again to Egypt at a later date, and consecrate a suffragan Bishop " for the faithful suffering under the tyranny " of the quite inoffensive Timothy Salophakiolus, though the grievances of these last seem to have consisted mainly in the fact that they " had nothing whatever to grumble a t . " He could go down to Berytus, and there take part in the founding of a " Society of Methodists " in that university, a society that will come before us again. After this, a chartered libertine among a number of proscribed and interned heretical Bishops, he lived quietly in his own monastery at Maiumas, till his death. Oncc Calendio, vit.Pet.,70. " that robber-rascal " (otherwise the Chalcedonian patriarch of Antioch), came to his monastery to see him ; the biographer seems to have been half in hope that the visitor would give the Bishop a crown of martyrdom, and the party a really first-class grievance. As a matter of fact, Calendio behaved in the only way that one would have expected from his previous record, and greeted the cx-Princc, who was then very aged, with friendly respect. So Peter passed away, having furnished what is probably the earliest historic instance in Christian days of a monarch who " bartered his throne for the cowl and the gown." Peter lived all his life in Christian surroundings, and a reading of his biography does not inform one of what was nevertheless the fact, viz., that old faith of the land had still a great and widespread influence, in the form of a strict and literal " paganism." In country districts what we should now call the " squirarchy " had not abandoned the religion of their fathers, and customs and rites that are purely pagan are rife among the peasantry to this day. A t the universities and other centres of thought, a philosophy that was certainly not Christian had still much in-

74

The Separation

of the

Monophysitcs

fluence. I t would seem that the strongholds of Christianity were the commercial towns and classes. I t is an interesting parallel to the state of things in England after the Reformation, and we remember that in the Roman Empire, too, the change was forced on to a not entirely willing people, b y an autocrat who had the eyes to see where the force that was to control the future was really to be found. An account of the period, which has the supreme merit of giving us exactly what we most want to know in this direction, is given us by that pious ecclesiastical Boswcll, the biographer of Severus : the worthy Zacharias cannot resist the temptation of recounting an episode cujus pars parva fuit, and he incidentally gives us a picture of university life in the fifth century.* At Aphrodisias in Caria there lived a respectable family of pagan squires, which at the time of the narrative was represented b y four brothers. One of the four had gone to the University of Alexandria, to read law, but, while there, he had shocked his family by his perversion to the modern and fashionable superstition of Christianity. More, he had turned monk, and was living under the name of Athanasius in the monastery of E n a t o n f in the suburbs of the city. Thus, when it was time for the youngest brother, Pralius, to " go up to the University " and also read law (for there had to be a lawyer in the family, and some brothers must abide by the land), he was provided with an unimpeachably pagan tutor, and was specially ordered to avoid " that disgrace to the family," a prohibition which the youngster naturally disregarded. In fact, he soon began to find himself strongly attracted to Christianity, owing to his brother's Abbot, Stephen, himself a converted philosopher. Of course, his pagan tutor, Asclepiodotus, did what he could to resist this influence, but while the youth was trying to fight out the question, it was settled for him in a way that was most human, if quite illogical ; he found that his tutor had been guilty of a religious fraud. Asclepiodotus was childless, and desirous of a son; so, as sundry experiments in art magic failed to produce one, he adopted the illegitimate child * V i t a S e v e r i , P . O . IX, 7 - 1 1 5 , passim. T h e p r o v i n c e of C a r i a m e n t i o n e d h e r e w a s still a l m o s t e n t i r e l y p a g a n t w o f u l l g e n e r a t i o n s l a t e r . J o h n of Ephesus III, 36-37. t E n a t o n , " the ninth " (milestone).

Side-Lights

on the Sixth

Century

75

of the priestess of Isis at Canopus, and proudly exhibited the baby to Pralius with the words, " See, Isis has given m y wife conception." Pralius was surprised to find t h a t Isis could, after all, work what seems to have been regarded as a miracle, and took the m a t t e r to Stephen. W a s Isis then a real power in the land, after all ? " W e l l , " said the A b b o t , " if Isis made the woman a mother, she presumably gave her all a mother's powers. Does she nurse t h a t child ? " In a word, the fraud was discovered, and under the influence of the shock the lad Pralius—who had hitherto lived as a pagan, and had attended the secret pagan sacrifices with his tutor—avowed himself to be a Christian. Trouble followed on this, for then, as now, nonChristians regarded the religion of a born Christian as a part of the nature of things, but resented the existence of a renegade. Pralius was mobbed b y the pagan undergraduates, the Christians made in to t h e rescue, under the leadership of the author of the biography, the monk Zacharias, and refused to be deterred b y the argument, " W e have no quarrel with you, but this turn-coat is our business, not yours." At least one Christian don suspended his lecture, and brought all his class to share in the fight, " and save us from the homicidal p a g a n s . " I n fact, there seems to have been a very considerable riot, ending in the rescue of the rather battered Pralius, and in the conducting of him to a monastery for t r e a t m e n t and protection. T h e A b b o t of t h a t monastery went at once to the P a t r i a r c h , " w h o was a capable man, of ardent p i e t y , " though, when wc realize t h a t he was no other than P e t e r Mongus, we feel some difficulty in recognizing an old acquaintance under so very novel a description. Peter sent the whole party to make their complaint to the prefect, sending his own archdeacon along with them, to represent him. The prefect, Antarchius, was at least suspected of being himself a secret pagan, and his assessor was an open one ; consequently the crowd of complainants at once ascribed his conduct to prejudice, when he ordered all b u t five of t h e m ( " of whom I was o n e , " says the narrator with natural pride) to leave the Court. Those who have tried to do justice among excited Orientals, and more particularly E g y p t i a n s , will view the prefect's conduct from a different angle. Pralius was able, under the advice of his friends, to draw up an indictment for murderous assault and the practice of pagan

76

The Separation

of the

Monophysitcs

sacrifice, which was itself an illegal thing ; but to the horror of the accusers, the judge turned to the other side, after hearing the case for the prosecution, and asked them for their defence, " so that we saw that he did not mean to do justice." The cry, " How can pagans judge us Christians," was raised ; the everready "furor Alexandrinus " blazed up, the judge was assaulted in open Court, and all pagans present had to flee for their lives. The prefect hesitated as to what to do next ; he does not seem to have been a very resolute man, and feared a general outburst of Christian and monastic fanaticism, so he delayed and gave to Peter Mongus, who was at least prompt and resolute, the opportunity to strike an effective blow. Peter sent for the lad Pralius, and asked him whether he could find the secret temple, to which he had been taken by his tutor. As Pralius thought that he could do this, he was despatched to the quarter in question, with a mob of monks and " undergraduates," and after some searching the underground vault that served the purpose was discovered, and in it altars smeared with fresh blood, and an astonishing number of idols. It would seem that many of the more sacred images had been removed to this hiding place when larger temples, like the Serapeum, were looted, but, in any case, there they were, and the mention of " idols with the heads of jackals and cats " enables us to identify some of the gods discovered as Anubis and Pasht. So enormous was the quantity that, after a grand bonfire of everything that would burn on the spot, there yet remained twenty camel-loads for transport to Alexandria, where there was another orgy of destruction in the great square of the town. Verily, those were happy days for the undergraduate, when he could indulge his natural craving for a " row royal " under the sanction of the authority both of the University and the Church, and feel, while enjoying himself, that he was fulfilling his religious duties as well ! After this revelation of illegal worship there could be no further question of enquiry into the recent riot, and the baptism of the lad Pralius put the seal on the triumph of the Christians. The youth himself became a monk under the advice of his friend Zacharias ; " take the wings of the eagle—of the dove, rather—and flee into the wilderness ; stay where there is no sin or defilement, no serpent to bite at you, or hinder you from walking in the path of God."

Side-Lights

on the Sixth

Century

77

The question, whether the young man found it possible to escape from himself b y a flight into the desert, was not answered : monk he remained for the brief remainder of his life, and with his brother Athanasius founded a monastery on the family property in Caria. The two elder brothers made no objection to this, though it is recorded (and one feels some s y m p a t h y with them) that they remained stedfast in the faith of their fathers till death. There was then a strong undercurrent of paganism in ordinary life, and this sometimes threw up swirls to the political surface of things. Paganism was a lost cause, but none the less Christians feared the beaten enemy, and this fear could sometimes urge men to strange excess, even as in old days fear of the spreading influence of Christianity produced wild outbreaks of persecution. Those who know anything of the recent history of Asia Minor and of Arabia, know how potent an engine fear is, to nerve an ordinarily kindly folk to acts of hideous cruelty. Thus it was that somewhat later—in the year 579, to be precise—a fearful " heathenism scandal " swept the country, and is detailed b y the contemporary historian. Trouble began in a mere riot of pagan against Christian, at Heliopolis (Baalbek), which was a natural stronghold of the old faith, and where a state of acute and chronic irritation was ensured b y the sight of a cheap and modern Christian Church built b y Imperial order in the midst of the supferb and desolated temple. Its sanctuary was actually on the enormous altar of burnt-offering. * Investigation into the riot brought to light the existence of a sort of pagan freemasonry, with an organized hierarchy, working all over the " Orient." The " High-Priest," one Rufmus, resided in Antioch ; the governor of Edessa, Anatolius, was an initiate of high rank; other high officials were implicated in it. A commission sat to examine the matter, and " revelations " resulted that remind one of the wildest accusations ever levelled by panic-stricken Romanist against freemasonry, or by rabid anti-Semite against a J e w . Theodore, secretary to the accused governor of Edessa, was put to the torture, and accused a long * T h e g r e a t t e m p l e had been d i s m a n t l e d b y C o n s t a n t i n e . b u t not d e s t r o y e d . Julian restored the w o r s h i p of t h e " old g o d s " there, but t h e result w a s such an orgy of the v e r y w o r s t side of p a g a n i s m (a c o m b i n a t i o n of m a s s a c r e w i t h all the a b o m i n a t i o n s of A s t a r t e w o r s h i p ) t h a t T h e o d o s i u s ordered the destruction of the t e m p l e a n d t h e building of the church.

E

-

78

The Separation

of the

Monophysites

s t r i n g of Priests a n d Bishops of t h e most appalling rites of secret p a g a n i s m , declaring t h a t he had seen Gregory, t h e Bishop of Antioch, a n d Eulogius, t h e Chalcedonian P a t r i a r c h of Alexandria assisting a t h u m a n sacrifices in " D a p h n e " ! One is p r e p a r e d t o believe in the possibility of m u c h secret paganism, b u t this is flatly incredible. Eulogius in particular was a m a n of s a i n t l y character, t h e life-long friend of Gregory t h e Great of Rome. O t h e r Monophysite writers give Gregory also a high character. T h e wicked suspicion suggests itself t h a t t h e luckless Theodore m u s t h a v e been a Monophysite, and t h a t , finding himself on the rack, he h a d self-command enough to remember t h e interests of his p a r t y , a n d so gave the names of all the Dyophysite Bishopst h a t he could recall u n d e r the circumstances 1 T h e scandal and t h e o u t c r y were prodigious and were not in t h e least stayed by t h e secret execution of t h e poor informer. As is usual in such a case, " public opinion " was past all reason. Gregory would und o u b t e d l y h a v e been murdered h a d he appeared a t a n y public service, b u t the fact t h a t he did not a p p e a r m a d e matters worse, for it was H o l y Week, t h e time when he ought to have consecrated t h e sacred Chrism. The case was remitted to Constantinople, where an ill-advised a t t e m p t to hush t h e scandal up, b y its failure, n a t u r a l l y made m a t t e r s worse. T h e m o b lynched two poor heathens, burning t h e m alive in a b o a t t h a t was sent drifting down t h e Bosphorus, a n d t h e public executioner—who was forced t o officiate a t the scene—was all b u t thrown in, too, b y a crowd t h a t was not in t h e h u m o u r to m a k e fine distinctions. E v e n t h e P a t r i a r c h of Constantinople was suspected of " siding w i t h t h e h e a t h e n , " because he was rash enough to remain sane when all the rest of his world h a d gone mad, a n d pointed o u t t h a t the gates of hell were n o t going to prevail against a Church t h a t had endured worse evils, even if it were t r u e t h a t pagans h a d some sort of " Church organization " in several provinces. A m o b a t t a c k e d his residence, a n d he h a d a narrow escape ; still, it m u s t be observed to t h e credit of even these crazy fanatics t h a t w h e n t h e y broke open t h e Church t r e a s u r y in their search for t h e P a t r i a r c h they were t r y i n g t o m u r d e r , its contents were left u n i n j u r e d . Their f u r y h a d its respectable side.

Side-Lights

on the Sixth

Century

79

Finally, the Government restored order, though they dared not milict any penalty. Even when some rascals were ordered to be flogged, the lashes of the cat-o'-nine-tails were soaked in vermilion before application, so that a very mild punishment produced a most impressive show. Unfortunately, the criminals refused to " play up " and left the whipping-post laughing, so that the trick became known. Fortunately, it was discovered that sundry Jews and Samaritans had been concerned in the r i o t ; so these were promptly seized and executed on the principle that murder and arson were pardonable excess of zeal in Christians in such a case, but for these fellows there was no excuse ! " And so," says the episcopal historian gravely, " no Christian could complain, or say that ( anyone was treated unjustly." 33Anatolius was condemned and thrown to the beasts in the hippodrome, a fate shared by several of the accused clergy. Surely never did unfortunate undergo a more strangely inverted martyrdom than these (probably quite innocent) men, who died for supposed heathenism at the hands of a Christian Emperor. As for the Patriarch of Antioch, there was no shred of evidence against him, and he was restored to his see. Still, acquittal is valueless in such a case, for the mud that had been thrown stuck too firmly. The mob had made up its collective mind that the poor man was guilty, and an angel from heaven would not have convinced them of the contrary. He was marked for abhorrence for the rest of his life by even the men of his own party, and naturally, the Monophysites who detested him anyhow were not slow to point the moral. The whole episode is illuminating, not only as showing the nature of " the many-headed beast " and giving an instance of the way in which waves of causeless panic and superstition may sweep over society, but as showing the grip that the Christian religion had obtained over men, if it could rouse them to this pitch of fanaticism. I t must be admitted that the grip on the mind often failed to exercise any influence on conduct ! The craving for magical and occult knowledge is of no age or time, but is a forbidden fruit for which man has never ceased to crave ; hence it was natural enough that men's minds should be G

8o

p'o ej.

p'o M.

The Separation

of the Monophysites

demanding it, at a time when a great civilization was in a decadent stage, and doubly natural that the craving should be manifested at the place to which the biographer of Severas takes us, after the " Alexandria episode " recounted above, viz., the rival university of Beyrout. The Lebanon has been a stronghold of nature-worship and its kindred magic since the days of the Hebrews, and the cult survives to this day in heretical Moslem sects, and in semi-secret local observances.* Thus, students in the Beyrout schools were sure to have the desire, and were likely to find the opportunity for indulgence in the " Black A r t , " and we have records of more than one effort made by them in that direction, fi v ' One such party were actually found sacrificing " a negro ' slave " in the hippodrome, proposing to use his brains in the manufacture of a really reliable love-philtre ! Proceedings were stopped by the interference of the members of that religious society of students to which we have referred above, of which Peter the Iberian had been the founder, and Severus, the future Monophysite Patriarch of Antioch, was one of the ruling spirits. Their exhortations brought the leader of the magicians (a student named John) to a sense of the error of his ways ; he professed such penitence that, on his promising to burn all his " books of curious arts " the " Methodists " agreed not to inform the University authorities, and the whole party proceeded to John's rooms for the purpose. A breakfast party of undergraduates (this really was the sixth, and not the twentieth, century) followed on this, the pious being only particular to see that the wizard ate meat, " for wizards never do." Breakfast over, the surrender of the books was demanded, that they might be solemnly burned. They were not forthcoming, however, and it was only after some search that Severus and his friends discovered that this very semi-repentant sorcerer was sitting on his precious scrolls, hoping to save them after all ! n S7e27 Hormisdas, and h a d m a d e k n o w n his intentions w i t h regard to certain prominent Monophysites. R o m e h a d a p p r o v e d , of course ; " istorum correctio vires vestri firmat imperii," ran the letter. A hint f r o m Justinian t h a t full inter-communion m i g h t be resumed at once (written in the a u t u m n of 518) w a s met b y a counter, asserting t h a t " reconciliation is desirable, of course, b u t — o n terms. W h a t m y t e r m s are, y o u k n o w , for t h e y were written d o w n a y e a r ago, and will not c h a n g e . " EP US. Justinian, w h o w a s negotiating w i t h an e y e on the reconciliation rather t h a n t h e submission of the Monophysites, hinted at concessions : " W e accept Chalcedon ; we honour the m e m o r y of Leo, w e recite y o u r n a m e in the d i p t y c h s . Is not t h a t enough?" (Jan., 5x9). T h e P o p e w a s i n e x o r a b l e ; A c a c i u s E p » 9 . must be condemned b y name, or no understanding w a s possible. Hormisdas w a s , in f a c t , in a position to d i c t a t e his o w n terms. Justinian's political o b j e c t w a s to recover I t a l y , a n d to do t h a t he w a s prepared to risk serious discontent in the Orient, for he did not hold it possible that those provinces should be lost. But to recover I t a l y he must win the Pope, ami the P o p e ' s a n x i e t y to be recovered w a s not profound ! His position under the tolerant rule of Theodoric w a s so comfortable, and his p o w e r w a s so assured, t h a t reconciliation w i t h the E a s t offered h i m little, and might expose h i m — a s it did expose his s u c c e s s o r — t o v e r y serious danger. Hence he could afford t o reject all union, except u p o n his o w n terms. Justinian w r o t e again. H e promised to do all in his power to secure all t h a t the P o p e wished, and i n v i t e d him to visit Constantinople. T h i s could not be, b u t a d e p u t a t i o n of legates w a s

92

The Separation

of the

Monophysites

sent, consisting of t w o Bishops, Germanus and John, Blandus a Priest, and the Deacons Felix and Dioscurus. T h e name of the last b e t r a y s his E g y p t i a n blood, and t h o u g h he w a s junior in rank t o the others, he had more of the P o p e ' s confidence than t h e y , and w a s the effective, though not the formal head of the party. I t is he w h o corresponds directly and personally with Hormisdas. A c c o r d i n g to the inaiculus of instructions given, these five men were t o insist on the most absolute submission, s a y i n g t h a t they were not there to argue, b u t to present terms for acceptancc. A c t u a l l y , Hormisdas was prepared to m a k e certain concessions. A c a c i u s must be condemned, but if the names of Macedonius and E u p h e m i u s were removed from the d i p t y c h s , and so not read MansiEp.31. ° P e n l y . as those of orthodox B i s h o p s and peace-parted fathers, the P o p e w a s willing to spare them open condemnation. Still, the f o r m a l acceptance of Chalcedon and the T o m e of Leo, and the e q u a l l y formal condemnation of Acacius, were sine quibus non of a n y understanding. T h e letter to John of Constantinople w a s brief and drastic ; he w a s told t h a t he knew well enough w h a t the cause of unity required, and t h a t he had better proceed to perform it. " Do not t r y to defend condemned men like Acacius, b u t clear yourself from all contagion of heresy b y a n a t h e m a t i z i n g b o t h him £p-34and his successors." Other letters, to Justinian and the notables of the capital, hint p r e t t y plainly at the desirability of a little pressure for bringing the m a n to reason. T h e legates departed for Constantinople, and in this case their j o u r n e y w a s a triumph. Constantinople w a s reached in March, 5x9, and a tremendous reception awaited them there, so m u c h so t h a t Dioscurus had to write to his chief t h a t " y o u r prayers and those of the A p o s t l e h a v e worked miracles." Justinian and V i t a l i a n , his general, met the ambassadors ten miles f r o m the c i t y , and escorted them in. J o h n the B i s h o p surrendered at discretion, accepting all t h a t Rome h a d e v e r d e m a n d e d , and declaring himself ready to anathematize not only A c a c i u s , but also all w h o h a d ever continued in his communion. I t is true t h a t some of the layfolk were of stiffer stuff than their Bishop, a n d sought t o raise difficulties, but t h e y and their objections were s u m m a r i l y quashed, and Rome w a s able to congratulate

Justinian

and the

Jacobites

93

herself on a complete victory on the main point.* The Imperial Church had definitely accepted Chalcedon, and it never wavered thence again. The only question for the future was, what concessions could be made, consistently with that acceptance, which might reconcile the Monophysite discontent ? John and J Tustinian both announced the union to Hormisdas in Migne. *' LXXIV.44C May, 5 1 9 , the former declaring, in the formula that was then in 450. use at Constantinople,! that now " old Rome and new Rome are one see once more." It was a w a y of claiming equality, while yet acknowledging an honorary primacy, and it implied that as the Empire was in theory one, indivisible and indestructible, and under an Emperor who was one official in theory, though often multiple in practice; so it was with the Church. In fact, it was an effort to cover up awkward and uncertain facts b y a resonant phrase ! There was some delay before Hormisdas received the letter, and, when he did reply (July, 519), his satisfaction was soon tempered by the news of an " abominable sedition " stirred up by the Bishop of Thessalonica, which showed that, however ready Constantinople might be to accept his terms at Imperial Mansi e p . dictation, there were other centres that luid more independence. 72 ' This, of course, only made it the more necessary to proceed at once to the correction of such centres of discontent, and the most important of these were Alexandria and Antioch. J u s t i n was Ep . 44> 4, willing enough to proceed with the latter, and spoke of selecting 54the legate Dioscurus as its Bishop, an idea which did not commend itself to Hormisdas. Not that he was averse to the promotion of a trusted lieutenant, but he was anxious to see him in Alexandria, his native place. " Antioch would be an entirely new field for y o u , " wrote the Pope to his friend, " but Alexandria you know of old, and you would be just the man to bring those fellows to order." This scheme, however, came to nothing. * J o h n could not carry his people, and particularly those of the Pontic They and Asian themes, along with him in every point of his surrender. refused to anathematize as dead men whom they had honoured as living ; Justinian had to own, in a letter dated Sept., 520 (Mansi L X X V , 509) that he saw no w a y of coercing them in this matter. R o m e acquiesced, not only in the absence of open anathema on Macedonius and Euphemius, but in the retention of their names in the diptychs. t T h e formal title of the Patriarch of Constantinople a t this day is, " T h e Most Holy, Godly, and Wise X , Lord Archbishop of Constantinople, which is Now Rome, and (Ecumenical Patriarch.

94

The Separation

of the

Monophysites

Justin w a s not anxious to have an E g y p t i a n revolt on his hands, and he left A l e x a n d r i a alone. Possibly the Deacon knew his fellow-countrymen too well to wish to share the m a r t y r d o m of Proterius. T h e Antiochene business was different, and here matters were John of Teiia s o o n pU-(- j n train. A n Imperial firman was issued for the " O r i e n t , " — E g y p t was discreetly left o u t — d e c l a r i n g that all Bishops must accept Chalcedon or forfeit their sees, while Evag.iv.iv. special orders were given for the arrest of Severus and other prominent men. It seems that authority paid him the compliment of assuming that he, at least, would never change his convictions to order. z.M.vni.ii. The execution of the decree was entrusted to Vitalian, now " Comes Orientis," and he, as an old friend of Flavian, had a natural hatred for Severus, and was at least popularly believed to be prepared to go beyond his orders, and cut the B i s h o p ' s tongue out ! There was, however, no possibility of his revenging himself thus, for Vitalian was, as it happened, murdered before he could take u p his new office, and Severus had no difficulty in escaping to E g y p t , along with his friend, Julian of Halicarnassus. Philoxenus was less fortunate ; he fell into the hands of his enemies and was sentenced to exile in Gangra. N a t u r a l l y , Antioch was assumed to be v a c a n t , and the Churches were confiscated for D y o p h y s i t e use, while, as Dioscurus declined the see, another Bishop was selected. This was Paul, " the J e w , " a m a n whose D y o p h y s i t i s m had been well tested b y his long resistance to Severus. A n effort w a s made at Constantinople to secure that the man should come thither for consecration, thus repeating the a t t e m p t m a d e — a n d repudiated—on a previous occasion, to create a precedent for the enforcement of future jurisdiction. Mansi vm Constantinople was at least as ready as was R o m e to extend her 479power o v e r other sees. In this case the scheme was nipped in the bud b y the legates from Rome, w h o insisted t h a t the consecration must take place according to ancient order. Ancient rights of independence must be protected against all claims, save only those of Rome herself ! Evag. I V , 9. E n c o u r a g e d b y his success at Antioch, Justin actually made some sort of attempt to proclaim Chalcedon at Alexandria, but the s y m p t o m s were so ominous t h a t he desisted before he had

Justinian

and the

Jacobites

95

gone too far, and made no attempt to put Dioscurus of Rome in place of the Monophysite Bishop.* The order for the proclama- L a n d I I tion of Chalcedon was obeyed, on the whole, throughout the Orient. Only fifty-five Bishops refused, and were either Mich. S y r . deprived or exiled. One of these, Metropolitus of Amida, was ' X I "' sent to Patara, and another conspicuous man, Philoxenus of Mabug, to Gangra. Here he was interned for five years, and his party made great capital out of his supposed sufferings, and Life- P- 6" martyrdom." I t is true that internment in Anatolia is not always comfortable, but the fact that he died by suffocation, from the fumes of a charcoal fire in the kitchen under his room, is so natural as to suggest a genuine accident rather than a murder. The flight of Monophysites from the Orient to their common Z . M . V I I I . V . refuge in Egypt was general enough, but not universal. A minority of " non-conforming " Bishops remained, though death was the penalty for the conferring of orders. Landix,I74 Generally, however, no particular effort was made to arrest men who considered themselves in danger from their own zeal, and who were willing to save the authorities trouble by leaving their own provinces for some distant place, which they called a refuge from persecution, and Government officials, probably, a drainage pit for nuisances ! E g y p t was the general refuge, and thither went the majority, taking shelter in the thousand-and- Z . M . V I I I , V . one monasteries of the land, where it would have been difficult for a much more zealously-inclined Government to discover and arrest them. All high authorities were probably quite content to see them out of the way, or to let them alone, so long as the law was not too openly defied. Egypt was by common consent a special case ; to interfere E v a g I V j x there with its acknowledged Monophysitism was to rouse a hornets' nest and so, though an attempt was made, perhaps for form's sake, to proclaim Chalcedon there, it was held better not to press things when the inevitable riot began. In the Orient, however, though men were let alone if they kept quiet, and not disturbed if they would leave, the Government had no notion of * The Monophysite who then held the see was also named Dioscurus. There would seem to have been a curious poverty of names in Egypt. The student must be grateful to be spared a second edition of the confusion of the two rival Timothies. II

96

The Separation

of the

Monophysites

official toleration, or intention of allowing itself to be openly defied. A Monophysite B i s h o p who retired from his see was let alone, as were the Non-Jurors in our own history, but the Landii,i?4. p e n a l t y for conferring orders unlawfully was death, or anything short of it t h a t Government decreed. Further, though most of t h e B i s h o p s in the Orient were submissive and proclaimed Chalcedon at the Imperial decree, and the larger part of the minority of fifty-five accepted deprivation meekly, there was a large amount of what we m a y call " latent zeal " among the laity, and of zeal t h a t was b y no means latent among the monks, the vast m a j o r i t y of whom were Monophysite. L a t e n t zeal " is a phenomenon so peculiar to the Oriental t h a t it requires a word of explanation, for, in his attempted reform, J u s t i n i a n found that he had fallen foul of one of the two greatest forces in all the E a s t , " the Custom of our F a t h e r s . " * T h e Oriental, both of the sixth century and of the present day, has a faculty of rendering external obedience to the Government's orders for just so long as t h e y are enforced, coupled with a recollection of " our old customs " which those orders have abrogated, so that, if ever the orders are relaxed, b a c k drops the hitherto obedient man to his old habits, as naturally as if the order had never been. T h e lapse of generations of discipline does not seem to affect this power in the very least. In the W e s t , something similar might be seen, if the pressure were maintained for a few years only ; there, however, either resentment would produce an explosion, or (owing to the rapid change of habit with us), when the pressure was removed, the c o u n t r y m a n would not drop back to his old customs, but to some new development of them. W i t h the Oriental, outwardly submissive, and inwardly unchanging, it is another story. It is this c a p a c i t y for " storing conservative zeal latent " which makes it so difficult to introduce a real reform into the East. Thus, J u s t i n i a n found his efforts for religious uniformity baulked b y this habit of mind ; most men were submissive to his order for the proclamation of Chalcedon, for " w e be poor men, and the H u k u m e t has given the order ; " all, however, were ready to drop * W e count t h e other force t o be, those waves oí fanaticism which a t times sweep across t h e E a s t e r n mind, and which a r e fully a s inexplicable t o the Oriental a s t h e y a r e t o the shocked and puzzled W e s t e r n . T h e Eastern, however, does not seek t o explain t h e m . It is enough for him t o say, " God sent a b r e a t h i n t o the l a n d . "

Justinian

and the

Jacobites

97

back at once to Monophysitism, if ever t h a t order should be relaxed. E x t e r n a l u n i f o r m i t y could be obtained for so long as the power of t h e G o v e r n m e n t lasted, a n d this was t h e more easy, in t h a t it is in the c a p a c i t y of leadership t h a t t h e Syrian usually fails ; b u t w h a t G o v e r n m e n t can deal w i t h internal disobedience ? While this spirit remained, u n i f o r m i t y was a farce, and if only t h e m a l c o n t e n t s could find an able a n d devoted leader, he would find subordinates waiting for h i m b y t h e hundred, a n d followers b y t h e myriad. Such a leader was presently f o u n d . J u s t i n i a n h a d already begun his policy of securing uniformity Jby c a p t u r i n g t h e hierarchy, and a t t e m p t i n g (vainly, as it was to turn out) to prevent t h e m a l c o n t e n t mass of t h e laity f r o m securing Bishops and teachers. T h e opposition was already at work, and t h e moving spirit in it was one J o h n of Telia, hermit and zealous Monophysite, who now began t h e work t h a t J a c o b u s Baradasus was to c a r r y on later. This m a n had been a m o n k since boyhood. To t h e great grief of his m o t h e r he h a d insisted on retiring into a monastery, a n d had remained in his cell, refusing consccration t o a n y one of several see^ t h a t were offered him. At last, warned in a vision that " d a y s were coming when t h e Church will have need of Bishops who will suffer, and who will not be moved b y either threat or b r i b e , " he h a d s u b m i t t e d to promotion. His admiring biographer tells us t h a t he h a d t h e " donum lacrimanim " t o a marvellous degree, inasmuch as he would often become r a p t in prayer when celebrating the mysteries, a n d so would remain in an ecstasy for t h e space of four hours on end, weeping continuously the while, till his tears absolutely m a d e a puddle in t h e sanctuary ! H e a d d s t h a t out of compassion for t h e feeble, he did not exercise this gift too o f t e n ; which was as well, for it might h a v e been a trial on t h e patience of even an Oriental congregation. This was the m a n w h o m Severus appointed as his representative on his d e p a r t u r e , a n d who travelled about t h e provinces of the Orient in rags, organizing t h e Nonconformists against the Government. A t first he h a d as m a n y as eight colleagues in the work, b u t t h e y were gradually all c a p t u r e d or terrorized, a n d John remained alone. I t was, indeed, difficult t o catch him, for he h a d the secret

T

- 3»-

^

9

8

The

Separation

of the

Monophysites

s y m p a t h y of m a n y of the officials, as well as the open friendship of the mass of the country folk. Many of the Bishops had accepted Chalcedon at the order of the Government for themselves, yet would do nothing to enforce it upon others, and were b y no means over-zealous in their efforts to prevent the coming of J o h n of Telia and his like to ordain whom they would. T h u s it came to pass after a few years that, while the only Monophysite Bishops left in the Orient were either in Alexandria or in Persia (with the exception of some monks in episcopal orders, who were to be found in the monasteries hidden away in t h e glens of " T u r A b d i n , " t h a t Mount Athos of the E a s t ) , * yet there were Monophysite priests everywhere, and men in plenty who sought for the ordination that the Government had hoped to prevent their obtaining, except on impossible conditions. J o h n ' s activities became known, and he was once called, under safe-conduct, to the presence of the Emperor, and bidden to desist from liis work, which he absolutely refused to do, saying v.v. 3b. xxiv. at once. " Gaudens se de talibus judicium ferre," he issued in jcxxvi, April, 542, a tractate against " the impious Origen," in which he ,4.6-994.

?74.

iixxv.ab'

,

denounced that most pious—if not most regular—of Christian thinkers as a " son of the Devil, and an enemy of the f a i t h , " and further declared him to be—in metaphors as mixed as his own pedantic thinking—" a cuttlefish whose one object it was to sow tares, and to confirm pagan errors." Origen was declared guilty of a dozen different and contradictory heresies, and declared worthy of condemnation along with Severus, Peter the Fuller (whose most characteristic contribution to theology Justinian had just been at some pains to declare orthodox) and other heretics. Theodore Ascidas and his friend Domitian of Ancyra were too w a r y to fall into this trap. To the disappointment of ecclesiastical politicians at Constantinople they accepted the edict,

Commencement

of Monophysitc

Divisions

129

and acquiesced in the condemnation of their teacher. Still, the trick of setting the E m p e r o r on the trail t h a t y o u wished him to follow w a s one t h a t t w o could play, a n d Theodore (the metaphor must be allowed b y virtue of its appropriateness) sought for a " red herring " to draw across the scent. N o t h i n g else describes so accurately w h a t he did, and m e n were c o m i n g to regard Church questions as a sort of sport, in w h i c h no player need be hampered b y a n y regard for rules ! W h a t w a s required w a s s i m p l y to give Justinian something Lib- xxiv. else t o think a b o u t t h a n his heresy-hunt a f t e r the m e m o r y of Origen, for all men k n e w t h a t , if once the Caesar-Pope did t a k e a matter up, he w o u l d consider his Imperial honour involved in getting his view of the m a t t e r , w h a t e v e r it might be, declared to be de fide. T h e article needed w a s found in the " Three Chapters " and a hint g i v e n t o Justinian t h a t " Y o u r M a j e s t y is w r i t i n g against the ' Acephali ' ; y o u can reconcile t h e m easily enough b y the simple condemnation of the three men against w h o m t h e y have a most justifiable feeling, Theodore, T h e o d o r e t , I b a s . " T h u s w a s s t a r t e d the most wearisome c o n t r o v e r s y in Church history, upon w h i c h it f o r t u n a t e l y is not needful for us t o touch, for it has been w o r k e d out b y b e t t e r men. Moreover, it has curiously little importance, in itself, for the history of the Monophysite separation. Indeed, f r o m the point-of-view of those Nonconformists the m a t t e r w a s i m p o r t a n t only, (1) as seeing the definite acceptance of their c a t c h w o r d " one nature incarnate " as orthodox and a u t h o r i t a t i v e ; (2) because the condemnation of the men w h o m Chalcedon had acquitted was, in all Monophysite eyes, an explicit condemnation of t h a t Council itself. Of course, this w a s strenuously denied, b u t nevertheless it w a s a good d e b a t i n g point t o say, " Y o u cannot reverse w h a t a Council did, and at the same time profess t o regard it as of authority." Monophysites were now entitled to s a y t h a t , and to add, moreover, " Y o u h a v e now accepted e v e r y one of our catchwords. ' One Composite Christ,' in Canon V I I ; ' One of Denzmg« the T r i n i t y w a s crucified,' in Canon X ; ' One nature incarnate,' ?d.c*£p?9Xr in Canon V I I I . In addition, y o u h a v e condemned y o u r own Council. N o w acknowledge y o u r defeat, and come over to u s . " Most of this w a s u n d e n i a b l y true. N o t only had e v e r y bete

130

The Separation

of the

Monophysites

noire of t h e Monophysites been condemned, b u t all their characteristic phrases had been accepted, in the hope t h a t , in return, t h e y w o u l d accept the obnoxious " in t w o natures." H a d this, or less t h a n this, been done before, it w o u l d have s a v e d the schism. N o w , after one hundred years, it could not heal it. N o t h i n g short of verbal acceptance of Chalcedon could be accepted, a n d t h a t the Monophysites would never grant. Nevertheless, it remained true that both sides were asserting the same t r u t h . So, the second Council of Constantinople counts a m o n g the General Councils, and perhaps there is none of t h e m concerning w h i c h the A n g l i c a n feels more grateful for the s t a t e m e n t of Article X X I , t h a t General Councils m a y err, and sometimes have erred. I t m i g h t be an interesting intellectual exercise to present a d e b a t i n g case against any of them, and in no case w o u l d it be so easy as in this. W e suppose t h a t we m a y take it t h a t the free consent of at least all the greater B i s h o p s is necessary to the character of a Council as general, and s u r e l y — p a p a l prerogatives a p a r t — t h e free consent of one w h o is a d m i t t e d l y first of the Bishops is needful. Can anyone s a y that the consent of Vigilius to this Council w a s unforced, even though he, poor m a n , m a y have asserted that he o n l y doubted because he w a s possessed of the D e v i l ? T h a t men so loyally Chalcedonian as the Catholics of Africa and Milan should h a v e found such difficulty in accepting this Council is an ominous indication of its character, and while personal a n a t h e m a s are d o u b t f u l things at the best of times, a n a t h e m a s on men long dead " in the peace of the Church " are worse still. A b b o t E u t y c h i u s might argue with all his i n g e n u i t y t h a t the conduct of the g o d l y K i n g Josiah in the m a t t e r of the idolaters' bones w a s enough t o provide all the precedent t h a t w a s needed ; b u t , even t h o u g h this piece of exegesis gained him his patriarchal throne, it seems unconvincing.* * Y e t a n o t h e r of t h e fruitless " c o n f e r e n c e s " w a s h e l d in 549, w h e n J u s t i n i a n s u m m o n e d 400 B i s h o p s t o t h e c a p i t a l (Mich. S y r . I X , xxx). N o t h i n g c a m e of it, o r c o u l d c o m e , f o r a n a b s o l u t e a n a t h e m a o n C h a l c e d o n a n d L e o ' s T o m e w a s w h a t t h e M o n o p h y s i t e s d e m a n d e d : n o m e r e d r o p p i n g of t h e Council, or a n a t h e m a on " all w r o n g f u l l y d o n e t h e r e " w o u l d c o n t e n t t h e m : P e t e r M o n g u s d i d this, b u t his f o l l o w e r s d e c l a r e d t h e s e c o n c e s s i o n s t o be faithless and indefensible. ( S c v e r u s , L e t t e r s I V . 2, 3 . )

Commencement

of Monophysite

Divisions

131

" Practical policy " is writ large over the acts of the Council, and policy not of the cleanest, that failed as it deserved to fail. The one positive result of the Council (other than the fact t h a t it estranged the almost reconciled Church of the Persian Empire by its unjust condemnation of Theodore) is that it provides a landmark to show how far the policy of concession to the Monophysites had been carried.

CHAPTER

ORGANIZATION

UPON

A

X.

SEPARATE

FOOTING.

t h e p a r t y in p o w e r were not quite e a s y a b o u t their o w n position, y e t t h e a v o w e d policy of the G o v e r n m e n t , as d i s t i n c t f r o m t h e unofficial a c t s of the E m p r e s s , h a d h a d its e f f e c t s on t h e N o n c o n f o r m i s t s , and the n u m b e r of their B i s h o p s w a s b e c o m i n g d e s p e r a t e l y small. îx cb *xf yr ' E p h r a i m of A n t i o c h h a d produced this result. T h i s m a n w a s a t least a g o o d official, if not quite an i d e a l A r c h b i s h o p . After all, he w a s r e a l l y a G o v e r n m e n t official b y métier, a n d only B i s h o p b y o r d e r of the E m p e r o r . H e c o u l d t a k e orders for a p o l i c y , a n d c o u l d c a r r y it o u t , w i t h o u t t r o u b l i n g a b o u t the w a v e r i n g s of those in a u t h o r i t y ; he h a d d o n e this for t h e whole course of his e p i s c o p a t e , and, w h e n it e n d e d w i t h his d e a t h , in 542, all M o n o p h y s i t e s felt t h a t s o m e t h i n g m u s t be done. There w e r e p l e n t y of l a i t y a n d m o n k s a m o n g t h e m ; t h e r e w a s a fair s u p p l y of c l e r g y ; Chalcedonians were negligible in E g y p t , and a m i n o r i t y in all the Orient, t h o u g h t h e y w e r e a considerable »•,'«* m i n o r i t y , p e r h a p s even a local m a j o r i t y , in Palestine. Y e t in "xfx 1 X ' those l a n d s there were no more t h a n three M o n o p h y s i t e B i s h o p s , e x c e p t i n g , of course, the u n a v a i l a b l e s u p e r f l u i t y in i n t e r n m e n t a t Constantinople. T h e s e t h r e e were, one in A l e x a n d r i a f o r all E g y p t , one in d i s t a n t Persia, a m o n g the s c a t t e r e d M o n o p h y s i t e s there : one, a v e r y feeble old m a n , in a f o r g o t t e n m o n a s t e r y in the forests of T u r A b d i n . If T h e o d o r a ' s p o l i c y h a d p r o t e c t e d on t h e one hand, it f a c i l i t a t e d suppression also, a n d s e v e r a l B i s h o p s h a d r e c e n t l y died. T h u s , in t h e s i x t e e n t h y e a r of J u s t i n i a n (542-3) things were b r o u g h t to a f o c u s b y the visit of the A r a b K i n g A r e t a s (Harith i b n G a b a l a ) , E m i r of t h e G h a s s a n i d A r a b s , t o C o n s t a n t i n o p l e . * T h i s k i n g l e t w a s a zealous M o n o p h y s i t e , b e c a u s e , b e i n g A r a b , he w a s n a t u r a l l y a n t i - G r e e k ; his zeal w a s f u r t h e r s h a r p e n e d b y ALTHOUGH

369.

• Lift: of J a c o b B.'iraxlai I. M.S. I X , X X I X .

I.ifc of J.icob TW;ul:ii IT. 132

I.ruxl IT. 254

Organization

upon a Separale

Footing

133

a personal quarrel with E p h r a i m of Antioch, a quarrel which we m a y safely s a y would never have arisen had that zealous official been a gentleman ! The Patriarch had come to the Arab's camp to discuss matters, and had urged, " surely you cannot reject all the Council of Chalcedon, just because of its enforcement of one document that you do not happen to like ? " (It was the Tome of Leo that was referred to). " Well, I am no theologian," said the dweller in tents, " but is not the meat of one filthy little rat enough to make all the stew in big camp-kettle ' haram ' ? " Dinner was served subsequently, but, though the big kettles had no rats in them on this occasion, they proved to contain nothing but camel-meat. This rather highly-flavoured viand is a desert delicacy, and was served as a compliment to a distinguished guest, for camels are f a r too valuable to be slaughtered lightly. Unluckily, the feelings and stomach of the townsman were alike outraged b y what he took, quite mistakenly, f o r an intentional insult. He refused to s a y grace, and would not eat. " Well, if you will not eat camel with me, how can you expect me to take the ' Qurbana ' (the H o l y Communion) with you ? " said the equally insulted host, and he departed in dudgeon. Aretas had thus several good reasons for doing anything that would annoy E p h r a i m , or outrage his memory, and he came to Constantinople to urge action upon Theodora. What was wanted w a s plain. A man must be found who should have the Pa< riarchal rank, and, if possible, the personal prestige of Sevorus, while he must have at least the physical powers of J o h n of Telia, for he would have to live the life of hardship that had brought umcin 368. that w i r y man to physical breakdown.* Such a man was available on the spot among Theodora's guests, in the person of the monk J a c o b , called B u r d a ' n a or Baradasus, from the fact that one horse-cloth (burda'ta) formed his whole wardrobe and furniture. Half sufficed for his clothing, and .the other half for his bed. He had been in Theodora's monastery for some little time, with one Sergius as his syncellus, and he was b y birth a fellow townsman of the deceased J o h n of Land 11,366. Telia. B o r n about 490, of fairly-well-to-do parents (for his father Theophilus, though a priest, was also the owner of some landed property), he had been an ascetic from early youth in the * J o h n d i e d ui p i i s o n , b u t w a s uu old w h i l t > b o a r d e d m a n tit 5 4 .

134

The Separation

of the Monophy sites

m o n a s t e r y of " the Q u a r r y , " near the city. He w a s an educated m a n , t a l k i n g Greek, Syriac and Arabic e q u a l l y well, and was M'.S 'IX, 3O o b v i o u s l y of the most marvellous physical powers. He could " w a l k like Asahel, w h o w a s light of foot as a wild roe," he could fast, if need be, for three weeks on end, and as he h a b i t u a l l y lived on little b u t d r y bread, he w a s popularly supposed t o be " as h a r d as a flint." Further, he w a s a persona gratissima with A r e t a s , because the plague had been stayed in the tents of that chief's tribe b y J a c o b ' s prayers. This w a s o b v i o u s l y an imp o r t a n t point, for the life and liberty of the m a n chosen were l i k e l y to depend on his relations w i t h these A r a b s , and he must not only be able t o get on with them, but also able to live their life. Land ir.jcs. J a c o b felt himself already to be marked o u t for the w o r k of his life, b y visions t h a t he had seen in his m o n a s t e r y . H a d not the spirits of those departed saints, Severus and J o h n of Telia, appeared to him, g i v i n g him a pastoral staff, and bidding him, " g o , feed our flocks t h a t the wolves do now d e v o u r " ; and he w a s ready to t a k e up the burden. T h u s this m a n w a s consecrated, b y Theodosius, not only as B i s h o p in Syria, b u t w i t h a roving commission to organize and consecrate for " the faithful " in Armenia, and in all of w h a t we call A s i a Minor, and in the islands, right u p to Constantinople. Theodosius g a v e him his personal leave to consecrate Bishops even in A l e x a n d r i a , which was a great concession from an Egyptian. J a c o b w a s not left to perambulate this enormous extent of c o u n t r y quite single-handed. Colleagues were given him, t h o u g h his r o v i n g commission extended o v e r the whole area named. One Theodore w a s consecrated especially for work Masd"[x?4' a m o n g the A r a b s , and as three Bishops are normally needed for XI"X' the consecration of another, Conon of Cilicia and Eugenius of Isauria received episcopal orders also, t h a t the hierarchy might be perpetuated. A s a m a t t e r of fact, these assistants were of little use. Theodore vanished into the tents of his nomad flock, and w a s lost to civilized k e n ; the other t w o were ill-chosen men, w h o soon s h o w e d the f a c t b y w e a r y i n g of a life of hide-and-seek, falling into heresy and ultimately conforming to the " Established Church." H

7

Organization

upon a Separate Footing

135

Jacob, however, was of sterner stuff. Having been smuggled out of Constantinople b y Aretas, and conducted in his train to the Orient, he set to work at once. His method of work was that of his friend and predecessor, John of Telia. Travelling always on foot, in his ragged horse-cloth, without bag, pack, or money, he went to and fro, pastor as well as Bishop, in all the lands of his jurisdiction. He was a mere wandering monk or Dervish in appearance, like a thousand others, and it was practically impossible to 1 identify him by any means save treachery. Of course, attempts to arrest him were constantly being made, but it was b y no means easy to catch a man who could walk forty miles a d a y continuously for a month, and live on dry bread, and sleep always in the open. Physically, he 37a4n_d78 must have been a marvel, for it is said that he never found the man who could march all d a y with him, and even in old age he would walk any young man to a standstill ! When chased, he had a favourite trick of doubling back and meeting his pursuers, when he would answer their query about " that deceiver Jacob " by the statement that " he was wandering hereabouts yesterd a y . " He was often pursued by horsemen in vain, for, if he could not outrun the horses, he could certainly out-travel them, on his own ground. Horses that will march forty miles a d a y continuously arc rare in that land. A reward of 200 darics (raised to 500 later on) was put upon his head, but, though much coveted, it was never earned. Jacob's roving commission was an excellent, and, in fact, indispensable thing for the times, from the Monophysite point of view, and he was emphatically the right man for the work. Nevertheless, it was sure to produce friction when the time came for his irregular activities to be co-ordinated with something more n o r m a l ; and this was particularly the case in the light of the man's own character. Personally, he was a power with all Orientals. His asceticism, his devotion, his physical powers, all fascinated them, and he had a wonderful power of kindling enthusiasm in all of them, and particularly among the monks of the body. Mentally, however, he was no thinker, but only a repeater of formulae, and there was always a danger that he might be swayed b y other men. This danger was greatest if the intriguer in question, anxious to gain Jacob's powerful support

136

The Separation

of the Monophy sites

ft n 1 lis own cause, know how to p l a y upon his special foible and say to him, " Y o u are indispensable. Y o u have been called on from on high to s a v e the Church, and you can only save it b y adopting just the p a r t i c u l a r line of action t h a t we happen to w a n t . " H e n c e he w a s repeatedly a tool in the hands of a violent faction, a n d no one could ever be certain t h a t he w o u l d stick to his w o r d . A little well-timed intrigue might lead him to reverse a well-considered action altogether, and he w o u l d be genuinely astonished at the astonishment of others at the fact.

Land II,

253-376

Land 373

II

II, 373-

3 79-

1 he episcopate of J a c o b lasted 35 years (542-577), a period spent in endless rovings afoot from Constantinople as far as Nisibis in one direction, and A l e x a n d r i a in the other. I n that time he consecrated t w o Patriarchs and 89 B i s h o p s , * a n d some said as m a n y as 100,000 Priests ! John of E p h e s u s does not t h i n k t h a t enormous n u m b e r impossible, and a n y h o w the total w a s v e r y great, so t h a t the Church " swelled like rivers in s p r i n g . " J a c o b h a d found it " verging on extinction f r o m lack of c l e r g y , " a s t a t e m e n t w h i c h is the exaggeration of a friend. It is true t h a t B i s h o p s had not been seen in m a n y places for t h i r t y years, but t h a t fact does not mean, of itself, the extinction of an episcopal church ! In a n y case, h o w e v e r , he f o u n d it in a parlous state, a n d he left it an established f a c t , w i t h a strong h i e r a r c h y of its own. N a t u r a l l y , we hear of miracles that so holy a m a n w a s empowered to w o r k ; we read how he restored a dead y o u t h to life, c r y i n g , " In the name of Jesus Christ, one indivisible nature t h a t w a s crucified for us upon the cross, rise and w a l k " ; how he produced a miraculous rain at his birthplace, T e l i a ; and, like J o s h u a , ordered the sun to stand still to help his friends. A t A m i d a , m a n y of " the faithful " w e read, had relapsed to the D y o p h y s i t e heresy, under Government pressure, for which t h e y h a d been d u l y punished b y a t t a c k s of l u n a c y . In their despair t h e y sent for holy J a c o b , w h o c a m e and asked them w h a t else t h e y could possibly expect ? " I f y o u are so m a d as to * T w e l v e of these were E g y p t i a n Bishops. T h i s had to b e done w i t h care, for t h e N i c e n e rule t h a t forbade all translation w a s not dead, and Theodosius w a s a C o n s e r v a t i v e in those matters, and g a v e charge to his " v e k i l " accordingly. C l e r g y m u s t n e v e r m o v e from town to town, and episcopal election m u s t b e unanimous. [ I t m i g h t b e difficult, even in E n g l a n d , to find many c o u n t r y t o w n s w h e r e the clergy w o u l d u n a n i m o u s l y elect one of their own n u m b e r as B i s h o p . ]

Organization

upon

a Separate

Footing

137

say ' two natures,' naturally you go mad." However, he held a solemn service of reconciliation to " the true faith " on the following Sunday, and b y the Monday all were cured, on promise of better behaviour in the future. The name " Jacobite " soon came to be regularly applied to Land the body that Jacob organized : it was not, indeed, a novelty, n - 377 for it had been u s e d b y Monophysites previously to describe themselves, as illustrating their claim to be the original Church of the Orient, holders of the faith of the " holy J a c o b , " James, the brother of the Lord. Now it was given anew to them by their opponents with a new meaning, just as their friends in E g y p t were called Theodosians, and it was accepted b y the people themselves. It is used with this double reference to-day. In the year 547 Jacob had filled the vacant Patriarchate of Antioch b y the consecration of his own syncellus, Sergius. This Bishop lived only three years, but was apparently undisturbed b y the Government, which had despaired of stopping consecrations any further. When he died, in 550, Theodosius wrote ^- a d 0 r i «. to suggest a man to Jacob. His candidate was a certain Paul, called " the B l a c k , " an Alexandrine b y birth, but a monk in Syria. He had been A b b o t of Guba Baria (the pit in the a«- n. 7-». desert) on the Euphrates at one time, but had been exiled for his faith, and was then either in Constantinople (whence Theodosius wrote) or had been there recently. Jacob fully aj>proved the choice, and consecrated Paul with his DOC. IX. own hands, having as assistants six Bishops more, while three more sent written assent. Clearly Jacob's work was beginning to tell. Naturally, Theodosius endorsed the consecration of his own nominee, and the two patriarchs exchanged " enthronistic epistles," which were carried by two of the exiled Bishops at Constantinople,—Conon and Eugenius, who seem to have whiled Doc.ad ong. away their time of relegation in this sort of exercise, so con- xv.' stantly do they appear as letter-bearers. All the principal Archimandrites of the East joined in a chorus of congratulation, to which later events were to lend a rather sarcastic ring, rejoicing in having a Patriarch " so meek, so fitted for days of distress ; a man who will teach the faith as we know it, and be a worthy successor to Severus, and companion of Theodosius, the oecumenical Patriarch." Technically, Paul was Jacob's superior—assuming, of course,

I38

icxxiv.

The Separation

of the

Monophysitcs

t h a t b o t h of t h e m were not the heretical intruders t h a t every Chalcedonian held t h e m t o be ! Still, t h o u g h P a u l might be Patriarch of A n t i o c h , his relations w i t h his colleague were undefined. T h e l a t t e r still h a d his general r o v i n g commission, which he had no intention w h a t e v e r of resigning. Monks looked to him as their superior, and if ever P a u l did a n y t h i n g of w h i c h t h e y did not a p p r o v e , were certain to refer to " our h o l y Patriarch, J a c o b . " T h i s f a c t , particularly w h e n coupled w i t h Jacob's peculiar character, gave p r a c t i c a l c e r t a i n t y of friction ; an irregular genius w h o does a r o v i n g w o r k o f t e n does it v e r y well, b u t the last test of greatness is, that such an one should know when the time for the roving w o r k is over, and should then be content either to t a k e a regularized position, or, if that be impossible, to w i t h d r a w altogether. J a c o b neither could nor would do either. Some years elapsed, h o w e v e r , before a n y t h i n g untoward occurred. Jacob continued at his w o r k , as he and he only could do it. Monophysitcs were organizing themselves under his hands, a n d were r a p i d l y stiffening from the position t h e y h a d hitherto occupied (that of Nonconforming members of the Church) into t h a t of a v o w e d dissenters from it, members of a different a n d separatist body. T h e y were also rediscovering the t r u t h t h a t t w o hundred years of State-establishment had m a d e other Christians forget, t h a t the Church could get on at least as w e l l w i t h o u t I m p e r i a l patronage as w i t h it. Chalcedonian officialism was b u s y w i t h the three Chapters and the F i f t h Council, and persecution slept for the time.

It w a s a period of missionary effort. John " of E p h e s u s " was doing his w o r k on the pagans of that district, being supplied j. of e. in, w i t h ample f u n d s for the purpose b y Justinian. Here, at Derira, he found at least one h e a t h e n temple to d e s t r o y , and built 24 churches and four monasteries in its room. N a t u r a l l y , it w a s Monophysite Christianity t h a t he i m p a r t e d to his converts, b u t the official world considered even t h a t b e t t e r t h a n paganism, and when the B i s h o p of Tralles tried t o interfere, he w a s snubbed for his pains ! * * J o h n i s s a i d t o h a v e c o n v e r t e d a s m a n y a s 80,000 p a g a n s in A s i a , L y d i a , Caria, and Phrygia. G o v e r n m e n t built for these c o n v e r t s 98 C h u r c h e s and 12 m o n a s t e r i e s . H e d i d c o n d e s c e n d t o a l l o w , pro forma, a p r o c l a m a t i o n of C h a l c e d o n in t h e s e b u i l d i n g s , for t h e G o v e r n m e n t c o u l d n o t f o r v e r y s h a m e ' s s a k e a l l o w a n o p e n flouting of i t s o r d e r in f a b r i c s o f i t s o w n e r e c t i n g . (Mich. Syr IX, xxxiv. L a n d I I , 244.)

Organization

-upon a Separate

Footing

139

I t was not only pagans that J o h n sought to convert. In the wilder Anatolian glens he found (interesting survival) many Montanists, and proved that a persecuted Nonconformist can be a persecutor on occasion, by burning all the chapels of those who, like himself, had found the official Church too dangerously lax ! One of these Churches contained the bones of Montanus himself, and these the good Bishop carcfully and conscientiously burnt with the fabric. He reports with real regret t h a t some of the schismatics were so perverse as to throw themselves into the flames also and so anticipate by a little their inevitable and eternal doom. There was another important mission effort at this time, also J - ° < E . I V , subsidized by the State. This was in " the land of Nubia," now known as the Soudan ; it was then outside the Empire, and the blacks occasionally made themselves a nuisance b y their habit of raiding. The chiefs were usually subsidized, as this was the easiest and cheapest way of averting this trouble, and it was thought well that they, like the Ghassanids and Iberians, should be encouraged to embrace Christianity as the obvious way of including them in the Imperial sphere of influence. The course seems to have been suggested by the Prefect of E g y p t , and was approved b y Justinian. The Monophysites of Egypt, however, roused the ready interest of Theodora in this matter, with the result that two missions started to commend two rival versions of Christianity to the " blameless Ethiopian," namely, the official creed of the Emperor, and the real creed of the Empress. With her usual promptitude, Theodora took measures to secure that her mission should have the iirst and best opportunity of success. A special messenger to the Prefect of E g y p t warned that official, " If you allow the Emperor's ambassador to arrive before mine, I will send forthwith and take off your head." Warned thus, and knowing that the Empress seldom threatened in vain, the Prefect took his measures. Theodora's deputation, with Julian its episcopal head, went forward at once ; the other body of ecclesiastics found themselves delayed b y the hundred and one obstacles that do delay travellers, when the governor of a frontier district does not want them to go forward : difficulties of escort, transport and the like. Thus, when at last they did reach the court of the Nubian king, they found the Monophysite

5

140

The Separation

of the

Monophysites

B i s h o p safely installed there, and the king and courtiers assured t h e m t h a t t h e y were grateful, of course, b u t that, as t h e y had a l r e a d y accepted w h a t t h e y were instructed w a s the o n l y true f o r m of Christianity, t h e y had no occasion for their services. Justinian w a s still theoretically orthodox, b u t for all that there w a s no possibility of arguing with w h a t T h e o d o r a had done. T h e death, of the great Empress in 547 d e p r i v e d the Monophysites of a protector, b u t the loss made less difference t h a n might h a v e been expected. Justinian had the greatest reverence for her m e m o r y , and for this reason he kept u p the e x t r a o r d i n a r y " refugee-monastery " that she had founded in the palace of Hormisdas. Also, the political reasons t h a t h a d led him to conciliate the Monophysites continued in full force, while the success of his Italian campaigns removed the hindrance t h a t had prevented him f r o m favouring them before. T h e whole episode of the " Three Chapters " shows how far the E m p e r o r w a s prepared to go, in forcing on a concordat that w a s intended for their benefit, t h o u g h it is p r o b a b l y true that Imperial o b s t i n a c y had m u c h to do w i t h his persevering in the plan t h a t he h a d once formed.

E v a g

V

Eufycbi.

39

Theologically, this legally and logically minded ruler was c o m i n g more and more to the Monophysite position, though nothing overt w a s done until his old age. T h e n suddenly, in the y e a r 565, he astonished the world b y the issue of an edict, in w l l i c h he declared the extremest form of Monophysitism, a form a h its respectable theologians, like Severus and Philoxenus

ii~JJ's'vr h a d e x P r e s s l Y condemned, to be itself de fide, and official orthoix-xxxiv. d o x y . Theopb. , T

6057.

M.S. ix,

i t is true t h a t the Emperor did not, verbally, d e n y the famous " in t w o natures " of Chalcedon : but he did insist t h a t the h u m a n i t y assumed w a s incorruptible, and therefore not like ours ; and this w a s the v e r y point on w h i c h the Monophysite b o d y had split. T h e E m p e r o r is said to h a v e been converted to this v i e w by the eloquence of " a stupid B i s h o p of J o p p a . " A t least, his conversion w a s presumably conscientious, for it c e r t a i n l y was not politic. H a d Justinian not been acting on principle, he w o u l d h a r d l y h a v e offended e v e r y B i s h o p from the E u p h r a t e s to

Organization

upon

a Separate

Footing

141

the Atlantic, in order to conciliate J u l i a n of Halicarnassus, and his handful of dissident dissenters. W h a t e v e r the Emperor's mental processes m a y have been, the edict came out, and Aphtharto-Doceticism was declared, on the authority of t h e Caesar-Pope, to be the Catholic faith. I t is uncertain whether the edict was ever published in Rome, where J o h n I I I then ruled, though there is no doubt as to the reception that it would have received there. E v e n in Constantinople it was rejected. Here, the Patriarch was then Eutychius, a man who was the nominee and favourite of J u s t i n i a n , who had won his post b y giving the E m p e r o r palatable advice, and b y finding justification for the wrong that he intended to commit. Still, this was more than even he could swallow. He argued against the decree, he strove to show its error, but when J u s t i n i a n and his episcopal counsellors insisted on acceptance, he refused. Orders were issued for his deposition and exile, and the gendarmes under one Aetherius were sent to arrest him. He was celebrating the liturgy when t h e y arrived, and was allowed to finish it before being taken into custody. T h e n — f o r the synodical trial t h a t he demanded was too inconveniently just a request to g r a n t — h e was conducted b y night to Prinkipo, t h a t beautiful island in the Marmora which has so often served as a place of custody for criminals of high rank. I t was night when he was landed, and his biographer declares that he had no notion where he was, though this seems hardly likely to a resident in the capital. Anyhow, as dawn broke, the first object t h a t met his ga/.e was a stone cross, bearing the words, " S t a n d fast, for I am with t h e e . " He was then kept in exile for twelve years, a t first in this island, and afterwards on his own estate and in his own monastery a t Amas;ea. Anastasius, Dyophysite Patriarch of Antioch, was another Eva«, iv, episcopal recusant. He wavered long, and offered most M . S ° Í X . respectful remonstrances, declaring himself ready to accept the *"""v' word incorruptible, if it were explained as equivalent to " impeccable." W h e n t h a t was refused he pointed out t h a t to deny the likeness of the h u m a n i t y of Christ to ours was to evacuate the Incarnation of all meaning, and refused. T h e edict for his exile was already in preparation when J u s t i n i a n died. T h e fact that there were two confessor-bishops in the established Church 4

142

The

Separation

of the

Monophysites

a t the v e r y e n d of J u s t i n i a n ' s reign, is a w e l c o m e proof of w h a t one m i g h t o t h e r w i s e h a v e d o u b t e d , viz., t h a t there w e r e limits even to B y z a n t i n e subserviency. J u s t i n i a n l i v e d long e n o u g h t o p u t u p a n o t h e r B i s h o p in the c a p i t a l in t h e p l a c e of E u t y c h i u s . T h i s w a s J o h n of Sirmium, o t h e r w i s e called J o h n Scholasticus. H e a c c e p t e d t h e Imperial d o c t r i n e t o g a i n the p a t r i a r c h a l throne, b u t h a v i n g g a i n e d it, g a v e a s u f f i c i e n t l y o r t h o d o x confession. T h e E m p e r o r had j. of Nikion m e d i t a t e d d e p o s i n g him also, b u t f o r t u n a t e l y , or u n f o r t u n a t e l y , c- 94. d e a t h p r e v e n t e d him, a n d J o h n remained in possession. T h e o b n o x i o u s edict died w i t h J u s t i n i a n , t o the relief of all the w o r l d , w h i c h " his last acts h a d filled w i t h c o n f u s i o n and dismay." S o m e declared t h a t owing t o this last error of his he xxxiv.IX' u n d o u b t e d l y gone w h e r e all heretics go ; b u t a more c h a r i t a b l e m o n k h a d a vision of the fiery f u r n a c e p r e p a r e d for h i m , a n d w a s told b y his spiritual g u i d e t h a t , t h o u g h the E m p e r o r u n d o u b t e d l y deserved to be t h r o w n into it, y e t he had b e e n spared, in consideration of his u n f a i l i n g c h a r i t y to all ascetics. D a n t e , l o o k i n g a t his c h a r a c t e r f r o m a n o t h e r side, v i e w s his p r o s p e c t s d i f f e r e n t l y again. I n the l a t e r y e a r s of Justinian, and t h e e a r l y y e a r s of J u s t i n II, M o n o p h y s i t e s w e r e p r a c t i c a l l y left alone to d e v e l o p as t h e y liked. S u p p r e s s i o n h a d a d m i t t e d l y failed, a n d w a s t a c i t l y a b a n d o n e d . J a c o b ' s a c t i v i t i e s were no longer interfered w i t h , a n d he w e n t to a n d fro, u n m o l e s t e d . If, h o w e v e r , J a c o b w a s the right h a n d of t h e d i s s e n t i n g body, the brain of it w a s in Constantinople, in t h e person of t h e exiled T h e o d o s i u s of A l e x a n d r i a . Pie w a s a t h e o l o g i a n , w h i c h J a c o b w a s not, a n d soon c a m e to rank in his c o m m u n i o n as an a u t h o r i t y c o m p a r a b l e to Severus himself. Pie f o u g h t the -" T r i t h c i t e s " (a strange d e v e l o p m e n t of m i s p l a c e d ingenuity w i t h w h i c h w e d e a l later) m u c h as S e v e r u s h a d f o u g h t t h e Julianists, a n d w a s concerned in the consecration b o t h of J a c o b himinxT "xiv!'' self and of P a u l the B l a c k . H e was u s u a l l y a d d r e s s e d in formal MV.'X.Í. letters as " (Ecumenical P a t r i a r c h " a n d " U n i v e r s a l T e a c h e r , " a n d o t h e r h o n o r a r y titles, and J u s t i n i a n I I used t o receive him w i t h f u l l p a t r i a r c h a l honours. I n 567 he felt himself g r o w i n g old, a f t e r 3 1 y e a r s of exile as a B i s h o p , a n d he b e g a n t o t a k e steps to regularize t h e w h o l e state of t h i n g s in t h e Church, b e i n g the m o r e a n x i o u s t o d o this as he

Organization

upon a Separate

Footing

143

had begun t o distrust J a c o b ' s discretion. Certainly that w a y ward hero's eccentricities had become more pronounced as he, too, grew older, and as the circumstances t h a t h a d once been their excuse began to change ! In particular, he had m u c h annoyed the E g y p t i a n s , t h o u g h w e do not k n o w in w h a t w a y . It had become almost impossible for him to exercise his office in that province. T h u s Theodosius, w h o had once g i v e n J a c o b full power to a c t doc. xvii. as his representative in E g y p t , now practically withdrew t h a t " power of a t t o r n e y " b y requesting P a u l the B l a c k , of A n t i o c h , to ordain priests and deacons in A l e x a n d r i a , and one B i s h o p , Longinus, for N u b i a , where w e m a y assume t h a t Julian had died, xviii. L a t e r , he w e n t further, asking the same m a n to consecrate X ix, xx. other B i s h o p s in his province, and f o r m a l l y announcing the f a c t that he h a d m a d e this request to the E g y p t i a n Church at large. It w a s time, indeed, to take some sort of action, for in all E g y p t (where there had been more t h a n one hundred bishops in the gTeat d a y s of A t h a n a s i u s and Cyril) there were now only four in all, and even this w a s an i m p r o v e m e n t on recent conditions. One of these, Theodore, of w h o m w e shall hear again, w a s at Philae, and three in A l e x a n d r i a , b u t all were v e r y infirm old men. A fifth (whose n a m e of P t o l e m y b e t r a y s his origin) w a s w i t h the Patriarch in Constantinople. T h u s Theodosius, feeling himself xxi, p ^ ; dying, issued a final pastoral to his clergy, mentioning specially the great need of B i s h o p s , a need w h i c h he h a d a l w a y s intended to s u p p l y , t h o u g h he had postponed action repeatedly, owing t o his constant hope of his o w n return ; he specially charges t h e m to o b e y P a u l (not Jacob) as himself, and to permit him to s u p p l y this need. So he died, even before the despatch of t h e letter, to which he seems to h a v e been unable e v e n to a t t a c h his seal himself, and the B i s h o p s then proceeded to consecrate Longinus for Nubia, P a u l being present, and being the principal officiant in the service. I t w a s some time, h o w e v e r , before his diocese could g e t the benefit of the new prelate's services, for his departure w a s forbidden b y the G o v e r n m e n t . There w a s now J- k- iv, Vill. no T h e o d o r a available to cut these knots, and three years elap>sed before the m a n got a w a y in disguise. Monophysitism h a d now developed into a separate b o d y , a dissenting Church w i t h i n the E m p i r e , a n d w a s practically L

144

The Separation

of the

Monophysites

recognized as such. I t w a s organized fully, t h o u g h confined, m a i n l y , to certain districts. Now, in 568, another a t t e m p t was made to reconcile the Dissenters, b y the orders of Justin I I who, being a y o u n g man, w a s quite sure that he could succeed where his seniors h a d failed. He s u m m o n e d a sort of " round table " conference, at which J a c o b himself w a s present, and w a s allowed to h a v e secret conferences w i t h the Empress Sophia. N o t h i n g c a m e of these, b u t J o h n of Callinicus, Patrician, and Comes Orientis, was sent d o w n t o his province with orders to m a k e peace in the Church ! J o h n g a t h e r e d the Bishops concerned at his n a t i v e place of Callinicus, where a small Monophysite synod w a s already in session, discussing the " Tritheite question." Of the Tritheites the only m a n w h o need interest us here is A t h a n a s i u s , nephew of the E m p r e s s Theodora. Jacob, P a u l the B l a c k , J o h n of Ephesus, a n d some minor men represented the regular Monophysite p a r t y . Count J o h n offered the terms t h a t he w a s authorized to propose, and the schedule is surprising reading. I t is true that each point had already been conceded separately b y the official Church, b u t w h e n p u t together t h e y a m o u n t to a surrender so complete t h a t one doubts whether a n y p o w e r could h a v e induced the W e s t e r n Church to accept them. Christ is recognized as " of " (not " in ") t w o natures, " forming one h y p o s t a s i s of God incarnate." T h e name of Severus is inserted in the diptychs, and other points agreed on at the F i f t h General Council are reasserted. N o t h i n g w a s said of even a formal acceptance of Chalcedon ! T h e surrender to the essentials of Severus' position is complete, b u t e v e n so the Monophysites were not content. Nothing short of an express denial of the term " in t w o natures " would content t h e m and t h e y demanded an express assertion of " one nature o n l y , " though it is true that t h e y offered the Henoticon as an alternative. T h e delegates were willing to consider these d e m a n d s , b u t even so the monks of the M o n o p h y s i t e party declared t h e m not to be stiff enough, and broke u p the Conference in a rage, declaring t h a t " the faith h a d been b e t r a y e d . " What t h e y w a n t e d , short of an anathema on Chalcedon a n d e v e r y soul connected w i t h it, is not clear.

Organization

upon a Separate

Footing

145

The Conference continued, w i t h the Bishops of the Monophysites w h o remained when the a n g r y monks withdrew, for John of Callinicus said, sensibly enough, " W e need not destroy the great work of peacemaking that we arc engaged in, because of the anger of a few ignorant m o n k s . " Jacob quite agreed with him and offered to go after the seceders and use his influence w i t h them to bring them back to reason. He w e n t accordingly, and then one of the startling weaknesses of his character stood Mich. revealed,* for, as soon as he left the Conference, he was won over x ' " by the very monks w h o m he had gone to bring back. Then, of course, he went further along the w a y of faction than a n y of them, for naturally it was clear to him that nothing b u t extreme wickedness on the part of his late associates could j u s t i f y such conduct as his had been. He issued an anathema on t h e m and on all their works, including that which he had himself just written and subscribed ! I t is really no marvel that Count John reported to Constantinople that " it is no use t r y i n g to reconcile men of this t y p e , " and abandoned his efforts. H e met w i t h the usual earthly reward of the peacemaker, for all the monks solemnly cursed him for a deceiver, and declared t h a t his death, which followed soon after, w a s a manifest miracle and judgement. Justin was naturally annoyed, but he made another effort to secure w h a t he had at heart. He summoned the Bishops to the capital for a further conference there. Several went, though Jacob excused himself, perhaps from some sense of shame ; those t h a t did go proceeded to condemn and anathematize Paul the B l a c k , of Antioch. For w h a t , or after w h a t trial, does not appear. One is inclined t o suggest that e v e r y b o d y felt t h a t a " Jonah " was necessary under the circumstances, for it w a s obvious t h a t someone had blundered; so, as the u n l u c k y Paul happened to be there, and, as appears from other evidence, had a knack of getting himself disliked, e v e r y b o d y felt that he h a d obviously been cast b y nature for the part. * I t must be remembered that our authority for this strange episode is 110 enemy of Jacob, but a Monophysite Patriarch, and his devoted admirer, Michael the Syrian. He has to admit that he simply cannot defend Jacob's conduct here. Had the authority been a Chalcedonian, one might have rejected it, on the ground that you must not assume lunacy even in a theological opponent.

syr.

146

The Separation

of the

Monophysites

Even when this had been done it was not clear what could be done next. J a c o b was summoned again to the capital, but he was still under the influence of his monastic followers, who knew how dangerous it was to let him go from under their sway, and by their advice he simply refused to go. Justin " flew into a terrible rage " — a n infirmity to which he was liable, but for which there was excuse under the circumstances, and the whole scheme dropped. I t was obvious that there would be no difficulty in bringing reasonable men among the dissenters to an understanding, for the Church was apparently willing to offer terms that they could hardly refuse. Still, there was a clique among them that was past all reason, and did not want peace. In fact, it hardly wanted even controversial victory, for it preferred division, and its grievance against the Government and the Church.

CHAPTER

THE

DIVISIONS

OF THE

XI.

MONOPHYSITES*

THE original position of the Monophysites w a s simply, " stamus super antiquas vias." " W e stand for Ephesus and Cyril, w h o saved the doctrine of the Incarnation for the Church, and will h a v e no addition t o the old formulae, and no new tessera of orthodoxy." This is a l w a y s a strong position in ecclesiastical c o n t r o v e r s y , for those w h o claim to defend a revealed religion are obliged t o respect such an a t t i t u d e , t h o u g h as a m a t t e r of f a c t it is also true that new questions d e m a n d new answers, and new a t t a c k s a new defence. Still, neither Chalcedon nor Nicaea were able t o overcome C o n s e r v a t i v e opposition in the Church, till t h e y h a d themselves become old e n o u g h for a consistent Conservative t o respect them, so t h a t the Monophysites were the winning p a r t y in the Church for a full generation a f t e r 451. T h i s period is also t h a t during w h i c h the p a r t y themselves kept together. N o t h i n g could h a v e s a v e d them f r o m a temporary reverse w h e n the new d y n a s t y of Emperors came to t h e throne, but, had t h e y n o t become the prey of internal divisions, t h e y might v e r y possibly h a v e recovered their political defeat. In f a c t , t h e y came within measurable distance of doing so, e v e n in their divided state, b u t as it was, t h e y split into contending factions because the " e x t r e m e men " could not k e e p terms w i t h the moderates a m o n g t h e m , b u t insisted on pushing their Conservative position to an e x t r e m e t h a t w a s p e r f e c t l y logical and p e r f e c t l y untenable. T h u s Conservatives w h o s e opposition to Chalcedon w a s not b a s e d in the long run on national opposition to Greeks, f o u n d t h e m s e l v e s forced t o overcome their objections to a f o r m u l a w h i c h w a s then old enough t o h a v e * T h i s b o o k w a s w r i t t e n b e f o r e t h e w r i t e r h a d t h e o p p o r t u n i t y of s t u d y i n g Dr. Luce's valuable essay, " Monophysitism, Ancient and M o d e r n . "

14 7

148

The Separation

of the Monophy sites

become familiar to them, and w h i c h t h e y now saw had not the objectionable meaning which it had carried to their minds when it w a s first proposed. So far, there is m u c h in common to the histories of the controversies t h a t followed Nicaea and Chalcedon. In both cases there is strong Conservative opposition to a new formula, w h i c h is dominant for a while, owing to its finding Imperial support. In b o t h cases, opposition t h a t is merely Conservative is forced to reconcile itself t o orthodoxy, b y the fact t h a t the position t a k e n u p b y the extreme men of their own p a r t y is so m u c h more intolerable t o reverent minds t h a n the new formula at its worst. Arianism, somehow, failed t o find a national point d'appui w i t h i n the E m p i r e , perhaps just because it did find so efficient a one w i t h o u t it, in the Gothic races. Monophysitism found such a f u l c r u m for itself in Syrian and Coptic national feeling, and so it remains as an efficient lever to this d a y . It m u s t not be t h o u g h t , however, t h a t those w h o held to it when the Cons e r v a t i v e s threw it over held also to the objectionable doctrines w h i c h caused its abandonment b y the Conservatives. Though tlu-y obstinately rejected the name of Chalcedon, and its technical term, 1 hey y e t held the doctrine that that term guarded. T h e y wvro heretics (if heretics t h e y are) rallu-r as rejecting Church a u t h o r i t y than as rejecting Church doctrine, and it w o u l d p r o b a b l y be better to call them schismatics, for were their doctrine orthodox ten times over, it would be still undeniable that t h e y manifested the schismatic temper in a singularly u g l y fashion. T h e i r most i m p o r t a n t , and most lasting, division, was caused b y the fact t h a t t h e y carried an evil heritage. J u s t as the C h u r c h of E n g l a n d , for some generations after the Reformation, carried a damnosa hereditas of Calvinism, w h i c h could not be o p e n l y repudiated b y authority, because too m a n y men held it conscientiously, and y e t could not be acknowledged, because as a doctrine it w a s too impossible ; so t h e Monophysite party w a s the expression, not o n l y of the old school of Cyril and E p h e s u s , b u t of the tendency t h a t E u t y c h e s really voiced (though he, w h o i n v e n t e d nothing, was not its inventor), viz., the feeling t h a t " God cannot really have become m a n , like u s . "

The Divisions

of the

Monophysites

149

A. false reverence revolted at the t h o u g h t of an act of such tremendous condescension, and this idea entered readily into combination w i t h t w o other ideas, both of w h i c h are v e r y congenial to the Oriental mind. These are, (x) " God and m a n must be, somehow, f u n d a m e n t a l l y incompatible " ; (2) " Matter must be somehow, evil in itself." T h e t h o u g h t of man, as created originally in the image and after the likeness of God, and therefore f u n d a m e n t a l l y in accord w i t h his Creator, capable of communion w i t h him, capable of being " t a k e n into G o d , " does not readily rouse a response in his mind ; so he tends to overstate the p e r f e c t l y true doctrine of the Divine Transcendence and so to a d o p t a Monotheism of the t y p e proclaimed b y the faith of Islam. I t is not, if w e m a y use the expression, Christ crucified t h a t is the stumbling-block and the foolishness to h i m ; it is the idea of Christ, G o d incarnate, t h a t is so h a r d for him t o receive. If he can accept the Incarnation, then (quite logically and correctly) he can accept the t h o u g h t t h a t one w h o could become m a n for us, could and w o u l d die for us b y a n y death. T h e Cross on C a l v a r y takes its place as a smaller portent t h a n the m a n g e r at B e t h l e h e m . A n d the philosophy t h a t Mani voiced and codified is interw o v e n into the v e r y fibre of men's minds all the E a s t over. T h e y cannot conceive of m a t t e r as not being evil in itself, t h o u g h t h e y do not, of course, put t he principle baldly before themselves T h a t being so, h o w can God really be incarnate ? A real incarnation is impossible to their thinking, as indeed it is.to m a n y a western mind, too, and the difficulty is e v a d e d b y one of t w o w a y s , b y the doctrine t h a t the D i v i n e m e r e l y associated w i t h a m a n , in no other fashion t h o u g h in a greater degree t h a n I t associates w i t h us (which is Nestorianism), or t h a t the material h u m a n i t y t h a t w a s t a k e n into G o d w a s so t r a n s m u t e d b y the association as to cease to be h u m a n a t all in a n y real sense of the w o r d . T h e Greek mind did not see the Oriental difficulty, b u t (if the writer be not prejudiced) this w a s rather because of its inferiority t h a n because of its superiority. T h e y s a w no necessary i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y between the G o d h e a d and the m a n h o o d , because t h e y conceived of the G o d h e a d itself materially. R i g h t in their conclusion t h a t G o d h e a d and m a n h o o d are essentially compatible, t h e y were w r o n g in their reasons, for their conception

150

The Separation

of the

Monophysites

of the D i v i n i t y w a s essentially lower t h a n w a s t h a t w h i c h the Oriental h a d in his mind. N o synthesis, and no concordat b e t w e e n the t w o , w a s possible then, even had men's minds been in a condition t o welcome one. Perhaps modern g r o w t h in k n o w l e d g e m a y furnish one, not b y lowering D i v i n i t y t o a n y m a t e r i a l plane, b u t b y elevating manhood in its e n t i r e t y t o a spiritual one, and showing us matter as itself no more t h a n a m a n i f e s t a t i o n of the energy which is a manifestation of mind. P e r h a p s it is along t h a t line that Nestorian, Monophysite, and Islamic philosophy m a y each of them furnish a contribution to a t r u l y Catholic doctrine of the Incarnation of the Godhead. The icebergs m a y melt in a w a r m ocean. T h e divisions among the Monophysites first became conspicuous w h e n the decrees of Justinian had the effect of herding all the keenest minds of that school into t w o " corrals " and leaving t h e m free t o discuss things together there ; t h e y had, h o w e v e r , really begun before Marcian h a d ceased to reign, as w a s natural, in light of the fact that t h e y o n l y voiced existing instincts in m e n ' s minds. T i m s divisions and quarrels in the school of t h o u g h t are perceptible long before t h e y have become an organized and separate b o d y , and began almost before the ink of Chalcedon w a s dry. Z.M. HI, x. A c c o r d i n g l y , in the d a y s of Proterius, one " John the .Rhetorician " seems to have combined errors from the teaching of Nestorius and E u t y c h c s , teaching that " G o d the Word w a s w r a p p e d in the b o d y after the m a n n e r of a s e e d , " and further, t h a t " if H e suffered at all it w a s in His divine nature." MS 12156, A little later, T i m o t h y Aelurus writes f r o m his place of exile |.M. jv, XII. to condemn a n d excommunicate two E g y p t i a n sectaries (Isaiah of Hermopolis and Theophilus of Alexandria), w h o had t a u g h t t h a t " Jesus Christ our L o r d and God w a s n a t u r a l l y different f r o m us in t h e flesh, t h a t he w a s not homo-ousios w i t h m a n , and w a s not t r u l y m a n . " However, these divisions did not come to the surface, till all Nonconformist zealots were brought together at A l e x a n d r i a b y Justin's measures in 518. N a t u r a l l y , it w a s impossible for a c r o w d of theologicallym i n d e d exiles to refrain from discussing a n y discussable point.

The Divisions

of the

Monophysites

Some monks started the question whether the humanity of Christ ought not to be regarded as " incorruptible," and soon every ecclesiastic was being asked his opinion on that Point. These " Incorruptibilists " found a leader in Julian of Halicarnassus, an old man, a zealous Monophysite, and formerly a friend of Severas. Severas had known, seemingly, that his old colleague held eccentric views on the matter, but had succeeded in avoiding any open controversy so long as both of them had plenty of work to do in their dioceses. When both were in exile, discussion and controversy could no longer be avoided, particularly as the monks, or most of them, were carried away by the mystical aspect of the doctrine, and embraced it fanatically. In one particular district, for instance, all the monks but five accepted it, and of those five two were killed by their fellows ! ^p'j 452. The fault of the Jtilianists lay, as has been the case with so many erroneous teachers, in their over-logical reasoning. I t was the besetting sin of the Monophysites (though they had no monopoly of the error) to think that human language can give an adequate idea of divine fact, so that it is possible and permissible to reason confidently from the implications of a word. In this case the starting-point was the orthodox, but nevertheless unfortunate, " Hénosis Physiké" of Cyril, which was accepted as not only an inspired pronouncement of truth, but as ;i peg from which deduction after deduction could depend, until at last the conclusion as reached—a definite denial of any likeness in nature between the humanity of Christ and that of man. That humanity, it was declared, was sinless. Therefore it was imperishable, incorruptible, immortal, impassible. If he suffered at all (and the plain words of Creed and Scripture would not allow any denial of that, though some Monophysites came very near to it), it was by a conscious exertion of will, in that he willed to feel, from moment to moment, and had not a body that was naturally affected by external facts. In a word, the desire to increase the divine glory, coupled with an Oriental inability to see the reality of majesty when external pomp is absent, led to what was in effect a denial of the humanity of Christ. The " Incorruptibilist " Christ is a

Patr

-

152

The Separation

of the

Monophysilcs

divine being, t h a t assumes the deceptive and unreal likeness of a m a n . * It is d o u b t f u l whether the first leaders of this school w e n t as f a r as this, a t least consciously. I t was inevitable, however, t h a t other strange ideas should be struck out, when once the m i n d s of m e n were a t work on the problem. T h u s Gaianus, t h e claimant to the Alexandrine P a t r i a r c h a t e , t a u g h t a t r a n s m u t a t i o n of the h u m a n i t y into t h e divinity in Christ. Stephen B a r Sudaili, losing his w a y in mystic imaginations based on the fact t h a t all existence is an emanation f r o m God, went so f a r as to deny the existence of all distinction between m a n and God. The root of m u c h error lay in the fact t h a t the E a s t e r n is a p t to conceive of t h e Incarnation as manifestation of divine power and condescension only, and leaves the t h o u g h t of love on one side. This m a y be partly accounted for b y the fact t h a t he is u n d o u b t e d l y given to low thoughts about t h a t emotion. There is also the feeling noted above—though this can h a r d l y have accounted f o r t h e error of Gaianus—that God a n d m a n are essentially incompatible. Starting from these root ideas, and working simply on the method of deductive logic, it was n a t u r a l to conclude t h a t He who came to set m a n free f r o m corruption cannot be Himself subject to it, so t h a t the b o d y of the second Adam—like t h a t of the first at creation—must have been incorruptible, because sinless, and so was lifted at once into the conditions of t h e divine life. There was some additional confusion also over the actual word " incorruptible." This m a y * In j u s t i c e t o J u l i a n i s t s , w e m u s t r e m e m b e r t h a t a d o c t r i n e , t h a t is a t l e a s t a s D o c e t i c a s a n y t h i n g of t h e i r s ' h a d been t a u g h t w i t h o u t c e n s u r e b y men w h o m the C h u r c h could not venture to condemn. H i l a r y d e c l a r e s in set t e r m s t h a t t h e h u m a n soul of C h r i s t could o n l y h a v e c o m e d i r e c t f r o m G o d , a n d so c o u l d n o t h a v e been t r u l y h u m a n a t a l l ! Sibi animam assumpsit, quae utxque numquam ab homine gignentium originibus praebetur. Si enim conceptum carnis nisi ex Deo, virgo non habuit, longe magis necesse est anima corporis nisi ex Deo aliunde non fucrit. (De. Trmitate X , 22.) I i f . f u r t h e r a n t i c i p a t e s t h e J u l i a n i s t s . in e x p r e s s l y a t t r i b u t i n g imp a s s i b i l i t y t o t h e B o d y of o u r L o r d , d e c l a r i n g t h a t tlit- h u m a n i t y c o u l d 110 m o r e s u f f e r b y w h a t it u n d e r w e n t t h a n can t h e a i r b y t h e p a s s a g e of an a r r o w through it. " Virtus corporis, sine sensu poenae, vim poenae in se desaevientis excepit." (Op. C i t . X , 2 3 . ) T h e J u l i a n i s t s , t h e n , w e r e n o t d i s c o v e r i n g n e w heresies, b u t w e r e o n l y p u r s u i n g e x i s t i n g l i n e s of t h o u g h t t h a t were n o t e x p r e s s l y c o n d e m n e d , a n d c o u l d c e r t a i n l y p l e a d t h e a u t h o r i t y of g r e a t n a m e s .

The Divisions

of the

Monophysitcs

153

mean " capable of not corrupting " or " incapable of corrupting," and neither party distinguished these. The Julianists were exaggerating, and were also unduly assuming knowledge about, a truth that all admitted, viz., the exaltation of the humanity b y assumption into the divine. The lesson of the writer to the Hebrews concerning the gradual advance of the humanity of the Master to an absolute perfection, as distinct from the merely relative perfection of earlier stages, was ignored b y all parties in the dispute of these eager dreamers.* The monks of Alexandria had dragged Severus into the conflict and had fairly set him at Julian, the protagonist of the other party ; then the controversy began, as usual, with the utmost courtesy on both sides. Julian writes to Severus, " Some men are saying that the body of Christ was corruptible. I am sure that you will agree with m y rebuke of them, and I enclose what I have written to correct their error. My position is simply that of the Fathers, those holy men who could neither contradict themselves nor each other (!), and holy Cyril says of the humanity of Christ, " Corruption could never take hold of i t . " Severus was equally courteous at first, but it was not long before both grew heated, and Julian was challenging public controversy. The inevitable appeal to the State follows (for, however hostile the " hukumet " m a y be to both sides in an Oriental quarrel, each hopes to secure its support), and Severus writes to Justinian in reply to the Royal invitation to a Conference in the year 531 to the effect that Julian was a public danger. " He has been perverted to the heresy of the Manichees, and holds the Passion itself as a fantasy. The word ' incorruptible ' is a sheep-skin to cover the wolf-like blasphemies of Mani." A little later he has grown hotter yet, and declares that " in his mad folly the accursed Julian has risen against all the Fathers, * H a r n a c k s u g g g e s t s ( H i s t o r y of D o g m a I V , 238) a s a possible defence of t h e Julianist a t t i t u d e , t h a t t h e real interest of their doctrine w a s soteriological. Christ assumed a h u m a n i t y like to ours s a v e sin, and t h e corruption w h i c h is t h e f r u i t of sin ; h o w e v e r , t h e a c t of incarnation necessarily raised t h a t h u m a n i t y to the divine level, and so rendered it essentially different to w h a t our h u m a n i t y is now, t h o u g h not, perhaps, different t o w h a t t h a t h u m a n i t y is c a p a b l e of becoming. T h e s p e c u l a t i o n is interesting, of course, b u t if this w a s t h e true intention of t h e Julianists, t h e y s i n g u l a r l y failed t o m a k e it clear in their writings. Still, cela n'empicke pas ; i t is an u n h a p p y trick of O r i e n t a l controversialists, t h a t t h e y u s u a l l y disguise t h e m o s t C a t h o l i c side of their o w n speculations m o s t e S e c t u a l l y , in t h e desire t o strike e f f e c t u a l l y a t their opponents.

IX, *,

Z.M.IX.XVI.

*54 Severn* con.

127'd. *"'

Assexn. II.

The Separation

of Ihc

Monophysitcs

and ought to be stoned with reasonable stones for his blasphemy, that all Israel m a y fear and glorify Christ." The stoning w a s probably intended metaphorically only, but metaphors of that variety were dangerous things to use when there were fanatical monks about. N a t u r a l l y , open schism between the two non-conforming parties soon followed on this, and the Julianists made their effort to capture the Alexandrine see. In this they failed, Gaianus, their champion, deserted them and returned to comparative orthodoxy ; but they were nevertheless (with the help of Julian) able to set up a hierarchy of their own, and thus the b o d y continued to exist till 800 A.D., having its own titular patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch. The little sect must have had a moment of wild hope when J u s t i n i a n suddenly declared their peculiar tenet to be official orthodoxy, but the gleam proved a v e r y fugitive one.

Br. mus. ms. Julian's tenets can be0 gathered from his correspondence with 17200,12157. ^ ~ Severus, and with Severus' own work in answer to them. They amounted (though, to do him justice, he strove to repudiate the Z.M. IX,XVI. conclusion)' to a denial of the statement that Christ. is true man. The b o d y of the Lord, to his thinking, was always incorruptible, though it became passible of its own free will for the sake of others. Severus argued in r e p l y , " If b y ' incorruptible ' you mean ' sinless,' well and good. B u t do not allow a false reverence to lead you to calling the passion a mere f a n t a s y . " J u l i a n replied (and the answer shows the confusion of his thought), " He was of our nature in essence, but not in passion, and so, even if impassible and incorruptible, is one in essence with u s . " On another occasion he denied the co-essentiality in terms, only to recoil from his own assertion, and to put forward a verbal acceptance of it. Br.Mus.^Ms. " Does not the holy Cyril s a y that His flesh was never 57c. ' ' corruptible ?* and how can we go beyond that ? " he declares ; 172°°. 5b. " H o w can that humanity which is the v e r y fount of corruption in us, be itself corruptible ? " * A s a m a t t e r of f a c t , w h a t h o l y C y r i l does s a y , is t h a t the s a c r c d B o d y saw no corruption. I t w o u l d h a v e been odd if he h a d said a n y t h i n g else. " N e v e r c o r r u p t e d " a n d " n e v e r could h a v e c o r r u p t e d " a r e s y n o n y m s to Julian.

The Divisions

of the

Monophysilcs

155

H e went on t o assert t h a t the manhood of Christ w a s not, properly speaking, a created thing at all. I t was materialized Godhead, a result of a coalescing process f r o m pure spirit, " as water coalesces into i c e . " (It is curious to see how near the 21 ?c sixth century w a s approaching to modern ideas as to t h e 8 a - I l d source of all matter). " If it h a d been created, it would h a v e been impossible to w o r s h i p it, therefore it is u n c r e a t e . " Confronted w i t h the question, " He suffered ; w a s not then His b o d y like ours, passible, corruptible, mortal ? " he made the amazing reply, " B y no means. D o not the wicked suffer, a f t e r the Resurrection, in bodies t h a t are impassible and immortal ? ' Doc. ad Orig. In another passage he asserts, " T h e b o d y that rose w a s If>9, i n ' a d m i t t e d l y impassible and immortal. B u t it w a s the same b o d y "'37.39a. as before. Clearly then t h a t b o d y w a s i m p a s s i b l e . " Death, he s a y s elsewhere, is the portion of sinners. Then obviously 7 ? c He w h o w a s sinless could not really die. J u l i a n m u s t , one assumes, h a v e been using terms in some peculiar m y s t i c a l sense of his own ; otherwise, S e v e r u s w a s entitled to s a y t h a t his opponent denied that Christ suffered like us, in the flesh. T h e real difficulty to him is the thought of an Incarnation. H e cannot accept that stupendous m y s t e r y , f o r h u m a n i t y is not w o r t h y to be t a k e n into the union. So t o his thinking, the h u m a n i t y of Christ must be a thing a p a r t , f r o m heaven and not f r o m earth ; it w a s not a created thing, or really of M a r y . I t is true that the heavenly spirit materializes, and becomes " like in essence " to the earthly (it is curious to find the technical term of the semi-Arian used in this different connection of the h u m a n i t y and not of the divinity of the Lord), but his Christ is God, not man. He is made like a m a n , perhaps, but he is not mediator, helper, redeemer. Manhood, to this ascetic thinker, is too low, too stained a thing, to be really t a k e n into God. S o S e v e r u s is justified in his position t h a t to d e n y the ,7200, 4a , corruptibility (for, of course, he never dreamed of asserting that I 7 b ' the sacred b o d y saw corruption in fact) w a s to d e n y the Incarnation, and the reality of the h u m a n i t y . I t w a s to take u p a position essentially fantastic. T h e effect of the controversy w a s to m a k e the whole Monophysite p a r t y state f a r more clearly its f a i t h in the reality and distinctness of the h u m a n i t y of Christ, and, in f a c t , to reach definite acceptance of the f o u r f a m o u s Chalcedonian a d v e r b s

The Separation of the

Monophysitcs

(Truly, Perfectly, Indivisibly, Distinctly), though they still hesitated at the one unfortunate technical term, of the meaning of which they appear " invincibly ignorant." In the period 540-570 . the Monophysites were, as we have seen, left undisturbed b y the Government, and organized themselves on a footing of separation. This had a further result, and one that served the purpose of the Government, though it may not have been intended b y them. It allowed the fissiparous tendency in the body to have the very fullest play. The doctrinal dispute that we have seen in the Julianist schism was coupled with multitudinous personal quarrels, and gave unlimited food for disagreement. Then, every doctrinal question w a s worked out b y the application of a perverted and totally inapplicable logic to any authorized or semi-authorized term. A l l parties argued that every expression of every reputable Father must be used in all its logical implications, while at the same time every turn of speech in those same Fathers that suggested other thoughts was, of course, ignored. The only really important doctrines are those of Severus (which we m a y call orthodox Monophysitism) and those of Julian. Still, other small sects m a y be mentioned at this Leontius do place. Such as these were " Agncetae," followers of Themistius,

S e c t i s , set*

x, ¡i. pupil of Severus. These anticipated modern " Kenotic " arguAsscm. 11, ments, b y attributing ignorance to the humanity of Christ. T h e y declared, with some justice, that they had the authority of Christ Himself for this line of argument, and that if he could feel pain he could be subject to any other human limitation, in which there was no sin. Dyophysites saw little to object to in such a position, but Monophysites were puzzled and scandalized. It was only one of m a n y w a y s in which the two great divisions tended to a rapprochement that never, unfortunately, became anything more. Another instance of this is found in the " Niobites " who could readily aver their belief in " a distinction of natures after the union," and yet could not say " two natures." On this ground t h e y anathematized the party of Severus. Most modern people, perhaps, and the writer certainly, would say that there were only verbal differences between the Severian

The Divisions

of the

Monuphysites

*57

Monophysites and the Chalcedonians, and that the sin of the former lay solely in that schismatic spirit which insisted that the verbal difference was so important that they were bound to rend the Church in two on account of it. The Niobites, however, boasted the possession of a theological microscope, and looking through it, they not only magnified that crack into a gulf, but descried a crag in the midst of it, which they declared gave them firm standing-ground ! A more numerous and also more extraordinary schism was that of the " Tritheites," known also as the Cononites, from the name of their leader Conon, an early colleague of Jacobus Baradaeus, and also the " Philoponists " from their real founder, a grammarian of Alexandria who had more learning than wisdom. i^-cmuus,iv, V,

vi

The division started in just that disputing about words against which St. Paul warned Timothy, for J o h n Philoponus, arguing with certain " synodites," had declared, " You talk of two natures in Christ. Why do you not also speak of two hypostases, for nature and hypostasis are identical ? " " We would do so," replied the others, " i f we held them to be identical ; but in fact we distinguish the words. You, however, who do hold them identical, ought to speak of three natures in the Godhead, for you speak of three hypostases in I t . " " Then, so we will," replied the slave of words, who had a tremendous reputation for learning, " because he had read so many books," and who never seems to have asked if words bore the same meaning at all times. " B u t to do that is to proclaim three Gods. To preach Tritheism," said his opponent. Philoponus, who at least was not afraid of accepting the most startling conclusions of his own logic, replied, " Yes. In the Trinity I count M S ' I X ' " * as many natures, essences, and Godheads, as I do hypostases." B . - H . J < > - 8 . Other men joined in this strange way of talking, including John " the Slipper " (Askunages, the name being given him from the readiness with which he could change parties and fit either foot), who was one of the stray Bishops who seem always to have been found in the c a p i t a l ; with him was Eugenius, an old colleague of Conon. A more interesting convert was Athanasius, nephew of the Mich. sytEmpress Theodora, a man whom Justinian had once thought of as a possible patriarch for Alexandria. 2

158

The Separation

of the

Monophysites

T h e fact of this man's joining them brought funds and social prestige t o the new denomination, and t h e y soon after found a third B i s h o p w h o w a s ready to join them. T h e accession of this m a n , T h e o n a s — t h e fact that he had been deposed from his rank for misconduct did not trouble t h e m — e n a b l e d t h e m to conseT . o f F . v . i i , crate B i s h o p s broadcast. " A l l their disciples and followers, •v. vii. ' w h o e v e r joined them, t h e y made t h e m all B i s h o p s . " Congregations sprang up, seemingly among those w h o were a l w a y s r e a d y to follow some new thing, not only a m o n g the Monophysites, but also in Rome, Greece, A f r i c a , P a m p h y l i a , Isauria. A t Constantinople, the new sect had m a n y followers a t court, where A t h a n a s i u s w a s well known ; J o h n of E p h e s u s was m u c h struck b y the fact t h a t so m a n y courtiers used to a t t e n d the services of their little denomination cn grand tenue.* T h e new b o d y had the use of a considerable e n d o w m e n t left b y A t h a n a s i u s , w h o had, as a matter of fact, quarrelled w i t h them before his death, b u t omitted to alter his will. T h u s t h e y were for the t i m e conspicuous, if not formidable. T h e m a t t e r can h a v e been little more t h a n a quarrel about words, for no m a n in his senses ever t a u g h t w h a t t h e declaration of Philoponus asserts ; still, the f a c t t h a t a dispute is about n o t h i n g is a p t to make it more difficult t o heal, as the whole s u b j e c t of this history testifies. T h e later history of the body, if it has no importance, has some interest, as illustrating both Oriental methods, and the incurably " Philo-schismatic " character of the Monophysites. Theodosius of Alexandria, then at Constantinople, was a l r e a d y w r i t i n g against them in 548, declaring sensibly enough t h a t we ought not to limit our ideas of the G o d h e a d to the limitations of the h u m a n words t h a t we are obliged to use in Doc.ad oriS. speaking of it. If all parties had acted on this rule, there would

xxjcviii,

7.

,

xxxix, 12, h a v e been no Monophysite schism at all. Personally, the B i s h o p w a n t e d to abide b y the phraseology of his model Doc.ad orig. Severus, a n d shun unprofitable speculation. H o w e v e r , the clergy of A l e x a n d r i a soon anathematized the Tritheites as the heretics w h i c h t h e y undoubtedly were in word, t h o u g h Theo* " W e a r i n g the c o m p a g i , " the court shoes t h a t seem to h a v e corresponded t o t h e " c u l o t t e s " of p r e - r e v o l u t i o n a r y F r a n c e . T h e inference w o u l d seem to bo, t h a t t h e y h a d a c h u r c h in, o r v e r y near, t h e P a l a c e p r e c i n c t s .

The Divisions

of the

Monophysites

159

dosius m a d e repeated efforts to bring about a reconciliation in the period 550-567. A f t e r his death at the latter date it appeared as if his effort was going to bear fruit, for a concordat between the Tritheites and the Monophysites w a s a c t u a l l y d r a w n u p at A l e x a n d r i a , b y the efforts of local peace-makers. It is true that John of xxv.xScvi Ephesus declares t h a t the honesty of the Tritheites w a s more than doubtful. A n agreement was a c t u a l l y signed, and the f a c t t h a t J o h n Philoponus h a d offended some of his own p a r t y b y speculations on the resurrection, made it easy to put the seal on the agreement b y a c o m m o n a n a t h e m a on him. E v e n uoe. xxvi Jacobus Baradaeus came in also and wrote in friendly wise to Conon and Eugcnius, as to Bishops w i t h w h o m he w a s once more n « . x x x v in communion. It was, in fact, w h e n the meetings about this agreement were t a k i n g place, t h a t J o h n of Callinicus, and the E m p e r o r Justin I I , t o o k a d v a n t a g e of the gathering to propose the concordat mentioned in the last chapter. A t the gathering, however, quarrels broke o u t again. J o h n M.S. X, M of Callinicus, w h o w a s present at it, had to report t h a t t h e y " o n l y abused and insulted one a n o t h e r , " and w h e n he asked them, " H o w can y o u expect to be reconciled w i t h the ' synodites ' till y o u h a v e m a d e peace w i t h one another ? " each said t h a t it w a s the fault of t h a t other, while each refused to hear of dropping a n y one of their own anathemas. N a t u r a l l y , each p a r t y declared t h a t t h e y desired o n l y peace, and asked nothing better t h a n to receive the other as a b r o t h e r — w h e n he c a m e as a penitent. F i n a l l y , the Oriental monks, w h o , as we h a v e seen, h a d xxvix °ri|." prevented the agreement w i t h the " S y n o d i t e s , " were able to 1 block the road to this concordat, too. R e a d y as a l w a y s for a quarrel on a n y point, t h e y w o u l d neither hear nor accept a n y explanation. F o r t y - f i v e A b b o t s a n a t h e m a t i z e d the " Tritheite " agreement, and a t t a c k e d the honesty of all concerned in it. F o r J a c o b , indeed, t h e y professed the greatest reverence £xxa£0ris* personally, b u t t h e y feared lest his " holy simplicity " w a s being ^xvih, led a s t r a y ; and h a v i n g paid this h o m a g e t o the proprieties, t h e y pproceeded t o relieve themselves b y a most b i t t e r a t t a c k on their 5xxn, 0ri *' own proper Patriarch, P a u l the B l a c k , w h o h a d , as far as w e X X i " v know, n o t h i n g w h a t e v e r to do w i t h the matter. This unfortunate man w a s a l w a y s the o b j e c t of their dislike, perhaps M

i6o

The Separation

of the

Monophysites

because he h a d some ideas about discipline, order, and c h a r i t y ! J a c o b w a s the one man for w h o m t h e y professed reverence, in t h a t t h e y k n e w b y experience that t h e y were a l w a y s able to direct him where t h e y themselves desired to go. T h u s the agreement fell through, in spite of the efforts of the E m p e r o r a n d of the " Patrician A r e t a s " to save it, and a solemn a n a t h e m a was drawn up b y J a c o b (who was, as usual, a marionette in the hands of his monastic friends) on the v e r y men w i t h w h o m he had just effected a reconciliation. T r u l y the great Monophysite hero must have been a singularly t r y i n g man to work with ! Doc. ad Orig. T h e a n a t h e m a is an eminently characteristic document.

JCXXVI1I

m.s. ix,xxx.

m'"x'xi

B e g i n n i n g in the most proper formal style, it slides gradually into the first person, as the feelings of the writer rise in temperature and g e t out of his control, and it ends w i t h the most heated theological abuse, declaring the Tritheites to be out of all " orthodox " communion. Jacob feels t h a t nothing but the blackest wickedness of the other p a r t y could j u s t i f y such conduct as his own ! N a t u r a l l y , the Tritheites responded in kind. Conon and E u g e n i u s excommunicated the man w h o had consecrated them, declaring " holy J a c o b " to be a Sabellian w h o had gone m a d in his old age. T h e last statement w a s perhaps not altogether w i t h o u t excuse ! Then, after flinging some wild accusations against J o h n of E p h e s u s — w h o had offended both parties b y keeping out of the q u a r r e l — t h e y finally appeal to the E m p e r o r to hear b o t h parties, and to judge. T h u s it w a s that a strange episode resulted for the two parties, each of which claimed to be the true Monophysites, asked the " Synodite " Emperor to judge of their claim to that title. H e ordered the Patriarch, John Scholasticus, to hear both sides a n d to decide, using the works of Severus, Theodosius, and A n t h i m u s as guide and authority. I t w a s a quaint arrangement to our thinking, and would be paralleled in E n g l a n d o n l y b y a request f r o m t w o bitterly hostile sections of B a p t i s t s , t h a t the A r c h b i s h o p of Canterbury should decide w h i c h of the t w o had departed furthest from the original " A n a b a p t i s t " position, it being understood that Spurgeon's writings were to be referred t o as sole a u t h o r i t y in the m a t t e r !

The Divisions

of the Monophysites

161

The case w a s argued before this umpire for four days, Conon and Eugenius representing the Tritheites, and P a u l the B l a c k and John of Ephesus the more " orthodox " section. Decision went against the Tritheites, as might h a v e been expected from the general prejudice against them ; still, the judgment w a s undoubtedly according to the authorities t o whose works appeal was made. T h u s the Government felt entitled to see whether a J - x E little wholesome pressure would not bring these double-dyed Dissenters into union, at least with the more orthodox members of their own party. Conon and Eugenius were exiled to Palestine, under the escort of one Photius, stepson of the famous Belisarius. In such a case, the comfort of the prisoner depends J- of E - v largely on the character of the escort, and in some degree upon the monetary resources of the captive, and Photius had a character for cruelty to all w h o were under his charge. He w a s an unfrocked monk, and a rather notorious character, so that he is not likely to have been a merciful gaoler. It is said that he enjoyed nothing so much as torturing a B i s h o p ! This persecution, however, did not have much effect, and did not last long. John Scholasticus, h a v i n g once begun at the game, soon found the orthodox Monophysites a more attractive quarry. He then left the " Tritheites " alone, and, indeed, rather patronized them, as being a nuisance and difficulty to his immediate victims. It is easy to understand how annoying the Tritheite was to other Monophysites. T h e y took both their opponents' phraseology and the logical method that those opponents prided themselves on using, and produced them b y methods which there was no disputing to the most logical of conclusions—and the conclusion w a s intolerable ! T h e y m a y fairly be described as Monophysites " run to seed," and for t h a t reason t h e y deserve a longer description than their merits or importance suggest. W e see in t h e m the same clinging to patristic expressions,* which t h e y insisted on interpreting as if they were logical formulae ; the same insistence on inapplicable logic. B o t h of these traits are made more objectionable b y being more developed. In fact, the Monophysite found in the • The Tritheites produced a " Catena of Fathers " in which they sought to justify their position b y authority. The Civil Power called this work " The Book of Lacerations," saying that the passages were torn from their context, and forbade its circulation by the unanswerable authority of Exod. xxii, 31, " Y e shall not eat that which is torn of wild beasts " ! (J. of E. V, x.)

162

The Separation

of the

Monophysites

Tritheite a caricature of himself that was just too good a likeness to be tolerated ! Another most natural objection to these heretics lay in the fact that the Monophysite could only answer their logic by arguments that gave away his own case to the " Synodites " (Chalcedonians). " We must use the term ' nature ' in two senses, according to the context," said the Monophysite to the Tritheite. " So we have said all along," said the Synodite. " We must not be slavishly bound by the limitations of words," said the Monophysite to the Tritheite. " So I have sometimes ventured to observe," said the Chalcedonian. Clearly, under these circumstances, the temptation to burn the Tritheite heretic, given the power, was almost irresistible, and naturally the party of Chalcedon gained largely during the dispute. This was not only because of the quarrel, and the mutual excommunications involved, but because of the arguments used and doctrine advocated. " B e t t e r say ' two natures in Christ ' than three in the Trinity," said many, and for this reason many thousands went over to what we may now begin to call the " Orthodox Church."

CHAPTER THE

PERSECUTION

OF

XII.

JOHN

SCHOLASTICUS.

IT is a little difficult to realize the exact position of the Monophysites during the early years of the E m p e r o r Justin I I , t h o u g h a parallel, accurate in most features, is presented in the case of the " Old B e l i e v e r s " in Russia (at least before the Revolution), and one less i l l u m i n a t i n g in the case of the English Nonconformists under E l i z a b e t h . One hundred and t w e n t y years had passed since Chalcedon, yet t h a t Council had b y no means won its w a y to universal recognition, and the large minority w h o rejected it, were not counted as heretics b y their opponents and did not regard themselves as definitely separated, even from those w h o were so misguided as t o accept the Council. E v e n the strictest of Chalcedonians called them, not heretics, b u t " D i s t i n g u i s h e s " those w h o drew a distinction t h a t other folk (Diakrinomeni), could not recognize between the teachings of Leo and Cyril. N a t u r a l l y , t h e y called themselves the " O r t h o d o x . " H a d t h e y i.ofF..,i, u

^

XXXVli.

not k e p t the old paths, when others departed f r o m t h e m ? Further, t h e y h a d b y no means g i v e n u p t h e hope t h a t " those others " w o u l d come over or come b a c k t o them. For s e v e n t y years after the d a y s of Chalcedon t h e y h a d been, upon the whole, the dominant p a r t y in religion, a n d though the evil Council had been acclaimed since the house of Justin began its rule, y e t those fifty years had seen concession after concession made to t h e m b y the D y o p h y s i t e s , each of which, to their thinking, w a s a fresh admission which b y force of logic must draw those w h o m a d e it to the truth. In addition t o this, Monophysites were .powerful socially. T h e most influential Empress t h a t h a d appeared u p t o t h a t period h a d been a d e v o t e d member of their school of thought ; the E m p e r o r Justinian had c o m m i t t e d himself t o a positive exaggeration of their peculiar tenets before he died. 163

164

The

Separation

of the

Monophysitcs

As for J u s t i n I I and Sophia, the latter, at a n y rate, had been an open Monophysite in her youth, for as the niece of Theodora she could hardly be otherwise. Justin, if he was a conformist in public, was at least generally believed to receive Eucharistic B r e a d specially reserved for him b y his wife from t h a t consecrated for her b y her private chaplain. Sophia had conformed, it is true, before the death of Justinian, b u t she had only been brought to do so b y a warning from the Emperor t h a t he could not recognize her husband as heir apparent till she had been outwardly reconciled t o the Established Church. E v e n so, she M.S. X, vi. remained " as good a Monophysite as circumstances allowed."

j.oie.ii.x.

W i t h such examples and such influence it is not surprising t h a t m a n y of the court officials were " Nonconformist," including, among others, the Curator of the Palace and the Keeper of t h e Privy Purse. j. of e. ir, Thus Monophysites, though Justinian had a t t e m p t e d t o repress them at first, had been let alone for a t least t h i r t y years, their opponents being discouraged b y the failure of the a t t e m p t s made to repress their hierarchy. Of late, their prestige had suffered considerably from the Aplifhartist. and Tritheite schisms in their body, and the Dyophysite p a r t y had been a good deal encouraged b y the strange episode recounted above, the appeal of the two parties of Dissenters to the judgment of the Chalcedonian Patriarch. Thus it appeared to J o h n Scholasticus, the Patriarch in question, t h a t the two great divisions had drifted so near together, that a little pressure might bring about actual union. Thus he obtained an order from the Emperor—who was already j ofE.i.xi. hardly responsible for his actions—to deal with the separatists as he would, and then proceeded to use all the power of the S t a t e to enforce conformity. The result was e x a c t l y t h e opposite of what he had intended. The persecution increased the estrangement, and in a few years the bodies that had up till then been relatively fluid and had been drawing nearer and nearer to one another, had crystallized into t h a t s t a t e of separation which endures till to-day. One must not, however, exaggerate the responsibility of J o h n Scholasticus in this m a t t e r . He was guilty of the persecution, b u t it was, after all, only a local one, and did not extend to districts like Antioch, which were Monophysite strongholds. Here we are expressly

The Persecution

of the Monophysites

165

told that the Chalcedonian Patriarch, Gregory, was " a hardworking peaceable man," who was charitable to the "orthodox." M.S. X. *M. Further, there were, as we have seen, such strong sections in the Nonconformist party that were averse to any reconciliations with anybody, that it is very doubtful whether the more reasonable sections would have been able to carry them along with them ! John Scholasticus must have made his preparations secretly, J. OF E. I, V. for the edict of persecution came upon the Monophysites of the capital like a " bolt from the blue." Without warning, on the Saturday before Palm Sunday, 571, all their assemblies for worship were forbidden, and all their Bishops in the capital arrested. A t this time, or shortly before it, there had been six of the xxx d ° r i s " Monophysite Bishops in the capital. These were, Stephen of Cyprus, Longinus of Nubia, John of Ephesus, who has left us the history of the time, Paul the Black of Antioch, Elisha of Lydia, and Ptolemy, the aged and infirm syncellus of the late Patriarch, Theodosius. Most of these had, as noted above, been kept out of their dioceses by Government orders, and during the life-time of Theodosius had formed a sort of advisory council to that Pope of the Monophysite communion. On his death they had acted as a sort of representative committee of the whole body at the capital. It must have been only a few days before the issue of the decree that Longinus started in disguise for Nubia, and Ptolemy, apparently, died.* The other four were arrested and imprisoned, at first in the monastery of the staunchly Chalcedonian " Sleepless " monks, later, in cells in the patriarchal palace, which apparently kept what was a good imitation of a dungeon. The brunt of the persecution that now commenced fell on the clergy and even more heavily on the monks and nuns of the communion. This was an extension of the previous practice. There was, naturally, a large number of these ascetics in the capital, where the memory of Theodora's monastery was still green, and which had always been a sort of city of refuge for all X.

* Mich.-icl S y r n s hints t h a t he lapsed to " S y n o d i t o c o m m u n i o n . " vi.)

(M.S.

i66

The Separation

of the

Monophysites

of their kind. Thus, many convents had formed by natural J-01 e. i, x. process. All of these—and some of them had more than three XI.

X.I.

*

iii ixxix. hundred inmates—were now subjected to an absolute " dragonade." Policemen were sent to the churches to force all members of the communities concerned to receive the Eucharist at the hands of Chalcedonian priests ; on refusal, they were dragged to the altar and held while the sacred elements were thrust into their mouths. Those who still resisted, and would not yield, were dispersed in various nunneries, where the inmates had orders to bring them to conformity by discipline, and some were at least believed to have met with even worse treatment than at the hands of the gaolers and policemen. The treatment of monasteries was analogous. Monks who refused to communicate with J o h n Scholasticus were flogged into compliance or sent off to solitary confinement in reliable monasteries. [. ¡x, xi. Some confessors died in confinement, but with that exception there were no literal martyrdoms in the persecution, though death was often threatened. J o h n of Scholasticus was the active agent in the whole matter, going round the monasteries to receive their submission, proclaiming the " divine synod " and seeing to the fixing up of his own picture in the Churches as Patriarch, in the place of pictures of the " Orthodox F a t h e r s . " * Justin, who in his lunatic condition seems to have been entirely under the control of the Patriarch, went round with him, giving rich gifts to sucii monks as had submitted or professed readiness to do so. Outside the monasteries, Monophysites had few, if any, churches. They had perhaps refrained from building, in the hope of regaining the ancient buildings. Their " meetinghouses," however, were destroyed, and the large hospitals that private charity in their communion had erected, were now confiscated, lest they should be used for worship, and their staff of clergy dismissed. In fact, all that was possible to destroy the xi, xixiii. organized existence of the communion was done. The persecution, though most vigorous in the capital, where the Patriarch could see to the execution of his own orders, * Pictures, which were almost unknown in the fourth century, obviously regular o r n a m e n t s a t this date.

were

The Persecution

of John

Scholasticus

167

extended at least t o the provinces of his patriarchate, b u t a p p a r e n t l y not m u c h b e y o n d those limits. T h e Chalcedonian Patriarch of A n t i o c h , as w e h a v e seen, refused to act. There could be no question of a u t h o r i t y v e n t u r i n g to suppress Monophysitism in E g y p t , t h o u g h a request to t h a t effect w a s sent to t h e m and disregarded. I n the whole persecution, w h a t most galled t h e victims w a s t h e f a c t t h a t J o h n of Sirmin (John Scholasticus) insisted on reordaining all ecclesiastics of all ranks w h o s u b m i t t e d to him a n d a c k n o w l e d g e d the Council of Chalcedon. This proceeding, indefensible in itself, and shocking to the b e t t e r class of Orthodox, w a s a p p a r e n t l y an a f t e r t h o u g h t of the Patriarch. Many clergy of the opposing p a r t y , b o t h priests a n d deacons, h a d s u b m i t t e d and conformed w h e n the order w a s issued, and these he h a d received according to their rank, allowing t h e m to " officiate at the administration of the S a c r a m e n t on an e q u a l i t y w i t h his own presbyters, sitting in a row w i t h t h e m in the j. OT E. I. S a n c t u a r y . " Tliis had been done more than t h i r t y times before *"' the P a t r i a r c h s u d d e n l y declared t h a t the whole b o d y m u s t submit to re-ordination. T h e t r e a t m e n t w a s e x t e n d e d even to Bishops. One in particular, P a u l of Aphrodisias in Caria, being forced to sign a professedly v o l u n t a r y acceptance of Chalcedon, w h i c h he w a s n'*xiii. not e v e n allowed to read, and being then obliged, in spite of his own protests, to submit to a second consecration before he w a s allowed to return to his diocese. There, his clergy nicknamed him " t h e d o u b l e - d y e d , " and it w a s the general belief t h a t his grief hastened the death that soon came upon him. Of the four B i s h o p s mentioned above, Elisha w a s brought t o submit t o communion, and J o h n of Sirmin proposed t o reconsecrate h i m as B i s h o p of Sardis. A s he refused to submit to this, he w a s k e p t in confinement in a m o n a s t e r y till his health *vbroke down, on w h i c h he w a s released, and seemingly spent the rest of his life in retirement. S t e p h e n of C y p r u s also s u c c u m b e d to the v e r y drastic argu»>• *v«-. xu. have been lost to the combatants. Theodore of Philas was frightened into repudiating his own letters of approval, and the only person who apparently had not forgotten himself was the Patriarch himself, Theodore of Rhamnis. This man wrote from his monastery that he had no wish for high rank, and w a s more than willing to remain in his cell, and only begged that no man j of E xvshould make a schism on his account. Much now depended on the attitude of Jacob, the one man whom it was possible that infuriated monks might respect. A t first, he took a sensible line, and opposed Peter, writing against him more than once as " a new Gaianus." Soon, however, he showed the characteristic weakness of his character—his liability to be controlled b y others for their own ends. A shrewd American observer once said of a great English Bishop, " He is a tremendous engine, but he is run up and down the lines b y his chaplains," and the parable applied to Jacob. He could and did draw a long train behind him, but he always had a driver on * M.S. X , xii. " You could not find seventy good ploughmen in the time this man took to choose seventy Bishops," says the indignant Jacobite historian. I t must be remembered that in all these events we rely, not on hostile, but on friendly and Monophysite witnesses.

178

The Separation

of the

Monophysites

him, a managing clique of men who had their own ends to serve. This clique was opposed to Paul the Black, partly for personal reasons, partly because by all Church law he was the superior of Jacob, who was strictly nothing more than Bishop of Edessa. He had been given a roving commission in time of danger, and it had been pointed out to him more than once that the hierarchy had been established now, and his position had become a harmful anomaly. Of course, the old man could not bring himself to resign the post that he had made, and those who controlled liim were not desirous that he should do so. This clique, then, as anxious that Jacob should make the very most of what they declared to be—in face of evidence—an irregularity committed by their enemy, and for that very reason his best friends were anxious that he should abide by what he had written, and do no more. The old man, however, was neither to hold nor to bind. Down to Alexandria he would go, and there, as had been foreseen, he fell under the influence of the two cliques who could work together. In spite of all evidence, and in spite of his own acts, he endorsed the absolutely illegal deposition of Paul, and only just stopped short of a formal 'ril!.E' IV' a n a t h e m a on him. Naturally the intriguers spread this news broadcast, and a gratuitous schism followed. The question of the patriarchal election retired into the background before the more interesting one, " Was Paul rightly deposed ? " and the singular bitterness which can only be excited by a personal quarrel about nothing had full play. " They showed hatred that a heathen would have been ashamed of." Attempts were 1 5 ^ xiii ' made to stop the strife. Paul himself—who behaved very well ¡x.of E"IV' —wrote to Jacob, appealing for an interview. " If I am guilty, I will submit to whatever you decree. If you have erred, I will bear your punishment. Only let us end this horrible schism." Mondir, the Arab chief, appealed in vain. An embassy of high political dignities, sent by Tiberius to make peace with Persia, left all diplomatic business to look after itself, and addressed daily meetings on behalf of Paul. All was fruitless, for the bulk of Monophysites in the East recognized no authority but Jacob, and he, with the obstinacy of a man who feels himself in the wrong, would hear of no reconciliation. Longinus, who had not returned to Nubia, narrowly escaped with his life from some

A Causeless

179

Schism

infuriated monks. They decoyed him to a conference to " meet Father Jacob," and set upon him with murderous intent when m s x ^ he arrived. He withdrew to Nubia for safety's sake, but a decree of deposition followed him there. However, neither patriarchal excommunication nor Imperial writ had much authority among his black Soudanese. As ever, the monks were the worst fighters. E v e r y monastery was split in two, and it was only among the wild A r a b s — w h o insisted on revering both Paul and Jacob, that some semblance of common sense and Christian spirit seemed to remain. " Deeds were wrought b y both sides, in which only Satan could j. of E_ Iv> rejoice." 30,36,33. In 577 Peter, the doubtfully elected Patriarch of Alexandria, died. One Damianus was chosen in his place, but had hardly been installed when Father Jacob suddenly declared his intention of going down to E g y p t to meet him. A party of eight Bishops and Clergy accompanied him, but no man outside the Lifeof jarob .

. V,

,

, .

.

,

,, .

party, and probably none within it, knew the object 01 this sudden move. Some said it was to make peace, some that the idea was to make, with Damianus, a new Patriarch for Anlioch, a step 1lu: old man had certainly meditated more than once. The mystery was never solved, for none of the party ever reached their destination. T h e y had come to the monastery of Kasin, in the desert between Gaza and E g y p t , when an illness contracted on the road fell on them, and within eight days the whole party were dead. Strange stories went about, of course, but there was no evidence behind them. The most picturesque figure of the Church of his day had been removed by a death that was in keeping with his career. For two years the dispute went on, unchecked. Then Mondir the Arab, who had played the peacemaker's part throughout, took advantage of the opportunity given by his presence* at the capital on a State visit to persuade Tiberius to do two things. One of these was, to issue a formal decree of toleration for * Mondir could ask for anything in reason at this visit, for the object of it was to flatter him into forgetting an unfortunate episode in affairs of State. The Emperor, who suspected Mondir's loyalty, had written to that prince, asking him to call on the commander of the army in the Orient to discuss State business, and had also written to the general in question, bidding him execute the Arab on arrival. Then, he put the letters into the wrong envelopes, and so despatched them ! (J. of E . VI, iv.)

Land 11,38»

i8o

of the

Monophysites

Monophysites. This was formally issued, but was, it is said, suppressed by the Chalcedonian Patriarch of Antioch, Gregory. The other was, to summon the contending parties of the sect to Constantinople for a conference. There was no difficulty about peace, for the worst disputants (Jacob and Peter of Alexandria) were dead. Theodore of Rhamnis had resigned all claim to the patriarchate, Paul was only anxious for peace. In fact, it was difficult to say what all the fuss was about. The heads of the parties were summoned to the capital accordingly, but on the road an incident occurred which showed how far the combatants were from desiring peace. Extremists had suggested that a " real Patriarch of Antioch " ought to be consecrated in the place of Paul the Black, who, they were sure, must be a notorious evil-liver, for their own heat against him could be justified on no other ground. It is true that moderate men had declared that it was not right to condemn any man, still less a Bishop, without trial, but had been told— Doc in solemn justification of Jedwood justice is extant—that there were plenty of precedents for such a course ! These ranged back from Severus and the " Latrocinium " to Moses, Aaron, and the Maccabees. The pious author argues deliberately on the assumption that the sins of a good man are lawful precedents. Now, Damianus resolved to strengthen his own hands at the Conference by consecrating a Patriarch of his party for Antioch, and gathered the Syrian Bishops at Antioch for that end. A minority who objected was over-ruled, and a monk named J. OI E. iv, Severus was selected. An attempt was made to consecrate him it's. x. i7. by night in " the Church of Cassianus," which, seemingly, was the traditional place for the enthronement of an Antiochene Patriarch, and was naturally in Chalcedonian hands. The sacristan was bribed to leave it open by night for the purpose, and all prepared. The plot was betrayed, however. Gregory, the Chalcedonian Patriarch, took measures for the arrest of all parties, and Damianus and his three principal accomplices had to make a hurried and ignominious escape through a sewer. Unashamed, he went on to Constantinople, and, though he did not venture to attend the Conference personally, had private interviews with Mondir during its course, and agreed to all its conclusions. These conclusions amounted to a reconciliation. Of course, when men had come together, the fact that there was

M

sx

The Separation

XVII

A Causeless

Schism

181

nothing to quarrel about became evident, and a formal deed of union was drawn up. E v e n so, however, the monks would have none of any agreement, and simply refused to give up the pleasure of disputing. " T h e y had not been consulted," was their argument, and the absolutely untrustworthy Damianus, as soon as he saw that the reconciliation was unpopular, was, of course, ready to denounce it, and declare that he, at any rate. •IV' had no part or lot in that sin. The absolute despair and heartsickness of the better type of Monophysite, of whom Mondir and John of Ephesus were the chiefs, may be imagined. T h e y could not take refuge in the " Synodite " communion, but many of their followers did so, and were lost to them. A t last, however,' a new Patriarch was consecrated for Aueui. 11,69. . Antioch, in spite of the protests of the moderates. This was Peter of Callinicus, a man who had been the choice of Jacob when he contemplated the step, but who had then refused promotion. Now he was given the choice (the drastic method uu™i,29. of overcoming reluctant modesty had become fashionable) between consecration and excommunication, and, so coerced, became Bishop. Though indefensible on any theory of Church law, this new consecration made matters no worse, and really marked the beginning of the end. Theodore of Rhamnis was dead, gently complaining to the last of the conduct of Longinus and Paul the Black, who had " taken him up and dropped him." Thus, Damianus was sole claimant, on the Monophysite side, for the throne of Alexandria. Paul the Black had practically resigned Antioch, and retired to a hermitage. His cell was, in fact, close to Constantinople, but his identity was not known there, and even old friends like John of Ephesus thought him in Isauria. ^ ot E• lv< This Patriarch of evil days died as a hermit in 585, but the fact was unknown, save to a very few friends, and his adherents persisted in commemorating him as a living Bishop. Still, even so the schism did not end. It is true that there was not even a shadow of the original slender cause of dispute left to fight about, but in the East (and elsewhere) that does not necessarily bring a quarrel between Churches to an end. l Recollection of deeds done in the war kept it alive,7 and no 60.61. J- of E- 1Vattempts made b y individuals like Peter of Callinicus (who offered to resign his see) could bring about peace. John of

182

The Separation

of ihe

Monophysiles

Ephesus brings his history to a close with the despairing words, " Satan has attained his end, and now dances for joy, in company with all his herds and hosts of devils, rejoicing in the deeds of both parties to the quarrel." Gradually matters sank into a state not unusual in Oriental disputes. That is to say, neither side would be reconciled to the other, but each reached a sulky acquiescence in the existence of the other. Peter Callinicus ruled as Monophysite Patriarch in Antioch. Copt. Pair. j j e w a S j says the discourteous chronicler, " a man coarse473 ' minded, of sinful thought and little intellect," but he could rule. Damianus was' in Alexandria. In each case the Patriarch, though ruling the mass of the people, lived in some monastery outside the city walls, and was ignored by the law. The city churches were all in Chalcedonian hands. Presently a personal and theological quarrel came to fan the dying embers of the strife, and Damianus contrived to pick a quarrel with Peter. He found fault with an official letter of the latter, " disliking the word Trinity, as being Tritheistic." Surely, he must have been in desperate straits for a casus belli if he could find none more plausible than that, but it served, and the breach of communion that followed lasted for another MoVkairin - twenty years. The Egyptian writer declares that Damianus J "'' 3 tried to heal the breach by kindness, and failed, " because of those quarrelsome Antiochenes." The Syrian declares that Peter tried to arrange matters, but failed " owing entirely to the malice of the men of Alexandria." When at last a meeting was arranged at Paralus, Damianus behaved in such a way as to M.S. X.XXII. rouse everybody's suspicions. At first he would not come at all. Then, when he did come, all the world was in a bad temper, hot words led to blows, a deacon got a broken head, and the only result of the Council was that the Patriarchs filed such a tangle of cross-accusations of assault against one another that even the civil magistrate frankly told them that he was ashamed of them both ! msV «i However, the schism, coupled with his own irregular consewonysius| ' cration in the lifetime of his predecessor, preyed on the mind of c ASI: II. 7 V. Peter Callinicus, and he went to Egypt to try to make peace. He was willing to resign his see, though, as Paul the Black was now dead, that was hardly necessary. Still, the malicious fiend

A Causeless

Schism

183

that seemed to have taken charge of all Monophysite matters was capable of making every effort to better things only resulted in worsening the tangle. In this case Peter's visit to Alexandria started yet another dispute, and added another—it would be hard to say the how-manieth—to the bewildering whirl of existing quarrels in the distracted body of schismatics. The usual theological discussion was going on at Alexandria. In this case the point was as follows : A certain Stephen had declared in a lecture that no " orthodox " Monophysite could say (as Severus had habitually said) that " the distinction in the attributes that mark the natures of which Christ is, continued after the union." To say that was to say, in effect, " two natures." Two of Peter's following, John Barbur and Probus, undertook to argue with Stephen and show him his error ; they discussed the point accordingly, with the result that Stephen converted them. Extended disputing followed, and a full synod of the body had to meet a t " Gubba B a r r a y a ' ' on the Euphrates to settle the case (588 A.D.). The Council held that, as the disputed phrase was undoubtedly used by Severus, there could be no question as to the lawfulness of its use. On this Barbur and Probus, declaring (not without reason) that, if that was the Church doctrine, you might just as well say " in two natures " at once, joined the " Synodites." Probus became a Bishop, but is said to have reverted on his deathbed. Naturally Anastasius, the Chalcedonian Patriarch of Antioch (who had been recently restored to the throne from which Justin I I had deposed him in 570),* hoped to make use of the opportunity, and * H e h a d been deposed on " a v a r i e t y of c h a r g e s , " f r o m w h i c h he d i s d a i n e d t o d e f e n d h i m s e l f . R e t i r i n g t o J e r u s a l e m , he s e r v e d there a s " candle-lighter " in t h e C h u r c h of the H o l y S e p u l c h r e f o r m a n y y e a r s , m a k i n g a n a m e f o r himself b y his p i e t y a n d a s c e t i c i s m . H e n c e , when t h e see of A n t i o c h f e l l v a c a n t a g a i n , b y t h e d e a t h of his s u b s t i t u t e , G r e g o r y , he w a s a c t u a l l y re-elected to his old see, b y a s y n o d t h a t w a s not a w a r e of his i d e n t i t y 1 H e a p p e a r e d a m o n g h i s c l e r g y , and had to a s k t h e m " D o you n o t rccognize m c ? " when t h e y c a m e to do h o m a g e t o him on his e n t h r o n e m e n t . (Eutychius Annal. 183, M.S. X , xxiv.) T h e q u e s t i o n of reconsecration does n o t seem t o h a v e troubled a n y o n e , y e t r e c o n s e c r a t i o n t h e r e m u s t h a v e been, unless t h e " candle-lighter " a t the C h u r c h of t h e R e s u r r e c t i o n w a s k n o w n t o h a v e been in episcopal orders, which seems improbable. H e d i d n o t hold his r e c o v e r e d see long, b u t w a s m u r d e r e d b y a J e w i s h m o b in t h e d a y s of P h o c a s . L a w a n d order w e r e t h e n a t so low a n ebb t h a t the m o b had to be a m n e s t i e d b y G o v e r n m e n t .

i«4

The Separation

of the

Monophysites

w i n the M o n o p h y s i t e s b a c k . T h i s w a s not to be, b u t there w e r e m a n y i n d i v i d u a l conversions. M e a n t i m e , P e t e r and D a m i a n u s w e r e b o t h d e a d , b u t t h e i r p u r e l y p e r s o n a l quarrel a b o u t n o t h i n g a t all w a s c o n t i n u e d b y their successors, a n d w a s m i x e d u p w i t h t h e n e v e r - e n d i n g dispute a b o u t t h e deceased P a u l the B l a c k . C e r t a i n l y " vires acquirit eundo " m i g h t be w r i t t e n of e v e r y one of these d i s p u t e s , w h i c h were, like m o s t quarrels of the kind, b i t t e r in inverse p r o p o r t i o n t o the i m p o r t a n c e of their origin. N a t u r a l l y , Chalcedon profited b y t h e schism, t h e m o r e as t h e P a t r i a r c h of A l e x a n d r i a (St. Eulogius) w a s one w h o m e v e n M o n o p h y s i t e s h a d to revere. E v e n t h e i r historian h a s t o copt. patr. a c j m i t " a m a n Q f the name of E u l o g i u s " w a s q u i t e t r o u b l e s o m e to the F a i t h f u l , and the P a t r i a r c h himself w r i t e s joyfully to " a n old friend, n a m e d G r e g o r y , " w h o h a d once been R o m a n Apocrisarius at Constantinople, t o g i v e him the j o y f u l news of the increase in the n u m b e r of t h e t r u e " Orthodox."* T h e schism w a s n o w an accomplished f a c t , t h o u g h t h a t u n desirable end h a d t a k e n n e a r l y 150 y e a r s t o a c c o m p l i s h . The M o n o p h y s i t e s were an independent h i e r a r c h y , an o r g a n i z e d b o d y of c l e r g y a n d laity. I t is true t h a t t h e y were p r a c t i c a l l y confined t o E g y p t a n d t h e " O r i e n t , " t o t h e p a r t s of t h e E a s t e r n E m p i r e w h e r e Greek w a s not the v e r n a c u l a r , a n d w h e r e t h e instinct of the c o m m o n folk resented the e n f o r c e m e n t of G r e e k u n i f o r m i t y ; b u t in those districts t h e y w e r e d o m i n a n t . A t t e m p t s m i g h t be m a d e to reconcile t h e m , b u t those a t t e m p t s were n o w directed to t h e w i n n i n g b a c k of a b o d y t h a t h a d c o m e to be separate, not, as hitherto, to the p a c i f y i n g of a m a l c o n t e n t and n o n c o n f o r m i n g element within t h e Church. B e f o r e long, h o w e v e r , the M o n o p h y s i t e s did s u c c e e d in p u t t i n g an end t o their disastrous internal schism. J u l i a n , successor of P e t e r of Callinicus, died in 595, and a S y n o d w a s held t o elect a * His correspondent, better k n o w n t o us as St. G r e g o r y t h e G r e a t , P o p e of R o m e , g i v e s g o o d n e w s in r e t u r n of t h e w o n d e r f u l s u c c e s s of t h e M i s s i o n t h a t he h a d sent to t h e heathen English. H i s p e r s o n a l t o u c h is i n t e r e s t i n g . " D o n o t g i v e m e h i g h t i t l e s , m y b r o t h e r , or t a l k a b o u t m y ' o r d e r s . ' There an- n o ' o r d e r s ' b e t w e e n y o u a n d m e . In p o s i t i o n , y o u a r e m y b r o t h e r , in character y o u are m y superior. A w a y with words that do but wound character, and inflate v a n i t y . " I t is a t o u c h w o r t h y of t h e P o p e , w h o w a s t h e first t o use t h e t i t l e " S e r v u s :n• 1 V I I I u r n Dei." (Gregory, l e t t e r s , VIII, xxx.)

A Causeless

Schism

185

Patriarch at the metro political monastery of Gubba Barraya.* The Bishops were, as usual, unable to reach an agreement, and the debate was long and hot. A t last someone suggested—and M s- X -" IV the wild counsel was felt to have the authority of a v i s i o n — that the matter should be left absolutely to heaven. They would take the very first monk whom they should find outside the monastery gate at dawn next d a y ! Accordingly the Synod adjourned to that time and place, and in due course a monk appeared. It was one Athanasius of Samosata, who, being camel driver to his own monastery,! was soberly pacing along at the head of a string of his charges, conducting them to a neighbouring salt-market. Instantly, the Bishops seized upon that amazed and protesting man, haled him into Church, and had him consecrated Patriarch of Antioch before he quite knew what was being done with him ! When the service was done, and matters were explained to this " patriarche malgré lui " the monk took the matter very calmly. He was a called servant of God, and it was nothing to him whether he served as Patriarch or as camel driver. Nevertheless, orders were orders, and a bargain a bargain : he was cameldriver to his monastery, and must remain in that office for a year ; that done, he would be prepared to take up his new duties. This was agreed to, and Athanasius once more marched off with his camels to market. The year expired, and on the anniversary a deputation of the highest Bishops in the Church went to the monastery where they were received as distinguished guests by A b b o t and monks. W h a t were the feelings of the Father Abbot when his guests paid the lowest of obeisances to the humble brother who was grooming the camels in the courtyard, and he found that this man was his Patriarch ? Explanation followed, and the m o n k — w h e n he had quite * i.e., " T h e P i t (or ditch) in t h e d e s e r t . " T h e position of this m o n a s t e r y , l o n g the residence of t h e M o n o p h v s i t e P a t r i a r c h , is n o t certain. Assemani ( B . O . II, 74) s a y s it w a s on the E u p h r a t e s , b u t t h i s seems to be an error. W r i g h t (Syriac L i t e r a t u r e ) suggests t h a t it w a s near A n t i o c h . T h i s is probable, a s M o n o p h y s i t e " titulars " liked to settle near t h e old seats w h i c h t h e y claimed and hoped to regain. O n the other hand, " t h e pit in the desert " is hardly likely to h a v e been on the b a n k s of the E u p h r a t e s . f T h a t of Kinnesrin, a f a m o u s scat of S y r i a c l e a r n i n g in later d a y s ; it w a s on the E . b a n k of t h e E u p h r a t e s , a t most w e s t e r l y p o i n t of the course of t h a t river.

i86

The Separation

of the

Monophysites

finished grooming the c a m e l s — t o o k his seat upon the episcopal throne. Perhaps the least wonderful thing about the episode is t h a t A t h a n a s i u s " the c a m e l - d r i v e r " should h a v e m a d e a most successful B i s h o p . A m a n of absolutely imperturbable disposition, w h o had such a regard for his own pledged w o r d , and so keen a sense of the equal unimportance of all things transitory, h a d several rare qualifications for high office. I n his long patriarchate (597-630) he w a s able to accomplish three great pieces of work. First, and of the most transitory importance, he undertook the guidance of the b o d y through the time of stress w h i c h came n a t u r a l l y upon t h e m at the time of the great Romo-Persian war. I m p e r t u r b a b l e as t h e r a y a t is, in the face of political convulsions (as k n o w i n g f r o m the accumulated experience of aeons h o w little t h e y mean to him), y e t such a struggle as t h a t death-grapple of the Sassanid and R o m a n Empires must h a v e afforded to the chief of the S y r i a n Christians ample opportunity for the exercise of all the j u d g m e n t and discretion that he possessed. Second, A t h a n a s i u s w a s able t o arrange the relations (previously most undefined) between the Jacobites of the " farther xlcx'xv yr ' E a s t , " in w h a t h a d been the Empire of Persia u p to those days, xi, ¡v. and those in the R o m a n province of the Orient. He established the rule t h a t those remote provinces should be under the rule of a " M a p h r i a n , " w h o should be subordinate to the P a t r i a r c h of A n t i o c h only, and should have full right to consecrate Bishops, a n d even Metropolitans. It will be noted t h a t this arrangement w a s entered into b y one w h o held that he w a s of right Patriarch of Antioch, y e t u p to his time the rights of the holder of that sec b e y o n d the R o m a n frontier were uncertain in the extreme. T h i s arrangement w a s m a d e not only because of the distance of Mosul f r o m A n t i o c h but also because of the practical impossibility of a Patriarch in Antioch, which w a s R o m a n territ o r y , exercising jurisdiction over the " r a y a t s " of the Shah-inshah, w h o w o u l d never allow his subjects t o be religiously dependent on a subject of his rival. I t is interesting to note t h a t the arrangement (which exists in theory, t h o u g h not a l w a y s in practice, t o this day) has long outlived the reason for its institution. W i t h i n a generation after the institution, all those

A Causeless

Schism

187

who had been for centuries subject either to Rome or to Persia, found themselves the property of one ruler for the first time in history, and he the head of an Empire and of a religion of which the world h a d then never heard. T h e y became the rayats of the Khalif of Islam. Athanasius' third great feat was to bring about the reconciliation of the obstinate schism between the Antiochene and Jacobite Monophysites, a result which he achieved in the year 610. It was rendered possible b y the accession of another Patriarch in Alexandria, w h o was also of a reasonable and peaceable disposition. This was Anastasius. The t w o men had a meeting to x!c«vf.yr" discuss terms, and when they came to a quiet conversation it v e r y soon became obvious that there was nothing w h a t e v e r t o fight about, and a reconciliation took place. I t m a y seem a simple thing to heal such a schism, but, all the world over, no m a n is so tenacious of a sense of grievance as the m a n w h o has no tangible or comprehensible grievance at all, and this universal rule holds w i t h double strength in the East. In this case, even when it w a s clear that there was no cause for disputing, and when the reconciliation had been actually effected, both the peacemakers had good cause to be anxious lest the " whole business should fall into the w a t e r , " owing to the obstinate suspiciousness of certain monks. How could these worthies ever agree that t h e y had been quarrelling about nothing ? There must be treachery in their Patriarchs, to arrive at such a conclusion as that ! The Persian invaders, whose coming was practically contemporaneous w i t h the consecration of Athanasius, appeared as deliverers to the Monophysites, and to all other nationalities who h a d had reason to complain of the system of B y z a n t i n e uniformity. Jews, Samaritans and all w h o m the court policy had oppressed, found themselves received as loyal and welcome subjects b y Chosroes, w h o had come prepared to occupy and annex the land. He did not intend, as so m a n y of his predecessors had done, to m a k e a mere raid and to carry off only as much h u m a n and material spoil as he could secure. Thus, Chosroes favoured all w h o were not of the " Emperor's Church," and he had a special liking for Monophysites. His favourite wife, Shirin, was a Christian of that confession, and so also w a s

i88

The Separation

of the

Monophysites

that v e r y important personage at an Oriental Court, the royal physician.* Under the influence of these two people, the Shah-in-shah had displayed a good deal of patronage to this confession in his own dominions, though he had.not done all that they had desired of him. Still, he had supported them efficiently against the dominant Dyophysite Church in his own realm, and in the new provinces he had acquired; he gave them back the monasteries x!c«ii?.yr" a n d churches—many of which had been only taken from them recently, in the days of Maurice, by one Domitian of Melitene— and he expelled all Chalcedonian Bishops from the Orient, from Palestine and from Egypt. In Syria nobody suffered more than usual from the Persian invasion, for all were well used to the phenomenon, and knew what to do under the circumstances, as thoroughly as the inhabitants of a district where tornadoes are frequent. Elsewhere, however, where the coming of foreign conquerors was not an event of perhaps quinquennial occurrence, there was a different tale to tell. Jerusalem was not merely sacked, but was destroyed and it is said that only one building was left standing on the site, viz., that known in mediaeval days as the o>Pt. Patr. *'Ccenaculum." In E g y p t , too, " t h e monks being insolent without fear, did deeds of mockery," and the result was a massacre of appalling magnitude. Six hundred monasteries were destroyed round Alexandria itself, and almost as many more at Nikion, all the inmates being slaughtered in each case. How many monks pei'ished was never known, but the total must have been many thousands. When that wave of destruction had passed, however, the Monophysites profited there also, the more as the Chalcedonian party had then no Patriarch. J o h n the ufe of John Charitable had carried on the work of Eulogius, and the orthodox Boll. Acta o ' sanct. oratories had increased much in number. Also, he had done January. ' III. iii, 30. specially good work and won his namef in receiving and tending the thousands of refugees who crowded to the supposed safety 5 iii. of E g y p t , when Jerusalem was captured. When the Persian invasion swept on to the Delta, however, the B i s h o p left his • Medicine was practically a Christian monopoly in the E a s t for centuries a f t e r this date. This man was Gabriel of Sinjar. (See Hist, of Assyrian Church, Ch. xii.) | It is this Saint, not the Evangelist, who is the patron of the famous " Hospitallers," the knights of St. J o h n .

A Causeless

Schism

flock, and sailed first to Cyprus, and thence to Constantinople, to seek for succour for his people. He never reached the 5 *'v" capital, for he died at sea. A vacancy followed in the Patriarchate, and when a man was appointed (of the name of George) he proved to be of no force of character. Presently the campaigns of Heraclius began to have their effect, and the great wave of Persian invasion withdrew. So soon as the war was over, Church problems sprang to the front once more, as was seen when the victorious Emperor, on his march back from Persia to Roman territory, found himself treated as an excommunicated heretic by the Monophysite xrlii Syr ' Bishop of Edessa. He expelled that man from his see, but his mind began at once to work on the idea of a possible concordat, and with that end in view, he had an interview with Athanasius at Hierapolis. That " scoundrel of characteristic Syrian base- Micb S y r ness," as Theophanes calls him, offered what had now become XI the stereotyped Monophysite confession, which was, of course, refused. Still, discussions followed with Sergius of Constantinople, and Cyrus of Phasis, and somehow the formula of " one will " was hammered out between them. All Jacobites saw o>Pt. Pair, possibilities in this. Meantime, the Imperialist troops had4®7' quietly re-occupied Egypt, where Benjamin, a monk of the solitary monastery that had escaped devastation, was now Coptic Patriarch. Cyrus of Phasis was put in as Patriarch of the " Established Church," and was given considerable executive authority, so that lie could persecute with some freedom ; also he received authority to offer " Monothelite " terms. Benjamin was forced to retire to a desert monastery, his brother actually executed by the rival Bishop. The retiring Patriarch declared, on leaving, " This conflict will not last ten years," but during that period the Monophysites admit that a combination of vigorous discipline with the offer of the doctrinal concession, embodied in Monothelitism, had considerable effect in Egypt. Very many submitted, saying, " Chalcedon has after all come over to us, not we to them. TheoPh. W h y should we then invite persecution ? " I t is admitted that 6o21these included two Bishops among them, Cyrus of Nikion and Victor of Fayum. Perhaps the recent massacre of monks had taken the fighting spirit out of the Egyptian Church for the

igo

The Separation of the

Monophysites

while, but it is certain that Heraclius' policy had a very large measure of success. Of course, not all Chalcedonians were pleased, and Sophronius the monk, in particular, protested most vigorously, and was able to do so with more weight, when he became Patriarch of Jerusalem. However, it is impossible to say how things would have gone, for the rather wordly experiment at a compromise was never tried fairly. Omar's Khalifate, and the career of Arab conquest, had now begun. In 629, Heraclius had, with great pomp, restored the Holy Cross to Jerusalem. Eight years later, Sophronius had to surrender the Holy City to the Arabs ; their arms swept on to Egypt, and the Monophysite provinces were again, and permanently, lost to the Roman Empire. That confession had already practically separated themselves from the Church of Constantinople, having their own hierarchy, and their own stereotyped confession. Now, they settled down at once under new masters, as they had done under a hundred previously, and there was no more talk of proceeding with a concordat between the two bodies, when it could only bring political inconvenience as the reward of a unity that men had ceased to desire. The struggle of two centuries was over, and the races that were not Greek in blood, language, or religion were severed from the Greek Church and the Greek Empire. The schism in the Church that endures to this day was consummated.

CHAPTER MONOPHYSITE

XIV. CHRISTOLOGY.

THE object of the present chapter is to put forward the doctrine of the Monophysites on the m a t t e r of the Person of Christ. N a t u r a l l y , w h a t is embodied here is the teaching of the prominent teachers of the b o d y on that point, in the period w i t h w h i c h this w o r k deals, viz., 450-630 A . D . As, however, the doctrine of the three most prominent men of t h a t age, Severus, Philoxenus and Theodosius, is declared to be de fide in the b o d y as it exists to-day, and as there is little development or change in t h a t direction in a n y Oriental body, w h a t we p u t forward w o u l d p r o b a b l y be accepted b y the Monophysite Church t o - d a y as representing its teaching, or at least, it would not be practicable for it to repxidiate such authorities. In this m a t t e r , a n y writer w h o deals w i t h the subject at all m u s t confess his indebtedness to the w o r k of G u s t a v e Lebon.* I t is impossible t o s a y in each case where the indebtedness is t o be found. It must suffice to s a y t h a t his e x h a u s t i v e work, " Monophysisme severien " underlies this whole chapter. General ideas on the subject in the Church of E n g l a n d , where t h e y exist at all, are vague in the extreme. A student at a theological college is more desirous of clearness t h a n of correctness in his views on controversies w h i c h are, as he holds, long dead, and u t t e r l y uninteresting ; perhaps in his secret thought, unimportant. Monophysites are put d o w n in his mind as holding the doctrine of E u t y c h e s , and t h a t is supposed to. be, t h e declaration t h a t the h u m a n i t y of Christ w a s either absorbed b y the d i v i n i t y or else transformed into something unearthly b y contact w i t h the divine, as w a t e r is transformed into w h a t is not w a t e r b y an electric current. In either case the error * Lebon.

Monophysisme

sivcrien.

Louvain, Van Linthout.

1909.

192

The Separation

of the Monophy sites

consisted in the denial of the reality and permanence of the humanity. So far as poor E u t y c h e s himself is concerned, the account g i v e n is not substantially incorrect. T h a t confused old m a n does not seem, himself, to have got b e y o n d a denial of the doctrine t h a t " Christ w a s homo-ousios w i t h us according to the This w a s interpreted variously b y his followers. flesh." Philoxenus Some said (" I h a v e often heard t h e m , " says Philoxenus) t h a t 1 5 1 . 203. the W o r d " took nothing of the Virgin, but himself w a s formed in her, and made flesh as He willed." This is, in fact, as Philoxenus observes, to re-assert the doctrine of the early Gnostics, t h a t the Great .¿Eon, which was Christ, passed through his mother " like water through a pipe," thus receiving nothing from her. A n o t h e r writer declares that E u t y c h e s ' teaching w a s .. t h a t the eternal and spiritual W o r d " materialized into flesh as ZM w a t e r does into ice " and Julian followed him in this. Others g a v e different interpretations of w h a t was to them the essential and v i t a l fact, and is to us the touchstone of their e r r o r — t h e i r conviction t h a t one w h o w a s himself divine could not h a v e been really man. A s regards the bulk of the Monophysite p a r t y , and its standard theologians, this chapter will show, we hope, (1) t h a t t h e y did not hold these doctrines, and definitely repudiated those w h o did ; (2) that while t h e y repudiated the name of Chalcedon, and t h e particular technical term " in t w o natures," t h a t t h a t Council enforced, t h e y y e t held the doctrine t h a t Chalcedon t a u g h t , and the t r u t h t h a t the term w a s m e a n t to guard. E a c h side declares concerning this obscure point of doctrine t h a t it is, of course, a m y s t e r y past putting into words, b u t t h a t nevertheless only its own formula about it can possibly be right. Lebon. T h e Monophysite Christology is Alexandrine.* I t embodies, t h a t is, the tradition of that first-class theologian, Cyril. Thus it w a s formed in all its essentials before Chalcedon, and its opposition t o t h a t Council appeared to it as conservatism, resistance t o an improper innovation. Severus, in all theological * L e o n t i u s P . G . l x x x v i . 1924c. Severus. Contra Gram. P.G. l x x x v i . 908a. D o c . a d O r i g . i v (p. 73). S e v e r u s , L e t t e r s , P . O . X I I , ii. Letters VI, p . 1 9 6 ; x v i , p . 2 1 1 ; P . O . X I V , i. L e t t e r I x v , p . 28. In analogous fashion, Nestorius really repeated and popularized teaching w h i c h had been current a t A n t i o c h before his d a y , and w h i c h could claim the s u p p o r t of g r e a t l o c a l n a m e s .

Monophysite

Christology

193

matters the pupil of Cyril, had to systematize his doctrine as the confession of a body that was organizing itself in his days, and in the face of a new danger, that brought forward by the teaching of Julian of Halicarnassus. When we come to the question of terminology, which is of the most vital importance in this matter, it must be remembered that the three technical terms " Nature," " Hypostasis " and " Person " are synonymous to Cyril and to Severus. Nature (Physis) is not that which is common to all mankind. The word " essence " (onsia, or substantia, as used in the Quicitnque Vult) is kept for that. " Physis " is that common essence individualized in what we more commonly call Hypostasis, or Person. Nature is the " nature " of Peter or Paul. It is not that universal human nature, of which they are specimens. Thus, the two " natures of, or from which, (¿K) is Christ," are the unique Hypostasis of the Word, and the flesh, inspired with a reasonable soul, taken of the Virgin. This had never, of course, an independent existence, but it can be thought of separately, nevertheless. This w a y of thinking, or rather of using words, is common to all their important writers, and thus it will be seen that to those who used the words in these senses, the term " Two natures in Christ " not only looked Nestorian, but was so in fact. Whether it was necessary to use the words in that sense is quite another question. Similarly, to minds working thus, " one nature that became incarnate " w a s the most natural and proper w a y of speaking, and it must be remembered that their better theologians always insisted on the guarding clause or epithet, insisting that " one nature " alone was at least liable to mislead the unwary. For this reason, a favourite term for the person of Christ, with Severus, is " synthesis," compound. He is always careful to guard against any notion of confusion, and if the actual term is not Cyril's (as may be the case), yet the cognate term " one compound nature," is most certainly his, and as such is endorsed by the Fifth Council. (Canon IV.) All thought of " confusion of essence " (substance in the sense of the Quicunque) is as abhorrent to the Monophysite as to any " S y n o d i t e " who held firmly to the " unconfusedly " of the Council. All Monophysites admitted, and Severus first of all, the theoretical distinct-

194

The Separation

of the

Monophysiies

ness of the " natures and the permanence of the characteristic attributes of the two, after the union. I t w a s the v e r y existence of the characteristic human limitations, or even infirmities, of Christ to w h i c h t h e y point, as proving, against their o w n sectaries, t h a t His b o d y w a s in v e r y t r u t h homo-ousios, " of one essence " w i t h ours. T h e term " essence " (ouaia) w a s most carefully guarded in use. A n a t t e m p t w a s made b y at least one school of Monophysites to s a y " one ousia in Christ " on the express ground t h a t , as nature a n d essence were one and the same (as, indeed, t h e y were t o m a n y Chalcedonian writers), if " one nature " w a s obligatory, " one ousia " was at least allowable. MS. 1 7 1 5 4 . Severus, however,. would have none of this, and he based his p - 2 7. 36b. 41,42. objection on the point of the difference b e t w e e n the t w o terms. Y o u cannot s a y " one ousia in Christ " w a s his assertion. T h u s the dispute is mainly one of terms : t o Monophysites, tho» terms " N a t u r e " and " Person " were s y n o n y m o u s , and to D y o p h y s i t e s , t h e terms " Nature " and " Essence." It w a s the a m b i g u i t y of the term " h y p o s t a s i s " t h a t occasioned the schism w i t h the Nestorians, the ambiguity of the term " P h y s i s " t h a t occasioned t h a t w i t h the Monophysites. I t is not asserted that there w a s no difference in ideas or t h a t the stress on certain ideas w a s the s a m e in both parties, for t h a t w a s not the case. N a t u r a l l y and properly, minds of one cast laid stress on the u n i t y and m a j e s t y of Christ, and minds of another t y p e were d r a w n b y the t h o u g h t of his twofoldness, and of the possibility of h u m a n s y m p a t h y t h a t w a s implied therein. I t w a s the difference, not in terminology but in the interpretation put upon identical terms, t h a t made a synthesis of ideas impossible. I t m a y be well to trace, among their early writers, proof of the f a c t s t h a t w e h a v e asserted here. T h e position of E u t y c h e s himself is the first point of importance. W e h a v e pointed out a b o v e - t h a t the whole b o d y rejected this m a n , either as a heretic or as a Jonah, and the unquestionable f a c t that this man, whose theology w a s past defence, should h a v e been admitted as orthodox b y the Council MS. 12156, t h a t t h e y sought t o revere, w a s a sad trial to all Monophysites. I2b T i m o t h y A e l u r u s declares t h a t the Cyrilline " one nature incarnate " w a s proclaimed a t the Second Council of Ephesus (the Latrocinium), and t h a t E u t y c h e s w a s o n l y accepted as

Monophysite

Christology

*95

orthodox on his acceptance of it. T h e libellus of E u t y c h e s presented there (MS. 12156, 54) bears out this assertion. In this s t a t e m e n t he definitely repudiates the doctrine, imputed to h i m b y his accuser Eusebius of Dorylaeum, t h a t the flesh of our L o r d descended from heaven, b u t he p o i n t e d l y refrains from declaring t h a t it w a s in a n y w a y like ours. A f u r t h e r statement of his c o m m a n d s more s y m p a t h y . I t is t o the effect t h a t Eusebius w a s a v e r y disagreeable man, whose militant o r t h o d o x y smelt out heresy everywhere, and had a w a y of turning to personal hatred of a n y supposed heretic. T h i s seems to h a v e been t h e f a c t ; b u t for E u t y c h e s himself it m a y be doubted w h e t h e r anyone ever knew w h a t he really m e a n t or believed ! Severus declares t h a t the heretic took the h o l y Council in. This, however, as he feels, h a r d l y betters the case, for part of j^ 5 ;^ 1 '"the charge against Chalcedon w a s just its acceptance of the P- 264. " notorious herctic," Theodoret. Y e t , the test w a s the same in both cases, viz., acceptance of the Council's test of o r t h o d o x y . E u t y c h e s , then, m a y be left in peace as a man w h o m n o b o d y cares t o defend. W e hold no brief for the character of Dioscurus, B i s h o p of A l e x a n d r i a , and no Monophysite even is obliged t o regard him as a saint or doctor. He m a y h a v e been in all points the ruffian and man of violence t h a t his opponents saw in him, and it is undeniable t h a t he could condone the heresy of E u t y c h e s at the L a t r o c i n i u m , when it was necessary to stretch a theological point in order to secure the conquest of an opponent. Aelurus m a y have been even worse, m a y h a v e been the " weasel-like " canvasser for the P a t r i a r c h a t e , or the deliberate murderer of Proterius t h a t " synodites " held h i m to h a v e been. One thing, however, is certain, t h a t neither man w a s a E u t y c h i a n in doctrine. W h e t h e r this f a c t m a k e s their personal case worse or better, m a y be doubted. H a d v i t a l doctrine really been a t stake, highh a n d e d action might h a v e been excusable. If, h o w e v e r , the doctrine w a s so near t h a t of the Chalcedonians t h a t a little v e r b a l explanation w a s all t h a t w a s needed, then, the nearer their t e a c h i n g the more gratuitous the schism. If separation is not a d u t y , it is a sin, a n d the smaller the difference the greater the sin. W h a t m a d e m u t u a l explanation impossible w a s the a t m o -

ig6

The Separation

of the

Monophysites

sphere of suspicion generated b y several generations of episcopal feud and rivalry between Constantinople and A l e x a n d r i a . B u t as regards the Christology, Dioscurus writes to the m o n k s of E n a t o n , near Alexandria, an express a n a t h e m a on a n y w h o d e n y the reality of the h u m a n i t y of Christ, w h i c h w a s and is, he declares, real a n d unconfused, and homo-ousios w i t h us, as w a s His d i v i n i t y w i t h t h a t of the Father. T i m o t h y A e l u r u s repeats b o t h the assertion and the anathema, both in his letters against Isaiah of Hermopolis, and in his personal " Declaratio de fide," w r i t t e n f r o m his place of exile at Gangra, and sent to the E m p e r o r Leo. ( Z a c h . M i t . I I I . i.

THE

M S . 1 2 x 5 6 , 10, n d , 3 0 - c . M S . 1 2 1 5 6 , 3 5 c , 3 6 a , 02a.)

CHRISTOLOGY

OF

Z a c h . Mit. I V , vi.

SEVERUS.

T h e declared principle of Severus in liis w r i t i n g is to use the language of the F a t h e r s only, and never to infringe the frontiers delimited. A m o n g all the Fathers, his teacher is t h a t p a r t i c u l a r l y Cyril, " T h e D o c t o r , " and of all Cyril, p a r t i c u l a r l y his phrase " one nature incarnate." Of course, he has to admit, w h e n pressed b y a w k w a r d quotations, that this principle of his is not of universal application, for Fathers can be q u o t e d w h o speak of a " confusion " or " mixture " in Christ.* Still, it is liis rule, as it is t h a t of most Monophysite writers. I t is this f a c t , coupled w i t h the f u r t h e r fact t h a t almost all of their controversial writings deal w i t h this one point, t h a t m a k e s their w r i t i n g s a most intolerably dull subject of s t u d y . T h e y h a r p p e r p e t u a l l y on one string, and usually show an invincible i g n o r a n c e — o r perhaps a real unwillingness t o u n d e r s t a n d — w h a t their opponent really means. S e v e r u s is in a measure an exception. His letters, as we h a v e seen a b o v e , are quite h u m a n documents, and sometimes he can rise a b o v e controversy, and produce a treatise dealing, in W e s t c o t t i a n style, w i t h the subject of the " Christus Congo. XII, is. s u m m a t o r " and the delivery of all creation b y the incarnation, P. 223C. ' from the corruption brought on it b y the fall of man.

MS. 17154»

He!6° ' 20a, 20.

* G r e g o r y of N a z i a n z e n is a c a s o in p o i n t .

Monophysite

Christology

197

In controversy, w i t h which we have to deal now, he quotes passages of the Fathers b y the dozen, to prove two absolutely true theses : (1) t h a t his own Christological doctrine was Patristic ; (2) that the formula " in t w o natures " was not " of faith " before Chalcedon. Seldom indeed does he ask w h a t the form that he so objects to means to those w h o enforce it. Obsessed b y the idea that to him " nature " means " personality," though he admits that it can bear the meaning of " essence," he never once asks if it happens to mean that to his D y o p h y s i t e opponents. Thus he and his will not realize w h a t " Synodites " mean b y the term " nature." T o him it means " person," and he repeatedly asserts the fact that the words are synonyms. H e admits that there is a forced meaning of the word, in which it comes to be the same as " ousia," and in t h a t sense he will even s a y " two P.0. XII, i. natures." He cannot, or will not, see that it is only in t h a t E p llu sense that the Council desires to enforce it. He can even see that he and his fellows do not always use the term in the same sense, t h a t sometimes it means the general, and sometimes an individual nature of a man. He declares that his p a r t y use it only in the latter sense ; he cannot see that the " Synodites " h a d the right to use it in that former sense that he owned t h a t it could bear. All this m a y be v e r y stupid and wrong-headed in him and in the p a r t y that he led. B u t was it otherwise in the p a r t y m a j o r i t y at Chalcedon to insist on enforcing a term that was so liable to be misunderstood, when another (" two ousiai ") was ready to their hands ? This was not liable to the misinterpretation, and w a s equally effective as a protection for the truth t h a t it was so necessary to guard. It m a y be said that a greater Council did the like at Nicaea, enforcing the general use of w h a t was undoubtedly a party term, " homo-ousios." T h e cases, however, are not parallel. Arians objected to the term because t h e y did not like the doctrine it guarded. It was otherwise with Monophysites. It is true t h a t some of them (Eutyches himself among the number) did object to the doctrine, not to the t e r m ; true, too, that the doctrine was of the last importance to Christianity. B u t these objectors objected also to the term " t w o ousiai." W h e t h e r better guidance in the Council would have saved the

198

The Separation

of the

Monophysites

schism, may be doubted. It might only have prevented it coming on that point. Certainly we think that the misguidance was there ; probably a spirit of greater tolerance in the Council would have implied the absence of the spirit that was the real cause of the war, in which this decisive battle was fought on this doctrinal ground. The spirit was the tendency of the Constantinople Greek to domineer over the whole body of the Church and to look on it as his private inheritance. We can now proceed to give what will, we fear, be intolerably and unreadably dull to most readers, a series of extracts from Monophysite writers to prove the points we have asserted above. ms.^ 14582, Severus, in his official confession of faith delivered at the time of his enthronement, declares his belief in a Christ who, " being eternally homo-ousios with the Father, came down and became homo-ousios with His Mother. He became man when He was God. He became what He was not, while abiding without change what He was. One and the same being is both God and Man." In other passages, both he and other Monophysites of position 17154 isd r n a ^ e repeated use of the figure used in the Quicunque Vult, " as 12157! io9c, the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one "c/--I Christ. 17154.27c,a He asserts further that Christ was " homo-ousios both with God and with man, neither ousia being changed, and both remaining unconfused." Yet to speak of " one nature incarnate " is necessary, because the expression is Cyril's. c a n e v e n - o n occasion, see the possibility of speaking P G ' U X X V 921a. theoretically of Christ as " i n two natures." " Theoretically, as Cyril says, we may speak of two natures after the union, seeing that the Godhead and the Manhood remain two distinct things. Christ is one, and must not be divided up into two. But theoretically and mentally, man can see that the flesh which was not changed is one thing, different from the Word that was of the Father. And again, that the Word dwelt in the flesh, and is not of the same nature as it (i.e., the flesh) is." We think that we may say that, were that quotation found in other writers, it would be voted unhesitatingly Nestorian rather than Monophysite in its origin. " There is no conversion of Godhead into flesh, or of flesh into •

+

Monophysitc

Christology

199

Godhead, but the characteristics of either nature remain together, as St. Cyril s a y s . " Severus is never w e a r y of asserting in his correspondence the absolute permanence of both the " ousiai " in Christ. In a man, the reasonable nature of the soul and the sensible nature of the b o d y are brought together in one, a union w h i c h is unconfused and indissoluble. A p p l y this t o the case of Emmanuel. G o d h e a d and m a n h o o d are not o n l y distinct from one another, b u t are separate, remote. Y e t w e confess a union f r o m (tic) those two. There is no abolition of the difference of the t w o natures whereof is the one Christ, y e t their assembly in one person does a w a y w i t h the division.

3d-

" I t is c o n t r a r y to the nature of man to w a l k upon the water. 17154, 6b, 8. I t is c o n t r a r y to the nature of God to use corporal feet. It w a s the W o r d Incarnate w h o could do this, w h o has inseparably w h a t is befitting to both God and m a n . " * Severus w o u l d h a v e indignantly repudiated all obligation to " t h a t h e r e t i c , " L e o the Great of Rome, b u t his mind is unq u e s t i o n a b l y w o r k i n g on the same lines as t h a t Father. It is a m a z i n g to see how far this Monophysite is willing to go in the direction of asserting a " d u a l i t y . " T o deny t h e t w o ' ousiai ' is to declare a confusion. T h e 17154,40c. t w o natures of w h i c h is Christ remain u n m i x e d and u n c h a n g e d . " (Severus, Con. Grammaticum.) 12x57,98 " Those w h o confess t w o unseparated natures, a f t e r the union, and m a k e the difference to be one of t h o u g h t and theory, t h a t manifests a difference of essence only, these teach in word and intent e x a c t l y the same as C y r i l . " (And, we m a y add, e x a c t l y the same as the F a t h e r s of the detested Council of Chalcedon !) 99a. " T h e y do, indeed, leave a door open t o heretical misinterpretation " (it w o u l d be hard, indeed, t o find t h e formula t h a t does not), " b u t if the d u a l i t y be carefully g u a r d e d , a n d a d m i t t e d to be theoretical o n l y , and provided t h a t t h e y a d m i t also our term of ' one nature incarnate,' then w e a c c e p t the term ' in t w o 3' natures ' in this sense." " There is then practically no difference between ' One nature t h a t became incarnate ' and ' t w o natures inseparably united.' " * T h e n o t i o n of a " c i r c u m s c r i p t i o n " of I n c a r n a t e D i v i n i t y , n o w f a m i l i a r t o \is, h a d n o t b e e n t h e n e v o l v e d .

200

The Separation

of the

Monophysitcs

(Severus, as quoted by Eustathius, " De duabus Naturis.") ' Severus himself admits " in two natures." He says, " We confess that He is of (from) two natures, and that He is in two natures. The natures of which Christ is constituted remain undiminished and unchanged." Eustathius even charges him with pushing his duality to the point of Nestorianism, and naturally makes all possible capital of the " theoretical distinction of natures " admitted by Severus. He goes on to quote other passages to the same effect. LXXXVI, Severus expressly admits that the " natures " continue after the union. He says expressly, " the natures continue," 908a. and that one m a y think of " two natures " if the distinction be theoretical only. 912a, b. When we say that the Word is of two natures, and in two natures, we s a y also that He is in two natures, though we keep clear of any idea of confusion. 936c. " Severus repudiates his own teachers, Dioscurus and Aelurus, when he declares the B o d y of Christ to be homo-ousios with u s , " (This, as we h a v e seen, is not quite just of Eustathius) " and does the same when he acknowledges that there are two natures in Christ, and that these abide after the union, distinct and unconfused." 1841c. (Severus, as quoted by Eustathius.) We are never tired of saying that, if anyone will show us that tlu: Council of Chalcedon, or the Tome of Leo, admitted the hypostatic union or the expression " Christ is one from (fV) two, then we will admit that they regard those that have been i n e f f a b l y united as two mentally only, and so do not divide them." It is a melancholy reflection that these concessions were made, when it was too late, after the death of Severus, and that nothing resulted from the fact. These extracts m a y suffice to prove that there was no essential difference of doctrine between Severus and the Council that he repudiated. The danger of an absolute denial of the true humanity of Christ, which was made clear to him, when he had to deal with the mystic Manicheeism of J u l i a n , sufficed to correct a n y tendency in that direction. Not, indeed, that the tendency existed, so f a r as we can tell, in the man himself, even in his y o u t h f u l " Acephalist " days. His early letters, written LXXXVI

9"- '

Monophysitc

Chrislology

20I

before a n y dispute h a d arisen between him and Julian, are enough to prove t h a t point. I t existed, however, in his p a r t y , and he had t o guard against it. W i t h Philoxenus, his friend and colleague, the point is as clear, t h o u g h the expression is different. Philoxenus is distinctly more " anti-Chalcedonian " in expression t h a n Severus, and we think, more of a persecutor in grain. Further, he did not come into direct c o n t a c t w i t h the Julianists, and so realized the danger from t h e m less v i v i d l y . This is easily explicable. Philoxenus w a s arrested in 518, a n a interned in A n a t o l i a till he died. This confinement to one spot at least k e p t him from contact with t h a t v a r i e t y of heretic.* " W e certainly declare that he, w h o w a s homo-ousios w i t h the ^|',2r44b,: F a t h e r in Godhead, is homo-ousios w i t h us in manhood, as being incarnate. F o r this reason, following the Fathers, we speak of him as " one nature i n c a r n a t e . " There is emphatically a difference of essence. T o d e n y t h a t is t o d e n y t h e t r u t h of the Incarnation. T o s a y " t w o natures " is t o s a y " t w o persons." This is sure, for " nature " (kiana) is " person " {parsopa)." " W e receive the Henoticon, as being a rebutment of Chalcedon, " a and a condemnation of E u t y c h e s . I t is an admirable document. B u t we must a n a t h e m a t i z e not o n l y Nestorius, b u t also his teachers, Theodore and Diodore. Y o u say, Chalcedon itself c o n d e m n e d Nestorius. It did, and it is one of its crimes t h a t it should have done so, being itself Nestorian in doctrine." " Dear B r o t h e r , y o u r squeamishness a b o u t anathematizing a 233. few dead men i s — p a r d o n m e — r i d i c u l o u s . L o o k at the case of Origen, and is not holy Josiah a good enough precedent for y o u ? A n a t h e m a t i z e e v e r y heretic, w h e t h e r on earth, or buried, and living only in his books. " N o m a n speaking b y the spirit calleth Jesus accursed," s a y s St. Paul. W o u l d he not therefore h a v e f u l l y a p p r o v e d of our a n a t h e m a t i z i n g these heretics, w h o practically curse our L o r d ? " * P h i l o x e n u s was a biblical scholar as well as a controversial theologian, and was the author of a Syriac translation of the N e w T e s t a m e n t t h a t has some t e x t u a l interest. T h e w o r k had a t one t i m e a considerable v o g u e a m o n g Jacobites, b u t u l t i m a t e l y w a s superseded b y the P s h i t t a . It was a t one t i m e used t o some e x t e n t in t h e J a c o b i t e monasteries of the T u r A b d i n district, near Mardin, T u r k e y in Asia. M S . copies of it exist here, or did exist before 1914.

202 (.Philoxenus

The

Separation

" De Trinitate

of the

Monophysites

et Incamatione.")

46/22 (54/20).

" W e do not say, as the foolish Eutyches and his disciples imagined, t h a t He was incarnate in the Virgin, but not of her, or t h a t He, if incarnate of her, was not con-substantial with us. W e believe and accept, as we have learnt from the Scriptures, and from those who understood them aright, t h a t God the Word, the eternal and natural Son, equal to the F a t h e r as touching His essence, emptied himself, and as the Apostle said, took the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of men ; that is to say, was made like unto us in all things, save sin, making our likeness His own. He was seen as man, being God. He was revealed, being invisible. He became perfect man, with soul and body and mind, to renew the whole man. B e i n g God in nature, essence and eternity, He became true man as it is said (saving sin, which is neither human nor natural) and was of one nature with us, according to the flesh." (We give this quotation, more for its interest on another point of doctrine than because of any special importance in the point at issue.) " W e have another example of the Word becoming flesh, t h a t is performed daily among and b y ourselves, in the Holy Mysteries. T h e common elements of bread and wine are placed, as usual, upon the holy altar, but the Spirit, descending upon them as He descended upon the Virgin, makes both the body and blood of Him that was incarnate. In the one case, the Spirit incarnated the Word, and made the body visible. In the other, He makes the bread and the wine the B o d y and B l o o d of the Word, that these may work in us all t h a t His B o d y worked. F o r every one who draws near, with faith, t o His B o d y received from Him power according to his need. Concerning this sacrament, if we are asked how the B r e a d becomes the B o d y , and the Wine the B l o o d , we cannot say. W e confess t h a t t h e y do so become, but we say not how t h e y become. I f anyone wishes to examine this scientifically, let him hear from us t h a t it is incomprehensible, for the method of things like this is known to God the Creator alone. I t is our part to let our faith increase t h a t faith given us in grace, that We m a y hold in its entirety the doctrine of the mysteries."

Monophysite

Christology

203

" T h a t which is born of anything, must of necessity have i'®'"" affinity with that from which it is born. God, for instance, w i t h God, and any given m a n with his natural parents. So, then, He w h o w a s born of the Virgin has affinity with the F a t h e r as God, and w i t h the Mother who bore Him according to the flesh, as man, and He is called consubstantial with either stock ; that is to say, w i t h the divine essence, and with the manhood, though neither of these two natures that came into union ought to be thought of, or numbered, separately." T h e doctrines which we have described as those of Severus £xxxvi were held b y others, too, and we m a y take a m a n of no im- ^importance, w h o held a high official position, as being for t h a t reason the better representative of his faction. This was T i m o t h y I I I , Patriarch of Alexandria 510—533- w h o delivered a formal homily that might (if only the preacher would have believed it) have passed as a popular explanation of the doctrinal sections of the Tome of Leo ! x'x'Lxvr, 2 Writing on the text, " Jesus, being wearied with his journey," 7' he points out how the D i v i n i t y of the Redeemer is shown b y the miracles that He wrought, the humanity b y the things that are proper to the weakness, but not to the sinfulness, of the flesh, such as thirst, hunger, need of sleep, and the like. A l l this was so, he declared, " in that He became man in nature and in truth, and not in appearance o n l y . " Men of more authority in the body, like Theodosius and Anthimus, show this as well as the mere follower of the general Iradition. Thus, in the " Enthronistic " which Theodosius sent to Severus at the time of his consecration—a document which was a formal confession of faith, though it was only sent, as a matter of fact, to a Patriarch of Antioch w h o was residing as an exile in the next house to the writer, the Patriarch lays it down t h a t He w h o was truly God in nature, became truly man while remaining God, omitting none of those things in which our h u m a n i t y t r u l y consists. He was hypostatically united, Doc.adorig. without change, to flesh that is of one nature (homo-ousios) with p ' 8 " us, and He suffered in our likeness. " For if we who were vanquished were of one nature, and that which the W o r d took was another, or if that flesh which He took and united hypostatically to Himself were made impassible and

204

The Separation

of the

Monophysites

i m m o r t a l b y v i r t u e of the union, then our faith is vain. It is no great t h i n g t h a t S a t a n should be conquered b y the Lord, if it were not t h a t the Christ wrought these things in a b o d y t h a t is of one nature w i t h ours." L i k e Severus, he uses the figure of the Quicunque Vult " as the Doc.adorig. reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so," etc., and like h i m he iv, p. 43, p- 73-

106%e*"'

109/7.

expressly declares the t w o words " physis " and " hypostasis " t o be identical in meaning. P a u l the B l a c k , in whose m a n y misfortunes the accusation of heresy on this point w a s not i n c l u d e d — a n d we m a y be sure t h a t such an accusation would have been levelled h a d there been even a n y plausibility in i t — s p e a k s in the same strain, and the f a c t t h a t the declaration is made in his " Enthronistic " to Theodosius makes it evidence of the doctrine of both Bishops. " T h e B o d y of Christ, taken from Mary, w a s co-essential w i t h us, and passible like ours. N o t that He mixed or mingled w i t h Himself the flesh w i t h which He was united, b u t t h a t H e w r o u g h t the inexpressible synthesis without a n y change, m i x t u r e , or confusion, so as to be one Christ, Son and Lord, of (fV) the t w o natures of Godhead and manhood, t h a t exist perfectly, according to the word of the F a t h e r s . " " T h e Council of Chalcedon despised the w o r d " of (U) " t w o natures, t h a t expression which declares to us t h a t E m m a n u e l w a s one, inseparably and unconfusedly, one and the same ; co-essential with the F a t h e r and with the H o l y Spirit in Godhead ; and one and the same co-essential w i t h us in m a n h o o d ; one and the same t h a t wrought both the miracles and the sufferings, and spoke both as God and m a n . " W e h a v e now endeavoured to trace the gradual separation of the Monophysite Nonconformists from the Church, a n d their organization as a separate b o d y . W e have seen w h a t their doctrine on the Christological point came to be, in the face of a d a n g e r presented b y the exaggeration of their own tenets. We believe, as we h a v e stated more than once, t h a t the cause of the separation w a s not doctrinal, but the resentment w h i c h a nationalist feeling, inchoate but real, felt at the forcing of a Greek u n i f o r m i t y on its religious and civil life. This hostility w a s f o u g h t out on the religious field, because t h a t w a s the controlling interest of the d a y . T h u s separation w a s produced, and

Monophysite

Christology

205

it endures to this d a y . T h e phenomenon has since been repeated again and again, in all the lands concerned. A s for the doctrine, the t r u t h at stake, the doctrine of the real h u m a n i t y of the Master, w a s of the last a n d most v i t a l importance for our religion. This truth, however, w a s not really endangered, for it w a s held b y b o t h parties. T h e battle w a s fought round terminology, b u t on its decision turned the nationalist question referred t o above. If the Greek could enforce obedience to his special doctrinal formula, he had w o n the battle on the u n i f o r m i t y question ; hence the bitterness of the struggle a b o u t an abstract point of t h e o l o g y w h i c h both parties believed. W h e n another G o v e r n m e n t , of another faith, allowed the nationalist feeling sufficient scope under its rule, members of t h a t n a t i o n a l i t y were glad enough to render it submission, if not l o y a l t y , and a c c e p t the c o n t e m p t u o u s toleration of Mussulman lords. This rule w a s not unbearable, so long as there w a s virtue and strength in the ruling race. It w a s as those passed a w a y t h a t the rule of Islam vanished, and w e do not yet k n o w w h a t can t a k e its place. T h e question now arises, must the division t h a t crystallized some 1,300 years ago endure for ever ? T h e old notion of a Greek Christian Empire t h a t must enforce u n i f o r m i t y is dead. T h e rule of a religion, to w h o m division a m o n g its Christian subjects w a s a necessity, is dead also. These obstacles to a concordat have been removed, but on the other hand, the separatists of the seventh c e n t u r y have now a doctrinal confession t h a t has been stereotyped for more than a thousand years, and w h i c h , h o w e v e r little it m a y be understood, is a sacred heritage to all w h o profess it. T o ask acceptance of Chalcedon and its f o r m u l a is impossible. A g r e e m e n t is not t o be found t h a t w a y . Submission of all parties concerned t o the jurisdiction of one magnificent a n d imposing Western throne is possible, and it is a course t h a t will certainly be urged on these Orientals b y devoted W e s t e r n believers in it. Y e t t h a t is not a course t h a t can c o m m e n d itself t o an Anglican. Is there a n y confession of our Christian faith, orthodox a n d explicit on the point at issue, a d m i t t e d l y of authority, and y e t acceptable to all, acceptance of w h i c h m i g h t be t a k e n b y all

206

The Separation

of the

Monophysites

parties as the endorsement of the truth which Chalcedon strove t o enforce, and the truth for which Monophysitism contended ? W e believe t h a t there is such a confession, d r a w n u p w i t h a view t o these v e r y controversies, which has already a u t h o r i t y b o t h in E a s t a n d W e s t (though the authority is based on custom and not on a n y Council) as a clear and adequate Christological confession. T h e document is t h a t known as the " Quicunque vult." T h i s s t a t e m e n t could be accepted b y both Monophysite and Nestorian of t o - d a y ; it is not tangled b y i m m i x t u r e in E a s t e r n c o n t r o v e r s y in the past ; it is of recognized a u t h o r i t y in the West. Could not acceptance of this " Confession of Our Christian F a i t h " (or, at least, of the Christological sections of it) b y all parties be taken, as w a s suggested b y the L a m b e t h Conference of 1910, as proof of o r t h o d o x y on the point a t issue, a n d as a sufficient and decent epitaph for a secular controversy ? O Lord Jesus Christ, w h o saidst to T h y apostles, " Peace I leave with you, M y peace I give unto y o u , " regard not our sins, b u t the faith of T h y Church, and grant her t h a t peace and u n i t y w h i c h is according t o T h y will.

LIST OF AUTHORITIES. T h e S y r i a c C h r o n i c l e , k n o w n a s t h a t of Z a c h a r i a h of M i t y l e n e . Ed. Hamilton & Brooks. P u b . Methuen & Co. 1899. T h e E c c l e s i a s t i c a l H i s t o r y of E v a g r i u s . E d . B i d e z and Parmentier. P u b . Methuen & Co. 1902. P e t e r t h e I b e r i a n ; L i f e of " Z a c h a r i a h . " Ed. Raabe. Leipzig. 1895. V i e d e S é v è r e , p a r Z a c h a r i e le S c h o l a s t i q u e . E d . Ai. A . K u g e n e r . Patrologia Orientalis. Graffïn & N a u . T"ni IT. J'"a sc. i. V i e de Severe. Par Jean de Bait Aphthunia. E d . M. A. Kugener. Pub. Patrologia Orientalis. Tom. II. F a s c . iii. C o n f l i c t of S e v e r u s . B y A t h a n a s i u s of A n t i o c h . Ed. Goodspeed & Crum. Patrologia Orientalis. Tom. IV. 590-718. H y m n s of S e v e r u s of A n t i o c h . C o l l . J a m e s of E d e s s a . E d . and tr. Brooks. Patrolog. Orient. Tom. VI. F a s c . i. T o m . V I I . F a s c . ii. H o m i l i e s of S e v e r u s of A n t i o c h . C o l l . J a m e s of E d e s s a . Ed. and tr. D u v a l . Patrol. Orient. Tom. IV. 1-94. C h r o n i q u e d e M i c h e l le S y r i e n . Patriarche Jacobite d'Antioche. E d . a n d t r . J. B . C h a b o t . l'aria. Ernest Leroux.

Z.M. Evag. Vita

Mich.

Petri.

Syr.

List of

Authorities

20 7

Severus-lbn-el-Mokaffa. History oi t h e P a t r i a r c h s of the Coptic Church. E d . and tr. E v e t t s . Patrol. Orient. T o m . I. B o o k of the Councils. E d . and tr. Chc-bli. Patrol. O n e n t . T o m . H I . Severus, P a t r i a r c h of A n t i o c h . Select L e t t e r s . V l t h B o o k . Coll. A t h a n a s i u s of Nisibis. E d . and t r . Brooks. Pub. Williams & Norgate. Severus Letters. Gregorius Bar-Hebraeus. Chronicum E c c l e s i a s t i c u m . E d . and t r . A b b e l o o s & L a m y . Peeters. L o u v a i n . 1877. B.-H. Ecclesiastical H i s t o r v of John, B p . of E p h e s u s . P a r t I I I . E d . Cureton. Tr." P a y n e - S m i t h . J. of E . Ecclesiastical H i s t o r y of John, B p . of E p h e s u s . P a r t I I . (Fragments.) Land. II. 289-329. V i t a Jacobi Baradasi. John of E p h e s u s . L a n d II. 364-83. L a n d . A n e c d o t a . V i t a Jacobi Baradsei. A n o n y m o u s . L a n d I I . 249-54. Syria. A n o n y m o u s Chronicle. L a n d II. 385—90. A c t a Sanctorum. John of E p h e s u s . L a n d II. 1—289. John of Nikion. E t h i o p i c Chronicle. Zotenberg. Journal A s i a t i q u e . Series V I I . V o l s , x, xi, xii. J. of N i k i o a . Theophanes. Chronographia. E d . de B o o r . Pub. Teubner. Leipzig. 1883. Theoph. Eustathius. Vita Eutychii. Bollandus. A c t a Sanctorum X , 546. Vita Eutych. L e o n t i u s of B y z a n t i u m . Migne. P a t r o l . Grasca L X X X V I . N i c e p h o r u s Constantinus. D e rebus post Mauricium. Chronographia. P a t r o l . Graeca C. T h e o d o r u s L e c t o r . Ecclesiastical H i s t o r y . P a t r o l . Graeca. L X X X V I . T. L. N i c e p h o r u s Callistus. Ecclesiastical H i s t o r v . P a t r o l . Grasca. CXLVII. J o h n Malalas. Chronicle. P a t r o l . Graeca. XCVIII. E u t y c h i i Patriarchae Annales. P a t r o l . Graeca. C X I . Eutych. Annal. Liberatus. Breviarium. Patrologia Latina. L X V I I I . Liber. V i c t o r Tunnunensis. Chronicle. P a t r o l . L a t i n . L X V I I I . V.T. Fulgenti us. Rusticus. F a c u n d u s Herrninianus. P a t r o l . L a t i n . L X V I I. F e l i x I I I . Epistles. Patrol. Latin. L V I I I . Hornisdas. Epistles. Patrol. L a t i n . L X I I I . C y r i l of Scythopolis. V i t a S. Saba». Cotelerius. Cotelerius. Ecclesiae Graecae M o n u m e n t a . I I . 220. Assemani. Bibliotheca Orientalis. V o l . I I . Concilia. L a b b e and Mansi. V o l . V I I I . C o r p u s Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium E d C h a b o t & Guidi. Leipzig. Series II. x x v i i . Philoxenus. D e T r i n i t a t e e t Incarnatione. Ed. Vaschalde. Series I I . x x x v i i . D o c u m e n t a ad origines M o n o p h y s i t a r u m illustrandas. E d . Chabot. 1907. Series I I I . x x v . Vitae Virorum apud M o n o p h y s i t a s celeberrimorum. E d . Brooks. 1907. P

208

The Separation

of the

MANUSCRIPT

L i f e of P h i l o x e n u s of M a b u g . BRITISH

12 I 56. 1215712158. 14532. *4533145*1914582. 14726. I7I54i7200.

MUSEUM.

Monof>hysilcs

AUTHORITIES.

Mardin MS. ADDITIONAL

Uncatalogued. SYRIAC

MANUSCRIPTS.

W o r k s of T i m o t h y A e l u r u s . Severus Contra Grammaticum. Severus contra Julianum. J u l i a n of H a l i c a r n a s s u s . Fragments. L e t t e r of P h i l o x e n u s t o S i m e o n of T e l e d a . J o h n of T e l i a . C o n f e s s i o n of F a i t h . Severus. C o n f e s s i o n of F a i t h . P h i l o x e n u s t o M a r o n of A n a z a r b u s . L e t t e r s of S e v e r u s a n d S e r g i u s . L e t t e r s of S e v e r u s a n d J u l i a n .

WORKS CONSULTED. Bury. Later Roman Empire. Neander. Church History. Geiseler. Church History. Gibbon. Decline and Fall. Hefele. C o u n c i l s of t h e C h u r c h . Milman. Latin Christianity. Butler. A n c i e n t C o p t i c C h u r c h e s of E g y p t . ( - vols. L o u d o n , i8S.(.) A r a b C o n q u e s t of E g y p t . (Oxford. r rt o O

rt

3

E S co

•S c j z

o

X

—

o *>

i 5 à *

to

O

c

s

3

VI

r*» — •v r-co

0\

c> —

fOO c - o c* nr>

Date

Emperor

,,

TR •—

-r

Ï R

=

1 H

«• -

IS

rs

„ v"> n w~)«o»0 in kO »o »O >o rto- r>» »r>w->u->r » r^oo cov>¿vS>ov>a vQn »Oo voOO OvO OüO^O'o'O'O

j

III

I

Boniface V Hcnorius

Sabinlanus Boniface III Boniface IV

Gregory I

Pclagius II

Benedict

John

Peìaglus I

Vigilius

Agapetus Süverius

Rome

j

Sergius

Cyriacus

John the Faster

Eutychius

John Scholasticus

Eutychius

Anthimus Mennas

Constantinople

j

J

J o h n (M)

Orthodox line lapses

Anastasius (o) (restored) Athanasius (M) (Catnelarius)

J u l i a n (M)

Peter Callinicus (M)

Gregory (o)

Paul the Black (M)

A n a s t a s i u s (o)

(M) Sergius (o) Domnus III

A ntioch

Andronicus (M) George (o) Benjamin (M) Cyrus (o)

John Almoner (o;

Theodorus Scrlbo (o)

Anastasius

Eulogius (o)

Theodore (M) Peter III (M) Damianus (M)

John I (o) Dorotheus (Julianist M)

Paul (o) Zoilus (o) Apollinaris (o)

Theodosius (M) (Galanus)

Alexandria

Zacharias

Isaac

Amos

John IV

Macarlus

Mac