Content:

"Archpriest Professor Georges Vasilyevich Florovsky (1893-1979), preeminent theologian of Orthodoxy and historian of Christian thought, ecumenical leader and interpreter of Russian literature … died in Princeton, New Jersey in his 86th year" on August 11, 1979.

Born in Odessa in 1893, Fr. Florovsky was the beneficiary of that vibrant Russian educational experience which flourished toward the end of the 19th century and produced many gifted scholars. His father was rector of the Theological Academy and dean of the Cathedral of the Transfiguration. His mother, Klaudia Popruzhenko, was the daughter of a professor of Hebrew and Greek. Fr. Florovsky’s first scholarly work, "On Reflex Salivary Secretion," written under one of Pavlov’s students, was published in English in 1917 in the last issue of The Bulletin of the Imperial Academy of Sciences.

In 1920, with his parents and his brother Antonii, Fr. Florovsky left Russia and settled first in Sophia, Bulgaria. He left behind his brother, Vasilii, a surgeon, who died in the 1924 famine, and his sister Klaudia V. Florovsky, who became a professor of history at the University of Odessa. In 1921 the President of Czechoslovakia, Thomas Masaryk, invited Fr. Florovsky and his brother Antonii to Prague. Fr. Florovsky taught the philosophy of law. Antonii later became a professor of history at the University of Prague.

In 1922 Georges Florovsky married Xenia Ivanovna Simonova and they resettled in Paris where he became cofounder of St. Sergius Theological Institute and taught there as professor of patristics (1926-1948). In 1932 he was ordained a priest and placed himself canonically under the patriarch of Constantinople.

In 1948 he came to the United States and was professor of theology at St. Vladimir’s Theological Seminary from 1948 to 1955, and dean from 1950. From 1954 to 1965 he was professor of Eastern Church History at Harvard Divinity School and, concurrently (1962-1965) an associate of the Slavic Department and (1955-1959) an associate professor of theology at Holy Cross Theological School.

"Although Fr. Florovsky’s teaching in the Slavic Department [at Harvard University] was only sporadic, he became a major intellectual influence in the formation of a generation of American specialists in Russian cultural history. His lasting importance in this area derives not from his formal teaching but from the time and thought he gave to informal "circles" that periodically arose around him in Cambridge among those who had read The Ways of Russian Theology [then only in Russian], for decades a kind of "underground book" among serious graduate students of Russian intellectual history, and had sought him out upon discovering that he was at the Divinity School … During a portion of his incumbency at Harvard … patristics and Orthodox thought and institutions from antiquity into 20th century Slavdom flourished. In the Church History Department meetings he spoke up with clarity. In the Faculty meetings he is remembered as having energetically marked book catalogues on his lap for the greater glory of the Andover Harvard Library! In 1964 Fr. Florovsky was elected a director of the Ecumenical Institute founded by Paul VI near Jerusalem." Active in both the National Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches, Fr. Florovsky was Vice President-at-Large of the National Council of Churches from 1954 to 1957.

"After leaving Harvard, Professor Emeritus Florovsky taught from 1965 to 1972 in Slavic Studies at Princeton University, having begun lecturing there already in 1964; and he was visiting lecturer in patristics at Princeton Theological Seminary as early as 1962 and then again intermittently after retirement from the University. His last teaching was in the fall semester of 1978/79 at Princeton Theological Seminary."

"Fr. Florovsky in the course of his career was awarded honorary doctorates by St. Andrew’s University … Boston University, Notre Dame, Princeton University, the University of Thessalonica, St. Vladimir’s Theological Seminary, and Yale. He was a member or honorary member of the Academy of Athens, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the British Academy, and the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius."

Fr. Florovsky personified the cultivated, well-educated Russian of the turn of the century. His penetrating mind grasped both the detail and depth in the unfolding drama of the history of Christianity in both eastern and western forms. He was theologian, church historian, patristic scholar, philosopher, Slavist, and a writer in comparative literature. "Fr. Florovsky sustained his pleasure on reading English novels, the source in part of his extraordinary grasp of the English language, which, polyglot that he was, he came to prefer above any other for theological discourse and general exposition. Thus when he came to serve in Harvard’s Slavic Department, there was some disappointment that he did not lecture in Russian, especially in his seminars on Dostoievsky, Soloviev, Tolstoi, and others. It was as if they belonged to a kind of classical age of the Russian tongue and civilization that, having been swept away as in a deluge, he treated as a Latin professor would Terrence or Cicero, not presuming to give lectures in the tonalities of an age that had vanished forever."

Fr. Florovsky’s influence on contemporary church historians and Slavists was vast. The best contemporary multi-volume history of Christian thought pays a special tribute to Fr. Florovsky. Jaroslav Pelikan of Yale University, in the bibliographic section to his first volume in The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, writes under the reference to Fr. Florovsky’s two works in Russian on the Eastern Fathers: "These two works are basic to our interpretation of trinitarian and christological dogmas" (p. 359 fromThe Emergence of the Catholic Tradition: 100-600). George Huntston Williams, Hollis Professor Emeritus of Harvard Divinity School, wrote: "Faithful priestly son of the Russian Orthodox Church …, Fr. Georges Florovsky — with a career-long involvement in the ecumenical dialogue — is today the most articulate, trenchant and winsome exponent of Orthodox theology and piety in the scholarly world. He is innovative and creative in the sense wholly of being ever prepared to restate the saving truth of Scripture and Tradition m the idiom of our contemporary yearning for the transcendent."

These four volumes on the Eastern Fathers of the fourth century and the Byzantine fathers from the fifth to eighth centuries were originally published in 1931 and 1933 in Russian. They contained my lectures given at the Institute of Orthodox Theology in Paris from 1928 to 1931 and were originally published in Russian more or less in the form in which they were originally delivered. They therefore lacked exact references and appropriate footnotes. Another reason for the omission of reference material in the 1931 and 1933 publications is that the books were originally published at my own expense and strict economy was therefore necessary. In fact, their publication was only the result of the generous cooperation and help of personal friends. These English publications must be dedicated to their memory. The initiative of the original publication was taken by Mrs. Elizabeth Skobtsov, who became an Orthodox nun and was later known under her monastic name of Mother Maria. It was she who typed the original manuscripts and she who was able to persuade Mr. Iliia Fondaminsky, at that time one of the editors of the renowned Russian review, Sovremennye Zapiski [Annales Contemporaries], to assume financial responsibility. Both these friends perished tragically in German concentration camps. They had been inspired by the conviction that books in Russian on the Fathers of the Church were badly needed, not only by theological students, but also by a much wider circle of those concerned with doctrinal and spiritual vistas and issues of Eastern Orthodox Tradition. Their expectation was fully justified: the volumes in Russian rapidly sold out and were warmly appreciated in the general press.

When I began teaching at the Paris Institute, as Professor of Patrology, I had to face a preliminary methodological problem. The question of the scope and manner of Patristic studies had been vigorously debated by scholars for a long time. (There is an excellent book by Fr. J. de Ghellinck, S.J., Patristique et Moyen Age, Volume II, 1947, pp. 1-180). The prevailing tendency was to treat Patrology as a history of Ancient Christian Literature, and the best modern manuals of Patrology in the West were written precisely in this manner: Bardenhewer, Cay re, Tixeront, Quasten, adherents to this school of thought, made only sporadic reference to certain points of doctrine but their approach was no doubt legitimate and useful. However, another cognate discipline came into existence during the last century, Dogmengeschichte, or the school of the history of doctrine. Here scholars were concerned not so much with individual writers or thinkers but rather with what can be defined as the "internal dialectics" of the Christian "mind" and with types and trends of Christian thought.

In my opinion, these two approaches to the same material must be combined and correlated. I have tried to do precisely this with the revision of some of the material for the English publications. I have written some new material on the external history and especially on the ecumenical councils. But in essence Patrology must be more than a kind of literary history. It must be treated rather as a history of Christian doctrine, although the Fathers were first of all testes veritatis, witnesses of truth, of the faith. "Theology" is wider and more comprehensive than "doctrine." It is a kind of Christian Philosophy. Indeed, there is an obvious analogy between the study of Patristics and the study of the history of Philosophy. Historians of Philosophy are as primarily concerned with individual thinkers as they are interested ultimately in the dialectics of ideas. The "essence" of philosophy is exhibited in particular systems. Unity of the historical process is assured because of the identity of themes and problems to which both philosophers and theologians are committed. I would not claim originality for my method, for it has been used occasionally by others. But I would underline the theological character of Patrology.

These books were written many years ago. At certain points they needed revision or extension. To some extent, this has been done. Recent decades have seen the rapid progress of Patristic studies in many directions. We now have better editions of primary sources than we had forty or even thirty years ago. We now have some new texts of prime importance: for example, the Chapters of Evagrius or the new Sermons of St. John Chrysostom. Many excellent monograph studies have been published in recent years. But in spite of this progress I do not think that these books, even without the revisions and additions, have been made obsolete. Based on an independent study of primary sources, these works may still be useful to both students and scholars.

From the beginning the character of the Christian liturgy was more dogmatic than lyrical. This is connected with its mystical realism. On the human side, the liturgy is, first of all, a confession — a testimony of faith, not only an outpouring of feelings. It is for this reason that the dogmatic and theological disputes left such a noticeable trace on the history of liturgical poetry. As early as the dogmatic disputes of the late second century, references to ancient psalms to the glory of Christ, the Lord God, receive the power of a theological argument as evidence from liturgical tradition. St. Basil the Great, in his disputes with the Arians over the Divinity of the Spirit, also relies on the testimony of liturgical tradition. Pope Celestine subsequently advances a general principle that a law of faith is defined as a law of prayer — ut legem credendi statuit lex supplicandi (Capitula Celestini, 8, alias 11). The redaction of these chapters which are known to us evidently belongs to Prosper of Aquitaine. Thus the liturgical rite obtains recognition as a dogmatic monument or dogmatic source.

At an earlier time creative improvization occupied a very significant place in the liturgy (see I Corinthians 14:26). This was the case even in the second and third centuries, as the testimony of Justin Martyr and Tertullian bear witness. These were primarily hymns and psalms — songs of praise and thanksgiving. It is sufficient to name the great prayer in the Epistle of Clement of Rome. Other of these ancient hymns remained in liturgical use forever; for example, the ancient hymn, Gladsome Light — Φώς ιλαρόν which dates back to the very earliest of times and is still sung at every Vesper Service in the Orthodox Church. Mention must also be made of the doxologies and hymns of thanks in the Alexandrian copy of the Bible, and in the seventh book of the Apostolic Constitutions.

In the fourth century we observe a liturgical turning point. It was partly connected with the dogmatic struggle, and partly with the development and spread of monasticism. Very instructive is the famous Fifty-Ninth Canon of the Council of Laodicea (fourth century) which forbids "reading ordinary psalms and books not determined by the rule of the Church” — διωτικούς ψαλμούς; ουδέ ακανόνιστα βιβλία. “No psalms composed by private individuals nor any uncanonical books may be read in the Church, but only the Canonical Books of the Old and New Testaments." Later Byzantine canonists suggested that what is at issue here are the so-called "psalms of Solomon," and others similar to those. It is more probable to think that the Laodicean rule had a wider and more direct meaning. By analogy with the Sixtieth Canon which defines the contents of the Biblical canon — precisely in connection with the liturgical reading of the Biblical books — it is possible to see in the Fifty-Ninth Canon an attempt to consolidate a definite "canon" in the liturgy as well, excluding all "unholy" hymns from the liturgical ordinary. This prohibition refers to all "false" hymns into which dogmatic ambiguity and even plain delusion had easily entered. Phrygia had always been in its own way a nest of heresy, and psalms were a very convenient and effective means for disseminating and instilling false views. We know very well that this means was constantly being utilized by ancient sectarians and false teachers. It is sufficient to recall the hymns or "psalms" of the Gnostics and Montanists, and, from a later era, the hymns of Arius in his Thalia and Apollinarius’ New Psalter. Under the conditions of dogmatic struggle, the attempt to bring liturgical singing within precise and strict bounds was entirely understandable. The simplest solution of all was to return to Biblical psalmody, to the "proclaiming" of the canonical psalms attributed to David. From the beginning they came into Christian use from the observances of the services from the synagogue. In the fourth century Biblical motifs became even more noticeable in the liturgy. This was instituted deliberately — it was not merely an involuntary recollection.

The liturgical procedure established by St. Basil the Great in his cloisters had special influence. His disputes with the Neo-Caesareans was characteristic. They accused him of innovations: he had introduced antiphonal singing of songs and singing with refrains. St. Basil did not deny that this was a new procedure — besides, it had already been accepted everywhere (see Eterius’ Pilgrimage concerning the service in Jerusalem). However, the Neo-Caesareans had their innovations too — some "supplications" ("litanies") of a penitential nature. But this is not what Basil is stressing: "and we do nothing but pray publicly about our sins, only with the difference that we petition our God not with human phrases, like you, but with words of the Spirit" (Letter, 207). St. Basil emphasizes that with the Neo-Caesareans there is much which proves to be insufficient "because of the antiquity of the statute;" that is, obsolescence (see On the Holy Spirit, chapter 29).

The custom of psalmody with refrains becomes common at this time in urban or synodical churches — both in Alexandria under St. Athanasius and in Antioch under Diodore and St. John Chrysostom. "In our gatherings David is first, middle, and last," says St. John Chrysostom. This was the rebirth of Old Testament custom (see the refrain in the very text of the 135th Psalm). From the refrains there gradually developed new psalms closely tied to the Biblical text which they reveal or elucidate. Psalmody (the "sequence of psalms") receives a special development in the monasteries. Here a daily cycle of prayers and liturgy was compiled and consolidated. At its foundation lies the "versification" of the Psalter. Monks in Egyptian monasteries avoided long prayers. Prayer has to be frequent, but concise — "lest the Enemy have time to distract our heart," as the abbot Isaac explained to John Cassian.

Solemn singing was considered inappropriate. "Monks did not go into the wilderness in order to sing melodic songs," said an Alexandrian abbot to his disciples. "What kind of emotion is possible for monks if in the Church or their cells they raise their voices like oxen!" This striving to pray "with the words of the Spirit, this abstention from new hymns and psalms composed "according to the custom of the Hellenes" is very characteristic. Sometimes verses from patristic works were joined to the Psalms and Biblical songs. For example, the abbot Dorotheus speaks of St. Gregory of Nazianzus’ "song of dicta." Monastic liturgies, whether cenobitic or anchoritic, were more penitential as opposed to the more ancient "cathedral" liturgy which was solemn and laudatory.

New liturgical poetry begins to develop comparatively late and very gradually on the new foundation. New hymns are composed. The story of the venerable Auxentius (of the time of the Council of Chalcedon) is interesting. The people would throng before his cave. The ascetic would proclaim individual verses and the crowd would respond with short refrains — from the Psalms or the ancient hymns. One of Auxentius1 friends was Anthimius, the first creator of anthems." The liturgical rite developed independently in various places. Especially important centers were the Great Church in Constantinople — the Hagia Sophia, the Sinai cloisters, and the laura of St. Sabas the Illuminator. At first it was the influence of the monasteries of Syria and Palestine which was decisive in the history of liturgical poetry. From here come all the significant psalmists of the sixth and seventh centuries, and even the eighth century, right up to St. John of Damascus. Here the traditions of Greek and Syrian poetry intersect. These new hymns reflect the era with its Christological disturbances and disputes. The idea of consolidating the already existing rite arises very early. Thus is composed the "regulations" — the Typikon. The Greek title expresses not only the motif of a norm or order but first of all a model. The Typikon is not so much a book of rules as a book of examples or models.

We are forced to reconstruct the history of hymnody from comparatively late records. It is not always possible to detach the most ancient layers from later strata with total certainty. The inscriptions of names even in the oldest manuscripts are not very reliable. Generally speaking, the oldest hymns were supplanted by the works of later psalmists, particularly in the period when the statutes were definitely consolidated or recorded. In addition, the liturgy becomes more and more anonymous and supra-personal. Early Byzantine liturgical poetry reaches its highest peak in the dogmatic hymnody of St. John of Damascus.

Within the ranks of early Byzantine poets and hymnologists we must mention first St. Romanus ‘Melodus’ — ό μελωδός (c. 490-560). Strangely enough, none of the historians mention him. We know of his life only from the Menaion under October 1. Hie was of Syrian origin, from Emesa. Legendary material indicates that he was of Jewish origin. He was a deacon first in Beirut before coming to Constantinople under the reign of Anastasius I (491-518). St. Romanus was a creator of the Kontakion, a term which comes from the staff about which the inscribed scroll is wrapped. They were "hymns of praise for Holy Days" and usually had an acrostic of his name. The Kontakion is organized in a strophic system and usually consisted of twenty-four stanzas. Each stanza is a perfect structural imitation of the first. The metrical system of the Kontakion is based on stress and accent and hence the rhythm was influenced by the melody. It is not easy to determine the volume of his creative legacy precisely. Approximately one thousand hymns have been ascribed to him but only approximately eighty metrical sermons have come down to us under his name. Among the best are his Kontakia for the great Holy Days — Christmas, Candlemas (the feast commemorating the purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the presentation of Christ in the Temple which is known in Eastern Christianity as υπαπαντή, which is The Meeting1 of Christ with Simeon), the Annunciation, and the Resurrection (or ‘Easter’) — "If you entered the grave, Immortal…").

St. Romanus’ works stand out for their richness and the elegance of their poetic form. Their content is quite simple and free of allegory, but the author’s dogmatic pathos reaches a high intensity. He is always concerned with a Christological theme. He sings of the invariable union of two natures, and constantly goes on the attack against the heretics — his songs are full of polemical allusions. He is harsh in his denunciations of philosophers and especially doctors. This is fully in keeping with the mood of Justinian’s time. With the rise of the canon in the composition of the Matin service, most of the works of St. Romanus were forced out of use. St. Romanus has been described as "perhaps the greatest religious poet of all time" and his works as "masterpieces of world literature."

We also know little about the life of another great Byzantine hymnologist, St. Andrew of Crete (c. 660-740). And once again what knowledge we have comes from the Menaion. The chronicler names Andrew of Crete among the members of the council held in 712 under pressure from emperor Philippicus-Bardanes (711-713), the council which repudiated the acts of the Sixth Ecumenical Council. This was an act of unworthy compliance but not of apostasy. The council held in 712 was a Monothelite council and at this St. Andrew subscribed to the repudiation of two wills in Christ. In 713 he retracted and explained his doctrine in a metrical confession. St. Andrew was a native of Damascus, became a deacon in Constantinople (c. 685) and the head of a refuge for orphans and the elderly, and later became archbishop of Gortyna in Crete in 692. He was a remarkable orator and hymn-writer. He evidently was the first composer of the famous Great Canon — ό μέγας κανών. The Triodion which bears the name of St. Sophronius probably belongs not to St. Andrew but to Joseph the Hymnologist of the ninth century. Most of St. Andrew’s canons went out of use quite early.

The most remarkable one by St. Andrew is, of course, the Great Canon. It is known to us in a later revision by the Studites. The Irmos and anthems of Marius the Egyptian do not belong to Andrew. More than anything else, this is a unique penitential autobiography — hence, that élan and intensity of personal feeling which permeate this epic of a grief-stricken soul. Biblicism is characteristic for St. Andrew. At times he virtually repeats Biblical texts. The Great Canon is overcrowded with Biblical reminiscences. A long line of vivid penitential images from the Bible stretches from Adam to the prudent thief. The Biblical text is very often perceived allegorically — but this is moral, not speculative, allegorism. St. Andrew expresses few dogmatic motifs. Penitential lyrics predominate. We should also note his Triodia for the first days of Holy Week (they are now sung at Vespers in the Eastern Orthodox Church during Holy Lent). As a liturgical form, the canon received its furthest development and refinement in the creations of St. John of Damascus and Cosmas of Maiuma (he must be distinguished from another hymn-writer named Cosmas who was his and St. John of Damascus’ mentor. However, it is virtually impossible to distinguish the works of the two hymn-writers named Cosmas. In the eighth century Stephen the Sabbite was also composing canons of hymns. The iconoclastic troubles also had an unhealthy effect on Church singing and hymnology.

Among the monuments of Constantinopolitan hymnody we must make note of the renowned Acathistus — ακάθιστος which literally means “Not Sitting” because it was sung standing. In the later statutes this famous liturgical hymn in honor of the Blessed Mother Mary became sung — and still is — on the Saturday of the fifth week of Great Lent. It consists of twenty-four stanzas of various lengths, each beginning with one of the twenty-four letters of the Greek alphabet. The text is based on the Gospel narratives of the Nativity. The author of the Acathistus is unknown. According to a widespread belief it was composed by Sergius, the Monothelite patriarch of Constantinople in thanksgiving for the deliverance of his city from the Avars and Slavs in 626. But this is very doubtful. It has also been ascribed to George Pisides but this too is doubtful. A ninth century manuscript of St. Gall claims that it was written by patriarch Germanus who, after the defeat of the Saracens before Constantinople in 717-718, instituted a special feast in which the Acathistus was to be sung. Some scholars accept this but it, too, is not at all conclusive.

Apparently the Acathistus is preserved in a later revision which altered the original plan and the very theme of the hymn. Originally its theme was more Christological than Mariological. This original redaction can be dated with some hesitation to the time of emperor Heraclius in the early seventh century (610-641).

At the very beginning of the sixth century a certain Palestinian monk named Nephalius wrote against Severus. We know of this only through Severus’ response, his Orationes ad Nephalium. A little later John the Grammarian of Caesarea voiced his objections to Severus. This John also wrote in defense of the Council of Chalcedon and should not be confused with John Philoponus, the Monophysite philosopher of Alexandria who bears also the title "the Grammarian." We also know about these objections only from Severus’ work, Contra Grammaticum. From the same period is the polemical work by John of Scythopolis, Against the Aposchistae, which St. Photius claims was written as a response to a work titled Against Nestorius written "by the father of the Aposchistae." The only work of John’s for which there is any substantial record is his Apology, a work in defense of the Council of Chalcedon. The fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council refer to John’s work Against Severus (see Doctrina patrum de Incarnatione Verbi). Heracleon, bishop of Chalcedon, wrote against the Eutychians and Photius refers to an expansive work by Heracleon against Manichaeism. Mention should also be made of the Dogmatic Panoply, probably composed by Pamphilus of Jerusalem, who was a friend of Cosmas Indicopleustes (Cosmas, the "Indian navigator," was a merchant from Alexandria who later in life became a monk; he travelled on the Eastern seas and wrote the noteworthy Christian Topography — Χριστιανική τοπογραφία — which is an attack on the Ptolemaic system in favor of certain fantastic doctrines of astrology used to attempt to harmonize with a literal understanding of the Bible — the main value of his work is its geographical information and its testimony to the spread of Christianity at that time).

The time of Justinian was a time of special polemical agitation connected with the attempts to reach an agreement and reunite the Church. To start with, we must note the dogmatic epistles of the emperor himself. In any event, Justinian was theologically educated. For all of his attraction to reunification with the Monophysites, he himself theologized in a completely orthodox way. Only in his old age was he carried away by the doctrine of the Aphthartodocetists but his edict on this has not come down to us. According to Michael the Syrian, Justinian’s Aphtharto -docetism differed little from the views of Julian of Halicarnassus (Chronicle, 9, 34).

Justinian’s weakness was in hurrying to decree his theological views as the norm of confessions. Also, in his striving for unity, he would sometimes be too tolerant, while at other times he would turn into "a Diocletian." However, in his theology he always tried to start from the patristic traditions. His theological tastes are very typical — he was repulsed by Antiochene theology and exasperated by Origen. Closest to him were St. Cyril and the Cappadocians. In general, Justinian was very close to Leontius of Byzantium and Leontius of Jerusalem but we do not encounter in Justinian the doctrine of "enhypostasisness" — his language is less precise.

The polemical activity of Ephraem of Antioch dates back to Justinian’s time. Ephraem was patriarch from 526 to 544. His writings are known to us from St. Photius. He wrote against the Nestorians and the Monophysites, in defense of St. Cyril and in defense of the Council of Chalcedon. He was a resolute adversary of Origenism. Especially curious are his remarks against the Julianists (concerning Adam’s "immortality").

The dogmatic and polemical tracts of John Maxentius, who is well for his participation in the so-called "Theopaschite"disputes, are very interesting. He also disputed with the Nestorians, the Pelagians, and the Monophysites. He developed the formula of the Scythian monks — "One of the Holy Trinity suffered" — into an integral theological doctrine on redemption.

Also extremely interesting is the dogmatic epistle of a certain monk Eustaphius On Two Natures, in which the dispute with Severus is reduced to the question of two operations — this was in connection with the Monophysite criticism of Pope Leo’s Tome. St. Photius recounts in detail a book by a certain monk Jovus, titled On the Incarnation. This work is very characteristic in its plan and terminology.

It is especially necessary to note a tract by Timothy of Constantinople On the Acceptance of Heretics [De receptione haereticorum; Περι των προσερχόμενων τη άγια εκκλησία. This work is rich in factual data concerning the history of the persuasions and divisions within Monophysite circles.

The activity of Anastasius of Antioch dates back to the late sixth century. He occupied the throne in the sixties but was later exiled and incarcerated. He returned to Antioch about 593. He wrote extensively in his confinement, mostly against the Aphthartodocetists. His compositions were published only in a Latin translation. It is characteristic that Anastasius relies almost exclusively on the Scriptures, and almost does not mention the fathers at all. Anastasius’ basic idea is the sufferings of the God-Man. His ideas were echoed by St. Maximus the Confessor and St. John of Damascus.

St. Eulogius of Alexandria was active at the same time. As one of the Antiochene father superiors, he ascended the Alexandrian throne about 583 and occupied it until his death in 607. He wrote extensively but most of his writings are known to us only from excerpts provided by St. Photius. Of the fragments preserved by St. Photius’ quotations, the passages from the apparently voluminous dogmatic work On the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation are especially characteristic. It must be stressed that St. Eulogius develops the doctrine of the "natural" human will in Christ very precisely. He speaks directly about "two operations" and "two desires," and he corroborates his reflections with a deep analysis of the basic Gospel texts. In this respect he is the direct predecessor of St. Maximus the Confessor.

Of the writers of the seventh century we must first of all name St. Sophronius of Jerusalem. He came from a monastic milieu. There is much foundation for seeing a future patriarch in that Sophronius the Sophist. He was from Damascus, and born about 560. In his youth he was a "sophist;" that is, a teacher of philology. But early on he went into a monastery, the laura of St. Theodosius, where he met and became good friends with John Moschus (d. 619 or 620), the seventh century Byzantine monk, traveler, and writer, known mainly for his collection of vivid monastic tales entitled Λειμων [in Latin known as Pratum spirituale] which he dedicated to his friend St. Sophronius. Together, John Moschus and St. Sophronius travelled widely — to Palestine, Egypt, Sinai, Cyprus, Antioch, Egypt and Rome. It was in Rome that John Moschus died. St. Sophronius brought his remains to the monastery of St. Theodosius. He completed and published John’s Leimon [Pratum spirituale].

St. Sophronius was again in Egypt in 633. He was there when the Monothelite movement began, and he immediately came out against Cyrus of Phasis, patriarch of Alexandria. In that same year St. Sophronius travelled to Constantinople to attempt to persuade Patriarch Sergius I, the leading figure among the Monothelites, to accept the orthodox position but his mission failed. In 634 he was elected to the throne of Jerusalem. This was the time of the Saracen invasion and taking of Jerusalem. By the autumn of 637 St. Sophronius saw that the Holy City of Jerusalem had no choice but to surrender. St. Sophronius, however, refused to deal with anyone about the surrender except the caliph himself. And in point of fact the caliph did undertake the journey from Medina to Jerusalem. The Caliph Omar entered the city in his ragged clothing, common for the caliphs of Medina but not for the later caliphs of Damascus and Bagdad, and was given a tour of the Holy City’s monuments by St. Sophronius. It is reported that St. Sophronius remained externally polite but that he was disgusted at the ragged sight of this new master of the Orient. And, seeing the caliph in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, St. Sophronius is reported to have said: "Lo, the Abomination of Desolation, spoken of by Daniel, who stands in the Holy Place." Shortly after Omar’s visit, St. Sophronius died in 638.

St. Sophronius was not a theologian by vocation. He spoke out on dogmatic themes like a pastor. Most important is his famous Synodical Epistle which was published upon his ascent to the throne of Jerusalem. Here St. Sophronius offers a detailed profession of faith in light of the Monothelite temptation which was then manifesting itself. His Synodical Epistle was subsequently accepted at the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680-681) as a precise exposition of faith: "We have also examined the Synodical Epistle of Sophronius of holy memory, former Patriarch of Holy City of Christ our God, Jerusalem, and have found it in accordance with the true faith and with the Apostolic teachings, and with those of the holy approved Fathers. Therefore we have received it as orthodox and as salutary to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and have decreed that it is right that his name be inserted in the diptychs of the Holy Churches."

St. Sophronius’ Synodical Epistle is very mild. It insists only on the essentials. First, he speaks of the Trinitarian mystery, then he moves on to Christology. He speaks in the customary manner of antitheses, which recalls Pope Leo’s Tome. The Incorporeal is made flesh, and the Eternal accepts birth in time — the true God becomes a true man. In the Incarnation the Logos accepts the "whole human composition... flesh which is consubstantial with us; a rational soul which is similar to our souls; and a mind which is completely identical to our minds." He accepts them in such a way that everything human begins to be when it begins to be the humanity of God the Logos.

Two natures are unified in a single hypostasis, "being patently cognizable as two" — and even in union each preserves the whole totality of the special qualities and attributes characteristic of it. St. Sophronius reaches a conclusion about the distinction between two activities from the invariance of two natures (he does not speak of two wills). The reason for this is that the difference between the natures is revealed precisely in actions or activities. "We profess both natural actions in both natures and essences, from which for our own sake an unmixed union exists in Christ, and this made the single Christ and Son a complete God, whom we must also recognize as a complete man."

Both actions or activities relate to the One Christ through the inseparable unity of his Hypostasis. And God the Logos operates through humanity. However, Christ experiences everything human "naturally" and "in a human way" — φυσικώς και ανθρωπίνως although not by necessity or involuntarily. It is here that St. Sophronius’ emphasis lies: "in a human way," but without that "capacity for suffering" or passiveness which is characteristic of the "simple;" that is, the sinful nature of man.

St. Sophronius enters the history of Christian literature not so much as a theologian but as a hagiographer and psalmist. It is hard to determine the share of his participation in the composition of the work known as The Spiritual Meadow. There is no doubt that the praise and legends about the miracles of Saints Cyrus and John the Healer belong to him. The "service book" doubtlessly does not belong to him. The authenticity of the collection of "anacreontic"poems is almost beyond dispute. These are not liturgical psalms but rather homilies expressed in rhythmical speech.

The explanation of the liturgy which is known under St. Sophronius’ name does not belong to him, although generally he worked on the Church statutes. Simeon of Thessaloniki attributed to Sophronius the introduction to the rule of the cloister of St. Sabas, a rule in general use in Palestine.

St. Anastasius of Sinai [Anastasius Sinaita] was the Father Superior of the monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai. From here he travelled more than once around Syria, Arabia, and in Egypt, with polemical and missionary aims. We know very little about his life. He died about twenty years after the Sixth Ecumenical Council; that is, in about 700. He was primarily an erudite person.

All his books were written for disputes. His main work is The Guide — οδηγός. It would be better to translate this as "handbook." It was composed from individual chapters and epistles in which St. Anastasius investigates the individual and particular objections of the Monophysites on the basis of the Scriptures and from the testimony of the ancients. The book containing One Hundred and Fifty-Four Questions and Answers is of the same nature, although in its present form it cannot be considered his. This work is more a handbook of eristics (the art of debate) rather than one of "dialectics." True, St. Anastasius unmasks the spirit of petty, abstruse questioning; however, he himself looks into petty difficulties and permits perplexing questions. For the historian there are many important details in this work, especially in the explanation and application of the texts from Scripture. His references to the ancients are also very important. But the spirit of a system vanishes, coherence weakens, and attention becomes lost in a labyrinth of aporias.

We must also consider the possibility that St. Anastasius may indeed be the author of a work entitled The Interpretation of the Six Days. Of the twelve original books, only the last has come down to us in the original. The explanation is given only allegorically ("anagogic contemplations"). St. Anastasius explains the psalms as well. It must be stressed that St. Anastasius always thinks in Aristotelian categories, although he considers "Aristotle’s blather" to be the source of all heresies.

In the Christological disputes the question of theological tradition was forcefully raised. This was connected with the fight of school or trends. The time had come to sum up the historical — and sometimes critical — situation and to fortify one’s profession with the testimony and authority of the ancient fathers.

We find a systematic selection of "patristic opinions" already in St. Cyril’s polemical epistles. The Antiochenes, especially Theodoret in his Eranistes, also were actively engaged in the collection of ancient testimonies. In the West St. John Cassian refutes Nestorius with the aid of the testimony of earlier teachers. Pope Leo the Great refutes Eutyches using the testimony of the fathers. The councils of the fifth to the seventh centuries attentively reread the collections of patristic writings, especially at the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils and at the Lateran Council of 649. Excerpts from ancient writers are especially abundant in Leontius of Byzantium and Leontius of Jerusalem and in St. Maximus the Confessor.

Thus dogmatic florilegia arc gradually put together. With this a literary form typical of the Hellenistic epoch is revived. For the needs of teaching or for polemics associated with various schools of thought, numerous collections of model excerpts or testimonies of ancient patristic writers — most often those of an edifying nature — were put together at this time. It is sufficient to recall Plutarch’s Apophthegma or Stabeo’s famous collection.

It is virtually impossible to trace the history of Christian florilegia in all their detail. The most significant of them is known under the name The Words of the Holy Fathers or A Selection of Phrases [usually called in Latin the Doctrina patrum de Incarnatione Verbi]. This collection is preserved in several manuscript copies which represent different redactions. The oldest of these manuscripts goes back to the eighth or ninth centuries. We have to date the compilation of the code to the time of the Sixth Ecumenical Council but previous to the outbreak of iconoclasm. There are some grounds for speculating that the compiler is St. Anastasius of Sinai. In any case, the selection of texts in the this collection of patristic writings is very reminiscent of the collection of texts in Anastasius’ Guide.

It is especially necessary to note as well the collection of Sacra Parallela, which is known under the name of St. John of Damascus (c. 675-749). Its literary history has not yet been entirely explained. In the manuscripts we also encounter codes of patristic pronouncements on individual questions — for example, on the dogmatic meaning of certain texts, in particular Matthew 26:39 ff. and Luke 2:52.

These collections were subject to further reworking, and would be augmented with new articles when new issues captured theological attention. In the iconoclastic period there arise special collections containing testimony about the veneration of holy ikons — St. John of Damascus has such a code of texts, and there is one in the Acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Council (787). Various collections of an edifying nature receive a wide circulation. Their origins are primarily connected with liturgical needs, with the custom of the so-called "prescribed readings" which replaced the free sermon (see Trullo, 19). In an earlier time, during the liturgy the acts of martyrs were usually read. Later these started to be replaced by more or less extensive excerpts from patristic works, most often from the writings of John Chrysostom. However, the custom of "prescribed readings" was definitely established comparatively late. For the historian all of these collections present a dual interest. First, they frequently preserve important fragments of lost works. Secondly, these compilations allow us to establish the average level and scope of historical and dogmatic knowledge in a certain epoch. They tell us more about the readers than about the writers.

The exegetical collections are of a different nature. They were compiled in the process of exegetical work on the Holy Scriptures, and were developed from comments or observations on Biblical texts — the so-called scholia. This was a classical custom — compare, for example, the scholia to the different classical authors; scholia on legislative and other juridical documents were different. The explanations of different interpreters are deposited one upon the other. In the process of recopying or revising the so-called "lemmas" — that is, the exact references, are omitted very frequently. Interpretations sometimes are blended into a coherent text. Usually the names of the interpreters are designated with brief signs which are often conventional and sometimes obscure.

The impartiality of the compilers of the Christian exegetical collections or "chains" [catenae] is characteristic; one could say, rather, their peculiar unscrupulousness. The compilers of these collections usually strive for completeness and variety — of course, within the limits of the material known or available to them. Therefore, they have no difficulty in putting authors of opposite tendencies next to one another — Origen next to Diodore, Severus or even Apollinarius next to Theodore of Mopsuestia. After all, even heretics have healthy and valuable ideas. This "impartiality" adds a special importance to the exegetical compilations. They preserve many fragments from books which have been lost or spurned — the exegesis, for example, of Origen, Didymus, and Diodore. This frequently allows us to restore forgotten motifs in the history of exegesis in general and of the interpretation of individual characteristic texts. Sometimes in the catenae we find exegetical fragments by very early authors — St. Hippolytus, for example, and Papias of Hierapolis — and archaic theological motifs come to life before our very eyes. However, it is not easy to use the catenae. Indications of authorship are often vague, unreliable, and sometimes patently incorrect. We even have to rely not on a collection’s compilers but on later copyists — strictly speaking, on the scribe of the manuscript copy known to us. Nevertheless, the material extracted from the catenae is very important. To this day it has yet to be exhausted or thoroughly studied.

The first to work at compiling exegetical collections was Procopius of Gaza (c. 475-538), the head of the school in Gaza for many years. A number of his exegeses have remained — first of all, his extensive exegesis on the Octateuch, which has not been published in its entirety to this day. In his preface Procopius describes the method of his work. First, he collects and copies out the opinions of the exegetes he has selected — the "selections" or "eclogae" Then, since explanations very frequently coincide, he shortens his code, leaving only divergent opinions. His exegesis, too, is such an "abbreviation." For the most part, Procopius used the exegeses of Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Cyril of Alexandria. Procopius explained the book of Isaiah in addition to the Octateuch. His scholia on the books of Kings and the Paralipomenon- — παραλειπομένων — [which is Greek for “of the things left out" and is the name by which the two books of Chronicles are known traditionally in Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox reference], which are mostly based on Theodoret have also been preserved. Procopius1 authorship of the commentaries on Proverbs and the Song of Songs, known under his name, is not indisputable.

The exegeses of Olympiodorus, an Alexandrian deacon who lived in the first half of the sixth century, on The Teachers’ Books of the Old Testament; on Jeremiah; on Baruch; on Lamentations; and on the Gospel of Luke are of the same nature.

Later interpreters are more independent. For example, Gregory of Agrigentum (Grigenti) in Sicily, who lived in the late sixth century. Born near Agrigentum, he made a pilgrimage to Palestine where he was ordained deacon by the patriarch of Jerusalem. In Rome he was consecrated bishop of Agrigentum. Apparently he was a victim of character assassination. It is known that Gregory the Great addressed several letters to him. He had either died or been deposed by about 594 and there exists a long life on him in Greek ascribed to Leontius of Byzantium but, in any case, apparently revised by Simeon Metaphrastes. An exegesis on Ecclesiastes was long attributed to him. However, some recent scholars maintain that this exegesis on Ecclesiastes was the work of a ninth century bishop, Gregory of Agrigentum, who is venerated in the Eastern Church on his Feast Day of November 23. Others also reveal an independence — Icumenus in his exegesis of Revelation (c. 600) and Anastasius of Nicaea in his exegesis of the Psalms (late seventh century). It is especially necessary to note the famous exegesis attributed to Andrew of Caesarea on Revelation (not later than 637) — it was subsequently revised by Arethas of Caesarea, a contemporary of St. Photius. The modern world is deeply indebted to Arethas, a celebrated scholar and patron of classical letters, despite his rather deplorable character. Andrew’s work, subsequently revised by Arethas, is full of references to the ancients. He often even cites the opinions of the pre-Nicene fathers. He understands Revelation allegorically. In other copies his book is even inscribed directly with Origen’s name.

The Chalcedonian oros or definition of faith became the cause of a tragic schism in the Church. Historical Monophysitism is precisely the non-acceptance and rejection of the Chalcedonian Council, a schism and break with the fathers of the council. The Monophysite movement can in general be compared with the anti-Nicene movement, and the makeup of the Monophysite schism was just as motley and heterogeneous as that of the "anti-Nicene coalition" in the middle of die fourth century. From the very beginning there were always few real "Eutychians" and Apollinarians among the Monophysites. Eutyches was just as much a heretic for the majority of Monophysites as he was for the orthodox. Dioscorus rehabilitated him and granted him communion more out of indirect motives than because he agreed with him and his beliefs, and mainly in defiance of Flavian. In any case, at Chalcedon Dioscorus openly rejected any "mixing," "transformation" or "cleavage." Anatolius of Constantinople, during the discussion of the oros at the council, reminded everyone that "Dioscorus was not deposed for faith." It is still impossible to prove through these words that Dioscorus was not in actuality mistaken. However, it is very characteristic that they judged and condemned Dioscorus at the council not for heresy but for the brigandage at Ephesus and for “human murder.” Neither Dioscorus nor Timothy the “Cat” — more accurately, the “Weasel,” for he was known as “Timothy Aelurus (d. 477) from the Greek αίλουρος [literally "weasel"] — denied the "double consubstantiality" of the God-Man — consubstantial with the Father in his Divinity and consubstantial with the human race in his humanity.

The same thing has to be said about most Monophysites. They claimed to be the only faithful keepers of the faith of St. Cyril. In any event they spoke Cyril’s language and his words. The Chalcedonian oros seemed to them to be cloaked in Nestorianism. The theology of most of these Monophysites was primarily a systemization of St. Cyril’s doctrine. In this regard the theological views of Philoxenus (Xenaias) of Hierapolis (c. 440-523) and Severus of Antioch (c. 465-538), the two most prominent leaders of Syrian Monophysitism in the late fifth and early sixth centuries, were especially characteristic. It was Severus1 system which became the official dogmatic doctrine of the Monophysite church when it finally withdrew into itself. Severus’ theological system also became the official doctrine of the Syrian Jacobites, of the Coptic Christians in Egypt and of the Armenian Church. This was, first of all, formal and literary Monophysitism.

These Monophysites spoke of the unity of the God-Man as a "unity of nature" but μια φυσις meant to them little more than the μία υποστασις of the Chalcedonian oros. By "nature" they meant "hypostasis." Severus makes this observation directly. In this regard they were rather strict Aristotelians and recognized only "individuals" or "hypostases" as real or existing. In any case, in the "unity of nature" the duality of "natural qualities" — St. Cyril’s term — did not disappear or fall away for them. Therefore, Philoxenus called the “single nature” complex. This concept of a “complex nature” is fundamental in Severus’ system — μία φύσίς σύνθετος. Severus defines the God-Man unity as a "synthesis," a "co-composition" — συνθεσις — and in doing so distinguishes "co-composition" from any fusion or mixing. In this "co-composition" there is no change or transformation of the "components" — they are only "combined" indissolubly and do not exist "apart." Therefore, for Severus the "dual consubstantiality" of the Logos Incarnate is an indisputable and immutable tenet and a criterion of true faith. Severus could sooner be called a "diplophysite" rather than a Monophysite in the true sense of the word. He even agreed to "distinguish" "two natures" — or better, "two essences" — in Christ not only "before the union" but also in the union itself — "after union" — of course with the proviso that it can only be a question of a mental or analytical distinguishing, a distinguishing "in contemplation" — εν θεωρία, or “through imagination” — κατ’ έπίνοίαν. And once again this almost repeats St. Cyril’s words.

For Severus and his followers "unity of nature" meant a unity of subject, a unity of person, a unity of life. They were much closer to St. Cyril than it usually seemed to the ancient polemicists. Fairly recently the works of the Monophysite theologians again have become available to us in ancient Syrian translations and it has become possible to form an opinion about their thought without having to go through biased witnesses.

Now we must not speak of Monophysitism as a revived Apollinarianism, and we have to strictly differentiate the "Eutychians" and the "Monophysites" in the broad sense of the terms. It is very characteristic that this boundary was drawn with total firmness already by St. John of Damascus. In his short work, Briefly On Heresies, which is part two of his principal dogmatic work entitled Πηγή γνώσεως [Fount of Knowledge], St. John of Damascus refers to "Monophysites" directly as schismatics and dissenters but not as heretics — "these Egyptians are schismatics and Monophysites. On the pretext of the Chalcedonian definition they separated themselves from the Orthodox Church. They are called Egyptians because the Egyptians were the first to begin this kind of division during the reigns of emperors Marcian and Valentinian. In everything else they are orthodox" (Heresy 83). However, this is what makes the schism enigmatic and incomprehensible.

Of course, divisions in the Church are entirely possible even without dogmatic disagreements. Political enthusiasm and darker passions can also disrupt and shatter Church unity. From the very beginning in the Monophysite movement national and regional motives latched on to religious ones. To the "Egyptians" the Council of Chalcedon was unacceptable and despicable not only because in its definition of faith it spoke of "two natures" but also because in the famous Twenty-Eighth Canon it extolled Constantinople over Alexandria. Orthodox Alexandrians had a hard time reconciling themselves to this fact. It is no accident that "Monophysitism" very quickly becomes a non-Greek faith, a faith of Syrians, Copts, Ethiopians, and Armenians. National separatism constantly makes itself very sharply felt in the history of the Monophysite disputes. The dogmatic nature of Monophysitism is very much connected to Greek tradition — it is comprehensible only through Greek terminology, the Greek way of thinking and the categories of Greek metaphysics. It was Greek theologians who worked out the dogma of the Monophysite church. However, a keen hatred of Hellenism is very characteristic of Monophysitism as a whole. They use the word "Greek" as a synonym for "pagan" — "Greek books and pagan sciences."

Greek Monophysitism was comparatively short-lived. In Syria there soon began a direct eradication of everything Greek. In this regard the fate of Jacob of Edessa (c.640-708), one of the most remarkable Monophysite theologians of the seventh century and especially renowned for his Biblical works — he is called the Syrian Jerome — is quite typical. He was compelled to leave his monastery, where for eleven years he tried to revive Greek scholarship. He was forced to leave "persecuted by the brotherhood which hated Greeks." All of these extraneous motives muddled and stirred up the theological dispute. However, one should not exaggerate its significance. Religious differences were still decisive — differences of feeling, not differences of opinion. This explains the Monophysites’ stubborn attachment to St. Cyril’s theological language and their insurmountable suspicion of the Chalcedonian oros, which to them invariably smelled of "Nestorianism." This is impossible to explain as a mere difference of intellectual cast or mental skills. Neither is it explained as admiration for the imaginary antiquity of the Monophysite formula — "a forgery of the Apollinarians." One can hardly think that Severus in particular could not understand the Chalcedonian terminology, that he would not have grasped that the fathers of the council were using words differently than he but not deviating very far from him in content of faith. But the point is that Monophysitism was not theological heresy, was not a "heresy" of theologians — its soul, its secret is not revealed in theological constructs or formulas. It is true that Severus’ system could be reset almost in Chalcedonian terminology. But only "almost."

There is always something remaining. More than anything else, the spirit of the system distinguishes the Monophysites from St. Cyril. It was not at all easy to reshape Cyril’s inspired doctrine into a logical system, and the terminology made this problem more difficult. Hardest of all was intelligibly defining the form and character of the human "traits" in the God-Man synthesis. The followers of Severus could not speak of Christ’s humanity as a "nature." It broke down into a system of traits, for the doctrine of the Logos "taking" humanity was still not developed fully by Monophysitism into the idea of "inter-hypostasisness." The Monophysites usually spoke of the Logos’ humanity as οικονομία. It is not without foundation that the fathers of the Council of Chalcedon detected here a subtle taste of original Docetism. Certainly this is not the Docetism of the ancient Gnostics at all, nor is it Apollinarianism. However, to the followers of Severus the "human" in Christ was not entirely human, for it was not active, was not "self-motivated." In the contemplation of the Monophysites the human in Christ was like a passive object of Divine influence. Divinization or theosis seems mbe a unilateral act of Divinity without sufficiently taking into count the synergism of human freedom, the assumption of which in no way supposes a "second subject." In their religious experiment the element of freedom in general was not sufficiently pronounced and this could be called anthropological minimalism.

To a certain extent, there is a similarity between Monophysitism and Augustinianism — the human is pushed into the background and, as it were, suppressed by the Divine. What St. Augustine said about the boundless activity of grace refers in Monophysite doctrine to the God-Man "synthesis." In this regard one could speak of the "potential assimilation" of humanity by the Divinity of the Logos even in Severus’ system. In Severus’ thought this is proclaimed in his muddled and forced doctrine of "unified God-Man activity" — this expression is taken from Dionysius the Areopagite. The actor is always unified — the Logos. Therefore, the activity — "energy" — is unified too. But together with this, it is complex as well, complex in its manifestations — τα αποτελέσματα, in conformity with the complexity of the acting nature or subject. A single action is manifested dually and the same is true for will or volition. In other words, Divine activity is refracted and, as it were, takes refuge in the "natural qualities" of the humanity received by the Logos. We must remember that Severus here touched upon a difficulty which was not resolved in the Orthodox theology of his time. Even with Orthodox theologians the concept of divinization or theosis sometimes suggested the boundless influence of Divinity. However, for Severus the difficulty proved insurmountable, especially because of the clumsiness and inflexibility of the "Monophysite" language and also because in his reflections he always started from the Divinity of the Logos and not from the Person of the God-Man. Formally speaking, this was the path trod by St. Cyril but in essence this led to the idea of human passivity — one could even say the non-freedom of the God-Man. These biases of thought proclaim the indistinctness of Christological vision. To these conservative Monophysites the human in Christ seemed still too transfigured — not qualitatively, of course, not physically, but potentially or virtually. In any event, it did not seem to be acting freely and the Divine does not manifest itself in the freedom of the numan. What is taking place here is partly simple unspokenness, and in Severus’ time Orthodox theologians had also not yet revealed the doctrine of Christ’s human freedom — more accurately, the freedom of the "human" in Christ — with sufficient clarity and fullness. However, Severus simply did not pose the question of freedom and this, of course, was no accident. Given his premises, the very question had to have seemed "Nestorian" — concealed by the assumption of the "second subject."

The orthodox answer, as given by St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 580-662), presupposes distinguishing between "nature" and "hypostasis" — not only is "man" ("hypostasis") free but also the "human" as such — the very "nature" — in all its "natural qualities," in all and in each. An acknowledgement of this sort can in no way be fit into the framework of the Monophysite — much less the "diplophysite" — doctrine. Severus’ system was the theology of the "Monophysite" majority. It could be called conservative Monophysitism. But the history of Monophysitism is a history of constant dissension and division. It is not so important that from time to time we meet under the title "Monophysite" individual groups comprised of people who were not quite followers of Eutyches, not quite new Docetists who spoke of the "transformation" or the "fusion of natures," who denied the consubstantiality of humanity in Christ, or who talked about the "heavenly" origin and nature of Christ’s body. These individual heretical outbursts are evidence only of the general intellectual ferment and agitation. Much more important are those divisions and disputes which arise in the basic course of the Monophysite movement. These reveal its internal logic, its driving motives, especially Severus’ dispute with Julian of Halicarnassus.

Julian also seemed to be a Docetist to Severus. It is true that in his polemic with Julian Severus was not unbiased. Later orthodox polemicists argued not so much with Julian as with his carried-away followers. In any case, Julian’s original compositions do not contain that coarse Docetism which his opponents talked so much about when they charged that his doctrine of the innate “imperishability” — αφθαρσία — of the Savior’s body turned the mystery of Redemption into some "fantasy and dream" (hence the name "fantasiasts"). Julian’s system of the "imperishability" of Christ’s body is connected not with his understanding of the unity of the God-Man but with his understanding of original sin, with its general anthropological premises. Here Julian is very close to St. Augustine — this is, of course, a similarity and not a dependence Ausustine. Of the Monophysite theologians Julian is closest to Philoxenus Julian considers man’s primordial nature to be "imDerishable," "non-suffering," "non-mortal" and free also from the so-called "irreproachable passions;” that is, weakness or the states of “suffering” in general — πάθη αδιάβλητα. The Fall substantially and hereditarily damages human nature — human nature became weak, mortal and perishable. In the Incarnation God the Logos assumes the nature of the primordial Adam, a nature which is "impassive" and "imperishable." He thus becomes the New Adam. Therefore Christ suffered and died not "because of the necessity of nature” — not εξ ανάγκης φυσικής, but through his will, "for the sake of oikonomia — λόγω οικονομίας “through the will of Divinity,” “by way of a miracle.” However, Christ’s suffering and death were real and authentic, not an “opinion” or “apparition.” But they were entirely free, since this was not the death of a "perishable" and an "impassioned" ("suffering") man, and since they did not contain the fatal doom of the Fall. There is still no heresy in this doctrine. But it comes close to another. Julian’s conception of the unity of the God-Man is tighter than Severus.’ He refuses to "enumerate" or distinguish the "natural qualities" in the God-Man synthesis. He even refuses to distinguish "in addition" "two essences" after union. For him, the concept of "essence" had the same concrete ("individual") sense as the concept of "nature" or "hypostasis." In the Logos’ Incarnation the "imperishability" of the accepted body is so secured by its tight unity with Divinity that in suffering and death it is removed by a certain oikonomic tolerance on the part of God. As Julian understood it, this did not violate the Savior’s human "con-substantiality." In any case, however, this clearly exaggerated the "potential assimilability" of the human by the Divine by virture of the Incarnation itself. Again, this is connected with a lack of feeling for freedom and with a passive understanding of "theosis" or "divinization." Julian understood "imperishability" of primordial human nature as its objective condition rather than as a free possibility, and he understood "impassiveness" and "imperishability" in Christ too passively. It is this quietism which violates the equilibrium of Julian’s system. He did not proceed from an analysis of metaphysical concepts. In his system one clearly senses the deciding significance of the soteriological ideal. M Julian’s followers went even further. They were called "apntartodocetists" ("imperishable valetudinarians") and "fantaslasts. These names set off well that quietism — rather than "Docetism" — which is so striking in their way of thinking. The numan is passively transformed. Others of Julian’s followers felt that it was impossible to call this transformation and impossible to call the divinized humanity in the unity of the God-Man "creatural." Thus there arose the sect of Actistites ("non-creaturalists"). Some of Severus’ adherents, in their disputes about Christ’s human conduct, came to such a conclusion as well. In the union of God and Man, the limitedness of human knowledge must be removed immediately and passively. Otherwise, a bifurcation of human "ignorance" and Divine omniscience arises, and the "unity of nature" is violated. That is how the adherents of a certain Stephen in Alexandria reasoned. This reasoning reminds us partly of the arguments — not the conclusion — of Apollinarius regarding the impossibility of a union of "two perfect things" precisely because of the limitedness and extreme inconstancy of the human mind. The followers of Stephen found another way out of this difficulty, however — they denied any difference in Christ after the union, in which even the human mind was immediately elevated to Divine Omniscience. Here yet again is proclaimed a quietistic understanding of human thought. On this question the majority of the followers of Severus were "cryptics" — Christ’s omniscience was just not manifested in humanity. It seemed impious to assume that Christ’s human "ignorance" — particularly of the Judgment Day — could have been real and not just intentional silence.

It is necessary to mention again that for orthodox theology also this was an unanswered question. For the Monophysites, however, it was also unanswerable. In other words, within the limits of Monophysite premises it was answerable only by admitting the passive assimilation of the human by the Divine. All these disputes reveal the indistinctness and vagueness of a religious vision damaged by anthropological quietism. There is an inner duality in the Monophysite movement, a bifurcation of emotion and thought. One could say that Monophysite theology was more orthodox than their ideals or, to put it differently, that the theologians in Monophysitism were more orthodox than most of the believers but that the theologians were prevented from attaining final clarity by the unfortunate "Monophysite" language. Therefore, Monophysitism becomes "more orthodox" in a strange and unexpected way precisely when the religious wave has receded and theology is cooling down to scholasticism. It is at this time that Monophysite closeness to St. Cyril seems so obvious, for this is closeness in word, not in spirit. The source of Monophysitism is not to be found in dogmatic formulas but in religious passion. All the pathos of Monophysitism lies in the self-basement of man, in an acute need to overcome the human as ch and hence the instinctive striving to distinguish the God-Man from man more sharply even in his humanity. This striving can be claimed in various forms and with varying force, depending on how lucid and how restrained is this burning thirst for human self-basement which erupts from the dark depths of the subconscious. It is not accidental that Monophysitism was so closely connected with ascetic fanaticism, with ascetic self-torture and emotional violence. Nor is it an accident that Origenistic motifs of a universal apokatastasis were once again revived in Monophysite circles. In this regard the lone image of the Syrian mystic Stephen Bar-Sudhaile and his doctrine about universal restoration and a final "consubstantiality" of all creatures with God is particularly significant. Neoplatonic mysticism is paradoxically crossed with eastern fatalism. An apotheosis of self-abasement — such is the paradox of Monophysitism, and only through these psychological predispositions can one understand the tragic history of Monophysitism. The belated epilogue to the Monophysite movement will be the tragic Monothelite controversy.

In the dogmatic disputes of the fifth and sixth centuries the question of the significance of theological traditions was put very harshly. The Church doctrine was immutable. Therefore an argument based on antiquity, a reference to the past, has a particular demonstrative force. In theological disputes at this time evidence from the fathers is cited and considered with particular attention. Indeed, it is now that codes and collections of the texts of the fathers are put together. However, at the same time the need to regard the past critically is discovered. Not all historical traditions can be acceptable. This question first arose as early as the fourth century in connection with Origen’s teachings. But Origenism in Trinitarian theology was overcome almost silently and Origen’s name was mentioned very rarely. Otherwise it was a question of the Antiochene tradition. In the Nestorian disputes suspicion fell on the whole theological past of the East. And in reply the opposite question was raised — about the Alexandrian tradition. With the passage of time the need for a critical synthesis ana a revision of traditions became more and more obvious, and aunng Justinian’s time came the first attempt at an historical summing up. This is the meaning of the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553. It was convened to judge The Three Chapters — that is, in essence to judge Antiochene theology. It is no accident, however, that at this council a more general question was posed as well — the question of the “select fathers” — έγκριτοι πατέρες. A list of fathers was suggested by the emperor in a letter of his read at the opening of the Fifth Ecumenical Council and it was repeated at its third meeting. This list sheds light on the general and indefinite reference: “according to the teachings of the fathers," "following the teachings of the Holy Fathers." The following names were given: Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Augustine, John Chrysostom, Theophilus, Cyril, Proclus, and Leo. One senses a definite scheme in the choice of names. Of course, the Westerners were named precisely for the sake of the West — they never had any perceptible influence in the East and they were but little known in the East. But is is characteristic that of the "Easterners" only John Chrysostom was named — paradoxically right next to Theophilus! This is what judgment over the "East" meant. The names of the great fathers of the fourth century require no explanation but there was new poignancy in the enumeration of the Alexandrians: Theophilus and Cyril; and Proclus’ name joins them — they have in mind, of course, his Tome to the Armenians.

This list does more than just reveal Justinian’s personal tastes or sympathies. It is typical of the whole epoch and Justinian was just expressing the predominant mood. He was no innovator. He was summing up. He was striving to finish building an integral system for Christian culture and life. This scheme has its own grandeur and contains its own great untruth. In any case, Justinian always thought more about the Christian empire than about the Church. His obsession was that the whole world should become Christian — the whole "settled earth," γη οικουμένη. In this he saw his calling — the holy theocratic calling of a universal Christian emperor. In his eyes this calling was a special gift of God, a second gift, independent of the priesthood. It is precisely the emperor who is called on to realize the system of Christian culture. In many ways Justinian forcibly anticipated events. He hastened to complete construction. This explains his policy of union and his striving to restore the universal unity of faith broken after the Council of Chalcedon. This is also connected with his interference in theological disputes in general. Justinian suffered no disagreements, and in disputes for the sake of unity he more than rhansed from "a most Christian sovereign" into a Diocletian Olpooe Aeatho’s comparison in 536. Too frequently the synthesis would degenerate into a violent and fruitless compromise. There are many tragic pangs in the history of the Fifth Ecumenical rouncil especially in its pre-history. It is partly true that the estion of the Three Chapters arose almost accidentally and that the debate over Antiochene traditions was aroused or renewed artificially. Justinian had his tactical motives for publishing the famous Edict of 544. Contemporaries asserted that this edict was prompted and even composed by Palestinian Origenists — Theodore Askidas — who counted on deflecting attention away from themselves. This explanation is too simplistic. There were Three Chapters in the Edict: one on Theodore of Mopsuestia and his books; one on Theodoret’s objections to St. Cyril; and one on the "impious" letter of Ibas of Edessa to Maris the Persian. The emperor suggested they be anathematized. The Edict provoked great excitement everywhere. It seemed that it was published to benefit the Monophysites. In it was seen a hidden or concealed condemnation of the Council of Chalcedon, although the emperor directly anathematized those who would interpret his Chapters in this light.

Indignation was especially violent in Africa and in the West in general. Opponents of the Edict did not so much defend the Antiochians as consider the Edict itself inopportune and dangerous in the practical sense. Is it proper to reconsider and adjust the decisions of earlier councils? In addition, a general question arose: in general is it possible to posthumously condemn deceased brothers who are at peace? Having appeared before God’s court, are they not removed from any human court? Supporters of the Edict seemed to be "persecutors of the dead." They fought over this point more than any other issue. It was the Westerners who were unyielding. Pope Vigilius confusedly wavered between the will of the emperor and the opinion of his own Church.

The dispute lasted for many years. The emperor insisted on having things his own way and at times really did almost become a Diocletian. Finally, an Ecumenical Council was convened in 553. It was not easy inducing the Western bishops, who had already met in Constantinople, to appear at the Ecumenical Council, and tne Council’s resolutions were accepted in the West only after a long and stubborn struggle. The Council recognized as possible posthumous condemnation, agreed with the emperor’s arguments, and published fourteen anathemas which reiterated most of the anathemas of 551. The decree was preceded by a detailed analysis theological documents which were under suspicion and a collation of them with the incontrovertible models of the orthodox faith. The dangerous imprecision of the Antiochene books was revealed for all to see. To a certain extant this was a review of the question of the Council of Ephesus, not the one of the Council of Chalcedon. One could dispute the timeliness of such a review. Many felt there was no need for this, that psychologically this could be advantageous only to the Monophysites. It seemed that there was no sense in fighting the Nestorian danger when there was danger threatening from the opposite side. All these arguments were of a practical nature and those who objected went no further than formal challenges. But whatever motives inclined Justinian to pose the question of the Three Chapters, he was essentially correct. That is why the Council accepted his anathemas. They refute and condemn Nestorianism in great detail, as well as the false doctrines of Apollinarius and Eutyches. This was a solemn confirmation of the Council of Ephesus and a new judgment on the "Easterners." It is very characteristic that Origenism was also condemned at the Council. Once again the initiative for condemnation belonged to the emperor. As early as 543 the emperor had published ten anathemas against Origen and all who defended his impure opinions. This Edict was accepted in Constantinople, in Palestine, and in Rome. Before the Council Justinian addressed a new epistle about Origen to the bishops. Apparently, Origen’s condemnation was proclaimed by the fathers who had convened earlier than the official opening of the Council. That is why nothing is said about it in the Council "acts." However, it is included in the Council’s anathemas (Anathema 11), and Theodore Askidas mentions it during the Council itself. Shortly after the Council Cyril of Scythopolis tells of the condemnation of Origen and the Origenists in his Life of Sabas [Vita Sabae] and directly inculcates it in the Ecumenical Council. Didymus and Evagrius were condemned along with Origen. Also condemned were certain "impious opinions" expressed by Origen himself and his followers. The condemnation primarily referred to the Palestinian Origenists who had shattered tranquillity in the local monasteries. They had already been censured as early as 542 by patriarch Ephraem at a local synod in Antioch. Even earlier Antipater, the bishop of Bostra in Arabia, wrote against Origenism. Palestinian Origenism was connected with the Syrian Stephen Bar-Sudhaile. In his Edicts Justinian was only repeating accusations which had been made in the provinces. Not long before the Council a special group arrived in Constantinople from the monastery of the venerable Sabas headed by the Father Superior Conon. The monks presented the emperor with a special which contained an exposition of "all impiety." It is difficult how accurately Origen was quoted by his accusers. In any

e the opinions which were condemned do actually flow from h premises. The Edict of 543 condemned the doctrine of the preexistence and transmigration of souls; the doctrine of Christ’s eternal soul united with the Divine Logos before the Incarnation; the doctrine that he was not only a man for the sake of men but also a Seraphim for Seraphims, and that he would be crucified for demons; and the doctrine of the apokatastasis. They go into more detail in the epistle of 552. Here a sketch of the entire system is given. Its basic idea is that everything was created from eternity in perfect spirituality and that today’s heterogeneous and corporeal world arose through the Fall. The worldly process will end with a universal restoration and disincarnation of everything that exists. This is the scheme of Origen himself. We can say precisely what in this system attracted the Origenists of the sixth century. Cyril of Scythopolis tells of the division of the Palestinian Origenists into isochrists and protoktists. The names are quite transparent. The isochrists asserted that in the universal restoration everyone will become "equal to Christ” — ίσοι τω Χριστώ. This conclusion actually does not follow directly from Origen’s anthropological and Christological premises. The protoktists apparently talked not so much about apokatastasis as about pre-existence, especially the pre-existence of Jesus’ soul as the “first creation” — πρώτον κτίσμα. It is not difficult to understand why these ideas could spread precisely among monks — they naturally give rise to conclusions of a practical nature about the paths of the ascetic achievement.

Again, one could dispute the need to stir up the question of Origen at an Ecumenical Council. But Origen’s fallaciousness did not raise any doubts. Condemnation of Origenism at the Fifth Ecumenical Council was a condemnation of the inner temptations or the old Alexandrian theology which had not yet lost its influence m famous and rather wide circles. The prohibitions of the Fifth Ecumenical Council signified a judgment over the mistakes of the past. They are evidence of a "crisis" in theological consciousness, ine Antiochene and Alexandrian traditions are broken. The epoch has begun.

The Council of Chalcedon appeared momentarily to have ended in apparent victory, in apparent harmony. Emperor Marcian congratulated the Council because "they had put an end to discord and had restored unity." Such was not the case prior to or for the sixty-eight years after the Council of Chalcedon. Harnack’s description of the Council of Chalcedon as a council as violent as that of the Robber Council by Dioscorus is exaggerated. But the council was turbulent, vehement, and prone to violent outbursts. There was theological fanaticism on both sides. The tumultuous outcries — έκβοήσεις δημοηκαί — by the clergy were checked only by the imperial commissioners and the senators present who reminded the bishops that such conduct did not do honor to their ecclesiastical positions. When Theodoret of Cyrus entered, he was greeted enthusiastically by the Easterners, but the Egyptians are recorded as shouting: "Cast out the Jew, the enemy of God, the blasphemer of Christ!" The supporters of Theodoret responded with: "Cast out the murderer Dioscorus! Who does not know of his crimes?" Harnack’s comments, partially true but overly exaggerated, reveal his own attitude clearly: "the Council of Chalcedon, which to distinguish it from the Robber Council, we might call the Robber and Traitor Council… If it be asked, what is the saddest and most momentous event in the history of dogma since the condemnation of Paul of Samosata, we must point to the union of the year 433. The shadow of this occurrence rests on the whole subsequent history of dogma." The immediate conclusions that Harnack draws directly after this statement are erroneous.

Pope Leo I (d. 461) sent his famous epistle — the Tome of 449 — to the council of 449, addressed to Flavian (d. 449), the patriarch of Constantinople. It was suppressed at the Robber Council. At the Council of Chalcedon in 451 it was accepted with consolation and ecstasy, and as a confession of Cyril’s faith — Λεων ειπε τα Κυρίλλου. This was not a dogmatic definition — it was a solemn confession of faith. Here lies its force and here lies its narrowness. Pope Leo spoke a liturgical, not a theological, language. Hence the artistic plasticity of his exposition. He always spoke and wrote in an original rhythmical style. He draws a vivid image of the God-Man. In addition, he almost hushes up the disputed issue: not only does he not define his theological terms; he simply avoids them and does not use them. He did not like to "philosophize" about faith and was not a theologian at all.

Pope Leo wrote in the language of the Western theological tradition and did not even pose the question about how one should translate his confession into Greek and how one should express orthodox truth in the categories of the Greek tradition. This weakness of the papal Tome was immediately observed. Nestorius saw in it a confession of his own faith. The Chalcedonian fathers saw in it the "faith of Cyril." However, others of them — and, curiously, the Illyrian bishops — vacillated over accepting the Tome until they were assuaged by direct references to St. Cyril. All depended on how the Roman epistle was to be read, how it was to be "translated" and which theological categories were to be used.

Pope Leo proceeds from soteriological motives. Only the acceptance and assimilation of our own nature by him, whom neither sin could ensnare nor death could imprison, could open up the possibility of victory over sin and death — nisi naturam nostram Ille susciperet et suam faceret "And it is equally dangerous to confess the Lord Jesus Christ only as God without humanity and only as man without Divinity" — et aequalis erat periculi, Dominum Jesum Christum aut Deum tantummodo sine homine, aut sine Deo solum hominem credidisse. The denial of human consubstantiality between us and Christ overturns the whole "sacrament of faith." A genuine connection with Christ does not appear, is not established "unless we recognize in him the flesh of our race." If he has only the "form of a man" — formam hominis — but does not take from his Mother the "truth of the body" — et non materni corporis veritatem, then redemption is vain. The miracle of the Virgin Birth does not violate the consubstantiality of Mother and Son — the Holy Spirit provided the power of the birth but the "reality of the body is from the body" — veritas corporis sumpta de corpore est. Through this new — because it is pure — birth, the Son of God enters this earthly world. But this birth in time does not weaken his eternal birth from the Father. The Only-Begotten Son of the Eternal Father is born of the Holy Spirit through the Virgin Mary. In his Incarnation he is truly united and "there is no deception in this unity." He who is true God is also true man — qui enim verus est Deus, verus est homo. Two natures are united in a unity of person — in unam coeunte personam — and the "properties" of the natures remain "unchanged" — salva proprietate. Grandeur accepts nothingness, might accepts weakness, eternity unites with mortality, an "inviolable" nature unites with a suffering one. God is born in the perfect nature of a true man, uniting in this the completeness and integrity of both natures — in Integra ergo veri hominis perfectaque natura verus natus est Deus, totus in suis, lotus in nostris. He acquired the human without losing the Divine — humana augens, divina non minuens. And this occurrence of the Invisible was an impulse of goodness, not a belittling of might. The acceptance of human nature by the Logos was to extol human nature; it was not the diminution of Divinity.

Pope Leo achieves a greater expressiveness in this game of contrasts and antitheses. He defines the completeness of union as the unity of Person. However, he never defines directly and precisely what he means by "person." This was not an accidental oversight. It would be inappropriate to pass this over in silence in a dogmatic Tome. But Pope Leo did not know how to define "person." In his early sermons Pope Leo spoke of the union of God and man sometimes as a "mixture," sometimes as a "co-dwelling." Once again he could not find the words. He achieves great clarity in his Tome, but in his descriptive synthesis rather than in his individual definitions. An ineffable union has been completed, but in the union each nature — each "forma" — retains its properties — "features" or proprietas. Each form retains the feature of its activity and the duality of activities does not destroy the unity of person. A duality of activities and operations in the completed union of an indivisible person — such is the Gospel image of Christ. One Person. But one side shines with miracles while the other succumbs to suffering. One is a source of weakness common to both while the other is a source of common glory. By virtue of the unity of person in two natures — in duabus naturis, both weakness and glory are reciprocal. Therefore one may say that the Son of Man descended from Heaven, although in actual fact the Son of God received a body from the Virgin. And from the other perspective, one may say that the Son of God was crucified and buried, although the Only-Begotten Son suffered this not in his Divinity which is ever-eternal and consubstantial with the Father, but in the weakness of human nature. In the sequence of events’in the Gospels one feels a certain growth of mysterious manifestations — the human becomes clearer and clearer, and Divinity becomes more and more radiant. A baby’s swaddling clothes and the words of angels, the baptism by John and the Father’s evidence on the Jordan — these are the outward signs. Hungry and thirsty, wandering without shelter, and the great Miracle-Worker. Mourning a dead friend, and then resurrecting him with a single word of command. Something more is revealed here. Tears and the admission "My Father is greater than I" bear witness to the completeness and authenticity of human self-awareness. And the affirmation "the Father and I are one" discloses Divinity. Not two, but One; but not one, but two (natures). After the resurrection the Lord holds discourse with the disciples, eats with them, but passes through closed doors. He lets them feel him, but imparts the Spirit to them through his breath. This is done simultaneously and immediately so that they may recognize in him the indivisible union of two natures and understand that the Logos and the flesh form a single Son without merging the two.

In Pope Leo’s portrayal a unified Christ can really be seen. He clearly and confidently reproduces the Gospel image of the God-Man. This was evidence of a strong and lucid faith which was bold and tranquil in its comprehension. Of course, Pope Leo was indeed expounding "Cyril’s faith," although not at all in Cyril’s language. They are united not by formulas but by a community of vision, and the same almost naive method of perceiving or observing the unity of God and Man. However, Pope Leo was even less able than Cyril to suggest or anticipate a monosemantic dogmatic definition. His words are very vivid, but as if shrouded by a radiant fog. It was not an easy or a simple matter to secure his words in the terms of dogmatic theology. It still remained unclear whether Pope Leo’s persona corresponded to Cyril’s υπόστασις or φυσίς or to Nestorius’ πρόσωπον της ένώσεως. Does the Latin word natura correspond to the Hellenic φύσις? How exactly is this unity of person in two natures,” this “meeting” of two natures “in one person” to be understood? Finally, what is most unclear in Pope Leo is this concept of "form," which he took from a distant but still Tertullian tradition. In any case Pope Leo’s Tome was not clear enough to take the place of the disputed "covenant" of 433. A genuine catholic definition was heard not from the West, but from the East, at Chalcedon in 451.

The Chalcedonian oros or definition was a revision of the exposition of faith of 433. The fathers of 451 did not immediately consent to the composition of a new definition of faith. It seemed possible to once more make do with a general reference to tradition and with prohibitions against heresy. Others were prepared to be content with Pope Leo’s Tome. Apparently many were stopped here by fear of antagonizing the blind followers of St. Cyril through a premature dogmatic definition. These people were clinging to an inert stubbornness — not so much to his teachings as to his words. This fear was justified — the Chalcedonian oros or definition proved to be a stumbling block and a temptation for the "Egyptians" through its language and terminology alone. However, given the circumstances which had taken shape, to have stayed with the unreliable, ambiguous and debatable formulas would have been no less dangerous. We are unable to follow the history of the compositions of the Chalcedonian definition in all its details. From the council "acts" we can only guess at the disputes which took place. They quarrelled more outside of the general gathering, at private meetings and during the breaks.

The text which was accepted reads thus:

The closeness to the Formula of Reunion of 433 is at once evident, but they have made a very characteristic addition to it. First, instead of "for the union of two natures was completed — δύο γαρ φύσεων ενωσις γέγονe — it states acknowledged “in two natures” — εν δύο φύσεσιν. There was a debate at the council over this expression. In the original sentence, which has been lost, it read “of two natures” — εκ δύο φύσεων. And, apparently, the majority liked this. An objection was raised from the "Eastern" side. The formula seemed evasive. This was not a "Nestorian" suspicion. In actual fact, "of two" sounded weaker than simply "two." After all, even Eutyches agreed to speak of "two natures" before union — which is precisely what "of two" corresponds to — but not in the union itself. And Dioscorus declared flatly at the council that he would accept "of two" but not "two." Pope Leo had "in two natures" — in duabus naturis. After the new drafting conference, his formulation "in two" was accepted. This was sharper and more definite than the former "union of two" and more importantly it shifted attention away from the moment of union to the single Person himself.

One can ponder the Incarnation in one of two ways — either in contemplation of God’s logical oikonomia to arrive at the event of the Incarnation — "and the union was completed" — or to proceed from contemplation of the Person of God and Man, in which the two-ness is identified and which is revealed in this duality. St. Cyril usually thought in the first way. However, all the emotional content of his assertion is connected with the second — one ought not to speak of the Logos Incarnate in the same way as before the incarnation, for the union was completed. And in this regard the Chalcedonian formula is very close to St. Cyril’s spirit. Secondly, in the Chalcedonian definition the expressions "one person" and "one hypostasis — εν πρόσωπον και μία υπόστασις — are concretely and resolutely put on the same basis. The first is strengthened and at the same time intensified through the second. This identification of the one concept with the other is perhaps the very cutting edge of the oros. Some of the words are taken from Leo — in unam coeunte personam becomes in the oros: εις εν πρόσωπον και μίαν ύπόστασιν συντρεχούσης. But added to that is the most significant “and in a single hypostasis.” It is here where the pointed and burning question of Christological terminology comes up.

The descriptive "Person" — not "personality" — is shifted onto the ontological plane — hypostasis. With this, the Chalcedonian oros clearly distinguishes two metaphysical concepts — "nature" and "hypostasis." This is not a simple contrast of the "common" and the "particular" — as was established by St. Basil the Great. In the Chalcedonian definition "nature" is not an abstract and general concept — it is not "the general as distinct from the particular," allowing for the "isolated" traits. Unity of hypostasis signifies unity of subject, while the two-ness of natures signifies the completeness of the concrete definitions (traits, features) through two natures, on two actual planes — "perfection" which is precisely this completeness of traits both "in Divinity" and "in humanity."

There is a paradoxical unspokenness in the Chalcedonian definition. Through the sequence of the discourse it is readily apparent that what is recognized as the hypostatic center of the unity of God and Man is the Divinity of the Logos — "at one and the same time Christ, the Son, the Logos, the Only-Begotten, acknowledged in two natures." Both the Son and the Only-Begotten. This is not said directly, however. The unity of the hypostasis is not defined directly as the hypostasis of the Logos. Hence, the further vagueness about the human "nature." What does it mean to recognize "nature" but not "hypostasis?" Can there really be a "hypostasis-less nature?" Historically speaking, such was the main objection to the Chalcedonian definition. It clearly professes the absence of human hypostasis and to a certain extent precisely the "hypostasis-lessness" of the human nature in Christ. But it does not explain how this is possible. Here lies the intimacy of the definition and St. Cyril’s theology. Admitting human "hypostasis-lessness" is admitting an asymmetry in the unity of the God-Man. In this the definition moves away from the "Eastern" way of thinking. In addition, two parallel ranks of "traits" and definition stretch out — "in two natures," "in Divinity" and "in humanity." This is precisely what is in Leo’s Tome. But they close not only in unity of person but in unity of hypostasis. Un-spokenness harks back to unspeakability. The paradox of the Chalcedonian oros lies in the fact that it immediately professes the "perfection" of Christ’ "in humanity" — "consubstantial with us in his humanity, similar to us in everything except sin, which means that everything that can and should be said about a man as a man, except for sin, can and should be said about Christ. And this denies that Christ was an ordinary man — he is God Incarnate. He did not "receive a man," but "became a man." Everything human can be said about him. He can be taken for a man but he is not a "man" but God. This is the paradox of the Truth about Christ which is expressed in the paradoxical nature of the Chalcedonian definition.

The Chalcedonian fathers were faced with a two-sided problem — removing the possibility of "Nestorian" thought on the one hand — that is why identically ("both;" "at one and the same time") is so clearly expressed in the oros, and why the unity of person is defined as the unity of hypostasis. On the other hand is the assertion of perfect "consubstantiality" or "likeness" (that is, the coincidence of all qualitative attributes) of Christ through his humanity with the entire human race whose Savior he was, precisely because he became its Head and was born of the Virgin Mary. This is what is emphasized by the profession of two natures; that is, strictly speaking, by defining the "human" in Christ as a "nature" which is perfect, complete, and consub -stantial. There obtains a sort of formal discrepancy — "completeness of humanity" but not "a man." All the expressiveness of the Chalcedonian oros is in this so-called "discrepancy."

But in it there is also a real unspokenness and a certain incompleteness. The oros makes obligatory its fixed "dyophysite" terminology, thereby prohibiting any other terminology. This ban applies, first of all, to St. Cyril’s terminology, to his "literary" ‘Monophysitism." This was necessary, first of all, because acknowledging a single nature would cover up a real Apollin -arianism or Eutychianism — that is, a denial of Christ’s human consubstantiality." But secondly, this was also necessary for Precision in the concepts. St. Cyril spoke of "a single nature" and spoke only of Divinity in Christ in the strict sense of the term as a "nature" — precisely in order to emphasize the "hypostasis-lessness" of humanity in Christ, in order to express Christ’s non-commensurability with (ordinary) people because of the "form of existence" of humanity in him and certainly not because of the traits or qualities of his human composition. For him, the concept of "nature" signified precisely the concreteness of existence — existence itself, not only the "form" of existence; that is, in the sense of Aristotle’s "first essence." Therefore he inevitably did not have enough words for a more exact definition of both the composition and the form of the existence of the human attributes in Christ.

Thus arose the vagueness which disturbed the "Easterners." It was necessary to clearly differentiate these two elements: the composition and "form of existence." This was achieved through a kind of subtraction of "hypostasis-ness" from the concept of "nature," but without letting this concept change from the concrete ("particular") to the "general" or "abstract." Strictly speaking, a new concept of "nature" was developed. However, this was neither stipulated nor explained with sufficient clarity, neither in the oros itself nor in the council’s "acts." And the "single hypostasis" was not directly defined as the Hypostasis of the Logos. Therefore, the impression could be created that the "completeness of humanity" in Christ is being asserted too abruptly, while the "form" of its existence remains unclear. This was not a flaw in the definition of faith, but it did demand a theological commentary. The council itself did not provide one.

This commentary was given much later — almost one hundred years after the Chalcedonian Council during Justinian’s time by Leontius of Byzantium and other "Neo-Chalcedonians." The Chalcedonian oros, as it were, anticipated events — even more than the Nicene Creed had in its time. Perhaps its hidden meaning remained unclear to some at the council until the very end, just as at Nicaea not all understood the whole significance and resolute -ness of professing the Logos as consubstantial with the Father. One should be reminded that in the Nicene Creed, too, there was a certain formal awkwardness and discrepancy — and almost the same one, for it makes no distinction between the concepts of "essence" and "hypostasis" and between "consubstantiality" and "from the essence of the Father." This created the need for farther discussion and debate. The only thing that was immediately clear was the polemical or "agonistical" sense of the new definition -the line of demarcation and circumscription was confidently drawn. A positive confession still has to be revealed in the theological synthesis. A new theme was given for it. It still needs to be mentioned — the "union of natures" (or "the unity of hypostasis") is defined in the Chalcedonian oros as non-continuous, inalterable, indivisible, and inseparable — άσυγχύτως, άτρέπτως, αδιαιρέτως, άχωρίστως. All these are negative attributes. "Inseparability" and "indivisibility" define the unity, the form of the union. "Non-continuous" and "inalterability" refer to the "natures" — their traits ("features") are not removed or changed by the union but remain "immutable." They are even somehow strengthened by the union. The cutting edge of these negations is directed against all kinds of Apollinarianism and against any idea about the union as a transubstantiating synthesis. The oros flatly rules out any thought of "fusion" — συγχυσις — or “mixing” — κράσις: This signified a repudiation of the old language. In the fourth century the unity of the God-Man was usually defined as a “mixing” — κρασίς or μιξις — just to protect against Apollinarius. Now this seemed dangerous. And once again they did not utilize a precise word to express the form of the ineffable union in some simile or analogy.

Emperor Marcian’s congratulations were premature. Unity had not been restored. The result of the Council of Chalcedon was divisive, despite its orthodox definition of faith. What was the reaction of Alexandria to the Council of Chalcedon? First, Alexandria considered the Council of Chalcedon heretical because their expression of "one nature," held by that see since St. Cyril, had been abandoned while simultaneously the Council of Chalcedon invoked the name and writings of St. Cyril with respect and as onhodox. Secondly, Alexandria lost more "territorial" oversight as a result of the Council of Chalcedon — not only did the Twenty-Eighth Canon give Constantinople the rank second only to Old Rome but the Council of Chalcedon’s canons transferred the three civil dioceses of Asiana, Pontica, and Thrace to Constantinople, dioceses formerly under the jurisdiction of Alexandria. Thirdly, the Council of Chalcedon represented a victory of Greeks over Copts and Syrians. Fourthly, the Alexandrians were infuriated with the way Dioscorus was treated. Dioscorus had taken his stand with "Ephesus and Cyril." He had not been condemned on doctrinal grounds but rather for his treatment of Flavian. Dioscorus had protested that he did not accept any mixing of the two natures and, according to the account in Mansi (6, 676), no one could prove that he had mixed the two natures — Διόσκορος ειπεν oυτε συγχύσιν λέγομεν ουτε τομήν ούτε τροπήν. ανάθεμα τω λέγοντι σύγχυσην η άνάκρασιν. He was not refuted when he declared that "Flavian was rightly condemned because he still maintained two natures after the union. I can prove from Athanasius, Gregory, and Cyril that after the union we ought rather to speak only of one incarnate nature of the Logos. I will be rejected together with the Fathers, but I defend the doctrine of the Fathers and I yield on no point." Dioscorus was ready to denounce Eutyches "even to fire, should Eutyches teach incorrectly" (Mansi 6, 633). Dioscorus left the Council of Chalcedon. In the first session of the Council of Chalcedon the Robber Council was annulled and Dioscorus — along with others participating in the Robber Council who did not acknowledge their "error" — was deposed. Juvenal of Jerusalem who supported Dioscorus at the Robber Council did not support him at the Council of Chalcedon — Zacharias writes in his Church History (3, 3) that Juvenal changed sides at the Council of Chalcedon to secure the patriarchate of Jerusalem. Most of the bishops who had taken part in the Robber Council were present at Chalcedon — it appears from Mansi (6, 936) that only twenty-six bishops who attended the Robber Council did not attend the Council of Chalcedon. Dioscorus was cited three times to defend himself against the charges of injustice, avarice, adultery and other vices. He did not appear and was deposed — he was exiled to Gangra. The shouts went up: "The impious must always be overthrown! Christ has deposed Dioscorus, the murderer [of Flavian]. This is a righteous judgment... a righteous council!" At the second session the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, two letters of St. Cyril — but not his Twelve Anathemas — and Pope Leo’s Tome to Flavian were read. The bishops exclaimed: "That is the faith of the fathers! That is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! So the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who believes otherwise! Through Leo, Peter has spoken. Even so did Cyril teach! That is the true faith!" In the eyes of the Egyptians Dioscorus had been a martyr.

For more than a century there was to be hostility towards the Council of Chalcedon. It is important to point out that those who rejected the Council of Chalcedon were not labelled "heretics" — even St. John of Damascus considered the Monophysites as "dissidents" and not as "heretic," and this as late as the eighth century. It was in Egypt where the Council of Chalcedon was rejected almost by all. But the rejection of the Council of Chalcedon and separation from communion did not mean at this time a political succession from the empire. The imperial tradition and its symbiosis with the Church since the Council of Nicaea were too strong. The opponents of Chalcedon might call Marcian a "new Assyrian," Pulcheria a "false virgin," and Anastasius a "Manichee" but succession was not an option. Michael the Syrian (1126-1199) relates in his Chronicle (8, 14) — the original Syriac text was discovered in 1888 — that Marcian was to blame precisely for causing a disunity in the empire. The basic frame of mind was to wait for a new emperor, for a new change of events within the empire. The formal break does not occur until the time of Severus of Antioch and it was precisely a result of his attitude towards the reception of the holy sacraments from Chalcedonians, a result of his ακρίβεια. In Egypt where the Coptic identity was so strong it would take another century before the Coptic Monophysites consciously considered themselves to be opposed to the empire, to be anti-imperial in strictest sense of that terminology. Until then, emperors will still be prayed for and armies will still be blessed. "In the fifth and sixth centuries no eastern bishop dared to excommunicate an emperor even in the heat of controversy." The turbulence, the social unrest, the violence are still within a religious world perspective. Political succession from the empire or any kind of "disorder" which seriously threatened imperial rule would be considered anarchy. That, however, does not mean that the very fabric of the future political division was not already there m seed, in seed that much later will sprout forth into regional, national or ethnic splits. It also does not mean that there was no dislike among the Copts and Syrians for the "Greeks" — there was a strong hostility. But the line must be drawn, the integrity of empire was still a reality after Chalcedon.

The Council of Chalcedon, upon deposing Dioscorus, appointed Proterius to be bishop of Alexandria. The Egyptians considered Proterius as a renegade, as a traitor, as one who had abandoned principle in order to secure the patriarchate. In fact Proterius had no influence except with the imperial officials — the clergy, the monks, and the laity separated from communion with him.

Proterius encountered personally this violence, this reaction to Chalcedon. The people of Alexandria took to the streets and rioting broke out. The imperial forces were defeated in street fighting — in fact, some soldiers were burned alive by the rioting mob. Reinforcements finally subdued the violence and "order" was restored. The imperial wrath took its revenge — the baths were closed, food distribution was cut off, property was confiscated, and some executions took place. The Alexandrians blamed, of course, the entire outbreak of violence on Proterius. Proterius, as Juvenal of Jerusalem, had to be protected by a bodyguard. The Egyptian Christians still regarded Dioscorus, exiled in Gangra, as their patriarch.

Violence awaited Juvenal on his return to Jerusalem from Chalcedon. A certain Theodosius, born in Alexandria and a monk in Palestine, had accompanied Juvenal to Chalcedon. As soon as Juvenal withdrew his support for Dioscorus, Theodosius left the council and returned to Palestine to spread the word of Juvenal’s "apostasy." Furious monks awaited Juvenal and refused to let him enter Jerusalem unless he anathematized the Council of Chalcedon. Juvenal refused, returned to Constantinople, and sought support from the emperor. While Juvenal was back in Constantinople, the Monophysites elected Theodosius patriarch. The sources tell us that Theodosius was reluctant but it was argued that Juvenal’s "apostasy" had made his consecration null and void. Chalcedonian sources claim that Theodosius was a man of vile character, that he persecuted the orthodox, and that he even had one deacon put to death for challenging him and accusing him of atheism. Theodosius made several appointments, consecrated several bishops to sees that were then vacant because of the violent rivalry between the Monophysites and the Chalcedonians. The Council of Chalcedon had added jurisdiction to the see of Jerusalem — it recognized Jerusalem as a patriarchal see at the expense of the metropolitan see of Caesarea and the patriarchal see of Antioch — and Theodosius utilized this when consecrating new bishop.

Juvenal returned to Jerusalem accompanied by imperial forces and a personal bodyguard. The Monophysites resisted his entry into the holy city. Rioting and street fighting erupted. Evagrius Scholasticus (c. 536-600) tells us in his Church History that both sides did what their anger allowed. The Chalcedonians in Nablus took their revenge on the Monophysite monks and a massacre resulted. Theodosius fled to the mountains of Sinai. With the aid of imperial forces Juvenal was able to expel the Monophysites-bishops from their sees and monks from their monasteries. The Monophysite historian, Zacharias, relates an incident that casts a positive aspect on the character of Juvenal (3, 8). A beggar approached Juvenal to ask for his blessing. The beggar was a Monophysite zealot who poured a basket of "filth and ashes" on Juvenal’s head and clothing, shouting that Juvenal was a "liar and persecutor." Just as Juvenal’s bodyguard was about to strike the beggar, Juvenal, "moved to repentance," sent the beggar away with enough money to leave the area.

Theodosius did not remain on Sinai. Rather, he disguised himself as a soldier and went about in the countryside to rally support for his party. He was captured and sent to a monastery until his death. Though Theodosius’ supporters claim that he was confined in a cell in extremely bad condition, Theodosius was able to write books against a certain John, another Monophysite whose views were more extreme. The divisions among the Monophysites had already begun.

Juvenal remained patriarch of Jerusalem until his death in 458 — order had been reestablished in 453. Emperor Marcian and Empress Pulcheria wrote to the recalcitrant monks in an attempt to explain why the Council of Chalcedon should be accepted. In general, Palestine represented a special situation. Situated between Egypt, which was almost entirely Monophysite, and Syria, which was increasingly becoming more and more Monophysite, Palestine consisted in general of numerous monasteries which were more Greek than Syriac and which were at that time pro-Chalcedonian. The Monophysites at this time did not control all the monasteries in Palestine. But already in the time of Justinian we know that the Chalcedonian monks in Palestine were fewer in number. Moreover, Palestine will represent a special situation throughout the Monophysite controversy, always being somewhat inclined towards Chalcedon, the reasons for which are varied. In part it was because the very existence of the patriarchal see of Jerusalem depended on the canons of the Council of Chalcedon. In part it was because of the holy places which attracted pilgrims from throughout the empire, a fact which by itself opened Palestine to more communication with Constantinople and with the Latin West. Unlike Egyptian monasticism which was in general ethnic in character, especially from the time of the expulsion of the Greek Origenists" under Patriarch Theophilus, Palestinian monasticism was "imperial" or "international" in general, for most of the monks came from all parts of the empire.

Rome was thoroughly committed to Chalcedon, even though the nuances of the theological problems do not seem to have been understood there. Constantinople, as the "New Rome," as the imperial city, shifted with the political realities. Still, there were theological problems to resolve and not all of the "shifting" was done for purely political reasons. The Twenty-Eighth Canon of the Council of Chalcedon also was of importance to the imperial city and it was a canon which Rome would consistently refuse to accept. The Romans legates who were present when the Twenty-Eighth Canon was promulgated protested vigorously. Indeed, they called attention quickly to the canons of the Council of Nicaea, canons that had determined the order of the hierarchy among the patriarchal sees. On the one hand Rome simply ignored the Twenty-Eighth Canon, at times claiming it had never heard of it. On the other hand Pope Leo reacted strongly. Indeed, he refused to confirm the Council of Chalcedon at first. Then in May of 452 Pope Leo annulled all acts of the Council of Chalcedon that contradicted the canons of the Council of Nicaea. He wrote in protest to Emperor Marcian, to Empress Pulcheria, and to Patriarch Anatolius. It was not until March of 453 that Pope Leo finally confirmed the decrees of the council but even then he carefully stipulated that he was confirming only that which was decreed concerning the faith. Pope Leo, always cognizant of the Roman see’s consciousness of itself as principatus apostolicus considered the Twenty-Eighth Canon to be dangerous, untraditional, and invalid. Always deeply concerned that the Church have a uniformity in canonical as well as liturgical practices — utfide et actibus congmamus — Pope Leo would never accept what he considered to be a novelty in the hierarchy of the Church. He did not consider the papal primacy to be a result of political considerations but rather to be established on the primacy of St. Peter. Although he places the greatest significance on the canons of the Council of Nicaea, especially the Sixth Canon, Pope Leo ignores in silence the Third Canon of the Second Ecumenical Council. Indeed, Patriarch Anatolius did respond to Pope Leo on the subject: "Concerning the decree of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in favor of the See of Constantinople, Your Holiness may be certain that I had no part in it so that I have peace and tranquillity since my youth. The venerable clergy of the Church of Constantinople took this initiative in accord with the pious bishops of our regions who insisted on the measure. But all its efficacy and its confirmation have been reserved to the authority of Your Holiness" [Epistula 132, Anatolii ad Leonem]. The Twenty-Eighth Canon of the Council of Chalcedon would be confirmed by Emperor Justinian in his One Hundred and Thirty-First Novelle. Latin canonical collections would consistently omit it. Indeed, Rome never would accept this canon. It was only during the Latin period of occupation of the patriarchate — when it was a Latin patriarchate at Constantinople — did Rome acknowledge that the patriarch of Constantinople held the rank next to the patriarch of Rome. This was acknowledged in 1215 under Pope Innocent III by the Fourth Lateran Council. But the special circumstances surrounding this acknowledgement must be stressed.

There is an enormous lacuna of information on the reaction to the Council of Chalcedon in Antioch. Maximus, the bishop of Antioch, although he was promoted to this position by the Robber Council, was a dyophysite. Yet, not long after this Antioch, at least in its representation in the patriarchate, will become Monophysite. It is not sufficient to attempt to explain this by the "demotion" of the patriarchate by the Council of Chalcedon. The essential answer must be sought elsewhere. In essence Antioch was a Greek city planted in a Syriac land. Indeed, it may appear odd that the famous Antiochene school with its emphasis on the historical Jesus, with its emphasis on the human nature in Christ, could fall under the sway of a theological vision which, at very least, minimalized the human nature in Christ. The explanation that Antioch succumbed to Monophysitism because of the influence of the monks who, it is claimed, tended towards Monophysitism, is also an inadequate explanation, though it is partly true that monasticism in general was prone towards Monophysitism — the monastery associated with St. Simeon the Stylite, who was himself vociferously pro-Chalcedonian, became Monophysite not long after St. Simeon’s death in 459. Yet, the problem cannot be explained adequately on historical grounds. The problem was one of a theological nature which in fact transcended regional areas or ethnic factionalism.

Peter the Fuller — his name γναφεύς obviously comes from his monastic profession as a “fuller” — had been a monk in Constantinople at the Acoemetae Monastery — (from άκοίμηταί meaning the “sleepless ones”). He appears to have disputed with “the brethren” there and journeyed to Syria. His strong anti-Chalcedonian tendencies won him the support of many and he was consecrated patriarch of Antioch while the canonical patriarch, Martyrius, was in Constantinople. Peter was patriarch this time for only one year but he used that year to introduce a change in the liturgy at Antioch. To the Trisagion Hymn of "Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us," Peter added "Thou who was crucified for us" before "have mercy on us" — άγιος ό Θeoς, άγιος ισχυρός, άγιος αθάνατος, ό σταυρωθεις δι’ ήμας. By itself there was nothing unorthodox with this formula if it referred to the person of the Logos in the flesh. But it could also easily be interpreted in a Monophysitical way — and indeed it was to become a type of sacred phrase among Monophysites. Thus Antioch experienced a formula of Monophysitism in its very liturgical life, even if the duration under Peter was brief.

Emperor Marcian died in early 457. With his death the Theodosian dynasty died also. It was Marcian who had assembled the Council of Chalcedon and it was he who was responsible for upholding the authority of the council, from preventing an open revolt on the part of the Monophysite party. Scarcely had he been buried when the battle over Chalcedon broke out. It was Alexandria, of course, where the new struggle was unleashed. And who better to spark the new struggle than Dioscorus — this time in death, however. Dioscorus had died in exile in 454 but he was never forgotten by the Egyptians. One source, the Vita Petri Iberi (63), portrays Proterius as "hard-hearted," as "blood-thirsty," and as "rejoicing" over the death of Dioscorus. The decree exiling those who participated in the Robber Council had become void upon the death of Emperor Marcian. Hence, the exiles returned to Alexandria. Simultaneously, the imperial military commander of Alexandria — Dionysius — was not in the city at this time. The Monophysite party, never regarding Proterius as the legitimate patriarch, determined to elect their own patriarch to the legitimate one, the now departed "confessor" Dioscorus.

Their choice was one Timothy “Aelurus” — the nickname “weasel” or “cat” came from the Greek αίλουρος. His followers claimed the nickname came from his small and emaciated stature; his opponents claimed it came from his "nightly prowlings" from cell to cell to solicit the position of patriarch for himself. When the death of Emperor Marcian became known in Alexandria, Timothy Aelurus was smuggled into the city. The mass of people supported Timothy. The bishops were hesitant. Indeed, only two bishops could be found to consecrate Timothy, only one of whom came from the area. The other was the interesting personality of Peter the Iberian — Nabarnugios, a barbarian prince, a one-time hostage, an ascetic and monk, and finally a bishop. Severus in his Letter 2 (3) claims there were three bishops but admits that the entire procedure was irregular, secret, and hurried. Peter the Iberian played a significant role in Egypt in undermining Proterius’ position. Indeed, some have speculated that Proterius might have been able to win over the populace had it not been for the influence of Peter. It was the dowager Empress Eudokia, settling near Jerusalem in 443, who supported Peter the Iberian. Peter had always had good connections with the imperial court and they continued while he was the head of a monastery in Palestine. When Eudokia died in 460, Peter left for Egypt and there worked for the Monophysite cause. The Vita Petri Iberi relates that as early as 453 "shouts inspired by God" were heard in the the theater: "Bring Dioscorus to the city! Bring the orthodox to the city! Bring the confessor to his throne. Let the bones of Proterius be burned! Banishment to Judas! Throw Judas oat!" To the Alexandrians Dioscorus was the true confessor, the one who had stood up for the truth, the one who had defied the emperor and excommunicated the bishop of Rome. Dioscorus had become a national hero; Proterius had become linked with the imperial policy and the Council of Chalcedon. Emperor Marcian had written to Palladius, the praetorian prefect, in August of 455 to order the same penalty for the followers of Eutyches and Apollinarius as was in effect for the Manichees. Proterius knew that policy was being made by circumventing him. He had even tried in vain to persuade Pope Leo to allow a more flexible interpretation of Chalcedon in Egypt. Leo flatly refused, claiming that Chalcedon had to be accepted in full with no dilution and no wavering of interpretation. Proterius had waged a long dispute with Leo over the date of Easter and on this he had been successful. Otherwise, Proterius had no influence.

When Dionysius had realized that Timothy had been consecrated, he hurried back to his post in Alexandria and arrested Timothy. Such violence broke out that Dionysius released Timothy under surveillance. A type of compromise was reached temporarily — they divided the churches in Alexandria, some to be under Timothy, some under Proterius. The lack of influence that Proterius had was reflected in the fact that, although it was Holy Week and the time for baptismal candidates to present themselves, only five baptismal candidates received baptism from Proterius. Twelve days after the consecration of Timothy Aelurus, Proterius was murdered in the baptistery of his own cathedral on Holy Friday. His body was dragged through the streets and burned in the Hippodrome.

Who now was to be patriarch? Proterius was dead. It appears that both the imperial officials and the followers of Proterius were willing to accept Timothy but on one condition. Could Timothy convince his followers to accept the "Proterians?" This he could not do. The matter was referred to the new emperor for a decision.

Emperor Leo I (457-474) was a competent soldier — tribunus — and statesman but no theologian. Like Marcian, Leo was a Thracian staff-officer. Leo was also the first emperor to receive his crown from the patriarch of Constantinople. From this point on all Byzantine Emperors would be crowned by the patriarch of Constantinople. In addition, he owed his throne to the Alan Aspar [see the interesting article on Aspar’s influence by G. Vernadsky, "Flavius Ardabur Aspar," in Sudost-Forschungen 6 (1941), 38 ff.] Leo I was a Chalcedonian. His puritanical tendencies did not unnoticed — he attempted to compel rest on Sunday and proohibited musical instruments. This situation in Alexandria he viewed as one of "public order," failing to perceive the profundities of the theological problems involved in the situation. The eauence of events given in the Vita Petri Iberi, the Church History (4, 1) of Zacharias, Evagrius’ Church History (2, 8), and Theodore Lector’s Church History (1, 8-9) indicate that, prior to the murder of Proterius, Emperor Leo I was inclined to favor Timothy Aelurus — this could very well have been the influence of Aspar whose own interests for his Goths would have favored a weakened patriarch of Constantinople. As soon as he learned of the murder, Leo I sent officials to investigate.

The Monophysite party in Alexandria requested a council to be held in Ephesus to decide the issue of the Alexandrian patriarch. Obviously they wanted it held in Ephesus because it was the place of the two victories of Alexandria — at the Third Ecumenical Council under St. Cyril in 431 and at the Robber Council under Dioscorus in 449. They obviously wanted to reopen the entire question of the validity of the Council of Chalcedon. Emperor Leo I rejected this request. The patriarch of Constantinople, Anatolius, suggested and the emperor accepted the suggestion of asking all bishops in the empire what they thought of two issues: the consecration of Timothy; and the Council of Chalcedon. The responses on the consecration of Timothy were unanimous — the consecration was condemned. On the question of the Council of Chalcedon only one bishop — Amphilochius of Side — condemned the council. All other bishops claimed that they adhered to the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon. Odd mathematics take place within fifteen years. In 458 approximately two thousand bishops claimed they adhered to Chalcedon. Fifteen years later Emperor Basiliscus (475-476) issued an encyclical which essentially condemned the Council of Chalcedon and approximately five hundred bishops ascribed to it!

Emperor Leo I acted. Timothy Aelurus was ordered out of exandria. A new patriarch was to be chosen and consecrated, one who would adhere to the Council of Chalcedon. Timothy was encedto exile in Gangra. He was arrested and sent into exile. As he was leaving Alexandria, the populace rioted. This time the authorities were prepared and quelled the riots. As he journeyed to his exile, Timothy was met with respect along the way. In Beirut [Berytus] the bishop, Eustathius, despite the fact that he had signed the acts of the Council of Chalcedon and had responded favorably to Emperor Leo I’s request for his attitude towards the Council of Chalcedon, told Timothy that he was in complete agreement with him and his doctrine. Timothy is said to have challenged Eustathius, claiming that he was insincere and that, if sincere, then he should follow him into exile.

The respect that Timothy Aelurus commanded on his way into exile gave die imperial authorities food for thought, for it clearly revealed how strong the Monophysites were in those regions. The authorities initiated action against many of these leaders. Timothy reached his exile in Gangra. Later, he was exiled to the more remote Cherson, a step which indicated how serious the state considered Timothy’s influence. Timothy wrote bitterly in exile. "Exiled I am only and simply because of my loyalty to the Council of Nicaea and my loyalty to the fathers, and for my renunciation of the open denial of Christ at Chalcedon. The sentence against me is thoroughly illegal, and it was obtained through bribery. Neither was I given any opportunity to defend myself."

In the spring of 460 a patriarch was selected for Alexandria, another Timothy who picked up the nickname of Salafaciolus as well as that of "Basilicus." The latter meant that he was the "emperor’s man." The Monophy sites describe Timothy as a popularity seeker, as a man feeble in act, and as a man "soft in manners." But he stunned most people of his time because he refused to persecute his opponents. This could partly be a result of his "soft" or kind nature but there was something else involved. Timothy Salafaciolus believed that the various Christian parties should be allowed to honor "Our Lord as each sees fit." Timothy was in essence advocating the right of religious conscience and the right of toleration. This did not go unnoticed. Pope Leo the Great wrote Timothy Salofaciolus a rebuke. To a great extent Pope Leo was correct, for even the Monophysites despised Timothy for his toleration — they even resented the opportunity of being considered martyrs. But his kindness ultimately won the populace. It is recorded that the Alexandrian populace shouted: "We will not be in communion with you, but we love you." Timothy Salafaciolus even took the extraordinary step of restoring Dioscorus1 name to the diptychs, despite a vigorous protest from Pope Leo the Great who cut him off from communion with Rome. It seems, however, that he later corrected himself and again removed Dioscorus’ name the diptychs.

Under the kind and mild rule of Timothy Salofaciolus no violence erupted in Alexandria. Emperor Leo I was able to live the remainder of his life with a restored, albeit tentative, order in Alexandria. But Alexandria was kept peaceful precisely because its Chalcedonian patriarch did not enforce Chalcedon.

In Syria and Palestine Peter the Fuller had kept the Monophysite party alive. He was deposed by imperial order and Martyrius was replaced as the legitimate patriarch of Antioch. But Martyrius returned worn out by intrigues and renounced the patriarchate of Antioch: "I renounce a recalcitrant clergy, an unmanageable people, and a defiled church," as Theodore Lector writes in his Church History (1,21). Peter Fuller was allowed to live in Constantinople under alleged surveillance. Actually he was quite active in Constantinople where there was a party of Monophysites led by Acacius, the future patriarch of Constantinople.

The Chalcedonians could discern a visible fragmentation of theological thought among the Monophysites. The internal divisions within Monophysitism would increase. At first there were two discernible splits. One group objected to the Chalcedonian formula of "in two natures." A second group actually taught the doctrine of Eutyches that the humanity of Christ was not the same as ours. From these two initial groups a proliferation of theological views was to emerge — indeed, a proliferation of sects within Monophysitism. The two initial groups both claimed Timothy Aelurus as their theological father — indeed, Timothy was venerated as a confessor and as a second St. Athanasius.

During this period events were taking place in the Western part ot the Empire that would have lasting results. In the West the jpurder of Valentinian III in 455 had paved the way for power to fall into the hands of Ricimer who, like Aspar in the East, controlled the making and unmaking of the emperors in the West. R e Germanic Goths had gained effective influence over the Roman Empire. During Valentinian’s rule in the Western half of the Empire from 425 to 455, there was a period of relative peace between the two parts of the Empire. But a cultural estrangement was already settling in. In the Latin West a knowledge of Greek was ebbing, while in the Greek East Latin was giving way to Greek, even though Latin would remain for some time the official imperial language of the East.

In the 440s the Eastern empire had to confront the vitality of the Huns under Attila. After devastating the Balkans and after having obtained numerous financial payoffs from the Eastern emperors, Attila turned westward. He was finally defeated in 451 by Aetius, the Roman general of the West. But in 454 Attila was making serious conquests in Italy when he suddenly died. With his death his large empire dissolved. Yet it was only to be replaced by Germanic tribes who now set up their own kingdoms — in Africa the Vandals; in Gaul and Spain the Visigoths. A new theological reality entered the Latin part of the Empire — these Germanic tribes were Arians. The political vacuum created by this situation in the West was filled by the bishop of Rome, Pope Leo the Great (440-461).

Emperor Leo I (457-474) tried to free himself from the dependence on the Germans. Both Emperor Leo and his predecessor Martian had served in the military under the command of Aspar the Alan, an Ostrogoth. To free himself from Aspar’s control Emperor Leo I enlisted the support of the Isaurians. The chief of the Isaurians, Tarasicodissa, entered Constantinople with his army, took the Greek name of Zeno, and married Emperor Leo’s oldest daughter Ariadne in 466. This changed the imperial policy in the East towards the Germanic advances in the West. No longer indifferent to the Western cries for help, Emperor Leo I sent a rather large military force against the Vandals in Africa. The result was a disaster for the imperial forces — partly because of the competence of the Germanic Gaiseric and partly because of the incompetence of the imperial commander, Basiliscus, Emperor Leo I’s brother-in-law. Aspar again made his presence felt in the East — his son Patricius married Emperor Leo’s second daughter. Despite the fact that Patricius was an Arian, he was made the heir to the throne and received the title of Caesar. But vehement anti-Ger ment broke out in Constantinople. In 471 Aspar and his Ardabur were assassinated, while his son Patricius, escaping with serious wounds, was divorced from Emperor Leo’s daughter and his position as Caesar annulled.

Zeno, the Isaurian leader, now took the control once in the hands of Aspar and with this Isaurian influence increased. Emperor Leo I died in 474 and was succeeded by his grandson Leo II, the son of Zeno and Ariadne. But Zeno was co-emperor. That same year Leo II died and Zeno — Tarasicodissa the Isaurian — became Emperor. The Isaurians were imperial subjects and hence could not technically be referred to as barbarians. Yet the Germanic Goths, although technically barbarians, were culturally more sophisticated than the Isaurians, especially as a result of their long contact with the Empire. Still, the Isaurians were regarded as "foreigners" and there was as much anti-Isaurian hostility in the empire as there had been anti-German sentiment. In January of 475 there was a plot to remove Zeno. He was replaced for approximately eighteen months by his brother-in-law Basiliscus. Zeno again regained the throne and was able to hold it, despite constant plots and civil war, for another fifteen years, from 476 until 491. Zeno’s second accession to the throne coincided precisely with the final collapse of the western half of the Roman Empire. Constantinople was compelled to recognize Odoacer as the new ruler in Italy. Odoacer did not make a claim to imperial title — he was satisfied with having real power and received the title of magister militum per Italian, governing Italy as the viceroy of Emperor Zeno. Externally the appearance of a united empire remained but in fact Italy, as the rest of the Western Empire, was now lost and under German rule.

Zeno now set out to remove the remaining Germanic threat in the East. The Ostrogoths still had substantial military forces under Theodoric Strabo in Thrace and under Theodoric the Amal in Illyricum. The Germanic forces were constantly fluctuating between serving the imperial government and rising up against it. The threat from Theodoric Strabo ceased in 484 with his death. In 488 imperial diplomacy devised a way to rid itself of Theodoric the Amal by requesting that he move westward against Odoacer if successful, Theodoric the Amal would rule Italy. The two Germanic forces met in a fierce battle in 493 — Theodoric killed Odoacer with his own hands. Control of Italy now fell to Theodoric the Amal, who took the title of Theodoric the Great Zeno, rid of the Germanic threat, now had to face constant warfare with other Isaurian chieftains. With the loss of the West came the loss of the only thoroughly Chalcedonian part of the Empire.

Zeno realized that there was now no reason not to make some compromise with the moderate Monophy sites. A delegation of Alexandrian monks journeyed to Constantinople to solicit Zeno to denounce the Council of Chalcedon. Before Zeno had a chance to implement any such policy, a palace revolt dethroned him and put his brother-in-law, Basiliscus, on the throne. The monks arrived to find Basiliscus as the new emperor. One of the Alexandrian monks happened to be the brother of one of Basiliscus’ senior ministers.

One of the first acts of Basiliscus was to recall Timothy Aelurus from exile in Cherson — Timothy had been in exile for at least seventeen years. On his way back to Alexandria Timothy stopped at Constantinople and had an audience with the new emperor. Sailors from Alexandria structured a parade in the capital for their confessor. According to Zacharias (5, 1), Theophanes in his Chronographia, and Theodore Lector (1, 30), Timothy, apparently in imitation of our Lord’s entry into Jerusalem, entered Constantinople on a donkey. Emperor Basiliscus went out to receive him. Theodore Lector relates that Timothy degraded the triumphal entry somewhat by falling off the donkey. The new bishop of Rome, Simplicius, was scandalized and wrote in his Letter (4): "How can it be that you should honor that heretic, that parricide more detestable than Cain?" Peter the Fuller was also in Constantinople and Timothy and Peter drafted an encyclical to all bishops which Basiliscus signed. This encyclical based itself on a confirmation of the Council of Nicaea, the Second Ecumenical Council (Constantinople, 381), and both councils of Ephesus — the Third Ecumenical Council (431) and the Robber Council (449). It declared anathema to the Tome of Leo "and all things said and done at Chalcedon in innovation of the holy creed of Nicaea." The encyclical was to be enforced by the laws against heresy estab -lished by Theodosius II. Bishops who did not sign the encyclical were to be banished. This encyclical paved the path in the future for the Henotikon of Zeno.

"Emperor Caesar Basiliscus, pious, victorious, triumpliant,· supreme, ever-worshipful Augustus and Marcus the most illustrious Caesar, to Timothy, Archbishop of the great see of the Alexandrians, most reverend and beloved of God."

"It has ever been our pleasure that whatever laws have been decreed on behalf of the true and apostolic faith by those pious predecessors of ours who have maintained the true service of the blessed and undecaying and life-giving Trinity should never be inoperative. But we are rather disposed to announce them as of our own enactment. We, preferring piety and zeal in the cause of our God and Savior Jesus Christ, who created and has made us glorious, before all diligence in human affairs, and being further convinced that unity among the flock of Christ is the preservation of ourselves and our subjects, the sound foundation and unshaken bulwark of our empire. Being moved by these considerations with godly zeal, and offering to our God and Savior Jesus Christ the unity of the Holy Church as the first-fruits of our reign, we decree that the basis and settlement of human felicity, namely, the symbol of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers who were assembled, in concert with the Holy Spirit, at Nicaea, into which both ourselves and all our believing predecessors were baptized, that this alone should have reception and authority with the orthodox people in all the most holy churches of God, as the only formulary of the right faith, and sufficient for the utter destruction of every heresy and for the complete unity of the holy churches of God. And this, without prejudice to the force of the acts of the hundred and fifty holy Fathers assembled in this Imperial city in confirmation of that sacred symbol itself and in condemnation of those who blasphemed against the Holy Spirit. And without prejudice to all the acts passed in the Metropolitan city of the Ephesians against the impious Nestorius and those who subsequently favored his opinions."

But the proceedings which have disturbed the unity and order of the holy churches of God and the peace of the whole world, that is to say, the so-called Tome of Leo, all things said and done at Chalcedon in innovation of the before-mentioned holy symbol of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers, whether by way of definition of faith, or setting forth of symbols, or of interpretation, or instruction, or discourse, we decree that these shall be anathematized both here and everywhere by the most holy bishops in every church, and shall be committed to the flames whenever they shall be found, inasmuch as it was so enjoined respecting all heretical doctrines by our predecessors, of pious and blessed memory, Constantine, and Theodosius the Younger. And that, having thus been rendered null, they shall be utterly expelled from the one and only Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church, as superseding the everlasting and saving definitions of the three hundred and eighteen Fathers, and those of the blessed Fathers who, by the Holy Spirit, made their decision at Ephesus; that no one in brief either of the priesthood or of the laity, shall be allowed to deviate from that most sacred constitution of the holy symbol. And that together with all the innovations of the sacred symbol which were enacted at Chalcedon there be also anathe -matized the heresy of those who do not confess that the Only-Begotten Son of God was truly Incarnate and became man of the Holy Spirit, and of the holy and ever-virgin Mary, Theotokos, but, according to their strange conceit, either from heaven or in mere phantasy and ap -pearance. And, in brief, every heresy and whatever other innovation in respect either of thought or language, has been devised in violation of the sacred symbol in any manner or at any time or place. And, inasmuch as it is the special task of imperial providence to furnish their subjects with forecasting deliberation, abundant means of security, not only for the present but for the future time, we decree that the most holy bishops in every place shall subscribe to this our Sacred Encyclical when exhibited to them, as a distinct declaration that they are indeed ruled by the sacred symbol of the three hundred and eighteen Fathers alone — which the hundred and fifty holy Fathers confirmed. And as it was also defined by the most holy Fathers who subsequently assembled in the Metropolitan city of the Ephesians, that the sacred symbol of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers ought to be the only rule — while they anathematize every stumbling block erected at Chalcedon to the faith of the orthodox people and utterly eject them from the churches as an impediment teethe general welfare and our own."

"Those, moreover, who, after the issuing of this our acred letter, which we trust to have uttered in accordance with the will of God in an endeavor to accomplish that unity which all desire for the holy churches of God, shall attempt to bring forward or so much as to name the innovation of the faith which was enacted at Chalcedon, either in discourse or instruction or writing, in whatever manner, place, or time — with respect to those persons being the cause of confusion and tumult in the churches of God and among the whole of our subjects, and enemies to God and our safety, we command, in accordance with the laws decreed by our predecessor Theodosius, of blessed and sacred memory, against such sort of evil designs, which laws are subjoined to this our Sacred Encyclical — that if bishops or clergy, they be deposed; if monks or laypersons, that they be subjected to banishment and every mode of confiscation, and the severest penalties."

"And so the holy and consubstantial Trinity, the Creator and Vivifier of the universe, which has ever been adored by our Piety, receiving at the present time service at our hands in the destruction of the before-mentioned tares and the confirmation of the true and apostolic traditions of the holy symbol, and being thereby rendered favorable and gracious to our souls and to all our subjects, shall ever aid us in the exercise of our sway and preserve the peace of the world." [PatrologiaGraeca&6, 2599-2604].

Timothy Aelurus and Peter the Fuller, representing respectively the patriarchates of Alexandria and Antioch, signed their document. Anastasius, the patriarch of Jerusalem, also signed, as did approximately five hundred bishops. But Acacius, the patriarch of Constantinople, refused to sign it. His reason for not signing does not seem to be theological, for Acacius had been a leader among the Monophysites and the anti-Chalcedonians while he was a priest in the capital. It is commonly thought that Acacius neid to Chalcedon because of its Twenty-Eighth Canon which elevated the see of Constantinople to a type of co-equality with Old Rome. This may well be an oversimplification. Acacius had also two letters from Pope Simplicius urging him not to sign the encyclical. Acacius was pronounced deposed but the sentence does not appear to have been carried out.

Timothy Aelurus finally disappointed the Eutychian wing of the Monophysite party, for he clearly established his position on the nature of the humanity in Christ. "Christ was of the same nature with us in the flesh and of the same nature with the Father in the Godhead." It appears clear that the Eutychians held that the divine nature of Christ had completely absorbed the human nature and that Christ’s flesh was "heavenly." The Eutychians from this time on were to regard Timothy Aelurus and Peter the Fuller as Chalcedonians. Timothy was successful, however, in obtaining his greatly desired new council to be held at Ephesus.

Timothy Aelurus presided over a council of approximately six hundred bishops at Ephesus. Timothy’s council promulgated an anathema of the Council of Chalcedon, that council which "turned the world upside down." His council also annulled the patriarchal rights conferred to the see of Constantinople. Peter the Fuller then returned to Antioch unopposed — the see was then vacant because of the death of bishop Julian. Timothy Aelurus entered Alexandria triumphantly. His behavior was beyond reproach. He treated kindly the officer who had arrested him seventeen or eighteen years previously. He also behaved with kindness towards Timothy Salafaciolus, granting him a stipend from the revenues of the church — one denarius per day, sufficient for a monk. Timothy Salafaciolus offered no resistance, returning to the monastery he had previously left to take up the burdensome task of patriarch. Timothy Aelurus’ gentleness and kindness irritated many of his supporters, for he refused to take the "strict" approach with the Proterians. Rather, he required only a verbal renunciation of the Council of Chalcedon as the prerequisite for communion. Timothy had the remains of the body of Dioscorus brought back to Alexandria and buried with honor with the other patriarchs of that city.

Timothy Aelurus appeared to have achieved victory. He had not, however, expected the challenge he was to receive from Patriarch Acacius. The patriarch of Constantinople began to intrigue for the restoration of Zeno as emperor — he had assistance also from the Dowager Empress Verina. It was not an unclever move, for Zeno had behind him the most powerful military force in the empire — Isaurians. Acacius could divine that the capital still had numerous supporters of Chalcedon and that Basiliscus’ clical had only infuriated those Chalcedonians and had also brought others to the defense of Chalcedon, either for theological reasons or for the importance they attached to the Twenty-Eighth Canon. Patriarch Acacius now appealed to the famous Daniel the Stylite.

St. Daniel (d. 493) was the most famous of the disciples of St. Simeon the Stylite — in fact, it was Daniel who received St. Simeon’s cowl upon the latter’s death. Daniel spent his early years at Samosata and at other monasteries in the East. He was already forty-seven years old when he arrived in Constantinople. He positioned his pillar four miles from Constantinople where he was to live for another thirty-three years. Daniel was considered a prophet and he had the complete confidence of the former Emperor Leo I and of St. Gennadius, the patriarch of Constantinople from 458 until 471. St. Gennadius had an excellent reputation in Constantinople and elsewhere. St. Gennadius’ ordination of St. Daniel enhanced even more the reputation of the latter. With the emperor present, St. Gennadius ordained Daniel priest without Daniel leaving his pillar. St. Gennadius’s life of holiness and his power of prayer had become famous throughout the empire. Moreover, St. Gennadius was a theologian and an exegete. Although early in his life in 431 St. Gennadius had written a scathing critique of St. Cyril’s Twelve Anathemas and had accused St. Cyril of blasphemy in his Ad Parthenium, his work in praise of Pope Leo’s Tome, fragments of which are extant, established his orthodoxy. Blessed by St. Gennadius and having established his own fame for holiness and prophetic gifts, St. Daniel was approached by Patriarch Acacius in an appeal "to save the Church trom persecution." For the only time St. Daniel descended from his pillar to aid Acacius. The very act by itself created a sense of dramatic tension. The Vita Danielis relates that when St. Daniel confronted Emperor Basiliscus one of the Gothic guards "fell aead and Basiliscus was threatened with judgment. The spiritual presence of St. Daniel essentially forced Basiliscus to apologize and to alter his strategy. At the some time Acacius had received a reply from Pope Simplicius, who praised Acacius for his strength of will m a critical situation. Pope Simplicius also wrote to Basiliscus and to all the archimandrites in Constantinople insisting on the removal of Timothy Aelurus. Basiliscus finally gave in A new encyclical was issued, another "holy encyclical," which though it did not mention Chalcedon, denounced both Nestorius and Eutyches along with "all other heresies." Moreover, it reaffirmed the rights of the patriarch and condemned any reconvening of a new council.

Toward the end of August in 476 Zeno had returned to Constantinople with his Isaurian troops. By December an edict had abrogated the authority of Emperor Basiliscus , who vanishes from history. The rumor was that he as "immured in a wall," which was close to the truth — Basiliscus and his family were interred in a cistern in Cappadocia and there died of starvation.

The five hundred bishops who had signed Basiliscus’ first encyclical hurried to make amends with Patriarch Acacius with the exception, of course, of Timothy Aelurus. There were also two other bishops who held their ground — Anastasius of Jerusalem and Epiphanius of Mygdala. The bishops claimed that they had been "compelled" to sign and such an excuse was accepted for obvious reasons.

The two Monophysite patriarchs, Timothy Aelurus in Alexandria and Anastasius in Jerusalem, were left alone because of their age — it was reasoned that it was wiser to let death take them. Pope Simplicius in his Letter 8 suggested that Zeno should execute Timothy Aelurus as an offering of thanksgiving for his return to the imperial throne. Zeno rejected the advise. Timothy died in mid 477, not long after Zeno had regained the throne. At once the Monophysites in Alexandria elected and consecrated Peter Mongus, a former exiled companion of Timothy Aelurus. Again there were accusations of an irregular consecration. In his letter to Simplicius (Letter 8) Acacius claimed that Peter Mongus was consecrated by only one bishop, hurriedly in the middle of the night before Timothy had even been buried. That Peter was consecrated at night was in accordance with the common practice in Alexandria and Acacius should have been aware of this. In Alexandria the patriarchal successor was expected to keep a vigil besides the corpse of the deceased patriarch and take with his own hands the pallium of St. Mark from the deceased patriarch’s neck. That only one bishop consecrated Peter Mongus is another accusation which, if true, was in violation of canonical law. There is little doubt that Peter was accepted by the populace. What was to frustrate and infuriate the Roman Pope was Patriarch Acacius’ request that Peter Mongus not be recognized only to discover that Acacius was negotiating with Peter Mongus. At this time the Roman Pope was supporting two Chalcedonians — Timothy Salafaciolus in Alexandria and Calendion in Antioch.

In mid 478 Anastasius, the patriarch of Antioch, died. Martyrius, an opponent of the Council of Chalcedon, was elected and consecrated patriarch of Antioch. Martyrius wasted little time in letting his position be known. Zacharias gives the text of an encyclical sent out by Martyrius in which he claimed that the true faith was to be found in the first three councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus. Moreover, anyone accepting any other teaching or doctrine from any different council, "whether Sardica, Ariminum, or Chalcedon," was to be anathematized. The situation in Antioch bordered on anarchy. The majority of the populace in Antioch were anti-Chalcedonian but there still remained, unlike in Alexandria, a rather strong Chalcedonian group, mainly consisting of the upper class and the imperial officers. According to John Malalas’ Chronographia(l5, 103), the Jews in Antioch supported the Chalcedonians, one result of which was a massacre of Jews by the anti-Chalcedonians.

Emperor Zeno had Peter the Fuller deposed and exiled. On his journey into exile Peter escaped and entered a monastery of his supporters where the imperial arm could not reach him. The supporters of Peter the Fuller put forward John Codonatus as the candidate for patriarch, a man whom Peter the Fuller had ordained as bishop of Apamea, though John had never resided there. The imperial authorities rejected the candidate and elected Stephen I. immediately the Monophysites accused Stephen I of being a Nestorian, an accusation they could not substantiate. In any case, Steh l Was Soon thereafter murdered by a mob. Another Pnen was consecrated by Patriarch Acacius to take the place of the murdered patriarch. And this act by Acacius led to furthe accusations, even from Pope Simplicius. This time the issue was the "power" and "authority" of the see of Constantinople and its encroachment on the rights of the other sees. Acacius responded to Pope Simplicius that he had only acted to ensure that an orthodox bishop fill the see of Antioch and not to set a precedent. Simplicius relented and accepted the "irregular election" on the condition and understanding that ne in uswn posteritatis veniat et statuta patrum confundat. The Stephen consecrated by Acacius soon died and the Monophysites again put forward the candidacy of John Codonatus. Zeno, determined to have nothing to do with the party that supported Basiliscus, conferred with Patriarch Acacius and the two agreed on Calendio, the apocrisiarius of Antioch at Constantinople. Some sources — Theophanes and Theodore Lector — claim that Calendio was also consecrated at Constantinople but this seems unlikely, especially in the light of the letters of Pope Simplicius to Patriarch Acacius. He was most probably consecrated in Antioch under close imperial scrutiny. The portrait of Calendio from the sources is most refreshing. His character comes through as one of principle. He was a solid supporter of the Council of Chalcedon and, though he was always willing to offer concessions, no concession would be exchanged at the sacrifice of his theological principles and beliefs.

Calendio anathematized Peter the Fuller but let his addition to the Trisagion stand but with an important change — before "who was crucified for us," Calendio added "Christ our King." It was a brilliant stroke, for neither the Monophysites nor the Chalce -donians could object to this wording. Calendio accomplished something else of significance, something long since forgotten in the Western Church — he reconciled the "schismatic" Eustathians. Calendio, by having the bones of St. Eustathius brought from his grave in exile to Antioch, reconciled the Eustathians to the Church at Antioch and thus healed a schism which had lasted one hundred and fifty years.

Acacius, pragmatist as he always was, realized quite well what the actual state of affairs was. There was no longer an emperor in the West, a fact that meant that Simplicius of Rome was dependent upon Zeno. He was also informed of new schisms within the body of the anti-Chalcedonians. Zacharias informs us in his Church History (5, 4) that the bishop of Joppa, Theodotus, was insisting on a complete eradication of the Council of Chalcedon and the Tome of Pope Leo — it is claimed that he was supported by thirty thousand Egyptian monks. The former Proterians were attempting reconcile themselves with Peter Mongus, who, upon hearing of treats of deposition and exile by Zeno, simply lived in the Monophysite monasteries without relinquishing his patriarchate the imperial arm could not reach him in these monasteries. Zeno now insisted that Timothy Salafaciolus be placed upon the Alexandrian throne for the rest of his life. This action was taken. The result was the outbreak of more violence in Alexandria and this time the populace placed the blame on Timothy Salafaciolus. Toward the end of 481 and the beginning of 482 Timothy Salafaciolus, an old man who knew he was not to live much longer, sent his friend and fellow Pachomian monk, John Talaia, to Constantinople to request that his successor be chosen from the Egyptian clergy.

The Isaurian military commander, Illus, who paved the way for Zeno’s successful return to Constantinople, now becomes involved in the intrigue against Zeno. It appears that John Talaia sought out Illus in Constantinople. Zeno, who had approved the "free election" in Alexandria, was aware that Illus was plotting against him with the prefect of Alexandria. Before leaving Constantinople the authorities extracted an oath from John Talaia that he would not seek the patriarchal throne of Alexandria. Timothy Salafaciolus died shortly thereafter — there is vagueness as to the actual date but Schwartz places it in February of 482. The populace of Alexandria reconfirmed their choice of Peter Mongus. John Talaia, breaking his oath, was consecrated as the Chalcedonian patriarch of Alexandria. The information from Liberatus of Carthage in his Breviarium causae Nestorianorum et Eutychianorwn (17, 3) is that John Talaia informed Illus, then in Antioch, of his election but did not inform either Acacius or Zeno. The emperor was furious that John Talaia had broken his oath and accused him of perjury. In Evagrius Scholasticus’ Church History (3, 15) Zeno is quoted as informing Pope Simplicius that he in no way would recognize John, a man who committed perjury, and that this was the sole reason why his consecration was not to be recognized. Zeno opted for Peter Mongus but with conditions. Peter was to accept a theological profession of faith which was to e drawn up by Acacius — Peter had sent a delegation to Constantmople to argue his case. The profession of faith drawn up by Patriarch Acacius was to become the famous Henotikon of Zeno. It was ready in mid 482.

"The Emperor Caesar Zeno, pious, victorious, triumphant, supreme, ever-worshipful Augustus, to the most reverend bishops and clergy, and to the monks and laity throughout Alexandria, Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis."

"Being assured that the origin and constitution, the might and invincible defense of our sovereignty is the only right and true faith, which, through divine inspiration, the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers assembled at Nicaea set forth, and the hundred and fifty holy Fathers who, in like manner, met at Constantinople, confirmed, we day and night employ every means of prayer, of zealous pains, and of laws so that the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church in every place may be multiplied, the incorruptible and immortal mother of our scepter. And that the pious laity, continuing in peace and unanimity with respect to God, may, together with the bishops, highly beloved of God, the most pious clergy, the archimandrites and monks, offer up acceptably their supplications on behalf or our sovereignty."

"As long as our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who was Incarnate and born of Mary, the Holy Virgin and Theotokos, approves and readily accepts our concordant glorification and service, the power of our enemies will be crushed and swept away, and peace with its blessing, kindly temperate, abundant fruit, and whatever is beneficial to man, will be liberally bestowed."

"Since then the irreprehensible faith is the preserver both of ourselves and the Roman realm, petitions have been offered to us from pious archimandrites and hermits, and other venerable persons, imploring us with tears that unity should be procured for the churches, and the limbs should be knit together, which the enemy of all good has of old time been eagerly bent upon severing, under a consciousness that defeat will befall him whenever he assails the body while in an entire condition. For, since it happens that of the unnumbered generations which during die lapse of so many years time has withdrawn from life, some have departed deprived of the laver of regeneration, and others have been borne away on the inevitable journey of man without having partaken in the divine Eucharist. And innumerable murders have also been perpetrated. And not only the earth but the very air has been defiled by a multitude of blood shedding. That this state of things might be transformed into good,who would not pray? For this reason we were anxious that you should be informed that we and the churches in every quarter neither have held nor do we or shall we hold, nor are we aware of persons who hold, any other symbol or teaching or definition of faith or creed than the before-mentioned holy symbol of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers, which the aforementioned hundred and fifty holy Fathers confirmed. And if any person does hold such, we deem him alien. For we are confident that this symbol alone is, as we said, the preserver of our sovereignty and on their reception of this alone are all the people baptized when desirous of the saving illumination."

"And it was this symbol which all the holy Fathers assembled at Ephesus also followed, who further passed sentence of deposition on the impious Nestorius and those who subsequently held his sentiments. This Nestorius we also anathematize, together with Eutyches and all who entertain opinions contrary to those above-mentioned, receiving at the same time the Twelve Chapters of Cyril, of holy memory, formerly Archbishop of the Holy Catholic Church of the Alexandrians."

"Moreover, we confess that the Only-Begotten Son of God, himself God, who truly assumed manhood, namely our Lord Jesus Christ, who is consubstantial with the Father in respect of the Godhead, and consubstantial with ourselves as respects the manhood, that he, having descended and become Incarnate of the Holy Spirit and Mary, the Virgin and Theotokos, is one and not two. For we affirm that both his miracles and the sufferings which he voluntarily endured in the flesh are those of a single person. For we do in no degree admit those who either make a division or a confusion, or introduce a phantom. For his truly sinless Incarnation from the Theotokos did not produce an addition of a Son because the Holy Trinity continued a Trinity even when one person of the Trinity, God the Logos, became Incarnate. Knowing then that neither the holy orthodox churches in all parts nor the priests highly beloved by God who are at their head nor our own sovereignty have allowed or do allow any other symbol or definition of faith than the aforementioned holy definition, we have united ourselves thereto without hesitation."

"And these things we write not as setting forth a new form of faith, but for your assurance. And every one who has held or holds any other opinion, either at the present or another time, whether at Chalcedon or in any synod whatever, we anathematize. And specially the aforementioned Nestorius and Eutyches, and those who maintain their doctrines. Link yourselves, therefore, to the spiritual mother of the Church, and in her enjoy the same communion with us, according to the aforementioned one and only definition of the faith, namely, that of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers. For your all-holy Mother, the Church, waits to embrace you as true children, and longs to hear your loved voice, so long withheld. Speed yourselves, therefore, for, by so doing, you will both draw towards yourselves the favor of our Master and Savior and God, Jesus Christ, and be commended by our sovereignty." [Patrologia Graeca 86, 2619-2626].

The Henotikon would remain the official policy of Zeno throughout his reign and it continued into the reign of Emperor Anastasius I (491-518). The Henotikon was quickly accepted by the patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Jerusalem. The theological test for Peter Mongus had become the vehicle for unity in the East. Simplicius of Rome rejected it outright, as was to be expected. Simplicius was already defending the claim of John Talaia to the patriarchal throne of Alexandria — John had fled to Rome upon the recognition of Peter Mongus. The best Rome could do for John was to make him bishop of Nola. Simplicius died soon thereafter in 483.

The new bishop of Rome, St. Felix III (483-492), was to take decisive action. Felix sent a delegation of legates to Constantinople to demand the deposition of Peter Mongus. The papal delegation managed to fail in its mission — the delegation communed with Patriarch Acacius and heard the names of Dioscorus and Peter Mongus read from the diptychs. St. Felix III held a Roman council in July of 484 which suspended the legates and excommunicated Acacius. Thus began the Acacian Schism, a schism between Rome and Constantinople that would last for thirty-five years. Felix III wrote a letter to Zeno in which he advised him to "learn spiritual things from those in charge of them" and not "to desire to teach" the Church. This letter is often considered the beginning of the confrontation between papacy and empire — ironic in a sense because St. Felix III seems to have been the first bishop of Rome to announce his election to the emperor.

The situation in Antioch did not go as smoothly as Zeno and Acacius had hoped. When they had consecrated Calendio as patriarch, they knew he was firmly behind the Council of Chalcedon. Calendio was not about to acquiesce to an imperial request when it involved a matter of principle connected with theological faith. He was now ordered to condemn Chalcedon and to establish communion with Peter Mongus. He refused. Zeno and Acacius apparently decided to rid themselves of Calendio. Philoxenus of Hierapolis [Mabbug] (c. 440-523) came forth as an accuser of Calendio. Philoxenus had been appointed bishop of Mabbug by Peter the Fuller in 485. Calendio was arrested and tried. The charge was not theological but political — he was tried and sentenced as a traitor for an alleged complicity in the rebellious movement of Illus and Leontius in 484. It was not only Calendio who was deposed. With him nine other bishops, including Nestor of Tarsus and Eusebius of Samosata, were deposed. Calendio was sent into exile where he was to die. Peter the Fuller again took the patriarchal throne of Antioch — for the third time. Peter’s first act was the removal of the words from the Trisagion made by Calendio — "Christ our King." Peter was to hold the throne of Alexandria for the brief remainder of his life — he died in 488.

Only the see of Rome remained Chalcedonian — all the Eastern patriarchates were now under the control of the anti-Chalcedonians. To the east, however, outside the Roman Empire the Christian communities were dyophysite but also anti-Chalcedonian — there the communities were mainly penetrated by Nestorian thought. Barsoma of Nisibis was organizing the Church in Sassanid Persia on a doctrinal confession of a Nestorian understanding of "two natures." A creed from the Church in Persia is extant, dating from about 486.

Here the Nestorian notion of conjunction makes itself clearly felt, and the thought of Theodore of Mopsuestia’s Christology is apparent. The Nestorian church had come into being. After 489 its school at Nisibis would provide it with a foundation to continue its existence outside the Roman empire.

Edessa was a center of confusion. The pro-Cyrillian Rabbula was bishop of Edessa from 412 until his death in 435. Rabulla had strongly opposed Nestorianism and specifically attacked the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia. Rabulla also translated St. Cyril’s De recta fide into Syriac and delivered at least one stinging sermon against Nestorius. Edessa (the present Urfa) was from a very early date the center of Syriac-speaking Christianity. Its church is thought to be the oldest known Christian edifice. Edessa was also most probably the home of the Old Syriac and the Peshitta versions of the New Testament. It was also possibly the home of the Diatesseron. Edessa was more closely connected with Persia than to the Hellenic world.

In 436 Ibas replaced the pro-Cyrillian Rabulla as bishop of Edessa. Ibas (who was subsequently to be condemned at the Fifth Ecumenical Council, 553) was not sympathetic to St. Cyril. Ibas wrote a letter to the Persian bishop Maris of Seleucia-Ctesiphon in which Ibas complains about the outrages of Cyril’s party in Edessa and denies the communicatio idiomatum. With Ibas as bishop, Edessa became the refuge of the intransigent Antiochenes. Persian Christians also came to Edessa. St. Ephraem the Syrian resettled in Edessa (from Persia) in approximately 365. It was in Edessa that Ephraem established his famous school, actually called the "School of Persians." It is only after Ephraem that Greek, primarily Antiochene, influence intensifies. The Greek fathers, hagiographers, and ascetics are translated. And in the early fifth century people in Edessa are already theologizing precisely along the model of thought of Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodore of Tarsus. It is probably for this reason that the school in Edessa was temporarily closed under Rabbula. It was reopened under Ibas. However, dissent very quickly began in the school’s "brotherhood" and in 457 the intransigents had to move beyond the Persian frontier. With them the famous head of the school, Narsai, also fled to Nisibis, where the bishop there, Barsumas, asked him to stay and to establish a school. Narsai became one of the formative theologians of the Nestorian church. In 489 the school at Edessa was closed completely at the command of Emperor Zeno.

During these years the Persian church completely breaks away from Byzantium and retires into its local traditions. From then on, Antiochene theology becomes the national, or rather the state, creed of Persian Christians, and the school at Nisibis becomes the spiritual center of this "Nestorian" church. However, it is more accurate to speak not of "Nestorianism" but of "the faith of Theodore and Diodore." The "Nestorian" church is actually the church of Theodore of Mopsuestia. It was precisely Theodore who by preference was Father and Teacher in the Syro-Persian church. All "Nestorian" theology is only an obedient commentary on his works: "as the holy friend of God, the blessed mar-Theodore, bishop and interpreter of the holy books, explained the faith." In Greek theology the Antiochene tradition is severed early. In Syrian theology it receives a new sense, is de-Hellenized, and becomes more Semitic. The Syrian theologians shunned philosophy as Hellenic gloss. Theodore’s "historical" theology was the only kind of Hellenism acceptable to Semitic tastes precisely because for Theodore, too, theology was more philology than philosophy.

There is also a certain inner similarity between the "historical-grammatical" method of the Antiochenes and the rabbinical exegetics of the East. Very characteristic of Syrian theology is a specific and particular method of scholarship which partially calls to mind the Talmud. Syrian theology was a "school" theology in the strict sense of the word. The guiding influence of the theological school is connected with the school at Nisibis, which very quickly reached its acme. Already about 535 Cassiodorus of Vivarium points out the school at Nisibis and the school at Alexandria as "model" Christian schools. The statutes of the school have come down to us from 496, but it is not difficult to identify in these statues the features of a more ancient and traditional system. The school at Nisibis was a typical Semitic school — most of all it reminds one of a Jewish rabbinical school, a "beth-hammidrash" First of all, it was not only a school but a dormitory as well. Everyone lives together, by cells, in the school house. Everyone forms a single "fraternity" composed of both older and younger students. Those who have finished the course —they are called "investigators" — remain in the dormitory. This was not a monastery, however. "Let whoever seeks a strict life," say the statutes, "go to a monastery or into the desert." The Scripture was, naturally, the subject taught. It was a three-year course. They began with the Old Testament and studied it all three years. Only in the third year was the New Testament studied as well. They read the text and copied it. Then came the exegesis. One of the teachers, "the pronunciation teacher," taught the Syrian masorthat is, vocalization of the text and the diacritical marks. Another, "the reading teacher," taught liturgical reading and singing — the "choirs together with the teacher." The head teacher — or "rabban" — was called the "Interpreter." In his teaching he was connected with the "school’s tradition." At first they considered the works of the Venerable Ephraem such a tradition but very soon it was Theodore of Mopsuestia who was chiefly recognized. He was considered the only authority in Nisibis. The Nisibisian "statutes" especially cautioned against "speculation" and "allegories."

At the end of the sixth century Genama became head of the school in Nisibis (about 572) and he attempted to replace Theodore by St. John Chrysostom. This provoked a stormy protest. In addition, he made use of allegory. The strict Nestorians considered him as a Manichee. His doctrine of inherited original sin seemed liked fatalism. With the support of the Persian authorities, Genama managed to hold on to the management of the school — he composed new statutes for it in 590, but half of the students had scattered. Other schools remained faithful to the tradition in other parts of Persia — and the monasteries remained faithful also to the "tradition" of Theodore.

The council of 585 strictly censured and forbade Genama’s "interpretations" and, in so doing, confirmed that the opinion of blessed mar-Theodore must be considered the sole and final criterion of truth in all questions. Thus Syrian theology consciously stopped at the fifth century. It shut itself off in its archaic school formulas which had shrivelled and stiffened with age. Creative energy hardly found an outlet in liturgical singing. There was no internal movement within "Nestorian" theology, nor could there be. The Nestorians repudiated the vital inquisitiveness of thought. In Syria Aristotle was studied a lot. The Syrians taught him and explained him. It was thanks to the Syrians that Aristotle was noticed by the Arabs and then, subsequently, crossed over to the medieval West. But Nestorian theology did not even come into contact with this Syrian Aristotelianism. There is a very characteristic article within the Nisibisian statutes which forbids the students to live with "physicians," "lest books of worldly wisdom be studied in the same place as books of holiness." It was precisely the "physicians" or naturalists who were studying Aristotle in Syria. The Nestorian theologians avoided speculation, but this did not save them from rationalism. They lapsed into rationalistic and legalistic thought. To a certain extent this was a return to archaic Judaeo-Christianity. Such is the historical dead end of Antiochene theology.

Italy was now under the control of the Arian Germans while the Roman see remained staunchly Chalcedonian. German Arianism in the Latin West, Persian Nestorianism outside the eastern border, and the patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem under the control of the Monophysite or anti-Chalcedonian Christians — such was the reality of the life of the Church at this time.

In this situation new personalities emerge. One such is Philoxenus of Hierapolis or Mabbug. Theophanes’ comments on Philoxenus are interesting. Theophanes claims that Xenaias, the Hellenized form of which became Philoxenus, was a Persian and a slave, that he had no claim to the priesthood before Peter the Fuller ordained him, that he was born at Tahal in the province of Beth-Garami, and that he had studied in Edessa and these studies resulted in Philoxenus1 rejection of the Antiochene school of theology.

Another emerging personality is that of Severus, who was to become the patriarch of Antioch from 512 until 518. Unlike Philoxenus, Severus was thoroughly Hellenized. The difference between Philoxenus and Severus represents the range of the Monophysite influence at the beginning of the sixth century. In this period one can also begin to discern what would become the Neo-Chalcedonian defense.

Upon the death in 489 of Acacius, patriarch of Constan -tinople, his successor Fravitta sent out the usual encyclical of enthronement. Peter Mongus attempted to appease the numerous monks who wanted an outright condemnation of the Council of Chalcedon. The monks held substantial power in Egypt, despite the fact that they were "leaderless" — ακέφαλοι. Peter had previously attempted to appease these monks by circulating his sermons in which he himself had condemned Chalcedon. This did not appease them. They wanted an official, imperial condemnation. In his response to Fravitta’s encyclical Peter Mongus wrote that since the Henotikon anathematized Chalcedon, it would be proper for him to follow the example of his predecessor Acacius and to condemn the Council of Chalcedon also. Fravitta died shortly after his consecration and the letter from Peter Mongus fell into the hands of Fravitta’s successor, Euphemius, a strong Chalcedonian.

The populace at Constantinople was becoming increasingly Chalcedon but the imperial court still held back, still kept to the pro-Monophysite position. Euphemius rejected Peter Mongus’ proposal — moreover, he broke off communion with Peter. Both Euphemius and Peter engaged in vehement rhetoric against each other — Peter is reported to have said that he would deal with Euphemius as Cyril dealt with Nestorius. The death of Peter Mongus in 490 prevented any further development in this rift. Peter’s successors, Athanasius II and then John I, were primarily concerned with winning back their "dissidents" — αποσχισταί, with bringing the extreme Monophysites to a more moderate position, and with placing these “leaderless dissidents" under the control of the patriarchate of Alexandria. Athanasius II and John I therefore had little time to engage in controversy with other patriarchal sees. Imperial policy was to leave such a hotbed as Alexandria alone, not to stir up any additional trouble in that troublesome patriarchate. The controversy between the patriarchate of Alexandria and the monks continued but in an isolation from imperial policy or even concern. Imperial policy turned its attention to Antioch and other regions in the East.

Euphemius, Chalcedonian that he was, attempted to bring about a reconciliation with Rome. Here papal policy blundered again in its relations with the East, for Pope St. Felix III insisted that the schism could be resolved only if Patriarch Euphemius anathematized his predecessor Acacius. Such an action would have been counterproductive and Pope Felix should have realized the senselessness of his request. Even if the populace of Constantinople was becoming increasingly pro-Chalcedonian, what possible good could have resulted since the power resided with Zeno, with an emperor whose Henotikon had brought about a relative peace among his subjects? Why should Zeno risk this relative, if tentative, peace within the empire to reconcile Constantinople with a see that was in actuality outside imperial control at that time?

A new era was being ushered in from approximately 488 through 491. The death of Peter the Fuller took place in 488. It was followed by the death of Acacius in 489 and then of Acacius’ successor, Fravitta, in 490. Peter Mongus died in 490. Then in April of 491 Emperor Zeno died. The next year St. Felix III of Rome would die. The personalities were changing.

A contemporary account of the atmosphere in Constantinople on the death of Emperor Zeno is preserved in Constantine Porphyrogenitus’ De cerimoniis (1, 92). Zeno’s widow Ariadne, together with imperial officials, appeared in the Hippodrome to address the populace — her address was given by the magister a libellis. "In anticipation of your desire, we have ordered the most noble ministers, the sacred senate, together with the approval of the courageous armies, to choose a Christian and Roman Emperor who possesses every imperial virtue, who is not enslaved to money, and who is, as much as it is possible for a person, free from every human vice." According to the source, the populace shouted: "Ariadne Augusta, you conquer! Ο heavenly king, grant the world an emperor who is not greedy!" The speech of Ariadne continues: "So that the selection will be pure and pleasing to God, we have ordered the ministers and the senate, together with the harmony of the vote of the army, to conduct the election in the presence of the Gospels and in the presence of the patriarch. This procedure will be followed to prevent any influence of either friendship or hostility, of kinship or of any other personal motive so that the vote will be with clear conscience. Since the election is therefore a serious thing and concerns the well being of the empire, you must permit us a brief delay until the funeral ceremonies for Zeno, of pious memory, have been completed properly. Otherwise the election would be precipitous." The contemporary source quoted by Constantine then gives the response of the populace: "Long live the Augusta! Expel the thieving prefect of the city! May all be well in your time, Augusta, if no foreigner is imposed on us Romans!" Ariadne’s speech, read by the magister, then continues: "We have already done what you request. Before we came here, we appointed the illustrious Julian to the office of prefect." The people heartily approved the appointment.

Ariadne then left and the ministers held a council about the election. It was suggested that Ariadne select a candidate. She selected Anastasius, whom Zacharias calls a "decurio silentiarius" — a decurion silentiary. Anastasius, a civil servant of about sixty years, was well known in Constantinople especially for his generosity in almsgiving and in caring for orphans. His imperial function was in the department of finance where he performed ably — his greatest accomplishment was fixing the value of the copper follis to the gold coinage. But Patriarch Euphemius objected vigorously to Empress Ariadne’s choice — and with reason. Anastasius had already had encounters with Patriarch Euphemius. He had the most unusual habit of placing a chair in the cathedral where he was wont to give his own instruction in the faith to selected audiences. Patriarch Euphemius was so outraged by this practice that he obtained Zeno’s permission to expel Anastasius from the cathedral and to remove his chair of instruction. It appears that Anastasius’ theological views were most unorthodox — whether his views were the result of his mother having been a Manichaean and his uncle an Arian is not known. He himself was by character a religious enthusiast.

The objection of Patriarch Euphemius was overruled by Ariadne and the senate. Patriarch Euphemius was, however, able to insist that Anastasius sign a written profession of orthodoxy. This was accepted and the document was handed to Patriarch Euphemius After the coronation, the crowd shouted its approval. These shouts of the populace as recorded by a contemporary are interesting. "Rule as you have lived! You have lived in piety! Rule in piety! Restore the army! Rule like Marcian! Expel the informers!" The sources portray his character quite favorably -highly educated, intelligent, gentle but energetic, in control of his temper, generous and pious. A few weeks after his coronation Anastasius married Ariadne.

Emperor Anastasius’ priority was to subdue the Isaurians, to rid the empire of their influence. They had served their purpose — they had prevented the control of the empire by the Germanic Goths. Now it was time to remove them and their power. Indeed, the choice of Anastasius had alarmed the Isaurians who were expecting Longinus, Zeno’s brother, to become emperor. Anastasius found a pretext — a riot at the Hippodrome — to expel the Isaurians from Constantinople. He compelled Zeno’s brother Longinus to become a monk and exiled him to the Thebaid. The gentle Anastasius seized all Zeno’s property — even to the extreme of selling off Zeno’s imperial robes. The expelled Isaurians joined with their fellow Isaurians. They were defeated at Cotyaeum in Phrygia. Sporadic warfare was continued in the Isaurian mountains. Finally in 498 the mountain resistance was quelled. Anastasius fortunately finished off the Isaurians before the outbreak of a serious war with Persia from 502 until 505. The war with Persia resulted in the building of a large fortification at Dara which looked down into the Persian city of Nisibis and the construction of the huge walls in Thrace to protect Constantinople. Anastasius turned to Theodoric of Italy in 498, offering him the title of rex and returning to him the ornamenta palatii.

Anastasius and Ariadne were to rule the empire for twenty-seven years. Until 510 Anastasius’ religious policy was based on the Henotikon of Zeno. Evagrius Scholasticus tells us that Anastasius was a man of peace, a man interested in order in the empire, a man who wanted nothing to do with religious change or religious strife, whether it was pro or anti-Chalcedon. It was not difficult to discern that a clash was inevitable between Emperor Anastasius and Patriarch Euphemius. The latter had been preparing a theological assault on the patarch of Alexandria. Euphemius wrote to Pope Felix III of Rome vithout the emperor’s knowledge — he solicited the aid of Pop Felix against Alexandria. The patriarchs of Alexandria and Jerusalem were also intriguing against Euphemius — they accused himo the emperor of being a Nestorian. The emperor had reccered a copy of the letter that Euphemius had sent to Pope Felix. He was obviously concerned about the signed document viich Patriarch Euphemius had compelled him to sign before spporting his coronation, a document which was a declaration of orthodoxy. And, further, the emperor believed or wanted toielieve that Patriarch Euphemius was intriguing secretly with thlsaurians. In 492 a council took place in Constantinople whic reaffirmed the Henotikon and deposed Euphemius, exiling hit to a monastery in Pontus.

In Rome Pope Felix III ied in 492 and his successors, Gelasius I (492-496) and Anstasius II (496-498), had some interesting relations with the Eatern Church. The Liber pontificate claims that St. Gelasius, a very strong personality with a strong will, was "an African by birth. As archdeacon under Pope Felix III, it was Gelasius who wasthe dominant personality in the Roman Church and it was hewho drafted the letters of Pope Felix. St. Gelasius becomes knwn as the most significant Roman pope in the Acacian Schism. The eastern patriarchates viewed the Roman see during the Acacian Schism as overstepping its jurisdictional authority, as intrudng in the affairs of the eastern patriarchates. From the Roman perspective it was not reduced to such a simple problem of powe and authority. Rather, Rome was alarmed with the increasing iirusion of the emperor in ecclesiastical affairs, alarmed at whait viewed as caeraropapism. Rome had reason to be alarmedh , for the Henotikon of Emperor Zeno was precisely the imperial authorit dictating to the Churc— and this time the dictating was heresy,vas an abrogation in reality of the ecumenicity of the Council of Chalcedon and a rejection of the accepted Tome of Pope Leo the Great. Rome’s main concern was not merely with her prestige νithin the Church and not merely a reaction against the rejection c Pope Leo through the rejection of his Tome — it was far deeper thii a reaction to an insult. Rome saw the very life of the Church thnuened by Zeno’s Henotikon. When isolated as it was at the time an in essence under the control of the Arian Germans, the see of Rore reacted to heresy by putting forth its self-understanding as the see of primacy. The development of the legal foundations of papal authority had already been put forth by Leo the Great — Bolotov has written interestingly on this aspect of the papacy under Pope Leo. But it was Pope Gelasius who applied these principles — his letters read as though they are legal documents, legal briefs, which clearly put forth a position of papal supremacy, especially over secular authority. The historical significance of the letters of Gelasius were not only contemporary in their attitude toward the East. Rather, their prime historical significance resides in the fact of their historical influence on later generations in the Latin West. Pope Gelasius’ activity sparked what became known as the "Gelasian Renaissance" — his letters began to be collected in a series of canonical regulations. The attempts by the patriarchs of Constantinople, Fravitta and Euphemius, to restore relations with Rome and end the Acacian Schism were rejected — or rather were conditioned on the impossible request that the name of Patriarch Acacius be removed from the diptychs. Zeno’s successor, Emperor Anastasius, was as adamant as Zeno. However, Anastasius, on the occasion of the reception of a delegation from King Theodoric, used the opportunity to remind Gelasius that no letter had been received from him recognizing his enthronement. Gelasius’ response in 494 was firm.

The Acacian Schism differed from the numerous schisms of the past precisely because Rome considered it a total break, a complete breach of communion with the entire eastern churches — not just with Constantinople. At a Roman council in 494 or 495 under Pope Gelasius the depth of this broken communion is revealed. The former bishop of Cumae, Misenus, had been sent by Pope Felix III to Constantinople. There he entered into communion with Acacius. The recantation of Misenus reads that he rejects all heresy

After the recantation of Misenus, Pope Gelasius gave a lengthy speech to the council, concluding:

What follows is of historical importance, for it is the reaction of the bishops and priests at the council. The bishops rose and exclaimed fifteen times "O Christ, hear us! Long live Gelasius!" Twelve times they exclaimed "Lord Peter, preserve him!" Seven times they exclaimed "May he hold the see of Peter during the years of Peter!" — this was a reference to the tradition in Rome that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome for twenty-five years, a tradition quite unhistorical. And then, for the first time in recorded documentation, the linking of the bishop of Rome as the "Vicar of Christ" is mentioned. Seven times they exclaimed "We see you, who are the Vicar of Christ!"

It should be mentioned that there is no reference to papal infallibility in this letter and that notion of the "two authorities" had been raised in the past by Hosius to Constantius II, by St. Ambrose to both Valentinian II and Theodosius I, and by St. Augustine in his De civitate dei. But the entire attitude of Pope Gelasius, an attitude expressed in his many letters, was an irritant to the emperor. His terse style of writing had a penetrating and blistering effect. Gelasius did not even bother to announce his election to Constantinople. He wrote contemptuously to Euphemius, claiming that Euphemius belonged to an "estranged body." He characterized Acacius as a greater sinner than Eutyches precisely because Acacius "had known the truth" and yet associated with the "enemies of truth" — Acacius was a heretic by association. In Gelasius’ letter to his envoy in Constantinople, Faustus, he wrote "consortium damnatorum est damnatus Acacius" Some scholars have seen in this notion of "heresy by association" the African roots of Gelasius, the African influence of Tertullian, Cyprian, and Donatus. The fact remains, however, that the principle used by Gelasius is nothing more than a consistent and logical extension of the theological concept of heresy. Pope Gelasius’ contemptuous attitude to the patriarchal throne of Constantinople, which he reduced to its pre-Nicene position as a bishopric under Heraclea, would certainly not be encouraging to Constantinople — "an sedem apostolicam congruebat paroeciae Heraclensis ecclesiae, id est Constantinopolitani pontificis vel quorumlibet aliorum" This was essentially an undiplomatic and counterproductive way for Rome to express its rejection of the Twenty-Eighth Canon of Chalcedon or the reality which resulted from that canon. Not only did Gelasius belittle the see of Constantinople but he also humiliated the East in his letter to the bishops of Illyricum by disparagingly referring to them as Greeks who abound in heresies — "apud Graecos, quibus multas haereses abundare non dubium est." He is considered by many as the one who initiated the notion which would later be translated into the common Western form of address to the Byzantine Emperor — Imperator Graecorwn. To his credit it must be admitted that St. Gelasius acted in the Latin West with the same vigor he used against the East. He energetically fought against the remains of Pelagianism, especially in Dalmatia, and he used his authority and energy to extirpate the lingering paganism in Rome itself. He vigorously protested against the incipient Latin practice of withholding the cup from the laity in the reception of the Holy Eucharist, a practice he termed a "sacrilege." In a matter of four and one-half years Pope Gelasius had managed to deepen the rift between Constantinople and Rome.

Pope Gelasius died in 496 and was followed by Pope Anastasius II (496-498). With the support of the Roman senate, Pope Anastasius II began his brief pontificate by attempting to resolve the Acacian Schism. He dispatched papal legates to Constantinople to discuss the situation with Emperor Anastasius II. The Pope was ready to offer concessions — he would recognize all baptisms and ordinations performed by Acacius. The condition, however, was the removal of Acacius’ name from the diptychs. Whatever success the mission of the papal delegation might have had was undercut by a second delegation sent to Constantinople by King Theodoric, whose emissary Festus led Emperor Anastasius to believe that Rome might be willing to accept the Henotikon if the reference to the Council of Chalcedon were removed. In Constantinople negotiations were also opened between members Sketches in the History of Monophysitism 99 of the Roman delegation and representatives of the patriarch of Alexandria. The Alexandrians were also conciliatory. Instead of attacking Pope Leo’s Tome directly, the Alexandrians emphasized how it was prone to misunderstanding by the Nestorian heretics. The mutual accusations of heresy were really not justified — it was more a problem of language and interpretation. The Alexandrians put forth a confession of their faith, a confession based on the Henotikon. "The Only-Begotten Son of God was one whether in his miracles or indeed in his sufferings." The Alexandrians pointed out that the acceptance of St. Cyril’s Twelve Anathemas meant necessarily accepting Dioscorus, Timothy Aelurus, and Peter Mongus, for they had been the guardians of St. Cyril’s thought. The Pope must either prove a case against them or restore their names to the diptychs. In this way a reestablishment of communion could take place.

The policy of Pope Anastasius II had the support of the Roman senate and for a very important reason. The Romans could not feel secure under their Germanic Arian overlords. Theodoric might presently be conciliatory but the Romans remembered the policy of Huneric (477-484) and Guntamund (484-496), a policy which was openly hostile to the Catholics. And in Rome there always existed a pro-Byzantine or pro-imperial party. The existence of a pro-Byzantine and a pro-Italian faction in Rome was clearly exhibited after the death of Pope Anastasius II by a schism between the pro-Anastasian and the pro-Gelasian factions, the former represented by the archpriest Laurentius while the latter was represented by Pope Symmachus (498-514). However, the conciliatory plans of Pope Anastasius II ceased with his sudden death in 498, "struck dead by the divine will" according to the Liber pontificalis. Indeed, it was this legend in the Liber pontificalis which was responsible for spreading the notion of Pope Anastasius’ "apostasy," a legend which reached its acme when Dante placed Pope Anastasius in the sixth circle of the Inferno. Editorial comments in some of the editions of Dante which claim that there is confusion between a pope and a Byzantine emperor are erroneous. Dante writes:

On the edge of high bank

formed by a circle of broken rocks

we stood above a more cruel pack;

and here because of the horrible stench

which the deep abyss exhales

we approached behind the cover of a great tomb

on which I saw an inscription saying,

"I hold Anastasius, the pope,

whom Photinus drew from the straight path."

The Photinus to whom Dante refers is an historical person. The archbishop of Thessaloniki had sent the deacon Photinus to Rome where Pope Anastasius received him well. Photinus had been one of the more determined of the supporters of Acacius and this caused deep resentment on the part of the pro-Gelasian faction in Rome. Indeed, more than resentment — they separated from communion with Pope Anastasius. Dante’s facts are correct. That Dante places Pope Anastasius in the Inferno reveals how influential the pro-Gelasian faction was in its influence on future Italian political and religious thought.

The sudden death of Pope Anastasius II brought on a contested papal election which led to bloodshed. Again the Romans had to deal with the Ostrogothic Theodoric, the master of Italy until 526. The pro-Gelasian faction elected the Sardinian deacon Symmachus (498-514) at the Lateran. The pro-Byzantine and pro-Anastasian faction elected the archpriest Laurentius at Mary Major. Both parties appealed to Theodoric who decided in favor of Symmachus for basic reasons — Symmachus had received the majority of votes, had been consecrated first, and was pro-Theodoric. Laurentius conceded and was appointed bishop of Nocera. But Laurentius1 faction was not to be easily stopped. They brought charges against Symmachus, charges of adultery and of squandering church estates. Bloodshed began again — priests were murdered, monasteries were burned, and nuns were abused. The Roman senate again called upon Theodoric, who called for a council to settle the dispute. After the policy of St. Gelasius, this scene in Rome indeed appears odd, for an heretical and "foreign" king convoked a council to decide a dispute between contenders for the papacy. Although it may appear odd, what took place was nothing more than restoration of external order. Theodoric, the German Arian, merely structured the situation so that a conflict could be resolved — he had nothing to do with theological decisions of the see of Rome. Theodoric summoned Symmachus to Ravenna for a second time but Symmachus, while en route to Ravenna, fled when he thought he detected a trap. Symmachus’ flight infuriated Theodoric, who immediately appointed Peter, bishop of Altinum to administer the property of the Roman Church.

Symmachus had agreed to appear before a council of Italian bishops summoned by Theodoric. The council was to take place in the Sessorian Palace. On route to the Sessorian Palace the papal party was attacked in the streets by the Laurentian faction. Symmachus returned to St. Peter’s and refused to be moved. The scheduled council finally took place in October of 501 under Symmachus, a council known as synodus palmaris — named after the building in which it took place. Here an extraordinary development occurred. Symmachus was acquitted without any investigation because it was claimed that a council could not pass judgment on a successor of St. Peter. Theodoric did not accept the results of the council and permitted the return to Rome of the anti-pope Laurentius. For the next four years Rome was the battleground of violence. The Laurentian faction managed to gain control of most of the churches in Rome — but not St. Peter’s. The struggle for the papacy entered the stage of a propaganda war with both sides writing pamphlets. In the Libellus apologeticus pro Synodo IV Romana [Mansi 8, 274] the deacon Ennodius, later to be bishop of Pavia until his death in 521, declared that the bishop of Rome is above every human court and responsible only to God. This very vindication was adopted by the sixth Roman council under Symmachus in 503. To justify the position taken at the council in 501 spurious historical precedents were created which resulted in the famous Symmachan Forgeries. Peace was finally restored in Rome through the efforts, strangely enough, of an Alexandrian deacon by the name of Dioscorus. It was he who efficaciously interceded with Theodoric to have the control of the churches in Rome returned to Symmachus. Gradually the Laurentian faction began to support Pope Symmachus. It was not until 506 that Pope Symmachus was able to clear himself. By that time his attitude towards Constantinople was not conciliatory — the Acacian Schism could be ended only by Constantinople’s recognition of the demands made by Rome.

Trouble broke out again in Antioch in 498. Flavian, formerly the apocrisiarius of the patriarch of Antioch in Constantinople, became patriarch of Antioch. He is described as a man of "feeble and vacillating character." At his election he was a declared Monophysite but he later changed sides and announced his defense of the Council of Chalcedon. The growing Monophysite party in Antioch was alarmed and quickly reacted. Philoxenus took charge of the opposition to Flavian, denouncing him as a Nestorian. Flavian responded by anathematizing Nestorius which led Philoxenus to demand that he anathematize not only Nestorius but also Theodore, Theodoret, and Ibas. The very raising of these three names together is interesting. Philoxenus is reported to have declared: "If you do not condemn these, you may anathematize Nestorius ten thousand times and still be a Nestorian." Flavian was forced by imperial pressure to anathematize Theodore, Theodoret, and Ibas. Philoxenus then demanded that Flavian condemn the Council of Chalcedon. He flatly refused and Philoxenus and his followers withdrew from communion with Flavian. Another schism in Antioch.

Philoxenus then demanded the same anathemas from Patriarch Elias of Jerusalem and Patriarch Macedonius of Constantinople. The new patriarch, Macedonius II (496-511), was the nephew of the patriarch Gennadius. Though Macedonius was a Chalce-donian, he signed the Henotikon. He now gave an evasive answer to Philoxenus which the monks of the East interpreted as a refusal. Elias of Jerusalem’s response is not known with certainty, for a document was circulated that was claimed to be his. The document essentially was a condemnation of Chalcedon. But it is not certain whether the document was authentic. If the document was authentic, there is a contradiction with Elias’ later behavior. In 512 he was exiled for refusing to communicate with Severus of Antioch. It is also claimed that among his last words he declared he would "accuse the emperor before the throne" of God. If the document was authentic, then Elias obviously had a change of mind.

Patriarch Macedonius vacillated initially but then his strength of character forced him to take a stand and he stood with Chalcedon. Emperor Anastasius came to view Macedonius as the obstacle to the restoration of peace — Macedonius’ fate became clear. The emperor had resolved to have him deposed. The new personage among the Monophysites and their most important theologian, Severus, brought charges against Macedonius, the most serious theologically was the accusation that Macedonius interpreted Scripture according to Nestorian exegetical tradition.

He was also accused of being responsible for the religious riots in Constantinople. One incident took place in St. Sophia itself. During the celebration of the Eucharistic liturgy the two factions within the choir shouted the rivaling versions of the Trisagion Hymn, the result of which was a physical brawl in the church. None of these accusations was able to sustain itself. Macedonius was then accused of immorality, a charge that was quite difficult to prove because Macedonius was a eunuch! It must be mentioned that the canons of the Church at this time prevented eunuchs from being ordained. And yet this charge was not brought against Macedonius. No evidence could be found that would allow for his deposition. Zealots from the Monophysite faction attempted to murder Macedonius in the street. Finally Emperor Anastasius simply ordered Macedonius to anathematize the Council of Chalcedon and the doctrine of "two natures." Macedonius responded by anathematizing everyone who did not accept Chalcedon and the doctrine of "two natures." With this bold and courageous act Macedonius sealed his fate. The emperor had him secretly arrested and exiled. Macedonius was replaced as patriarch of Constantinople by Timothy of Antioch (511-517), a Monophysite who introduced the altered version of the Trisagion Hymn into regular use in the liturgy at Constantinople and placed the names of the patriarchs of Alexandria in the diptychs.

With Macedonius removed from the patriarchate of Constantinople and replaced by Timothy, the Monophysites in Antioch took a bolder approach against Flavian, who, incidentally, had voiced criticism over the exile of Macedonius. At Sidon in 512 the Monophysites held a local synod to depose Patriarch Flavian. Philoxenus, the leader, had drawn up a list of seventy-seven anathemas which he demanded Flavian sign. One of the anathemas was against the Council of Chalcedon "and all its works." Philoxenus’ strategy, however, backfired. He frightened away the moderate element within his group and the council broke up without any resolution. Riots broke out in Antioch. Many of the rioters were Monophysite monks. Flavian, caving in to fear, agreed to anathematize Chalcedon and the "three names." But it was too late. His enemies were resolved now that no concession should save him. Philoxenus appealed to the emperor for an edict of deposition against Flavian. Before any response had arrived from the emperor, the imperial governor of Antioch suggested that Flavian should leave the city for his own safety and for "the sake of peace and order." No sooner was Flavian beyond the gates of Antioch than his opponents elected a new patriarch. It was none other than the most able man within the Monophysite movement, Severus. The emperor completely approved of the election of Severus.

It is not an exaggeration that Severus of Antioch (patriarch from 512 until 518) is one of the most important persons and the most important theologian of the non-Chalcedonians. Severus arrived in Constantinople in 508 with three hundred Palestinian monks to defend the theological interests of the non-Chalcedonians. It appears from our sources that Severus’ arrival in Constantinople was directed specifically against the work of Nephalius, a monk from Egypt who, once a Monophysite, had become a staunch supporter of the Council of Chalcedon. Zacharias refers to Nephalius as a "turbator populi" — an agitator of the populace.

Severus came from a distinguished Christian family. He was born in Sozopolis in Pisidia in approximately 465. At the time of the Council of Ephesus in 431 Severus1 grandfather was bishop of Sozopolis and was one of the bishops who had deposed Nestorius. Sozopolis, indeed, had been one of the central cities of the Apollinarian Synousiasts in the 370’s, a theological group who held that Christ’s body was "heavenly" or "from heaven." The Vita Severi by Zacharias informs us that Severus was in love with philosophy and deeply influenced by Libanius until he read St. Basil’s refutation of Libanius.

Along with his older brother, Severus went to Alexandria to study in preparation for a legal career. About 486 he left Alexandria for Berytus [Beirut] to study law under Leontius. It was there that Severus fell under the influence of monasticism. He apparently came into contact with the extremely influential Peter the Iberian — we know that Peter visited the city in 488. Severus, much later in life while in exile in Alexandria, mentions the influence that Peter the Iberian had on him. He claims that he came to understand the "evil" and "the impiety" of Chalcedon through Peter. "This communion I so hold, I so draw near, as I drew near in it with the highest assurance and a fixed mind, when our holy father Peter of Iberia was offering and was performing the rational sacrifice." Severus accepted baptism, ruled out a profession in law in favor of a life of monasticism, and went to Jerusalem. Athanasius Scriptor, the author of the Ethiopian Vita Seven, tells us that Severus stayed at the monastery of Romanus near Eleutheropolis, a monastery which was strongly anti-Chalcedonian. He thereafter spent time at Peter’s monastery in Maiuma. Severus was ordained and then established his own monastery near Maiuma. He now had dedicated all his learning and energy to the anti-Chalcedonian cause.

Two Lives of Severus are extant in Syriac, although they were originally written in Greek — one by Zacharias [Scholasticus] which was written while Severus was patriarch of Antioch; the other by John, abbot of the monastery of Beith-Aphthonia in Syria. Zacharias’ Vita conveys a fascinating portrayal of the early and student years of Severus. The main reason for such concentration on Severus’ student years was to answer the accusation that Severus was at heart a philosopher, virtually a pagan, and that Severus’ interest in Christianity was purely intellectual, that during his life in Alexandria and in Berytus Severus had shown no serious interest in the Christian faith.

In the 490’s the Chalcedonians were in the majority in Palestine — this was mainly the result of the influence of Patriarch Elias (494-516) and Sabas. The latter had been responsible for the conversion of Saracen tribes living on the eastern borders of Palestine. Severus refused to be in communion with them.

In Constantinople Severus wrote against the Eutychians and the Apollinarians. The Council of Chalcedon had had one beneficial effect on the non-Chalcedonians — it revealed to them that Apollinarius and Eutyches, and any theological tendency in that direction, failed to explain adequately the mystery of salvation. The effect was to bring serious theologians such as Severus, Philoxenus, and Peter the Iberian to reject the extremist faction of the Monophysite faction. Severus concentrated on interpreting the theology of St. Cyril, especially in his important Philalethes. The most interesting portrayal of the personality of Severus comes from his letters, and his theology is seen more vividly through his sermons than through his theological works. For example, in his Sermon on Epiphany in 516 Severus exclaims:

The Monophysites appeared to be triumphant. Yet there was an uneasiness felt by Emperor Anastasius, for a pro-Chalcedonian sentiment was increasing precisely where it mattered most politically and militarily — the provinces of Europe, especially Thrace. The commander of the military forces in Thrace happened to be the godson of the deposed Flavian — Vitalian the Goth. Not long after Severus had been consecrated patriarch of Antioch, Vitalian the Goth revolted.

In addition to his protest on behalf of his troops who had been allegedly denied provisions by Hypatius, Vitalian the Goth revolted for religious reasons. He claimed to represent the pro-Chalcedonians who were infuriated over the new form of the Trisagion Hymn. Moreover, Vitalian wanted to rectify the deposition of both Flavian and Macedonius. In his first assault on Constantinople Vitalian occupied the suburbs. Emperor Anastasius immediately sent out the distinguished officer, Patricius, to speak with Vitalian who clearly mentioned the two reasons for his revolt: to rectify the injustice of Hypatius towards his troops and to obtain a commitment to retain the orthodox creed. Vitalian was invited to enter the city to discuss the matter with the emperor but he wisely declined. Instead, he sent his officers to meet with Anastasius, who bribed them with gifts and promised them everything they wanted, including a settlement of the religious questions based on the position of the Church of Rome. When his officers returned, Vitalian had little option but to withdraw his troops. Anastasius replaced Hypatius with an experienced officer named Cyril, who at once marched toward the area to which Vitalian had withdrawn. Suspecting that Cyril had been ordered to kill him, Vitalian was prepared and struck first, killing Cyril. After achieving many victories over the imperial forces of Anastasius and seizing approximately two hundred vessels in the ports of Thrace, Vitalian appeared again in the suburbs of Constantinople. The emperor again sent out envoys to negotiate with Vitalian. This time Vitalian extracted a serious commitment — the restoration of peace in the Church was to be established by the convocation of an ecumenical council which was to be held in Heraclea in the following year. Vitalian made certain that the Church of Rome would be represented and it was agreed that both he and the emperor would communicate with Pope Hormisdas (514-523). The Monophysite or non-Chalcedonian control over the eastern churches in essence depended on the emperor, who was in 514 in his late seventies.

Letters with Pope Hormisdas were actually exchanged. The date for the council was set for the first of July in 515. It did not take place. Emperor Anastasius met an inflexible negotiator in Pope Hormisdas. A papal delegation was sent to Constantinople — Ennodius of Pavia was one of the delegates — with precise instructions from Pope Hormisdas on how to deal with the emperor’s proposal for a council, so precisely that Pope Hormisdas wrote the entire script from which they were not to deviate. The previous experience of sending papal legates, as with the case of Misenus, was not to be repeated. Although the terms would be unacceptable to the emperor, the Acacian Schism would be resolved four years later precisely on the grounds laid down by Pope Hormisdas in 515. The council must recognize unequivocally the Council of Chalcedon and the Tome of Pope Leo as the norm of orthodoxy; the emperor’s letter requesting the signatures of the bishops must state this condition without qualification; all bishops must make a formal profession of orthodoxy in their churches and must also condemn by name the leaders of Monophysitism; the bishops must, in the presence of witnesses, sign a formula containing a definition of faith drawn up by papal notaries; the cases of exiled bishops must be examined anew by the Roman see; and those bishops accused of persecuting the orthodox would be judged by the Pope.

Pope Hormisdas was ready to come to Constantinople if his presence was deemed necessary. But the emperor began to temporize and attempted to stir up the Roman senate against Pope Hormisdas. The legates returned with nothing accomplished. Pope Hormisdas put the matter on hold but, meanwhile, pro-Chalcedonians were contacting the Roman see — forty Illyrian bishops appealed to Rome for reconciliation. Two years later another resolution was attempted. This time Pope Hormisdas made his terms more difficult for Constantinople. In his Letter 11 Pope Hormisdas wrote that, in addition to the terms previously laid down, the new terms were that everything ever written by Pope Leo on the faith must be accepted as authoritative, that not only the name of Acacius but also the names of Euphemius, Macedonius, and "all those vho had died out of Catholic communion" must be anathematzed. Emperor Anastasius rejected the proposed solution. During ths time the Monophysite factions, still having the support of the enperor, were able to inflict some suffering on the pro-Chalcedonims, especially in the more eastern areas. At this point, however, Emperor Anastasius died. The next emperor was to be the orthodo: Prefect of the Praetorian Guard, Justin I.

Emperor Anastasius died inearly July in 518 with no children. Justin, the Macedonian peasait who rose to his high military position, was chosen Emperor Justin I (518-527) and immediately brought his nephew, Justinian (518-565), into the imperial government — it was Justinian who was responsible for most of the policy even during he reign of his uncle exclusive of the military policy. An abrupt change in ecclesiastical policy was about to take place. Only a few weeks after the accession of Justin and Justinian a scene took place at Hagia Sophia, the details of which are related in Mansi 8, 1057 ff.

The church was packed for a Saturday evening service, packed with zealots from the Qalcedonian party, both monks and laity. The patriarch, John of Cappadocia, was met with shouts from the congregation. "Recogrize the four councils! Long live the Emperor! Expel Severus the Nanichee! Long live the Patriarch! Cast out the new Judas! St. Wary is Theotokos! He who denies this is a Manichee!" The patriach asked for silence so the service could be performed but the shoits continued. "You shall not leave until you have anathematized Severus and recognized the councils!" Patriarch John, who had signed the Henotikon, was finally forced to proclaim the four councils from the ambo. But this did not satisfy the congregition. "Anathematize Severus! You shall not come down until you have anathematized that heretic! Unless we have an answer, we will stay here all night!" The patriarch, in a state of panic ai the source relates, consulted with the other bishops who were present at the service. The patriarch finally proclaimed that "everyone knows that Severus has separated himself from the Church and, therefore, since he is condemned by the canons, of course he is anathema."

Those orchestrating the demonstration were not content to let the matter rest here. The service was completed but the next day the liturgy was interrupted by similar shouts. "Bring back those exiled! Destroy the bones of Nestorius and Eutyches! Cast out the Manichees! Cast out both Stephens! Expel Severus, the Judas! St. Mary is Theotokos! Anathema to all who deny it!" Once again the patriarch proclaimed adherence to the Council of Chalcedon but the congregation would not permit the service to continue until the diptychs were altered, until the name of Severus was removed. The patriarch finally scratched out the name of Severus from the diptychs and announced this to the congregation. For more than an hour commotion continued in the church. Finally, during a pause from the congregation, ostensibly from exhaustion, one of the clerics began to sing the Trisagion and the choir joined in. The remainder of the service then continued in an orderly manner. The patriarch explained the event to the other patriarchs by writing that the action of the congregation was obviously "divinely inspired." John of Jerusalem replied that he rejoiced in the anathema of Severus.

The Chalcedonians in Antioch were also active. They wrote to the patriarch of Constantinople to petition the emperor to remove Severus. "He is a wolf, not a shepherd, a heretic and murderer, who turns Jews loose on the faithful and massacres them. Did we not see their bodies lying on the roads?" Some monks accused Severus of every imaginable crime and sin. Severus was aware of what was taking place. He was not overly surprised by the volte-face of John of Jerusalem, for whom he never had much respect. In one of his letters Severus writes that the only reason John was made patriarch of Jerusalem was because of his "unstable" character.

The Chalcedonian zealots had to wait, for Justinian’s priority was to resolve the schism with Rome. Justinian had already exchanged letters with Pope Hormisdas, clearly indicating to the Pope what his intentions were. Pope Hormisdas replied (Letter 28) that Justinian knew what the terms were. "Reconciliation is desired, of course, but — on terms. What my terms are, you know, for they were written down a year ago and will not change." In his letter Justinian, who also sought a reconciliation with the non-Chalcedonians, wrote: "We accept Chalcedon. We honor the memory of Leo. We read your name in the diptychs. Is that not enough?" Pope Hormisdas was inflexible. Either Acacius was to be condemned or there would be no reunion. Justinian was not in a position to negotiate because his goal was the reconquest of Italy, a goal that would be sorely difficult to realize without the support of the Bishop of Rome. Hormisdas, on the other hand, had nothing to lose because Theodoric’s rule was tolerant and his position was stable as pope. Moreover, there was always the possibility that a reunion with the emperor could bring at some future date more theological heresy into the Church, a fact of which Hormisdas was well aware. At this juncture the tolerant and stable rule under the Germanic Arians seemed preferable to union with the patriarchal sees under imperial rule precisely because of the theological turmoil in the East and because of the unpredictability of the orthodoxy of the emperors. A new emperor could mean a change in theological perspective.

Justinian wrote Hormisdas again, assuring him he would do everything in his power to meet the demands of the pope. He invited Hormisdas to Constantinople. Hormisdas declined but sent a delegation of five — the bishops Germanus and John; the priest Blandus; and two deacons, Felix and Dioscorus. The power of the delegation seems to have rested with the deacon Dioscorus, for it is he who corresponds with Hormisdas. The instructions given to these five state that they were not to negotiate. Rather, they were there to present the terms. Hormisdas was only willing to concede on one issue and that was not to condemn openly Macedonius and Euphemius if their names were removed from the diptychs. Pope Hormisdas’ letter to John, patriarch of Constantinople, was direct. "Do not attempt to defend condemned men like Acacius. Rather, remove yourself from all contact with heresy by anathematizing both him and his successors."

The Roman delegation arrived in Constantinople in March of 519 to a bountiful reception. Justinian, his generals, and the senate met the delegates ten miles from the city and escorted them into the city. The patriarch John accepted the Roman demands but, only after some discussion, signed the Libellus Hormisdae in the presence of the emperor, the senate, and the papal legates. It should be mentioned that Patriarch John was the first bishop of Constantinople to use the title of "Ecumenical Patriarch," a fact which Rome ignored at this time.

The Libellus Hormisdae contained statements that no bishop of the East had ever previously signed.The words are the words of the Bishop of Rome but he requires that the bishops of the East sign them. The "formula," as it was signed by Patriarch John, was as follows in its most significant sections.

Before signing this John insisted on prefacing it, after the usual exchange of brotherly greetings, with: "When I received your letter, I rejoiced at the spiritual love of your holiness because you are seeking to unite the most holy churches of God according to the ancient tradition of the Fathers, and in the spirit of Christ you are hastening to drive away those who have been tearing the rational flock. Know, then, most holy one, that... I also, loving peace, renounce all the heretics repudiated by you, for I hold the most holy churches of your elder and of our new Rome to be one Church, and I define that see of the Apostle Peter and this of the imperial city to be one see." John then expresses his complete agreement to everything that was done at the Four Ecumenical Councils and denounces all those who have disturbed these councils. It is then that he adopts and makes his own the words of the papal formula. In this preface John managed to modify somewhat the claims of the Roman see, for by identifying the old and new Rome he in essence allowed the see of Constantinople to share in the privileges which in the Libellus Hormisdae were reserved for die see of Rome.

In the Libellus Hormisdae there was a condemnation of Acacius and his successors and also of emperors Zeno and Anastasius. It was, however, difficult for John to persuade the Pontic and Asian themes to accept all the demands — they were especially sensitive about condemning those who had died, an issue which will be raised again at the Fifth Ecumenical Council concerning the posthumous condemnation of Theodore, Theodoret, and Ibas. Justinian explained this situation to Hormisdas in a letter. "A considerable part of the Eastern bishops could not be compelled, even by the use of fire and sword, to condemn the names of the bishops who died after Acacius." Epiphanius had succeeded John as patriarch of Constantinople and he also wrote about the same situation. "Very many of the holy bishops of Pontus and Asia and, above all, those referred to as of the Orient, found it to be difficult and even impossible to expunge the names of their former bishops … they were prepared to brave any danger rather than commit such a deed." The Emperor Justin also wrote on the same subject and mentions "the threats and persuasions" employed to induce the clergy and laity of these dioceses to agree to the removal of the names. But they, he writes, "esteem life harder than death, if they should condemn those, when dead, whose life, when they were alive, was the glory of their people." Justin then urges the Pope to soften his demands "in order to unite everywhere the venerable churches, and especially the Church of Jerusalem, on which church all bestow their good will, as being the mother of the Christian name, so that no one dares to separate himself from that church." In his response to the emperor the pope urges the emperor to use force to compel union and uniformity. The pope also wrote to Patriarch Epiphanius and empowered him to act on his behalf in the East — whoever was admitted to communion with the Church of Constantinople was to be considered in communion with the Church of Rome. The pope inserted a brief declaration of faith in which there is no mention of the prerogatives of the see of Rome. What in actuality transpired was that in the end the pope did not press the claims for his see which he had previously made and left the matter in the hands of Epiphanius.

The Roman see was, as it were, incapable of understanding a complexity of the theological controversy. There were many Chalcedonians in the East who also accepted the belief that "One of the Holy Trinity suffered in the flesh," a belief that was in accordance with St. Cyril’s Twelfth Anathema that "God the Logos suffered in the flesh." This theological position, known as the "Theopaschite Formula" was completely consistent with the essence of the definition of faith as given at the Council of Chalcedon. This formula did not contain the Monophysite "who was crucified for us." This theological position revealed the incipient doctrine of "enhypostasis" a theological perspective that seemed to baffle Rome. There was discussion about this in Constantinople even before the papal legates arrived, a fact we know from Dioscorus’ correspondence with Pope Hormisdas. The monks took an active role in this theological position, especially the Scythian monks. The acceptance of the Theopaschite Formula included a full acceptance of the humanity, of the human nature, of Christ, without in any way implying that the human nature had its own hypostasis, its own person. One person, the Divine Logos, who was the possessor of two natures — of the Divine nature from eternity; of the human nature from conception. This one Divine Person, the center of union and unity in Jesus Christ, experienced the life of Divine nature and the life of the human nature. The Eternal Divine Person who became man experienced man’s suffering. From June of 519 on Pope Hormisdas had been hearing troublesome things about the Scythian monks who held this view. In his correspondence with Pope Hormisdas Dioscorus referred to them as being "enflamed by the devil," as opponents of the "prayers of all Christians," and as being led by a "false abbot," Maxentius. Dioscorus also related that they were anti-Roman, which seems to be accurate. Several discussions took place between these monks and the papal legates, discussions ordered to take place by Justinian. Nothing was resolved at these discussions. Finally Maxentius left with a group of his monks for Rome in the summer of 519, taking with them a letter that outlined the contemporary theological thought in Constantinople. In July of 519 Justinian warned Pope Hormisdas in a letter that union and peace would not occur without a quick and favorable response to the monks. It is significant that Pope Hormisdas at first received Maxentius’ Libellus and approved of it "before the witness of the bishops, laity, and senate of Rome." He then had second thoughts and finally rejected it and the Theopaschite Formula — it seems not so much for theological reasons as for the simple reason that it seemed "new." In Constantinople the papal legates were revealing their lack of familiarity with theological doctrine. They were also tactless and became quite unpopular. Moreover, and most importantly, they were perceived as representatives of a "foreign theology." Here again one senses the influence of Pope Leo’s Tome and his inability to set forth a notion and definition of person. Here the tragedy of Chalcedon and its incompleteness is laid bare.

Pope Hormisdas received the letter of John and one from Justinian relatively late. By the time Hormisdas responded in July of 519 he wrote of an "abominable sedition" inspired by the bishop of Thessaloniki, Dorotheus It was clear to Hormisdas that even Constantinople’s acceptance of his terms did not mean that other cities within the empire would follow. He was primarily concerned about Alexandria and Antioch. Justin suggested that Antioch be handled first and urged the position of patriarch of Antioch on Dioscorus, the Roman deacon. Hormisdas was opposed to the idea because he had Dioscorus in mind for the see of Alexandria. "Antioch," Hormisdas wrote, "would be a completely new area for you, but Alexandria you know from the past and you would be exactly the person to bring those people to order." Nothing came of this situation with Alexandria, for Justin was not willing to risk an Egyptian rebellion. Antioch presented a different situation.

An imperial edict was drawn up which specifically omitted Egypt. In this edict to the "orient" it was decreed that all bishops must accept Chalcedon or give up their sees. The imperial authorities obviously realized what Severus’ character was like, for it issued an order for his arrest — he was obviously not the type of person to change his theological positions at imperial command. The arrest order was entrusted to Vitalian, the former leader of the revolts against Anastasius and now the comes orientis. The Chronicon Edessenum speaks of a "purge" in Antioch in 518-519, a "purge" against the anti-Chalcedonians. Because of Vitalian’s special relationship with Flavian, Vitalian harbored hatred for Severus. Vitalian, however, was murdered before he could execute his order. Severus fled to Egypt along with his friend Julian of Halicarnassus. Philoxenus was caught and sentenced to exile in Gangra.

The see of Antioch was considered vacant. All churches were "confiscated" or appropriated for the use of those who accepted Chalcedon. Paul, a "presbyter" of Constantinople and known historically as Paul the Jew, was elevated to the patriarchal see of Antioch. Constantinople attempted to consecrate Paul in the imperial city but the papal legates opposed it, urging that he should be consecrated in Antioch itself "in accordance with ancient tradition" and to avoid a repeat of the result of a former consecration in Constantinople of a bishop for the Antiochene see. The sources claim that his cruelty to the Monophysites in Edessa made him infamous — monks were put to death if they refused to conform. Philoxenus in one of his letters claims that Paul was resisted strongly and that the "people" cried out for his martyrdom. Accusations of a moral nature were made against Paul, forcing either his resignation or deposition. He was followed by Euphrasius, who was, according to Monophysite sources, a "mild" and "generous" man — pro-Chalcedonian sources refer to him as a "weakling." He held the bishopric for five years during which peace returned to the area. It is reported in the sources that he and "the wicked Aesculapius" perished in the earthquake of 526. Euphrasius’ successor, Ephraem of Amida, had been the comes orientis previous to his consecration. He distinguished himself in the position of civil service with relief work after the earthquake. It is claimed that his consecration was the reward for his diligent work as a civil servant. Justinian had decided to apply more force against these anti-Chalcedonian monks and the reliable Ephraem was quite willing to help — he renewed the policy of Paul.

The claim by Michael the Syrian in his Chronicle (9, 13) that the entire reign of Justin was one of persecution is not such an exaggeration. The persecution was primarily directed against the anti-Chalcedonian monks and their communities — especially in Syria in the areas where Syriac was the language of the Church. Philoxenus realized that the final separation had come. Any attempt to reinterpret the Henotikon in Chalcedonian terms was nothing more than an attempt to restore the "impure doctrine of Nestorius." Any question of intercommunion with the Chalcedonians was out of the question. In his Confession of Faith, written before he died in 523, Philoxenus wrote that "a curse was upon that council and on all who agreed with it" — an eternal curse.

At the end of the reign of Justin I it is claimed that the edict proclaiming adherence to the Council of Chalcedon was obeyed — exclusive of Egypt, of course, where no serious attempt was made. Approximately fifty-five bishops refused and these were either deposed or exiled. The anti-Chalcedonian monks either fled to Egypt or endured persecution. The laity was a different matter. There is an interesting revelation in the Vita of John Tella. The majority in his congregation believed in obedience to imperial law, yet they did not accept Chalcedon — for the time being Chalcedon must be accepted. Hence, Justin and Justinian may have been able to have imposed an external order of Chalcedonian support but it could not truly evaluate the sentiments of the populace, a populace intimidated by the possibility of persecution if they acted.

Opposition was, however, still alive in the work of John of Tella, a monk and Monophysite zealot. He had been a monk from a very early age — to the chagrin of his mother. He remained in a cell with no interest in accepting any clerical position — several were offered to him. His biographer relates that John was warned in a vision that the day would come when the Church would need bishops "who will suffer and who will not be moved by either threat or bribe." After this vision John accepted ordination. His biographer also stresses his excessive gift of tears. When Severus fled to Egypt, he appointed John of Tella as his representative. John did not disappoint Severus, for he travelled around the provinces in rags organizing the non-Chalcedonians. At one point he had as many as eight co-workers. Gradually, however, they were all captured — but not John, who had gained the sympathy of both the country people and the officials. Those bishops who had accepted Chalcedon at the order of the imperial edict and who were not at heart Chalcedonians welcomed the arrival of John of Tella. These bishops refused to ordain anyone in a non-Chalcedonian faith, but they allowed John of Tella to ordain whomever he pleased.

From the imperial perspective the external order revealed that the only Monophysite bishops were in Egypt, in Persia, or hidden away in some of the far eastern monasteries. It appeared as though the imperial edict had stopped the proliferation of Monophysite ordinations. But that was not the true reflection of reality, for there were Monophysite priests in most places and numerous men who desired that ordination which had been prohibited by imperial law. An "underground" Church had come into existence and was to increase surreptitiously. The activity of John of Tella finally became known to the imperial authorities. John was able to negotiate a "safe conduct" assurance from the emperor and, under that condition, he appeared in Constantinople for an audience with the emperor. He was requested to cease and desist from his activity, to which request John flatly refused — his obedience, he exclaimed, was to God, not to the emperor.

The general imperial policy was to wait until a bishopric became vacant and then fill that spot with a pro-Chalcedonian. Edessa was an example. It is claimed that the bishop died out of shame for accepting Chalcedon. A pro-Chalcedonian, Aesculapius, was quickly nominated and immediately unleashed a severe persecution on the anti-Chalcedonians, forcing "stylites" down from their pillars and expelling monks by calling on the force of the imperial military. The monks of approximately ten neighboring monasteries refused to commune with the bishop or to attend his services during the Christmas Lent. By Christmas only one monastery still had monks — and that one had only ten monks remaining. The monks, the sources relate, fled into the desert, there supporting themselves for six years until Theodora returned them to their monasteries.

In 537 Ephraem, the bishop of Edessa, was successful in catching John Telia — with the help of the Persians who were to receive a reward. The Persians were able to track John down, found him in a hermit’s cave, and brought him to Nisibis. The reward offered by Ephraem was slow in coming and during the wait John and his Persian guards became friendly. Indeed, the Persians were surprised that the man they had expended so much energy to track down was no more than a religious monk. The Persians could understand John’s lament that he was persecuted only because he had refused to change his religion at the command of die emperor. Moreover, the Persians offered to release him for a fee — but for much less than what Ephraem had offered. John had no access to money. When the reward finally came from Ephraem, the Persians felt it their duty to surrender John in accordance with the agreement. John was taken across the border to Dara where John and Ephraem entered theological discussions which resolved nothing. John was later brought to Antioch and confined in a monastery there — with four other monks in his cell, a situation which was not all that ominous. However, two of the monks were hand picked Chalcedonians, one of whom was a known persecutor. Theologically John held that "Christ was completely with the Father, as God, and completely with his mother, as man," that there was a union of the natures, a union that was neither "confused" nor "changed." He’rejected Eutyches totally. The Lord was "of one nature which became Incarnate without change" and the Lord was like us "in all things except sin." When he professed that the there is "an ineffable and incomprehensible union of two" natures, that the Lord is perfect God and perfect Man, his opponents thought he had recanted. "He has joined us. He has renounced his heresy," his opponents declared. On hearing this, the sources claim that John became indignant, declaring: "God forbid that I should abandon St. Cyril and … bring shame upon the Church!" Yet the rumor was quickly spread that John had recanted. Ephraem came in person to receive him back in the faith, only to be stunned when he encountered John, who declared: "If Severus, my patriarch, were to confess two natures after the union, I would anathematize him." This entire episode is a mirrored image of the entire controversy and imprecision of the language used by both sides. This tragedy led to nothing but struggle, controversy, and suffering for the next centuries. John died in 538, "praying for the peace of the Church and for those who had persecuted him."

Persecution was real, yet it was limited and sporadic. The very policy of Ephraem gives an insight into the actual state of affairs. His imperial orders were to bring about conformity to Chalcedon, and for this purpose the power of the empire was placed at his disposal. He had the power and authority to break up monasteries, to depose bishops, to exile recalcitrants, and to replace anti-Chalcedonian civil servants. But there was, it appears, a certain boundary beyond which he was not to tread — there was no official policy of a deliberate infliction of death, despite the aberrations that took place. Moreover, two places of refuge existed — Egypt and Constantinople itself, even the special monastic arrangement in the imperial palace itself, an arrangement provided by Theodora. Exile in Egypt was in a real sense a "coming home," a place where a Monophysite could live, breathe, and work.

In exile in Egypt Severus was extremely active. Initially Severus’ perspective was depressed, bleak. But his mood changed. A "Standing Council of Bishops" was established in Alexandria, a council which kept abreast of all that was taking place elsewhere in the empire, a council that continued to exhort and encourage the anti-Chalcedonians to remain firm. Severus continued to give instructions for his diocese from Alexandria, instructions which concerned not only general exhortations or general policy but also detailed specifics on individual cases brought to his attention. His letters are filled with his response to the life of the Church. He expressed himself quite frankly when he heard that Rome had rejected the Theopaschite Formula, for Severus’ theological thought was more sophisticated than that at Rome and Severus knew that Rome would never understand the difference between Divine essence and the Divine hypostases. Severus was not anti-Roman. His objection to the Council of Chalcedon was theological, not ecclesiastical nor political. Indeed, he often quotes Pope Julius and refers to him as the "spiritual and unshakable tower of the Church of the Romans." His concern was that the definition of faith at the Council of Chalcedon nowhere mentioned "the One Incarnate Nature of the Divine Logos," nowhere mentioned the "hypostatic union." Rather, Chalcedon, in his view, had taken its doctrine of "in two natures, perfect, undivided and unconfused" directly from Nestorius. For Severus, after the Incarnation there was "one nature out of two" and the very fact that Chalcedon did not include this doctrine rendered it and Pope Leo’s Tome blasphemous. How could Leo believe that the Incarnate Logos could die "in two natures?" Which nature had been nailed to the cross? The doctrine of "two natures" after the Incarnation was what made Leo a "blasphemer" and a "pillar of heterodoxy." Severus considered Leo’s Tome "Jewish." One of his most penetrating attacks on Leo’s Tome is in his Letter to Count Oecumenius. Severus was no instigator against the empire for the sake of regional ethnicism. His letters portray him as one who had respect for the emperor and loyalty to the empire. He was a sophisticated cosmopolitan. He was not antagonistic towards Rome or its primacy. He was theologically opposed to Pope Leo’s Tome and the Council of Chalcedon because he believed they were the vehicles of heresy. Severus nourished himself on the works of St. Athanasius, the Cappadocians, and St. Cyril of Alexandria.

Severus’ friend, Julian of Halicarnassus, fled with him to Egypt. In Alexandria their speculation on the the nature of the flesh of the Logos, an argument among the anti-Chalcedonians from the beginning, brought the two friends into a controversy, a controversy which was to prove divisive among the Monophysites. Their theological dispute began in their initial letters in a friendly vein, only to become increasingly more heated as the controversy became more serious, the result of which was a breach of friendship between Severus and Julian.

Julian claimed that the flesh of Christ was incorruptible from the moment of conception. Julian was opposed to Eutyches but his line of thought led him in a similar direction — indeed, similar to Apollinarius Julian viewed the controversy in terms of Christ’s susceptibility to human sin. In maintaining that Christ’s flesh was incorruptible — άφθαρτος — Julian became the principal spokesman of aphthartodocetism — Christ’s passion and death were real but were the result of a free and completely volition act of his will — κατ ‘ οίκονομίαν or κατά χάριν, a freedom of action which allowed Christ to confer passivity on his naturally incorruptible flesh. In addition to his letters to Severus on this subject, Julian wrote four works against the position of Severus, numerous fragments of which have survived in Syriac and Greek. Julian’s vision is based on his doctrine of original sin, a doctrine not completely different in nature from that of St. Augustine. For Julian the sexual act was the vehicle through which sin and corruption, the complete corruption of the human body and flesh, were transmitted from generation to generation. Severus’s view was different. He argued that the flesh is not the source of sin (Homily123; Homily 75; Homily 68). Although he maintained that virginity was better, Severus spoke out strongly for the blessed nature of marriage. In Homily 121 Severus writes that there is nothing more loved by God than "the union of flesh in marriage, from which union likewise comes the love for children." This is in reference to his comparison of the union of the soul and Christ. He even claims that if a better analogy had been possible, then the Gospels would have used it. Severus refuses to equate the original sin with sex (Homily 119), even claiming that the flesh or body participates in the joy and pleasure of the soul’s contemplation — theoria — to the extent that even "the bones of man" are penetrated by it. Even prior to his controversy with Julian Severus had argued against Eutyches in Homily 63 that the flesh is not defiled by nature but by sin and sin comes forth from the soul or mind of man, not from die body. Hence, in his Incarnation God the Logos was in no way defiled, soiled, or touched by sin. The belief of the indestructibleness and incorruptibility of the flesh became the central focus of the Julianists, who were given the name of Aphthartodocetists and Fantasiasts by their opponents. The followers of Julian applied the word Phthartolartians to the followers of Severus. For Julian redemption was uncertain if God the Logos assumed a body that was subject to corruption — φθορά. Harnack saw in the thought of Julian of Halicarnassus the logical development of the Greek patristic doctrine of redemption, a conclusion which does not necessarily follow from the thought of the Greek fathers. "We cannot therefore avoid seeing in Aphthartodoketism," writes Harnack, "the logical development of the Greek doctrine of salvation, and we are all the more forced so to regard it that Julian expressly and ex necessitate fidei acknowledged the homoousia of the body of Christ with our body at the moment when the Logos assumed it, and rejected everything of the nature of a heavenly body so far as its origin was concerned." Harnack’s evaluation of Severus and his followers is more accurate. "In opposition to this view the Severians laid so much stress on the relation of the sufferings of Christ to the human side of Christ’s nature in order to rid them of anything doketic, that no Western could have more effectively attacked doketism than they did."

From this controversy between Severus and Julian the divisiveness within the anti-Chalcedonian movement was laid bare and the foundation of further factions was established. Severus realized quite well the damage to the cause. The result was mutual anathemas. The monks and the Eutychians in Alexandria supported Julian strenuously. In his Chronicle (9, 21) Michael the Syrian relates that Gaianus, the disciple of Julian, had the support of the wealthy and was in contention for the position of patriarch of Alexandria.

Pope Hormisdas1 successor, Pope St. John I (523-526), found himself caught up in a political contest between the imperial rulers in Constantinople and Theodoric. The resolution of the Acacian Schism was followed a year later by an imperial edict which closed all Arian churches in Constantinople. Moreover, all Arians were dismissed from imperial service. Theodoric, the Germanic Arian rex of Italy, retaliated — his policy towards the Catholics in Italy would no longer be tolerant if this imperial edict remained in force. Theodoric summoned Pope John I to Ravenna and ordered him to head an embassy to Constantinople to obtain a cessation of the new imperial edict against Arians. In addition, those Arians who had been compelled by force to renounce Arianism were to be allowed to revert to their former faith. Pope John I agreed to negotiate on behalf of the first request but rejected the second. He was welcomed in Constantinople with great honor in 525 — it is claimed that the "entire city" came out to greet him with candles and crosses. It is also claimed that Emperor Justin I prostrated himself before Pope John "as though John were Peter in person." What takes place with this visit by Pope John is historically important. He celebrates the Christmas liturgy and, moreover, Justin I allowed himself to be crowned for a second time. This precedent would be remembered. It was as though the coronation performed by the patriarch was not sufficient. John remained in Constantinople for five months. He was successful in restoring the Arian churches. He also celebrated Easter in St. Sophia, occupying a throne above that of the patriarch. Theodoric suspected that a conspiracy was underway, a conspiracy which would have involved the Roman aristocracy and the Pope. This is probably one of the reasons why Theodoric had Boethius and Boethius’ father-in-law, Symmachus, put to death — a warning that he would not tolerate insurrection. Upon Pope John’s return to Ravenna, he was imprisoned along with his entire escort. There he died in 526 — from "abuse" or starvation.

While Ephraem was persecuting the anti-Chalcedonians in the orient, Theodora was welcoming the exiles in Constantinople. She maintained all exiles at her own imperial expense. She set aside one of the imperial palaces — it was close to the Hippodrome and close to the Church of Saints Sergius and Bacchus — exclusively for these Monophysite exiles. Rooms were subdivided so that each room could accommodate two monks. Liturgical services took place and "numerous small altars" were set up to accommodate each group represented. This establishment of Theodora was not a secret — indeed, it was one of the attractions of Constantinople. Justinian was wont to visit it, not privately, but as an imperial visit in the sight of everyone. John of Ephesus, once one of the resident exiles, claims that he had seen as many as one thousand monks attending services there. It must be mentioned that John of Ephesus, who was an admirer of Theodora, corroborates in general terms what Procopius had written about the early life of Theodora in his Secret History — John mentions that her life was not common, not "regular" before she became empress.

Even an exiled Monophysite patriarch of Alexandria was present. Theodosius was consecrated patriarch of Alexandria in 536 and exiled shortly thereafter. The grounds for the exile remain unknown. He remained in Constantinople for approximately thirty years, serving essentially as the head of the Monophysite body in the capital.

From this monastery established by Theodora in the capital of the empire itself monastic missionaries went forth. John of Ephesus tells us in his Historiae ecclesiaticae pars tertia that he himself set out as a missionary. The official policy was that he was to work only among the pagans in remote Asia. Within seventeen years he is said to have converted eighty thousand pagans and to have built ninety-eight churches — moreover, it is claimed that he helped build twelve synagogues. Historically the presumption has been that John of Ephesus did more than work among the pagans, that he also used the opportunity to revitalize the anti-Chalcedonians. In his Vita of John of Telia John of Ephesus relates that the faithful non-Chalcedonians in "various places" became concerned over the problem of ordinations. The bishops "were afraid to open to themselves ever stronger flames of persecution and they, therefore, refused to ordain overtly, but they had ordained some covertly." John then continues that the faithful wrote imploring the bishops to ordain "for the sake of the faithful." Severus had supported the idea of this type of ordination in his letter to Sergius of Cyrus and Marion of Sura. This was in essence the establishment of a separate hierarchy.

It is known that John of Hephaistos, also from Theodora’s monastery, went forth with the open intent to organize the non-Chalcedonians. In 541 John of Hephaistos ordained fifty priests in Tralles while the Chalcedonians were conducting their own service within the same building. At Ephesus he is said to have ordained seventy clergy in one night. John of Telia had been ordaining. John of Ephesus most probably did the same. John of Hephaistos did the same. One source claims that one hundred and seventy thousand non-Chalcedonians were ordained — these candidates came from Armenia, Phoenicia, Cappadocia, and Arzanene on the Persian border. The beginning of this movement took place about 530.

In 530 and 531 there was a sudden relaxation of Justinian’s policy. Speculation is that one of the reasons was this new movement of ordination. It must, however, be evaluated in the context with the fact of the war with Persia. In any case, Justinian called for a conference about the differences over Chalcedon. At this time the controversy between Severus and Julian had put Severus and his followers in the minority of the anti-Chalcedonians. Justinian’s change of policy towards the Monophysites was obviously strengthened by the Nika riots which took place in 532 in Constantinople.

As Uspensky has pointed out, the Hippodrome was the one place for "a free expression of public opinion." The circus factions ultimately became political parties, the two most influential in the sixth century being the Blues and the Greens. The Blues supported the Council of Chalcedon and seem to have been representative of the upper classes; the Greens were Monophysites or anti-Chalcedonians and seem to have been representative of the lower classes. The political influence carried by these factions is expressed not only by their rioting but also by the fact that the emperor often had to appear before the people to give an account of his actions. With Justinian as emperor and Theodora as empress there was a split of allegiance to the throne, the Blues supporting Justinian and the Greens Theodora. Cassiodorus tells us that even in Rome in the sixth century under Theodoric there were two contending parties, the Blues and the Greens, the Blues representative of the upper classes and the Greens representative of the lower classes.

The famous revolt in 532 known as the Nika Revolt — for the Greek word Victory — has more than just a religious base. The nephews of Anastasius strongly resented the accession of Justin I and Justinian — they had expected to receive the imperial title. They were supported by the Monophysites of the Greens. There was also public outrage at and bitterness against higher officials in the imperial government, especially against Tribonian and John of Cappadocia. It is significant that the Blues and Greens seem to have momentarily put aside their religious differences to focus on a united revolt against the government. The emperor attempted to negotiate with the factions through representatives in the Hippodrome but no resolution was reached. The rebellion quickly spread through the city in the form of fire and destruction. The basilica of St. Sophia was set aflame and on that site there later rose the Hagia Sophia. One of Anastasius’ nephews was proclaimed emperor. Justinian and his advisors were preparing to flee from the enflamed city when Theodora intervened. Her words in Procopius’ Secret History ring true. “It is impossible for a man when he has come into the world not to die. But for one who has reigned, it is intolerable to be an exile. If you wish, Ο Emperor, to save yourself, there is no difficulty. We have sufficient funds. Over there is the sea, and there are ships. Yet consider whether, when you have once escaped to a place of safety, you will not prefer death to safety. I agree with an old saying that the purple is a fair winding sheet." Theodora inspired Justinian to make a stand. He entrusted the crushing of the revolt to Belisarius who then drove the rioters into the Hippodrome and killed approximately thirty to forty thousand. The Nika Revolt had ended. The nephews of Anastasius were executed and Justinian’s imperial throne was once more secure. But the following year the strength of the Greens, representing the Monophysites, was revealed again when, after an earthquake in the city, a large crowd gathered to sing a Monophysite doxology. The crowds were also shouting out for baptism in the name of the One — the meaning was "one nature" as opposed to the Chalcedonian "in two natures." Justinian could certainly realize the enduring strength of the anti-Chalcedonians.

The Monophysites responded to Justinian’s call for a conference by drawing up a review of their case, known as the "Petition of the Monophysites to Justinian." Zacharias gives the text in his Church History (9, 15), as does Michael the Syrian in his Chronicle (9, 22).

"O Triumphant Emperor, several other men crown your head of belief with a crown of praises, men who who use the occasion of others’ cases to write words about your generosity to them. But we, who have ourselves been deemed worthy to experience your virtues, render gratitude to you with a crown of praise woven in splendor. And, while we have been in the desert and, as it were, in the extremities of the world, we have been this entire time living in quietude and have been praying to the good and merciful God during all these days for your majesty and for our sins. And your tranquillity has inclined itself towards our baseness and in your letters of belief you have summoned us to come to you. And it is a miracle to us that you did not receive this our petition with scorn, but, with the kindness that is inbred in you, you have sympathized with us to bring us out of affliction, giving a pretext that this or that man had interceded for us."

"Now, since it is our duty to obey when ordered, we have immediately left the desert and, travelling quietly along the road in peace without our voice being heard, we have come before your feet. And we pray God, the bountiful Giver, to reward on our behalf your serenity and the God-loving Empress with good gifts from above, and to grant peace and tranquillity upon you, and to place all rebellious people as a stool under your feet."

"However, now that we have come, we present a petition to your peacefulness which contains our true faith. We do not wish to enter argument with any man on any matter that profits not, as it is written, lest we annoy your ears. For it is very difficult for a man to convince persons of a contentious nature even if the truth is made clear. Hence, as we have said, we refuse to enter any dispute with those who are contentious, with those who will not receive instructors. For it was our master the apostle who said, ‘We have no such custom, neither the churches of God."

"Victorious Emperor, we do now accordingly also declare the freedom of our faith. When we were in the desert and received your edict at the hands of Theodotus the comes, we also wrote and declared what we thought. And your majesties gave us a message of truth which was free from affliction, for you were tenderly moved and you summoned us to your presence. And, since we have been deemed worthy of the mercies of God, we do in this petition inform your orthodoxies that by the grace of God we have from our earliest infancy received the faith of the apostles. We have been raised in it and with it, and we think and believe even as our three hundred and eighteen God-inspired holy fathers, who drew up the faith of life and salvation, which was confirmed by our one hundred and fifty holy fathers who once met here, and confirmed by the pious bishops who assembled at Ephesus and rejected the impious Nestorius. And thus in this faith of the apostles we have been baptized and do baptize. And this saving knowledge is rooted in our hearts, and this same doctrine alone we recognize as a rule in the faith, and beyond it we receive no other, for it is perfect in all points and it does not grow old nor need revision."

"Now we acknowledge a worshipful and holy Trinity of one nature, power, and honor, which is revealed in three persons. For we worship the Father and his only Son, God the Logos, who was begotten of him eternally beyond all times, and is with him always without change, and the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father, and is of the nature of the Father and of the Son. One of the persons of this holy Trinity, that is, God the Logos, we say by the will of the Father in the last days for the salvation of men took flesh of the Holy Spirit and of the holy Virgin the Theotokos Mary in a body endowed with a rational and intellectual soul, passible according to our nature, and became man, and was not changed from that which he was. And so we confess that, while in the Godhead he was of the nature of the Father, he was also of our nature in the manhood. Accordingly he who is the perfect Logos, the unchangeable Son of God, became perfect man, and left nothing lacking for us in respect of our salvation, as the foolish Apollinarius said, saying that the Incarnation of God the Logos was not perfect, and deprives us, according to his opinion, of things that are of prime importance in our salvation. For, if our intellect was not united with him, as he absurdly says, then we are not redeemed, and in the matter of salvation have fallen short of that which is of the highest consequence for us. But these things are not as he said. For the perfect God for our sake became perfect man without change, and God the Logos did not leave anything lacking in the Incarnation, as we have said, nor yet was it a phantom of him, as the impious Mani supposes, and the mistaken Eutyches."

"And, since Christ is truth and does not know how to lie and does not deceive, because he is God, therefore God the Logos truly became incarnate, in truth again, and not in semblance, with natural and innocent passions, for of his own will he for our sake among the things which he took upon himself in the passible flesh of our nature of his own will endured also our death, which he made life for us by a Resurrection proper to God, for he first restored incorruption and immortality to human nature."

"And, indeed, as God the Logos left nothing wanting and was not phantasmal in the Incarnation and Humanization, so he did not divide it into two persons and two natures according to the doctrine introduced by Nestorius the man-worshipper and those who formerly thought like him, and those who in our day so think."

"And the faith contained in your confession refutes the doctrine of these men and contends with it, for in your earnestness you said the following: ‘God appeared, who became Incarnate. He is in all points like the Father except the individuality of his Father. He became a sharer of our nature, and was called Son of Man. Being one the same, God and Man, he showed himself to us, and was born as a babe for our sake. And, being God, he for men and for the sake of their salvation became man.’ "

"If those who dispute with us adhered to these things in truth and were not content to hold them in appearance only, but rather consented to believe as we do and you do and as our God-inspired fathers did, they would have abstained from their stirring of strife. For that Christ was joined by composition and that God the Logos is joined by composition with a body endowed with a rational and intellectual soul the all-wise doctors of the Church have plainly stated. Dionysius, who from the Areopagus and from the darkness and error of heathendom attained to the supreme light of the knowledge of God through our master Paul, in the treatise which he composed about the divine names of the Holy Trinity says, ‘Praising it as kindly, we say, as is right, that it is kindly, because it in truth partook perfectly of our attributes in one of its persons, drawing to itself and raising the lowliness of our manhood, out of which the simple Jesus became joined by composition in a manner that cannot be described. And he who was from eternity and beyond all times took upon him a temporal existence, and he who was raised and exalted above all orders and natures became in the likeness of our nature without change and confusion.’ And Athanasius again in the treatise upon the faith named the unity of God the Logos with soul-possessing flesh ‘a composition,’ speaking thus: ‘What sort of resultant unbelief befalls those who call it an indwelling instead of an Incarnation, and instead of a union and composition a human energy?"

"If, therefore, according to our holy fathers, whom your peacefulnesses have followed, God the Logos, who was before simple and not composite, became incarnate of the Virgin, the Theotokos Mary, and [here Michael the Syrian adds "hypostatically"] united soul-possessing and intellectual flesh to himself personally and made it his own and was joined with it by composition in the oikonomia, it is manifest that according to our fathers we ought to confess one nature of God the Logos, who took flesh and became perfectly man. Accordingly God the Logos, who was before simple, is not recognized to have become composite in a body, if he is again divided after the union by being called two natures. But, just as an ordinary man, who is made up of various natures, soul and body and so forth, is not divided into two natures because a soul has been joined by composition with a body to make up the one nature and person of a man, so also God the Logos, who was personally united and joined by composition with soul-possessing flesh, cannot be ‘two natures’ or ‘in two natures’ because of his union and composition with a body. For according to the words of our fathers, whom the fear of God that is in you has followed, God the Logos, who was formerly simple, consented for our sake to be united by composition with soul-possessing and intellectual flesh and without change to become man. Accordingly one unique nature and person [hypostasis] of God the Logos, who took flesh, is to be proclaimed, and there is one energy of the Logos of God which is made known, which is exalted and glorious and proper to God, and is also lowly and human. [Michael the Syrian adds: "How is it that our brethren cannot apply themselves to annul the things which Leo has written in his Tome?"]

[Then followed quotations from Nestorius, Theodore, Diodore, Theodoret, Leo, and the Council of Chalcedon proclaiming two natures after the union and the Incarnation of the Logos, and two hypostases. These quotations are refuted by quotations from the Fathers which assert one nature and one person of the Incarnate Logos. Neither Zacharias nor Michael give these quotations.]

"And for this reason we do not accept either the Tome or the definition of Chalcedon, Ο Victorious Emperor, because we keep the canon and law of our fathers who assembled at Ephesus and anathematized and deprived Nestorius and excommunicated any who should presume to compose any other definition of faith besides that of Nicaea, which was correctly and believingly laid down by the Holy Spirit. These we reject and anathematize. And this definition and canon those who assembled at Chalcedon deliberately set at naught and transgressed, as they state in the Acts of that Council. And they are subject to punishment and blame from our holy fathers in that they have introduced a new definition of faith, which contrary to the truth of the doctrine of those who from time to time have been after a pure manner doctors of the Church, who, we believe, are now also entreating Christ with us, that you may aid the truth of their faith, honoring the contests undergone by their priesthoods, by which the Church has been exalted and glorified. For thus shall peace prevail in your reign by the power of the right hand of God Almighty, to whom we pray on your behalf that without toil or struggle in arms he will set your enemies as a stool beneath your feet."

Severus received an invitation to participate in the conference but declined because "of age." In the letter he sent to the emperor explaining that he was unable to attend, Severus took the opportunity to defend himself against accusations that he had been receiving funds to foment sedition. If indeed this accusation had been made, Severus was aware that the charge against him was political treason. He wrote that he lived in poverty and wished to die in the peace and obscurity he had in Alexandria. He included in this letter a vehement attack against and denunciation of Julian of Halicarnassus and his doctrine, obviously to distinguish his teachings from those of Julian.

According to Zacharias in his Church History (9, 15) the conference in Constantinople lasted more than a year. However, an account of only one of the conferences exists, one that lasted for three days and attended by six Syrian bishops and five supporters of Chalcedonian. Leontius of Byzantium was also in attendance representing Palestinian monks. One of the Chalcedonian representatives has left an account of this mini conference — Innocentius of Maronia in a letter to Thomas, a priest in Thessaloniki. Justinian’s approach was to resolve some of the issues in order to reveal that if Chalcedon were interpreted correctly, no doctrinal issue should be cause of division. The "issues" that Justinian wanted to resolve were not doctrinal — indeed, all he attempted to demonstrate was that Eutyches’ theology was not orthodox and that Dioscorus had been wrong in conducting the Robber Council at Ephesus. The Severians admitted that Eutyches was a heretic and even granted that Dioscorus had agreed with Eutyches. How, then, could they hold that Dioscorus was orthodox? The Severians finally acknowledged that Dioscorus had been blind, that his condemnation of Flavian was unjust, and that there had been sufficient reason for convoking the Council of Chalcedon. Some of these statements were historically inaccurate. Severus had previously written that Eutyches had submitted a confession of faith to Dioscorus in which he condemned Mani, Valentinius, Apollinarius, and any one claiming that the flesh of our Lord "came down from heaven." But Severus added that Eutyches, after submitting this profession of faith, had "returned to his vomit." It must also be mentioned that Dioscorus, during his brief attendance at the Council of Chalcedon, had condemned Eutyches on certain conditions. The next day the Severians focused on what they considered to be the real issue — their central objection to the Council of Chalcedon was that it presented a "new" and incorrect doctrine of "in two natures" — duarum naturarum novitas. They paid little attention to the position that not everything that was new was necessarily incorrect or bad. From the perspective of the Severians, St. Cyril would not have accepted the Council of Chalcedon. And that was the basic issue. The Council had not accepted St. Cyril’s Twelve Anathemas and, despite the fact that St. Cyril had spoken of "out of two natures," he had never spoken about "two natures after the union." At the meeting on the third day, attended by Justinian, the Theopaschite Formula was put forward as a compromise position. It is claimed that one of the Syrian bishops accepted Chalcedon, as did some of the priests in attendance. But the remaining bishops remained firm. Justinian promulgated an edict in March of 533 which set out his own profession of faith. It condemned Eutyches, Apollinarius, and Nestorius and strongly maintained that there had been no innovation of the faith. It professed that the Logos, co-eternal with the Father "became incarnate of the Holy Spirit and Mary, the holy glorious Ever-Virgin and Theotokos, and assumed the nature of man, and endured the Cross for us in the time of Pontius Pilate, and was buried and arose on the third day. We recognize one and the same person’s suffering which he voluntarily endured in the flesh. We know not God the Logos to be one and Christ to be another, but one and the same person consubstantial with the Father in his divinity and the same one consubstantial with us in his humanity. For he is perfect in divinity, and also perfect in his humanity. The Trinity has remained the Trinity even after one of the Trinity became incarnate as God the Logos, for the Holy Trinity allows no addition of a fourth person." It is to be noted that justnian made no reference to Pope Leo’s Tome. Justinian also wrote a letter to Patriarch Epiphanius, addressing him as "ecumenical patriarch." In this letter he repeats the same ideas but calls attention to the letter of Proclus to the Armenians and refers to the position of the Bishop of Rome as "head of all of God’s most holy priests." St. Proclus, bishop of Constantinople (434-446), had received a request in 435 from the bishops of the Church of Armenia concerning the theology of Theodore of Mopsuestia whcse works were then being translated into Armenian. In his famous response, Tomus ad Armenios de fide, St. Proclus avoided mentioning Theodore but discussed the teaching of the Church on the one hypostasis and the two natures in the Incarnate Logos. He then theorizes on the possible errors that could come from that teaching, errors which were those of Theodore. In his fourth letter he used the phrase which would become the rallying cry of the Theopaschite controversy — unum de Trinitate secundum cartem crucifixum. Justinian’s reference that the Holy Trinity allots "no addition of a fourth person" most probably reflects the fact that the Monophysite doxology had already been criticized on that possibility — such is the view of Marcellinus Comes in his Chronicon.

Justinian also wrote to Pope John II, the first pope to change his flame — he had been Mercurius, a Roman priest. The emperor’s letter, Reddentes honorem, became part of the Code of Justinian. Justinian included the Theopaschite Formula in his letter to Pope John II and the pope approved it. The emperor also requested that the pope condemn a group of monks who had come to Rome to protest against the formula. That also Pope John II acquiesced to — he excommunicated the monks when they refused to cease their opposition. In his letter Justinian used the same language about the position of the Bishop of Rome that he used in his letter to the "ecumenical patriarch" Epiphanius — "the head of all the Churches." There was actually nothing new in this attitude towards the Roman see from the Eastern perspective. It does not knew of any infallibility in that see and there was seldom any serious question of the Roman see being the primus.

The imperial documents essentially formed what would become the new Henotikon, the final attempt at compromise before the Monophysites officially established their own hierarchy. Justinian’s argument that the Council of Chalcedon was to be accepted was based on the fact that it contained the "eastern" tradition expressed by Patriarch Proclus in his Tomus ad Armenios defidei and not because of the influence of Pope Leo! And also because it did in fact condemn Eutyches and Nestorius. St. Cyril’s Twelve Anathemas were omitted but his language was utilized — Christ was "one" and suffered as "one." But the strong language used in Zeno’s Henotikon of "one and not two" was not present. Despite this, Christ is "perfect God and perfect man." It was a compromise formula and it was to be quickly recognized as such. For a few years it appeared as though Justinian’s compromise might work. The years from 531 to 536 were the years of peace, the years when a truce was in effect in the empire. Severus, now in the later years of his life, had suffered from the separation of the followers of Julian. There seemed to be no vehement reaction to this new compromise in the east and, most importantly, the strident Pope Hormisdas had died and Justinian now could deal with the more conciliatory Pope John I and then Pope John II, the latter of whom had accepted the edict as "in accordance with apostolic teaching." The will of the emperor seems to have brought at least obedience — for a time.

An extraordinary turn of events took place. It seems that Theodora had encouraged the emperor not to give up with Severus and to continue to extend imperial invitations to him. He finally accepted and arrived in Constantinople to be welcomed in honor. The date of Severus’ arrival is disputed. In any case, he arrived between 534 and 535 with Peter of Apamea and a rather large group of monks. In 535 Timothy of Alexandria died and a few months later Epiphanius of Constantinople passed away. Two important sees were now vacant. One of the monks who had been "in exile" in Theodora’s monastery was in Alexandria upon the death of Patriarch Timothy. His influence was used on the military commander to consecrate Theodosius, a deacon, immediately. Theodosius was a Severian, and they were in the minority in Alexandria at the time. He was immediately opposed. Gaianus, a follower of Julian, was supported by a variety of groups in Alexandria and managed to survive as the opposing patriarch for a little more than one hundred days — he was then expelled. Theodosius was, of course, an anti-Chalcedonian. He held a council which immediately defined his position. Nicaea, Ephesus, and the Twelve Anathemas of St. Cyril were considered to be divinely inspired. In addition, the Henotikon was reaffirmed, an action which by its very nature nullified Pope Leo’s Tome and the Council of Chalcedon. But there was no mention of Dioscorus or his council. Theodosius received a letter of support from Severus and quickly began to ordain bishops in an attempt to gain leadership in Alexandria of the Monophysites.

The see of Constantinople also had to be filled. Here, too, Theodora’s candidate won the position. Anthimus of Trebizond was one of the Chalcedonian supporters at the conferences. He was, however, impressed by the arguments of the Monophysites. Once consecrated, Theodora made certain that Severus spoke often with Anthimus. Severus, it appears, was able to convince Patriarch Anthimus of his own orthodoxy as well as the flaws in and iniquity of the Council of Chalcedon. Precisely at the time when Justinian was attempting to take Italy militarily, Patriarch Anthimus came out strongly as an anti-Chalcedonian, even making the assertion that the doctrine of "in two natures" makes a "Quarternity" out of the Trinity. The balance had now changed again. Three patriarchs — Constantinople, Alexandria, and Severus of Antioch — were anti-Chalcedonian. Turmoil was unleashed again within the Church. Bishops began to send delegations to Rome to protest.

Military events in Sicily and Dalmatia intervened now with ecclesiastical events. Theodahad, the Gothic King, prevailed upon none other than Pope Agapetus to journey to Constantinople to negotiate a military settlement with Justinian. The Roman see was quite impoverished at the time and, in order to raise the funds to undertake the trip, Pope Agapetus had to resort to selling some of the consecrated vessels. The emperor knew that he needed the support of Pope Agapetus if he was to succeed militarily in Italy. The pope had little difficulty in convincing Justinian that the West would never accept the new interpretation of Chalcedon. Severus knew that the situation was lost and wrote to a friend that "the real problem is that those in power want to please both sides." Anthimus was presented with an option: either a complete and unequivocal acceptance of Chalcedon or his resignation. He resigned and entered Theodora’s monastery. Pope Agapetus requested that Justinian arrest and imprison Severus and Zooras but Justinian refused to break his commitment of safe-conduct to Severus.

The new choice for patriarch of Constantinople was Menas (d. 552), an Alexandrian by birth. Pope Agapetus consecrated the new patriarch of Constantinople. A statement had been drawn up, signed by both the new patriarch and Justinian, that reasserted the orthodoxy of the Council of Chalcedon. At the time of triumph Pope Agapetus suddenly died. Rumors of a fantastic nature coming from the anti-Chalcedonians concentrated on Pope Agapetus. Michael the Syrian in his Chronicle (9, 23) claims that the reason Pope Agapetus came to Constantinople was out of jealousy of the former Stylite Zooras, who baptized Theodora in 535. The death of Pope Agapetus, his opponents claimed, came "while he was engaged in the practice of black magic."

Justinian, having been buoyed by the presence of Pope Agapetus, was to remain committed to the Council of Chalcedon -however he may have interpreted it. The Standing Council of Bishops in Constantinople was called into session by Justinian and met in session from about May until June or even as late as August of 536. Fifty-three bishops were present, including the papal legates who apparently had accompanied the now deceased Pope Agapetus. Menas presided as "ecumenical patriarch." The monasteries in Palestine and further east sent delegations with accusations against Severus, Zooras, and Peter of Apamea. The charges ranged from the practice of magic, to profaning altars, to profaning baptism by giving pseudo-baptisms and rebaptizing the orthodox. The charge of rebaptism was not true in the case of Severus but was accurate in the case of some of his followers, a fact we know from one of Severus’ own letters. They accused Severus of fantastic things — he was a magician, he was a worshipper of the devil, he was a heathen, he was an idolater who reproduced the abominations of Daphne, he was selling the sacred vessels and even sold the gold dove over the altar, he was reducing the treasury of the church and saddling it with debt. But for some reason they failed to accuse Severus of immorality, a charge they levelled against the others! Peter of Apamea was accused of resorting to a devilish trick to regain a monastery from the Chalcedonians. He allegedly hired some women who entered the gates of the monastery, at the sight of which the monks fled, leaving the monastery vacant so that Peter could take possession of it! Anathema was pronounced on all three men. Severus, odd as it may sound, was simultaneously accused of being both a Nestorian and a Eutychian.

The Standing Council of Bishops condemned the former patriarch Anthimus as a heretic and placed Severus under ban again. This decision created an interesting sidelight, for Patriarch Menas revealed how controlled the Church was by the emperor, stating that nothing could take place in ecclesiastical affairs without the emperor’s "will and command." Justinian did concur. He issued an edict banning Anthimus, Severus, and their followers from Constantinople and from all the major cities of the empire. In addition, Justinian ordered the burning of all copies of the writings of Severus. Anyone sheltering those under ban were to receive harsh penalties. In his Novel 42/56 Justinian charged Severus with carrying on an "underground war" by setting churches against each other.

Severus, Zooras, and others were prohibited from preaching, from having assemblies, and from celebrating the Eucharist. Severus left Constantinople for Egypt where he died eighteen months later (538).

Any hope of a reconciliation with the non-Chalcedonians vanished. The Roman deacon, Pelagius, became the permanent representative of the Roman see in Constantinople — indeed, he seems to have been the first of the permanent representatives of the Roman see in Constantinople. Pelagius, who was respected by both Justinian and Theodora, had influence in Constantinople. His primary goal seemed to be the restoration of Chalcedonianism in Egypt, a goal difficult to achieve. But already the power of the empire had begun to enforce the new policy and the Monophysites in Syria became the targets of the imperial police and military forces. It is reported that some Monophysites were burned alive. In Egypt also the imperial forces began to attempt to extirpate Monophysitism. Justinian summoned Patriarch Theodosius of Alexandria to Constantinople for a conference. Since Theodosius’ personal safety was in the control of the imperial military, he had no choice but to comply. In Constantinople he was deposed and exiled to Thrace. But Theodora arranged for his return to the capital to be housed in her monastery. The papal representative recommended Paul the Tabennesiot. Soon after Paul’s conse -cration in Constantinople by Patriarch Menas, he was accused of complicity in murder. His successor was Zoilus, a Palestinian monk, who was recommended by Ephraem of Antioch. Now it was Antioch which was controlling the patriarchal elections of Alexandria. The Egyptian Church, under the control of imperial forces, accepted the foreign patriarch — as a temporary measure. Patriarch Zoilus had to live under military escort until he, too, was deposed. Indeed, Paul and the four Chalcedonian patriarchs who succeeded him in Alexandria were nothing more than imperial placements — the vox populi in this vital ecclesiastical matter was beyond the reach of the emperor.

Upon the sudden death of Pope Agapetus, Theodora seized an opportunity. A Roman deacon, Vigilius, had accompanied Agapetus. The very day after the conference ruled against the Monophysites Theodora negotiated with Vigilius. He could have the episcopal throne of Rome if he agreed to modify the Roman position against the Monophysites. Liberatus of Carthage in his Breviarum (22) tells us that Vigilius’ agreement with Theodora was that he would abolish the Council of Chalcedon and enter into communion with the Monophysites. The same account is given by Victor of Tunnuna in his Chronicle (Patrologia Latino. 68, 956-958) and by Procopius in his Secret History (1,2) and in his De bello gothico (1, 25). The Vita Silverii in the Liber pontificalis gives a lengthy description of the intrigue that surrounded the deposition of Pope Silverius and places Vigilius in Constantinople at the time as apocrisiarius. In its Vita Vigilii the Liber pontificalis accuses Vigilius of "ambition" in securing the papal election, but it also claims that once Vigilius became pope he acted with "courage and intransigence" in resisting imperial pressure. It attributes to Vigilius the words "I am receiving justice for what I did" — digna enim factis recipio.

Vigilius agreed and left for Rome with the body of Pope Agapetus. But a new pope with the aid of the Gothic king Theodatus had already been consecrated, Pope Silverius. Antonina, the wife of the commander of the imperial forces in Italy, Belisarius, was a close friend of Theodora. Through Antonina Theodora had Belisarius arrest Pope Silverius on the false charge of treason, of communicating with the Goths who at that time were being driven out of Rome by Belisarius. Pope Silverius was handed over to accomplices of Vigilius — against the orders of Justinian. Vigilius (537-555) was enthroned as pope in April or May of 537. Silverius had appealed to Justinian who requested a trial for Silverius. The latter, however, was confirmed in his deposition and exiled in November of 537. As pope, Vigilius wrote a letter to Severus, Anthimus, and Theodosius establishing communion with them. Vigilius requests that the letter he is writing be kept strictly secret — mea earn fidem quam tenetis, Deo adjuvante et tenuisse et tenere significo. Non duas Christum confitemur naturas, sed ex duabus compositum unum filium.

The Monophysite cause had seemed lost. Despite having an emperor who was well-disposed to them, they had been defeated at the conference of 536. Severus and John of Telia were now dead. Theodosius of Alexandria was now imprisoned. And their avowed enemy, Ephraem of Antioch, had unleashed another persecution. Moreover, their own internal problems were beginning to manifest themselves in an alarming way. The dispute begun between Severus and Julian had now become a division. And Chalcedonian patriarchs temporarily occupied the five thrones. Moreover, the new defense of the Council of Chalcedon seemed to be carrying a momentum, especially through the writings of Leontius of Byzantium, Leontius of Jerusalem, and Cyril Scythopolis (d. 557). This "Neo-Chalcedonian" defense was the reconciling of the doctrine of Chalcedon with the thought of St. Cyril.

Justinian had personally become more and more interested in theological issues. He had a personal as well as an imperial interest, an uncommon trait for most emperors. In his Contra Monophysitas Justinian wrote that the holy Church "accepts all the writings of the blessed Cyril. And in these writings the Church accepts also the unique Incarnate nature of God the Logos, that the nature of the divinity is one thing and that the nature of the flesh is another, out of which the one and unique Christ was formed." Justinian had learned of the doctrine of "enhypostasis" from his discussion with Leontius of Byzantium (d. 543), although the term had begun to come into the theological life of the Church during the general speculative controversies. No nature existed without an hypostasis or person but the same hypostasis could indeed be the center of the life of two natures. Precisely at the Incarnation the human nature of Christ was enhypostasized by the Divine Logos. The unity or oneness in Christ was to be found in the hypostasis, the Divine hypostasis of the Logos. Was this not the key to the solution of the controversy? Was this not the resolution of the "in two natures" of Chalcedon with the One Incarnate Lord of St. Cyril? The Monophysites were not convinced so readily, for they sensed in this type of thinking the thought of Origen and not St. Cyril. With the rejection of the thought of Severus the Church still had to find a means of reconciling Chalcedon with St. Cyril, while avoiding any tendency of considering the hypostasis in Christ as an eternal Mind, a Mind united to God throughout eternity and then taking a body to complete redemption. With Severus condemned, the Origenists gained an influential role in the theological life of the controversy, especially during 532 to 542 and especially among the Palestinian monks who vehemently opposed Antiochene theology. Indeed, the Origenists demanded that Peter, the patriarch of Jerusalem from 524 until 544, anathematize Ephraem of Antioch and Antiochene theological interpretations. In the very time of the defeat of the anti-Chalcedonians Theodora had been influential in bringing Theodore Askidas, a Palestinian monk, out of the monastery to become archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia. Theodore and his followers had strong Origenist sympathies. Quarrels erupted in Jerusalem which caused one additional theological controversy within the Church. Fights between the monks became increasingly more common — indeed, street fighting took place. The Vita Sabae relates that "those Origenist monks made such a habit of beating the orthodox in the streets that we had to bring in pious hermits as a means of self-protection," Both sides appealed to the emperor.

One thing imperial policy wanted to avoid was to become entangled in controversies with monks. Nothing seemed more dangerous, for to stop a zealous monk was near impossible shon of death. And death simply intensified controversies in which monks were involved and created martyrs. The Chalcedonians in Constantinople, however, realized that this was an opportunity to seize. If Origen could be condemned, one would be discrediting a thinker whose thought system was reflective in general of Alexandrian thinking. Indirectly it would be enlisting the emperor in a condemnation of an aspect of Alexandrian theological tradition. At a council held in 543 Justinian had Origenism and Origen condemned. A vivid account of this controversy is related by Cyril of Scythopolis in his Vita Sabae. Justinian had written a letter to Patriarch Menas condemning Origen as one of the most pernicious of heretics. The edict drawn up as a result of the council held in 543 gave a long list of Origenist errors along with their refutation. It was signed by Pope Vigilius and the patriarchs of the east. Origen was referred to as a "son of the devil," as an "enemy of the faith," as one whose goal had been to "sow tares and to confirm pagan errors." Origen had been condemned along with Severus, Peter the Fuller, and others.

The Origenist leaders, Theodore Askidas and his colleague Domitian of Ancyra, were in Constantinople. To the disappointment of their followers, they accepted the condemnation of Origen. But Theodore of Askidas was ready for a counter move. Evagrius Scholasticus tells us in his Church History (4, 38) that Theodore Askidas was "constantly in the presence of Justinian" and that Theodore’s influence was so great that he managed to replace the influence of the Roman deacon Pelagius — indeed, Pelagius was removed from a favorable position in the imperial palace. Theodore Askidas was a Chalcedonian. His motive was not to enhance the position of Severus. Rather, it was a policy which could both provide a compromise for the Monophysites and maintain Chalcedon by rejecting and condemning the works of Theodore of Mopsuestia, the works of Theodoret against St. Cyril, and the letter of Ibas to the priest Maris. By condemning these three theologians who were opposed to Origen Theodore Askidas thought it would be an acknowledgment of Alexandrian theology, something which might please the moderate Monophysites It would give a clear signal to the Monophysites that, although the Council of Chalcedon had vindicated Theodoret and Ibas, the Council had not endorsed all their writings. Indeed, the Mnnoohysites had been imploring for half a century to have these three theologians condemned — at the conference of 532/533 the Μonophysites had pointedly declared that one of the walls preventing a union had been Chalcedon’s approval of the writings of Ibas and Theodoret against St. Cyril. Liberatus of Carthage in his Breviarum (24) and Facundus in his Pro defensione trium capitulorum (4, 3) were certain that the condemnation of these three theologians, the condemnation of the Three Chapters, by Justinian in 544 was the result of the work of Theodora and Theodore of Askidas.

The theological controversies were not, of course, taking place in a vacuum. The empire had other problems: one was military; another was the outbreak of bubonic plague. While his general Belisarius was engaged in a long war with the Goths in Italy, Justinian had to contend with a military attack from the north by the Bulgars, and a resurgence of war in 542 with Chosroes of Persia. In the spring of 541 the Bulgars crossed the Danube and invaded the Balkans, bringing with them burning, ravaging, and destruction everywhere. One group of Bulgars penetrated into central Greece, reaching as far as the Isthmus of Corinth. Another group of Bulgars devastated the Gallipoli peninsula and raided the Asian shore across the Dardanelles. A third military force of Bulgars reached the suburbs of Constantinople. Fear struck the inhabitants of Constantinople and many fled to Asia Minor. Justinian was in no position to deal with this new enemy from the north. He had to wait. The Bulgars finally withdrew but not before they had captured one hundred and twenty thousand prisoners whom they took with them back to their homeland. Justinian responded by beginning the construction of a fortification of the northern frontier in the Balkans. The outbreak of war in the spring of 542 with Chosroes of Persia caused further alarm. Justinian sent Belisarius to take command of the military in the east against the Persians. But this war was cut short by a new menace, by the outbreak of a plague of devastating proportions.

It was claimed that the plague began in Ethiopia and broke out Egypt in 541. With the commencement of navigation in the spring the plague spread to Syria and Asia Minor. In May of 542 it broke out in Constantinople, shortly thereafter to spread to the Balkans, Italy, Africa, Spain, and Gaul. The sources claim that initially five thousand persons were dying daily, and later ten thousand daily. It is claimed that on one day as many as sixteen thousand persons had died. When the plague had run its course, it is claimed that it had taken three hundred thousand persons in Constantinople alone. Famine accompanied the plague, for the food supply to Constantinople was cut off. Justinian himself was a victim but he managed to survive. During the time Justinian was fighting and then recuperating from the plague, the decision making fell to Theodora.

The Chalcedonians, the party now in power, still did not feel comfortable with the state of affairs in the Church. Still, the number of non-Chalcedonian bishops had dwindled drastically and much of the credit for this ambiguously valued work is due to Ephraem of Antioch, despised with reason by the non-Chalcedonians. When he died in 542, the non-Chalcedonians were determined to do something to regain Antioch. The non-Chalcedonians had no lack of laity or clergy — it was bishops they lacked. There were, it appears, only three non-Chalcedonian bishops remaining: one in Alexandria, one in Persia, and one in the woods of Tur Abdin, an old and feeble man. Theodora’s policy had helped to both protect and to facilitate suppression.

In 542 or 543 King Aretas (Harith Ibn Gabala), the Emir of the Ghassanid Arabs, visited Constantinople. He was a zealous Monophysite and anti-Greek. His zeal for Monophysitism was enflamed because of a quarrel he had had with Ephraem of Antioch. The patriarch had visited King Aretas in his camp to discuss the acceptance of the Council of Chalcedon — it was Pope Leo’s Tome that bothered King Aretas. The king offered the patriarch what was a grand delicacy in his land — camel meat. The patriarch, completely ignorant of the customs and not aware that the meal was a compliment, was insulted and refused to bless the food or to eat. "Well, if you will not eat camel with me, how can you expect me to take Holy Communion with you?" King Aretas was quite willing to do anything that might disgrace the memory of Ephraem. He had come to Constantinople to urge Theodora to take action. The person to fill the patriarchal throne of Antioch must combine the prestige of Severus with the physical stamina of John of Tella.

Theodora had just such a person in her special monastery — Jacob Baradaeus. He was born about 490 in the same town as the now deceased John of Tela. From an early age he had been an ascetic, and he was fluent in Greek, Syriac, and Arabic. Jacob was physically strong, could fast for long periods of time, and usually lived only on dry bread. Jacob had no doubt that he was equal to the task. King Aretas pointed out that he must be able to live among his people and get along with them. He was then consecrated bishop by Theodosius as not only bishop of Syria but as a "peregrinating bishop" who was empowered to ordain "overall" — he was "commissioned" to organize and to ordain in Armenia, in all Asia Minor, in Egypt, in all the islands, and right up to the gates of Constantinople itself. Jacob was given some colleagues to assist him. Since canonically three bishops were needed to consecrate another bishop, Theodosius consecrated a certain Theodore, Conon of Cilicia, and Eugenius of Isauria. As it turned out, these assistants were unnecessary — Theodore disappeared among the tents of his nomadic flock and the other two soon wearied of the job and ultimately returned to the established Church. Jacob, however, was much tougher and would not weary. He was smuggled out of Constantinople by King Aretas and taken to the Orient in Aretas’ caravan. He at once set himself to work. His method was similar to that of John of Telia — he travelled on foot, in ragged clothing, without pack or money. Since he looked like any other travelling monk, it was extremely difficult for the authorities to recognize him. His stamina was such that he could walk forty miles per day, sleep anywhere, and live either by total abstention for long periods or on bits of dry bread. He was constantly pursued. It is related that he would often double back and approach his pursuers from behind. When asked about that "deceiver Jacob," he would reply that he had seen him in the area the previous day. A reward was placed on his head, and the reward increased with time.

His peregrinating episcopate lasted for thirty-five years, from 542 until 577. It is claimed that in that time he consecrated two patriarchs, eighty-nine bishops, and approximately one hundred thousand priests. It is even claimed that Jacob entered Constantinople and there ordained twelve bishops. Whether these figures reflect reality is another question. What is a fact is that Jacob resuscitated an ecclesiastical division in very bad shape, that he strengthened the hierarchy immensely. There are numerous stories related of his miracles. For example, how he healed and even restored a dead youth to life by invoking the name of Jesus Christ and the Monophysite formula. "In the name of Jesus Christ, one indivisible nature that was crucified for us upon the cross, rise and walk!" Many of the miracles, typical of the time and the hagio — graphical tradition, stretch the imagination. One incident is worth relating. The people of Amida had relapsed to Chalcedonianism and had become lunatics. In despair, they sent for Jacob who told them that "if you are so mad as to say ‘two natures,’ naturally you go mad." Allegedly he was able to restore their sanity.

The name "Jacobite" was soon applied to the group of churches organized by Jacob. The name, in fact, was not entirely new, for Monophysites had previously described themselves as "Jacobites" but it was then a reference to their apostolic claim to the church of "Holy Jacob," James, the "brother of our Lord." Now, however, their opponents used the term in reference to them derisively, just as the group of Monophysites in Egypt were derisively referred to as "Theodosians." But it was also accepted by the faithful themselves and hence is used in both a positive and negative way.

About 547 Jacob had consecrated his syncellus Sergius as patriarch of Antioch. Sergius lived for only three years but during those years experienced no persecution. It appears that the emperor was not in a position to continue to fight every non-Chalcedonian consecration. When Sergius died, a new candidate was suggested by Theodosius at Theodora’s monastery. His candidate Paul, an Alexandrian by birth, had been a monk in Syria and then an abbot at a monastery on the Euphrates. Jacob approved of the choice and consecrated Paul with six other bishops assisting. As patriarch of Antioch Paul was Jacob’s superior but the formal and official relationship between the two remained undefined. Jacob still had his itinerant, peregrinating commission and had no intention of surrendering it. The monks still considered him their head, their leader — indeed, they referred to him as "our holy Patriarch Jacob." Jacob continued with his work and the Monophysites were being transformed from a dissenting group into a separate hierarchy, indeed a separate church.

While Justinian was busy with the problem of the condemnation of the Three Chapters and with the Fifth Ecumenical Council, missionary work by the Monophysites continued, and not just by Jacob himself. John of Ephesus was extremely busy. In one area he destroyed a heathen temple and built, at the expense of the imperial treasury, twenty-four churches and four monasteries. At the consecration of each new church John of Ephesus had no qualms about reading — pro forma — a Chalcedonian proclamation to ensure the funding. Interestingly, John of Ephesus came upon a Montanist community in the deeps of Anatolia. One of the Montanist churches contained the bones of Montanus and John of Ephesus had them burned. He reports that some of these "schismatics" were so perverse that they threw themselves into the flames also.

In the land of Nubia, now Sudan, there was missionary activity at the expense of the imperial treasury. At that time Nubia was outside the borders of the empire. Here there were two competing missionary activities, one of which was sponsored by Theodora, who took measures to be certain that her mission had the first and most secure possibility of success. Theodora’s mission set out before that of Justinian with a certain Julian as its head. Justinian’s delegation was constantly delayed by officials who were under Theodora’s influence. When they finally arrived at the court of the Nubian king, they found the Monophysite bishop securely installed there. The king politely told Justinian’s delegation that he had already received the true faith, thanked them, and dismissed them. These missionary activities took place before, during, and after the Fifth Ecumenical Council.

Justinian ordered Pope Vigilius to Constantinople, and then had the pope forcibly brought there. In the Latin West this was considered an intrigue by the Monophysites. Victor of Tunnuna in his Chronicle writes: "Justinianus imperator acephalorum subreptionibus instigatus, Vigilium Romanorum episcopum subtiliter compellit, ut ad urbem regiam properaret et sub specie congregationis eorum qui ab ecclesiae sunt societate divisi, tria capitula condemnaret" Vigilius seems to have arrived in Constantinople in late January of 547. He and Patriarch Menas could not agree and the result was mutual excommunication. Theophanes tells us in his Chronographia that one of the last official acts of Theodora was to reconcile Pope Vigilius and Patriarch Menas in June of 547. She died one year later. But before her death Pope Vigilius had signed the condemnation of the Three Chapters — his Judicatum, which he sent to Patriarch Menas in April of 548.

Justinian considered an ecumenical council necessary to sanction his edicts against Origen and against Theodore, Theodoret, and Ibas. Pope Vigilius vigorously protested the opening of a council and refused to participate, although he was present in Constantinople. The Fifth Ecumenical Council opened about May in 553. The Acts have not come down to us in their original form. The work of the council was simplified since it in essence was convoked to sanction edicts already promulgated. The council condemned Origen, condemned the Three Chapters, and sanctioned the Theopaschite Formula. The Council lasted less than a month, for Justinian was extremely concerned that the decisions be expedited.

Theologically the council based its perspective on the doctrine of enhypostasis that had been developing in the sixth century, especially in the thought of John the Grammarian, Leontius of Jerusalem, and Leontius of Byzantium. In general, however, it would indeed be a mistake to limit the theological and doctrinal work of the first half of the sixth century to a restricted number of individuals. The Council of Chalcedon had caused such turmoil and disturbance that theological solutions were being sought in a variety of circles. The problem was to reconcile the definition of Chalcedon with the theology of St. Cyril — the two natures after the union and the oneness of Christ. The central point in the doctrine of enhypostasis is precisely that an essence — ουσία — is not without a person, not without a center of existence, not without an hypostasis — ανυπόστατος — and that Christ, of one essence with the Father and of one essence with humanity, had as his hypostasis, as his center of existence, his Divine, Eternal Hypostasis which provided the human nature the possibility of being enhypostasized — ένυπόστατος. The Antiochene school of theology had great difficulty in making a distinction between hypostasis and nature or essence. The doctrine of enhypostasis precisely meant that the center, the subject, of both the Divine nature and the human nature was the Eternal Logos of the Father — it is the Eternal Logos of the Father who as person experiences the life of the human nature, even to the point of being the subject who experiences the death of human nature. The central idea was that the Divine Logos hypostasized in his own hypostasis — τη ιδία υποστάσει ένυπέστησεν. It is this thinking which dominates the theological thought of the Fifth Ecumenical Council and stands behind its anathemas.

1. If anyone shall not confess that the nature or essence — ουσία — of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is one, as also the force and the power; if anyone does not confess a consubstantial Trinity, one Godhead to be worshipped in three hypostases — υπόστασεις — or persons — πρόσωπα, let him be anathema. For there is but one God even the Father of whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ through whom are all things, and one Holy Spirit in whom are all things.

2. If anyone shall not confess that the Logos of God has two births, one from all eternity from the Father, without time and without body, the other in these last days, coming down from heaven and being made flesh of the holy and glorious Mary, Theotokos and always a virgin, and born of her, let him be anathema.

3. If anyone shall say that there was one God the Logos who performed miracles and another Christ who suffered, or that God the Logos was with Christ when he was born of a woman, or was in him, as one person in another, and not that there was one and the same Lord Jesus Christ, incarnate and become man, and that the miracles and the sufferings which he endured voluntarily in the flesh pertained to the same person, let him be anathema.

4. If anyone shall say that the union of the Logos of God to man was only according to grace or energy, or dignity, or equality of honor, or authority, or relation, or effect, or power, or according to good pleasure in this sense that God the Logos was pleased with a man, that is to say, that he loved him for his own sake, as says the senseless Theodore, or [if anyone pretends that this union exists only] so far as likeness of name is concerned, as the Nestorians understand, who call also the Logos of God Jesus and Christ, and even accord to the man the names of Christ and Son, speaking thus clearly of two persons, and only designating disingenuously one Person and one Christ when the reference is to his honor, or his dignity, or his worship. If anyone shall not acknowledge as the Holy Fathers teach, that the union of God the Logos is made with the flesh animated by a reasonable and living soul, and that such union is made synthetically and hypostatically, and that therefore there is only one Person, namely: our Lord Jesus Christ, one of the Holy Trinity, let him be anathema. As a point of fact the word "union" — της ενώσεως — has many meanings and the followers of Apollinarius and Eutyches have affirmed that these natures are confounded inter se and have asserted a union produced by the mixture of both. On the other hand, the followers of Theodore and of Nestorius, rejoicing in the division of the natures, have taught only a relative union. Meanwhile, the Holy Church of God, condemning equally the impiety of both sorts of heresies, recognizes the union of God the Logos with the flesh according to synthesis; that is, according to hypostasis. For in the mystery of Christ the union of synthesis not only preserves unconfusedly the natures which are united but also allows no separation.

5. If anyone understands the expression "one only Person of our Lord Jesus Christ" in this sense, that it is the union of many hypostases, and if he attempts therefore to introduce into the mystery of Christ two hypostases, or two Persons, and, after having introduced two persons, speaks of one Person only out of dignity, honor or worship, as both Theodore and Nestorius insanely have written; if anyone shall calumniate the Holy Council of Chalcedon, pretending that it made use of this expression [one hypostasis] in this impious sense, and if he will not recognize rather that the Logos of God is united with the flesh hypostatically, and that therefore there is but one hypostasis or one only Person, and that the Holy Council of Chalcedon has professed in this sense the one Person of our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema. For since one of the Holy Trinity has become man, that is, God the Logos, the Holy Trinity has not been increased by the addition of another person or hypostasis.

6. If anyone shall say that the holy, glorious, and ever-virgin Mary is called Theotokos by misuse of language and not truly, or by analogy, believing that only a mere man was born of her and that God the Logos was not incarnate of her, but that the Incarnation of God the Logos resulted only from the fact that he united himself to that man who was born [of her]; if anyone slanders the Holy Council of Chalcedon as though it had asserted the Virgin to be Theotokos according to the impious sense of Theodore; or if anyone shall call her anthropotokos — άνθρωποτόκον — or Christotokos — Χριστοτόκον, as if Christ were not God, and shall not confess that she is truly Theotokos because God the Logos who before all time was begotten of the Father was in these last days incarnate of her, and if anyone shall not confess that in this pious sense the Holy Council of Chalcedon confessed her to be Theotokos, let him be anathema.

7. If anyone using the expression "in two natures" does not confess that our one Lord Jesus Christ has been revealed in the divinity and in the humanity in order to indicate by that expression a difference of the natures of which an ineffable union is unconfusedly made, a union in which neither the nature of the Logos was changed into that of the flesh, nor that of the flesh into that of the Logos, for each remained what it was by nature, since the union was hypostatic; but shall take the expression with regard to the mystery of Christ in a sense so as to divide the parties, or recognizing the two natures in the only Lord Jesus, God the Logos become man, does not content himself with taking in a theoretical manner — τη θεωρία μόνη — the difference of the natures which compose him, which differentiation is not destroyed by the union between them, for one is composed of the two and the two are in one, but shall make use of the number [two] to divide the natures or to make of them Persons properly so called, let him be anathema.

8. If anyone uses the expression "out of two natures," confessing that a union was made of the Godhead and of the humanity, or the expression "the one nature become flesh of God the Logos," and shall not so understand those expressions as the Holy Fathers have taught, that is: that of the divine and human nature there was made an hypostatic union, of which is one Christ; but from these expressions shall try to introduce one nature or essence of the Godhead and the manhood of Christ, let him be anathema. For in teaching that the Only-Begotten Logos was united hypostatically [to humanity] we do not mean to say that there was made a mutual confusion of natures, but rather, each nature remaining what it was, we understand that the Logos was united to the flesh. Therefore there is one Christ, both God and Man, consubstantial with the Father in his Godhead and consubstantial with us in his manhood. Therefore they are equally condemned and anathematized by the Church of God, who divide or split the mystery of the divine oikonomia of Christ, or who introduce confusion into that mystery.

9. If anyone shall take the expression, Christ should be worshipped in his two natures, in the sense that he wishes to introduce therefore two adorations, the one in special relation to God the Logos and the other as pertaining to the man; or if anyone by destroying the flesh or by mixing together the divinity and the humanity, shall speak monstrously of one only nature or essence — φυσιν ήγουν ουσίαν — of the united natures, and so worship Christ, and does not venerate by one adoration God the Logos become man, together with his flesh, as the Holy Church has taught from the beginning, let him be anathema.

10. If anyone does not confess that our Lord Jesus Christ who was crucified in the flesh is true God and the Lord of Glory and one of the Holy Trinity, let him be anathema.

11. If anyone does not anathematize Arms, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinarius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and Origen, as well as their impious writings, as also all other heretics already condemned and anathematized by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and by the aforesaid four Holy Councils and all those who have held and hold or who in their impiety persist in holding to the end the same opinion as those heretics just mentioned, let him be anathema.

12. If anyone defends the impious Theodore of Mopsuestia, who has said that the Logos of God is one person, but that another person is Christ, vexed by the sufferings of the soul and the desires of the flesh, and separated little by little above that which is inferior, and become better by the progress in good works and irreproachable in his manner of life, as a mere man was baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and obtained by this baptism the grace of the Holy Spirit, and became worthy of Sonship, and to be worshipped out of regard to the Person of God the Logos (just as one worships the image of an emperor) and that he is become, after the resurrection, unchangeable in his thoughts and altogether without sin. And, again, this same impious Theodore has also said that the union of God the Logos with Christ is like to that which, according to the doctrine of the Apostle, exists between a man and his wife, ‘they shall be one flesh.’ The same Theodore has dared, among numerous other blasphemies, to say that when after the resurrection the Lord breathed upon his disciples, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit,’ he did not really give them the Holy Spirit but that he breathed upon them only as a sign. He likewise has said that the profession of faith made by Thomas when he had, after the resurrection, touched the hands and the side of the Lord; that is, ‘My Lord and My God,’ was not said in reference to Christ, but that Thomas, filled with wonder at the miracle of the resurrection, in this manner thanked God who had raised up Christ. And, moreover, which is still more scandalous, this same Theodore in his Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles compares Christ to Plato, Mani, Epicurus, and Marcion, and says that as each of these men, having discovered his own doctrine, had given his name to his disciples, who were called Platonists, Manichaeans, Epicureans, and Marcionites, just so Christ, having discovered his doctrine, had given the name of Christians to his disciples. If, then, anyone shall defend this most impious Theodore and his impious writings, in which he vomits the blasphemies mentioned above, and countless others besides against our Great God and Savior Jesus Christ, and if anyone does not anathematize him or his impious writings, as well as all those who protect or defend him, or assert that his exegesis is orthodox, or who write in favor of him and of his impious works, or those who share the same opinions, or those who have shared them and still continue until the end in this heresy, let him be anathema.

13. If anyone shall defend the impious writings of Theodoret, directed against the true faith and against the first holy council of Ephesus and against St. Cyril and his Twelve Anathemas, and [defends] that which he has written in defense of the impious Theodore and Nestorius, and of others having the same opinions as the aforesaid Theodore and Nestorius, if anyone admits them or their impiety, or shall give the name of impious to the doctors of the Church who profess the hypostatic union of God the Logos; and if anyone does not anathematize these impious writings and those who have held or who hold these sentiments, and all those who have written contrary to the true faith or against St. Cyril and his Twelve Anathemas, and who die in their impiety, let him be anathema.

14. If anyone shall defend that letter which Ibas is said to have written to Maris the Persian, in which he denies that the Logos of God incarnate of Mary the Holy Theotokos and ever-virgin, became man, but says that a mere man was born of her, whom he styles a Temple, as though the Logos of God was one Person and the man another person; in which letter also he reprehends St. Cyril as a heretic when he teaches the right faith of Christians and charges him with writing things like to the wicked Apollinarius. In addition to this, he vituperates the First Holy Council of Ephesus, affirming that it deposed Nestorius without discrimination and without examination. The aforesaid impious letter styles the Twelve Chapters of Cyril of blessed memory, impious and contrary to the right faith and defends Theodore and Nestorius and their impious teachings and writings. If anyone therefore shall defend the aforementioned letter and shall not anathematize it and those who defend it and say that it is right or that a part of it is right, or if anyone shall defend those who have written or shall write in its favor, or in defense of the impieties which are contained in it, as well as those who shall presume to defend it or the impieties which it contains in die name of the Holy Fathers or of the Holy Council of Chalcedon, and shall remain in these offenses until the end, let him be anathema.

1. If anyone asserts the incredible pre-existence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it, let him be anathema.

2 If any shall say that the creation — την παραγωγήν — of all reasonable things includes only intelligences — νοας — without bodies and altogether immaterial, having neither number nor name, so that there is unity between them all by identity of substance, force and energy, and by their union with and knowledge of God the Logos; but that no longer desiring the sight of God, they gave themselves over to worse things, each one following his own inclinations, and that they have taken bodies more or less subtile, and have received names, for among the heavenly Powers there is a difference of names as there is also a difference of bodies; and thence some became and are called Cherubims, others Seraphims, and Principalities, and Powers, and Dominions, and Thrones, and Angels, and as many other heavenly orders as there may be, let him be anathema.

3. If anyone shall say that the sun, the moon and the stars are also reasonable beings, and that they have only become what they are because they turned towards evil, lei: him be anathema.

4. If anyone shall say that the reasonable creatures in whom the Divine love had grown cold have been hidden in gross bodies such as ours, and have been called men, while those who have attained the lowest degree of wickedness have shared cold and obscure bodies and have become and are called demons and evil spirits, let him be anathema.

5. If anyone shall say that a psychic — ψυχίκήν — condition has come from an angelic or archangelic state, and moreover that a demoniac and a human condition has come from a psychic condition, and that from a human state they may become again angels and demons, and that each order of heavenly virtues is either all from those below or from those above, or from those above and below, let him be anathema.

6. If anyone shall say that there is a two-fold race of demons, of which the one includes the souls of men and the other the superior spirits who fell to this, and that of all the number of reasonable beings there is but one which has remained unshaken in the love and contemplation of God, and that that spirit is become Christ and the king of all reasonable beings, and that he has created all the bodies which exist in heaven, on earth, and between heaven and earth; and that the world which has in itself elements more ancient than itself, and which exist by themselves; that is, dryness, damp, heat and cold, and the image — ιδέαν — to which it was formed, was so formed, and that the most holy and consubstantial Trinity did not create the world, but that it was created by the working intelligence — νους δημιουργός — which is more ancient than the world, and which communicates to it its being, let him be anathema.

7. If anyone shall say that Christ, of whom it is said that he appeared in the form of God, and that he was united before all time with God the Logos, and humbled himself in these last days even to humanity, had (according to their expression) pity upon the various falls which had appeared in the spirits united in the same unity (of which he himself is part), and that to restore them he passed through various classes, had different bodies and different names, became all to all, an Angel among Angels, a Power among Powers, has clothed himself in the different classes of reasonable beings with a form corresponding to that class, and finally has taken flesh and blood like ours and is become man for men; [if anyone says all this] and does not profess that God the Logos humbled himself and became man, let him be anathema.

8. If anyone shall not acknowledge that God the Logos, of the same essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit, and who became flesh and became man, one of the Trinity, is Christ in every sense of the word, but shall affirm that he is so only in an inaccurate manner, and because of the abasement — κενώσαντα, as they call it, of the intelligence — νους, if anyone shall affirm that this intelligence united — συνημμένον — to God the Logos, is the Christ in the true sense of the word, while the Logos is only called Christ because of this union with the intelligence, and in reverse, that the intelligence is only called God because of the Logos, let him be anathema.

9. If anyone shall say that it was not the Divine Logos become man by taking an animated body with a ψυχή λογική and νοερα, that he descended into hell and ascended into heaven, but shall pretend that it is the νους which has done this, that νους of which they say — in an impious manner — he is Christ properly so called, and that he is become so by the knowledge of the monad, let him be anathema.

10. If anyone shall say that after the resurrection the body of the Lord was ethereal, having the form of a sphere, and that such shall be the bodies of all after the resurrection; and that after the Lord himself shall have rejected his true body and after the others who rise shall have rejected theirs, the nature of their bodies shall be annihilated, let him be anathema.

11. If anyone shall say that the future judgment signifies the destruction of the body and that the end of the story will be an immaterial φύσις, and that therefore there will no longer be any matter but only spirit — νους, let him be anathema.

12. If anyone shall say that the heavenly Powers and all men and the devil and evil spirits are united with the Logos of God in all respects, as the νους which is by them called Christ and which is in the form of God, and which humbled itself as they say; and if anyone shall say that the Kingdom of Christ shall have an end, let him be anathema.

13. If anyone shall say that Christ [as νους] is in no wise different from other reasonable beings, neither substantially nor by wisdom nor by his power and might over all things but that all will be placed at the right hand of God, as well as he that is called by them Christ [as νους], as also they were in the feigned pre-existence of all things, let him be anathema.

14. If anyone shall say that all reasonable beings will one day be united in one, when the hypostases as well as the numbers and the bodies shall have disappeared, and that the knowledge of the world to come will carry with it the ruin of the worlds, and the rejection of bodies as also the abolition of names, and that there shall be finally an identity of the χνωσις of the hypostasis; moreover, that in this pretended apokatastasis, spirits only will continue to exist, as it was in the feigned pre-existence, let him be anathema.

15. If anyone shall say that the life of the spirits — shall be like to the life which was in the beginning while as yet the spirits had not come down or fallen, so that the end and the beginning shall be alike, and that the end shall be the true measure of the beginning, let him be anathema.

The Fifth Ecumenical Council attempted to restore a sorely needed unity in the external structure of the Church. By condemning the Three Chapters, an attempt was made to bring Alexandria back to the external structure of the Church — there was also the recognition of St. Cyril. By condemning Origen and Origenist notions, an attempt was made to placate both Rome and the Antiochene tradition. But now the major obstacle was the adamant stand of Pope Vigilius, who, though he was in Constantinople, refused to attend the council. While all this is taking place the non-Chalcedonians are continuing their missionary work and new divisions begin to appear among the non-Chalcedonians.

At first when Pope Vigilius had been forcibly brought to Constantinople, he refused to agree to condemn the Three Chapters, especially because of the question of posthumous condemnation. When he did consent, it is important to point out that he did so by stipulating that it was to be without any injury to the Council of Chalcedon. This equivocation satisfied neither the opponents of Chalcedon nor the defenders of Chalcedon in Africa, Illyrium, and Dalmatia. The bishops of Africa excommunicated Pope Vigilius in 551. The sources indicate that the idea of the ecumenical council was not only that of Justinian but also that of Pope Vigilius. Indeed, it may well be that it was Pope Vigilius was asked for the council to which Justinian quickly consented. Vigilius was distressed by the condemnations against him. He withdrew his signature to the Three Chapters and it was decided that the council would deliberate on the matter. The adamant stance of Pope Vigilius is often misunderstood by both the Latin West and the East. He refused to attend the council primarily because he objected to the fact that the West was not adequately represented. What is historically significant is that Vigilius was told that there ere more representatives of the Latin West now than at any of the previous councils. Why Pope Vigilius did not take the extreme Roman view, already in existence at that time, that he by himself could represent not only the entire Latin West but the entire Church remains unclear. He did, however, send his opinion on the Three Chapters to the council, an opinion which opposed their condemnation. The council brushed aside his opinion, examined the writings of the three persons to be condemned — Theodore, Theodoret, and Ibas — and ultimately pronounced condemnation on the Three Chapters as doctrine which was opposed to previous councils, especially that of the Council of Chalcedon, now solemnly recognized as ecumenical and of the same solemn and sacred character as Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus. Extracts from the council provide some background.

"The effort of my predecessors, the orthodox emperors, always aimed at the settling of controversies which had arisen respecting the faith by the calling of councils. For this reason Constantine assembled three hundred and eighteen Fathers at Nicaea, and was himself present at the Council and assisted those who confessed the Son to be of one essence with the Father. Theodosius [assembled] one hundred and fifty [bishops] at Constantinople; Theodosius the Younger1 [convoked] the Council of Ephesus, and Emperor Marcian [assembled] the bishops at Chalcedon. As, however, after Marcian’s death controversies respecting the Council of Chalcedon had broken out in several places, Emperor Leo wrote to all bishops of all places in order that everyone might declare his opinion in writing with regard to this Holy Council. Soon afterwards, however, the adherents of Nestorius and Eutyches had again arisen and caused great divisions so that many churches had broken off communion with one another. When, now, the grace of God raised us to the throne, we regarded it as our main goal to unite the churches again, and to bring the Council of Chalcedon, together with the three previous councils, to ecumenical acceptance. We have won many who previously opposed that Council. Others, who persevered in their opposition, we banished, and in that way restored the unity of the Church again. But the Nestorians wanted to impose their heresy upon the Church. And, as they could not use Nestorius for that purpose, they made haste to introduce their errors through Theodore of Mopsuestia, the teacher of Nestorius, who taught still more grievous blasphemies than his. He maintained, for example, that God the Logos was one and Christ another. For the same purpose they made use of those impious writings of Theodoret which were directed against the first Council of Ephesus, against Cyril and his Twelve Chapters, and also the shameful letter which Ibas is said to have written. They maintain that this letter was accepted by the Council of Chalcedon, and so would free from condemnation Nestorius and Theodore who were commended in that letter. If they were to succeed, the Logos could no longer be said to have "become man" nor Mary called the Theotokos. We, therefore, following the holy Fathers, have first asked you in writing to give your judgment on the three impious chapters named, and you have answered, and have joyftilly confessed the true faith. Because, however, after the condemnation coming from you, there are still some who defend the Three Chapters, therefore we have summoned you to the capital that you may here, in common assembly, place again your view in the light of day. When, for example, Vigilius, Pope of Old Rome, came here, he, in response to our questions, repeatedly anathematized in writing the Three Chapters and confirmed his steadfastness in this view by much, even by the condemnation of his deacons, Rusticus and Sebastian. We possess still his declarations in his own hand. Then he issued his Judicatum, in which he anathematized the Three Chapters with the words, Et quoniam … You know that he not only deposed Rusticus and Sebastian because they defended die Three Chapters but also wrote to Valentinian, bishop of Scythia, and Aurelian, bishop of Aries, that nothing might be undertaken against the Judicatum When you afterwards came here at my invitation, letters were exchanged between you and Vigilius in order to have a common assembly. But now he had changed his view and would no longer have a council but rather required that only the three patriarchs and one other bishop (in communion with the Pope and the three bishops about him) should decide the matter. In vain we sent several commands to him to take part in the council. He rejected also our two proposals, either to call a tribunal for decision or to hold a smaller assembly at which, besides him and his three bishops, every other patriarch should have place and voice, with from three to five bishops of his diocese."

"We further declare that we hold fast to the decrees of the four Councils and in every way follow the holy Fathers, Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Theophilus, John (Chrysostom) of Constantinople, Cyril, Augustine, Proclus, Leo and their writings on the true faith. As, however, the heretics are resolved to defend Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius with their impieties, and maintain that that letter of Ibas was received by the Council of Chalcedon, so do we exhort you to direct your attention to the impious writings of Theodore, and especially to his Jewish Creed which was brought forward at Ephesus and Chalcedon, and anathematized by each council with those who had so held or did so hold. And we further exhort you to consider what the holy Fathers have written concerning him and his blasphemies, as well as what our predecessors have promulgated, as also what the Church historians have set forth concerning him. You will therefore see that he and his heresies have since been condemned and that therefore his name has long since been struck from the diptychs of the Church of Mopsuestia. Consider the absurd assertion that heretics ought not to be anathematized after their deaths; and we exhort you further to follow in this matter the doctrine of the holy Fathers, who condemned not only living heretics but also anathematized after their death those who had died in their iniquity, just as those who had been unjustly condemned they restored after their death and wrote their names in the sacred diptychs — which took place in the case of John and of Flavian of pious memory, both of them bishops of Constantinople. Moreover, we exhort you to examine the writing of Theodoret and the supposed letter of Ibas in which the Incarnation of the Logos is denied, the expression Theotokos and the Holy Council of Ephesus rejected, Cyril called a heretic, and Theodore and Nestorius defended and praised. And since they say that the Council of Chalcedon has accepted this letter, you must compare the declarations of this Council relating to the faith with the contents of the impious letter. Finally, we entreat you to accelerate the matter. For he who when asked concerning the right faith, puts off his answer for a long while, does nothing else but deny the right faith. For in questioning and answering on things which are of faith, it is not he who is found first or second, but he who is the more ready with a right confession that is acceptable to God."

"You know how much care the most invincible Emperor has always had that the contention raised up by certain persons with regard to the Three Chapters should have a termination … For this intent he has required the most religious Vigilius to assemble with you and draw up a decree on this matter in accordance with the orthodox faith. Although Vigilius has already frequently condemned the Three Chapters in writing and has done this also by word of mouth in the presence of the emperor and of the most glorious judges and of many members of this council, and has always been ready to smite with anathema the defenders of Theodore of Mopsuestia, and the letter which was attributed to Ibas, and the writings of Theodoret which he sei forth against the orthodox faith and against the Twelve Chapters of the holy Cyril, yet he has refused to do this in communion with you and your council."

"Yesterday Vigilius sent Servus Dei, a most reverend subdeacon of the Roman church, and invited [a list of consuls and bishops follows] to come to him as he wished to give through them an answer to the emperor. They went but quickly returned and informed the most pious lord that we had visited Vigilius, the most religious bishop, and that he had said to us: ‘We have called you for this reason, that you may know what things have been done in the past days. To this end I have written a document about the disputed Three Chapters, addressed to the most pious emperor [the Constitutum], pray be good enough to read it, and to carry it to his Serenity.’ But when we had heard this and had seen the document written to your serenity, we said to him that we could not by any means receive any document written to the most pious emperor without his request. ‘But you have deacons for carrying messages and can send it by them.’ He, however, said to us: ‘You now know that I have made the document.’ But we bishops answered him: ‘If your

Sketches in the History of Monophysitism 161 Blessedness is willing to meet together with us and the most holy patriarchs, and the most religious bishops, and to treat the Three Chapters and to give, in unison with us all a suitable form of the orthodox faith, as the Holy Apostles and the holy Fathers and the four Councils have done, we will hold you as our head, as a father and primate. But if your Holiness has drawn up a document for the emperor, you have message carriers, as we have said, send it by them.’ And when he had heard these things from us, he sent Servus Dei, the subdeacon, who now awaits the answer of your Serenity. And when his Piety had heard this, he commanded through the abovementioned subdeacon to carry back this message to the most religious Vigilius: ‘We invited you to meet together with the most blessed patriarchs and the other religious bishops, and with them in common to examine and judge the Three Chapters. But since you have refused to do this, and you say that you alone have written by yourself somewhat on the Three Chapters,’ if you have condemned them in accordance with those things which you did before, we have already many such statements and need no more; but if you have written now something contrary to these things which were done by you before, you have condemned yourself by your own writing, since you have departed from orthodox doctrine and have defended impiety. And how can you expect us to receive such a document from you?’ "

"Constantine, the most glorious Quaestor, said: ‘While I am still present at your holy council by reason of the reading of the documents which have been presented to you, I would say that the most pious Emperor has sent a minute to your holy council concerning the name of Vigilius, that this name be no more inserted in the holy diptychs of the Church because of the impiety which he defended. Neither let his name be recited by you nor retained, either in the church of the imperial city or in other churches which are entrusted to you and to the other bishops in the empire committed by God to his rule. And when you hear this minute, again you perceive by it how much the most serene Emperor cares for the unity of the holy churches and for the purity of the holy mysteries."

The Constitutum by Pope Vigilius referred to above is his Constitutum of May 14, 553 which was rejected by Justinian because it was not explicit enough in its condemnation of the Three Chapters. Vigilius finally satisfied the imperial will by a new Constitutum in February of 554. It is clear that from the date of Justinian’s "minute" [formam] Pope Vigilius was considered deposed by the council. That his name was removed from the diptychs certainly constitutes deposition and may well be interpreted as excommunication. Whether the Fifth Ecumenical Council considered this deposition only and not excommunication is subject to controversy. It is, in any event, highly unlikely that the removal of Pope Vigilius’ name from the diptychs constituted a break of communion from the Roman church. There was still a distinction made between the person of the bishop of Rome and the Roman see — non sedem sed sedentem. Ultimately, however, approval was given to the Fifth Ecumenical Council by Pope Vigilius — whether this approval was forced or insincere is not the issue.

The Fifth Ecumenical Council was also affirmed by Pope Vigilius’ successor Pope Pelagius I (556-561), who had also accompanied Pope Agapetus to Constantinople and who, of course, had strong ties with Constantinople, for he had participated in the council of 536 and had served in the capital as Pope Vigilius’ apocrisiarius.

Pelagius had also been sent to Constantinople by Totila to negotiate a peace with Justinian, a mission in which he was unsuccessful. But he stayed in Constantinople with Pope Vigilius. When Vigilius attempted his second escape — from the papal residence to the church of St. Euphemia in Chalcedon — Pelagius was with him (December, 551). He returned to Constantinople from Chalcedon with Vigilius in February of 552 and was strongly influential in supporting Vigilius’ firm stand. He contributed to the composition of Vigilius’ first Constitutum and strongly advised Pope Vigilius not to attend the Fifth Ecumenical Council. After the council condemned and deposed Pope Vigilius, Pelagius left Vigilius’ company when it became apparent that Vigilius was going to succumb to the imperial will. Pelagius — and the deacon Sarpatus — were excommunicated by Vigilius which rnnted Pelagius to write a Refutatorium against Vigilius. Pelagius sent a copy to Justinian, who did not react favorably to a that condemned the emperor and the council. Justinian arrested and imprisoned in different monasteries. It was here in confinement that Pelagius wrote his In defensione rium capitulorum, patterned after a similar work by Facundus of Ηermiane. The In defensione trium capitulorum was also a futation of Pope Vigilius’ second Constitutum, the work by Vigilius which finally condemned the Three Chapters. Pelagius accused Vigilius of succumbing to the imperial will, of betraying Pope Leo I, of betraying the Council of Chalcedon, and of condemning unjustly Theodore, Theodoret, and Ibas. When the news of Vigilius’ death reached Constantinople, Justinian released Pelagius and reached an understanding with him which resulted in Pelagius’ return to Rome as the successor to Vigilius, an act which caused further scandal in the Latin Church — described by Facundus in his De fide (Patrologia Latina 67, 867-868). A schism was created in the Latin Church which lasted until 698 with Aquileia. Pope Pelagius I had schismatic problems with the northern Italian bishops of Tuscany, Liguria, and Venetia, as well as with Istria. The exchange of letters between Pope Pelagius I and Sapaudus, the papal vicar and bishop of Aries, give a vivid account of Pelagius’ views. In one of his letters to Sapaudus he explains the difficulties he had in Constantinople in keeping the true faith. Now that an ecumenical council had spoken there was no further resistance, he writes. He explains his own change of view as the recognition of one’s mistakes which is the correct attitude according to both Scripture and the tradition of the fathers — he mentions specifically St. Augustine. In a letter to the bishops of Istria Pope Pelagius I maintained that no local council could judge an ecumenical council — he claimed, somewhat exaggeratedly, that four thousand bishops had accepted the Fifth Ecumenical Council.

In a little less than one month the Fifth Ecumenical Council reached its decisions. It is not wholly accurate to see in this council simply an attempt to paciiy the Monophysites. Indeed, the [jasic problem was that the definition of the Council of Chalcedon α been crying out for clarification — what many regarded as a self-contradictory council had to be resolved.

It is clear that most of the time of the first two sessions was consumed by attempts to bring Pope Vigilius to the council. At the third session a confession of faith was made which was based on the introductory speech by Justinian. To this there was added an anathema against anyone who separated himself from the Church — it is obviously Vigilius to whom they refer. The fourth session examined seventy excerpts from the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia and condemned them. In the fifth session the problem of condemning someone posthumously was discussed and it was decided to condemn both the writings and the person of Theodore of Mopsuestia. At this same session the writings of Theodoret against St. Cyril were examined and the council expresses surprise that the Council of Chalcedon had exonerated Theodoret — he was "rehabilitated" only after his explicit repudiation of Nestorius. At the sixth session the reputation of Ibas of Edessa was discussed, along with the infamous Letter to Maris. The decision was that Ibas was not the author of the letter and that his exoneration by the Council of Chalcedon was valid. The seventh session is the one which contains Justinian’s description of his dealings with Pope Vigilius. At the eighth session a doctrinal statement and fourteen anathemas were accepted. The Fifth Ecumenical Council was not acceptable to the Monophysites — especially the eighth anathema which clearly delineated the boundary between Monophysitism and a Cyrillian interpretation of the Council of Chalcedon.

Whatever his own personal interpretation of Christology might have become, Justinian did nothing overtly to foster his own developing position — nothing, that is, until 564. Suddenly he stunned the Church with an issuance of an edict which was an expression of the extremist position within Monophysitism, a position that had been condemned by Monophysite theologians such as Philoxenus — Justinian decreed Aphthartodocetism to be orthodox, the belief that the humanity our Lord assumed was incorruptible and hence unlike our humanity, the doctrine of Julian of Halicarnassus. Justinian’s advisor on theological matters had been Theodore Askidas but when the latter died in January of 558 an unnamed bishop from Joppa in Palestine succeeded Theodore, referred to in the sources as a "stupid" man. Immediately Patriarch Eutychius of Constantinople refused to sign the edict. Justinian had Eutychius arrested and deposed a week later by a council.

Eutychius was celebrating the liturgy when Justinian’s police A Aetherius came to arrest him — he was permitted to complete the liturgy before being led away. After his quick condemnation by a council, Eutychius was sent to the island of Prinkipo. Eutychius spend the next twelve years in exile — though he was later permitted to serve his exile on his own estate and in his own monastery at Amasea. The other patriarchs of the East resisted also — Apolinarius of Alexandria, Anastasius of Antioch, and Macarius of Jerusalem. Indeed, Anastasius of Antioch had the imperial edict condemned by a council in Antioch. It is true that at first Anastasius did not reject the edict outright, declaring that he would accept it if "incorruptible" were to be the equivalent of "impeccable." When Anastasius’ requested interpretation was rejected, Anastasius responded by declaring that if the humanity of Christ was not consubstantial with our humanity, then the Incarnation was devoid of all meaning. He was ready for his deposition when news arrived that Emperor Justinian had died. His successor, Emperor Justin II (565-578), revoked the edict at once.

The last twelve years of Justinian’s reign saw a reversal of his achievements in the "miraculous" year of 553. In that year the long war with the Goths was finally won by the general Narses, Vigilius had finally given in, and the empire had succeeded in regaining much territory in Visigothic Spain. All was to be lost in the remaining years of Justinian’s reign. Illyricum would also be lost — the Avars, Lombards, and Slavs would penetrate the imperial borders. Still, at the time of the death of Justinian few would have imagined that the Monophysite Christians would later become so disenchanted with "Chalcedonian" imperial rule that they would somehow prefer the Arab invasions.

Justinian had lived long enough to put another patriarch on the throne of Constantinople, John of Sirmium, known as John ocholasticus. For the duration of Justin II’s reign and through the reign of his successor, Tiberius II (578-582) the Chalcedonians and the non-Chalcedonians were still on speaking terms and therewas still the hope of the possibility of some type of reconciliation. The head of non-Chalcedonian Egypt was still Theodosius, still residing in Theodora’s monastery for exiles in Constantinople. Letters to Theodosius were addressed to him as "ecumenical patriarch." Justin II did nothing to alter this — indeed, Justin II would receive him with all the honor that belonged to a patriarch, and Justin II’s wife, Sophia, the niece of Theodora, was thought to be a follower of Theodosius.

About 567 Theodosius, knowing that his death was approaching, began to initiate new steps to regulate the affairs of his church. He had also begun to distrust Jacob — something had happened in Egypt, the precise nature of which is not reported something apparently caused by Jacob. Theodosius, the very person who had previously commissioned Jacob with the authority to act as his representative even in Egypt, now in essence began to rescind this authority. Theodosius began to give authority to Paul "the Black" of Antioch to ordain priests and deacons for Alexandria and to ordain Longinus as bishop for Nubia. Egypt, which during the times of St. Athanasius and St. Cyril had’ approximately more than one hundred bishops, now had only a handful. In his final episcopal letter Theodosius underscored the desperate need for bishops, something he had postponed because of his continued hope that he would return to Alexandria where he himself could ordain bishops. Now, however, all must obey Paul as they had obeyed him, and Paul would supply them with bishops. It is reported that he died just as he had finished dictating the letter and before he could affix his seal — he died in June of 566. Athanasius, a monk, delivered the funeral oration, an oration which Michael the Syrian in his Chronicle (10, 1) describes as condemning Chalcedon.

The non-Chalcedonian movement had now become a separate church within the empire. In 566 Justin II made an attempt to reconcile the Monophysites with the Chalcedonians. He convoked a conference at which even Jacob was present — indeed, it appears that the initiative for the convocation of this conference had come from Sophia. In Constantinople, under the oversight of Patriarch John Scholasticus, the Chalcedonians met with two groups of non-Chalcedonians. Similar meetings took place between monks and clergy. It appears as though a temporary reconciliation took place between two Monophysite factions. Michael the Syrian relates that the Monophysites proposed a compromise which, it accepted, would have restored a unity between them and the Chalcedonians. Yet, if one takes this compromise seriously, then lear that it was in reality no compromise. Rather, it proposed that the Chalcedonians capitulate. The proposed compromise isted of the following: the expression "out of two natures" would have to be accepted; "not of two natures" would have to be added to "not two sons, not two persons, not two hypostases;" St. Cyril’s Twelve Anathemas must be declared canonical; the Henotikon, interpreted in Severian terms, would suffice as ondemnatory of Chalcedon; and Severus’ name would have to be restored to the diptychs. This was more akin to unconditional surrender than to compromise. What is surprising, however, is that the Monophysites claimed that they were willing, provided these terms were accepted, to be in communion with Anastasius of Antioch — indeed, this would have meant that they were ready to circumvent the recently ordained bishop and patriarch, Paul "the Black." What may account for this willingness is the fact that Paul "the Black" was not on good terms with Justin II, whereas Anastasius, although a Chalcedonian, remained on good terms personally with most of the non-Chalcedonians and in his work against John Philoponus he was already using the term of "one energy" in Christ.

Justin II empowered the comes orientales and Patrician John to continue with the dialogue in Callinicum on the Euphrates. The meeting, which probably took place in 568, was attended by numerous monks and clergy. What John brought with him was an edict that based the faith on the Council of Nicaea, claimed that Christ was "out of two natures, one hypostasis," contained an anathema against the Three Chapters, abolished the edict against Severus, and all anathemas starting from the time of St. Cyril. The text of this edict is contained only in the source by Michael the Syrian — his Chronicle (10, 2). Again this was not compromise but capitulation. Although the bishops present seemed optimistic, the monks began to clamor. They allegedly ripped up the edict, created a riot and walked out of the talks. The events, as related by Michael the Syrian, give an interesting glimpse at Jacob. Michael, a Monophysite Patriarch, was not opposed to Jacob. If the source were written by a Chalcedonian, one would have to be more sceptical. The bishops were infuriated with the unruly monks. John wanted to continue the dialogue despite "the anger of a few ignorant monks." Michael the Syrian relates that Jacob offered to attempt to persuade the monks to return.

But, once in the company of the monks, that element of his personality and character which had distressed Theodosius in his later years, revealed itself again. Jacob joined the monks and anathematized the meeting and all those participating. John is said to have reported to Constantinople that "it is useless to attempt to reconcile men like this" and broke off the negotiations. He was cursed by the monks as a deceiver and, when he died shortly thereafter, the monks interpreted it as a sign of divine judgment on him.

Justin, though distressed at the chaotic and unsuccessful meeting, made another attempt to achieve union with the Monophysites. He summoned the bishops to Constantinople for another conference. Jacob, of course, excused himself from attending. The bishops who attended condemned Paul "the Black" of Antioch — for what reason is not specifically known, though it appears to be connected with his work in Egypt. Paul "the Black" had returned to Syria from Egypt in about 566. That next year he was back in Constantinople to participate in the negotiations. Michael the Syrian relates that he and other non-Chalcedonian bishops entered communion with the Chalcedonians in 571 under the belief that the Council of Chalcedon was to be annulled. Now the divisions among the non-Chalcedonians become more apparent, divisions which began much earlier — indeed, they actually begin with the definition of faith by the Council of Chalcedon.

During the time of Proterius John the Rhetorician combined ideas from both Nestorius and Eutyches to produce the idea that "God the Logos was wrapped in the body as if a seed" and that "if he suffered, then he suffered in his divine nature." Shortly thereafter Timothy Aelurus wrote from exile to condemn the thought of Isaiah of Hermopolis and a Theophilus of Alexandria -they had taught that "our Lord and God Jesus Christ was by nature different from us in the flesh, that he was not consubstantial with mankind, and was not truly man."

Then there arose the controversy between Severus and Julian of Halicarnassus and Julian’s followers proclaimed the doctrine of the incorruptibility of the humanity of our Lord and the faction of the Aphthartodocetists came into existence. Often one could find among the former fathers some who taught a similar view. In the case of Julian it must be mentioned that St. Hilary of Poitiers wrote in his De Trinitate (10, 22) that the human soul of Christ could only have come directly from God and therefore could not have been in reality human — "but as he by his own act assumed a body from the Virgin, so he assumed from himself a soul; though even in ordinary human birth the soul is never derived from the parents. If, then, the Virgin received from God alone the flesh which she conceived, far more certain is it that the soul of that body can have come from God alone." St. Hilary also anticipates to some extent the position of Julian in the same work (10, 23) — "when in this humanity he was struck with blows or smitten with wounds or bound with ropes or lifted on high, he felt the force of the suffering but without its pain ... So our Lord Jesus Christ suffered blows, hanging, crucifixion, and death — but the suffering which attacked the body of the Lord, without ceasing to be suffering, had not the natural effect of suffering. It exercised its function of punishment with all its violence, but the body of Christ by its virtue suffered the violence of the punishment without its consciousness... He had a body to suffer and he suffered, but he had not a nature which could feel pain, for his body possessed a unique nature of its own; it was transformed into heavenly glory on the Mount, it put fevers to flight by its touch, it gave new eyesight by its spittle." Indeed, Julian was convinced that he was basing his view on the thought of the "fathers." Writing to Severus, Julian makes his position clear: "Some say that the body of Christ was corruptible. I am certain that you will agree with my rebuttle to them, and I attach what I have written to correct their error. My position is merely that of the Fathers, those holy men who could neither contradict themselves nor each other. And St. Cyril says of the humanity of Christ, ‘corruption could never take hold of it.’" It should be mentioned that there is a distinction between "corruption" never being able to take hold of the humanity of Christ and the doctrine that the humanity of our Lord was always "incorruptible," a distinction which is precisely ontological. As related previously, the controversy between Severus and Julian, although starting in a friendly vein, became a tumultuous battle, one that broke their friendship and split the Monophysites into two factions. Indeed, Severus wrote to Justinian that Julian was a danger to the "public," that he had become a Manichee, that he held "the Passion itself as unreal." The ultimate result of this controversy was that the followers of Julian, with the assistance of Julian, established their own hierarchy which continued to exist separately until approximately 800 with its own patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch.

During the period when the Monophysites were left somewhat undisturbed by the imperial arm, from 540 until about 570, personal disputes caused further factions. One faction was the Agnoetae — from αγνοέω. They were also known as Themistians, from the founder of their Monophysite faction, Themistius, a sixth century deacon of Alexandria and a student of Severus. Their basic position was in maintaining that the humanity of Christ was "ignorant." Another group, the Niobites, professed a belief in a distinction of natures after the union but refused to accept the expression "two natures" — the Niobites anathematized the entire Severian party.

A more serious schism was that of the Tritheists, also known as the Cononites from their leader Conon, one of the early associates of Jacob — they were also known as the Philoponists from John Philoponus (d.c. 565). According to the extant sources the origin of Tritheism occurred in a most casual way. In a meeting with the Chalcedonians John Philoponus allegedly asked: "If you speak about two natures, why do you not also speak of two hypostases since nature and hypostasis are identical?" The Chalcedonian response was that they would indeed do so "if we considered nature and hypostasis identical, but as a point of fact we distinguish between the two." The Chalcedonian reportedly continued by proposing that John Philoponus, if he held nature and hypostasis to be identical, should therefore speak of three natures in the Godhead. His reply allegedly was: "Then, we will do so." When the astonished Chalcedonian exclaimed that to do so would be to teach Tritheism, John reportedly replied that "in the Trinity I count as many natures, essences, and Godheads as I do hypostases."

Such a position may appear somewhat flippant and casual but it was a quite serious point by John Philoponus, who was not an ignorant monk but a sophisticated philosopher, a disciple of Ammonius of Hermias. He wrote works on Aristotle, works on Nichomachus of Gerosa, and at least two works on grammar. His works reflect an eclectic philosophical perspective which combines Aristotle, Plato, Stoic principles, and elements of Christian thought. Underlying his thought is a Stoic principle of considering fundamental matter as three dimensional. Pluralism was a cornerstone of his philosophical perspective. In transferring his basic philosophical vision to the Trinity John Philoponus could easily affirm a Tritheism. It is interesting that in his philosophy he viewed created existence as a mere instrumentality of divine causation, a position which would make Monophysitism somewhat natural for him. In none of his works does he, however, explicitly affirm that there are three gods. John Philoponus was also extremely hostile toward the Roman see, attacking directly the primacy of Rome and explicitly calling Pope Leo the Great a Nestorian.

Underlying the thought of the Tritheists was the distinction between hypostasis and nature. Christ was one hypostasis, an indivisible hypostasis, which, though united with God the Father, must be distinguished from the hypostasis of the Father and the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit. But because of the interaction between hypostasis and nature and because of a certain "assimilation" between the two, the individual "natures" had also to be distinguished. The Cappadocian balance between the hypostasis and nature was compromised and the compromise implied a Tritheism. When this thought pattern was presented by a philosopher and ascetic such as John Philoponus, it attracted the attention of some leaders within the Monophysite movement. Sergius, a Syrian from Telia who was ordained patriarch of Antioch in 557 by Theodosius, became enamored by the teaching. The early associates of Jacob, Conon and Eugenius, now working in Cilicia and Isauria fell under the influence of Tritheism. In Constantinople John Asconaghes — his name referred to his slippery type of shoes which in turn referred to his "slippery" character; that is, he was constantly slipping from one faction to another — accepted this interpretation of hypostasis and nature and, through him, an important convert was won from the imperial court: Anastasius, the grandson of Theodora.

For the next twenty years Anastasius was to be a personality to contend with. Michael the Syrian relates that Justinian had hoped to place Anastasius on the patriarchal throne of Alexandria (Chronicle 9, 30). Anastasius brought both money and a certain social prestige to the new faction. Very quickly this new faction had attracted to its cause another bishop, a significant event because this new bishop happened to be the third bishop in the new movement which now allowed them to ordain their own bishops. One of the sources claims that "all their disciples and followers — whoever joined them — they consecrated as bishops." They established new communities throughout the empire — in Africa, in Rome, in Greece, in Asia Minor, as well as in the traditionally non-Chalcedonian areas of Egypt and Syria. In Constantinople they also established themselves. Indeed, John of Ephesus relates how surprised he was at the number of persons from the court who attended the services of the new faction.

During all this Theodosius used persuasion and then excommunication with the new faction. Theodosius rejected any notion of separate natures. He excommunicated John Asconaghes and Patriarch Sergius. He had more difficulty with Conon and Eugenius, both of whom continued to reject and then accept again the position of the Tritheists throughout their lives. Anastasius had created a will that left an endowment to the new faction. He had a falling out with this new faction before his death but had not altered his will, the result of which was a financial source to perpetuate the new faction.

Attempts were made to reunite but nothing came of them ultimately. After mutual excommunication both parties appealed to the emperor. The task of judging two Monophysite groups was delegated to Patriarch John Scholasticus. He was to use the works of Severus, Theodosius, and Anthimus as the guide, the authoritative works from which to judge. The "trial" lasted for four days. Conon and Eugenius represented the Tritheists; Paul "the Black" and Jacob the "conservative" wing of the Monophysites. As could have been anticipated, the decision favored the "conservative" wing. Exile under escort was the decision for Conon and Eugenius. John of Ephesus relates that the head of the escort was the defrocked monk, Photius, the stepson of Belisarius, who was well-known for his cruelty. Indeed, it is related that he liked nothing more than to torture clergy.

This inner quarrel actually played into the hands of the Chalcedonians. The Tritheists had pushed the Monophysite position to an extremity and, in order to answer the Tritheists, the conservative Monophysites were forced to fall back to strictly Severian positions or to positions that pointed in the direction of Chalcedon. Michael the Syrian claims that thousands returned to the Chalcedonian hierarchy, for they believed it far more theologically sound to confess "two natures" rather than have anything to do with a theology that could fall into "three natures in the Trinity."

Patriarch John Scholasticus decided to take action against the Monophysites, at least those in and around Constantinople. Justin II was already decomposing in insanity and the patriarch had little difficulty obtaining permission from the emperor to deal with the Monophysites as he deemed best. John of Ephesus relates that the stunning reversal took place on the Saturday prior to Palm Sunday of 571. Suddenly all places of Monophysite worship were forbidden and the few Monophysite bishops in Constantinople were arrested and imprisoned in the firmly Chalcedonian Acoe-metae Monastery. Later they were transferred to cells in the patriarchal residence. A reign of terror was unleashed on all the Monophysite monastic communities in Constantinople, communities which had come into existence as a result of the vibrant life existing in Theodora’s monastery for exiled Monophysites. The non-Chalcedonian sources relate that the imperial police and security forces entered the monastic communities to compel the people to accept the Holy Eucharist from Chalcedonian priests. When they refused, they were dragged to Chalcedonian altars, their mouths forced open, and forced to consume the Holy Eucharist. The more recalcitrant met with severe punishment. The patriarch, the sources relate, went from place to place to proclaim the holy council of Chalcedon — indeed, it is related that the now insane emperor accompanied him, giving out gifts to those who submitted. As many measures as possible were implemented to extirpate Monophysitism in Constantinople — their places of assembly were destroyed, their hospitals were confiscated, and the staff of clerics was dismissed. This was, however, restricted to Constantinople and its immediate surroundings. What caused the most hostile bitterness was the fact that Patriarch John reordained all non-Chalcedonian clergy. Indeed, many of the Chalcedonians were dismayed by the action of the patriarch.

Patriarch John, realizing the importance of Paul "the Black" as a patriarch and the esteem held by John of Ephesus, summoned the two from their imprisonment and proposed as the document of union the very document signed by St. Cyril and John of Antioch — "Let the heavens rejoice." Paul and Jacob agreed on the condition that the Council of Chalcedon first be anathematized. As John of Ephesus relates, they exclaimed that "before Cyril made peace he had cast Nestorius out of the Church and we must do the same." Patriarch John refused. It appears that Emperor Jus tin II had a brief period of lucidity, an interlude in his insanity. It was at this time that he proposed union based on both formulae — "one nature incarnate" and "two natures." The condition laid down by the Monophysites was the anathematization of Chalcedon.

Paul and John were confined in "filthy dungeons" and deprived of any visitation. They were brought out only when the patriarch wanted to engage in a theological conversation. A rumor was deliberately leaked to them that the faithful were blaming their obstinacy for the persecution. John of Ephesus relates that at this time Patriarch John offered a duplicious proposal: "Participate in communion with me just once in order ‘to save my reputation’ and when that is accomplished and the schism is healed, I swear that Chalcedon will be dropped." Paul and John, worn thin by de -privation and suffering, anathematized Chalcedon while receiving communion twice from Patriarch John. When they asked Patriarch John to keep his word, John replied that he would keep his word if Rome agreed. "Be reasonable. You cannot expect us to offend Rome to please you." Paul and John swore they would never again communicate with Patriarch John and they appealed to the insane emperor. The imperial reply was that the emperor would investigate the matter at the end of a month, after he had completed his baths. Patriarch John then offered them any see they wanted if they would submit. They continued to refuse.

The imperial court was tired of the entire controversy. It is related that Emperor Justin II, if indeed he was speaking for himself in a moment of lucidity, was angered by the recalcitrant position of the Monophysites and angered by the policy of Patriarch John, a policy accused of having exacerbated the situation rather than to have brought the expected reconciliation. The matter was then referred to the senate, which rendered a decision in favor of the patriarch — John of Ephesus and Paul "the Black" were either to remain in communion with Patriarch John or to be confined.

John of Ephesus was kept for one year in a dungeon, an account of which he has left to us. He was later sent to the island of Prinkipo for another year and one-half. At that time Tiberius, ruling in the place of the insane Justin II, allowed John of Ephesus to return to Constantinople under supervision. Upon the death of Patriarch John, Tiberius gave John of Ephesus his freedom.

Paul "the Black" was confined in the Acoemetae Monastery where he wrote an account of the recent events. His writing was confiscated and shown to Patriarch John who was infuriated. Paul expected to be executed. Finally, as a result of the intervention of friends, an option was given to Paul — to receive communion again from the patriarch. He succumbed. Patriarch John used the occasion for a victory celebration — he invited as many selected persons as possible to attend the celebration. After Paul had communicated with the patriarch, he was allowed certain freedom under surveillance. Paul’s brother was an admiral in the Byzantine navy, a fact which indicates that Paul’s family obviously came from a relatively high social class. The emperor began to solicit Paul’s advice on ecclesiastical matters, a step which angered the patriarch. Patriarch John suggested that Paul should be the bishop of some see of rank. Paul was offered Jerusalem and Thessaloniki but refused both. The patriarch arranged for Paul to escape. Paul seized the opportunity and left Constantinople to seek out Jacob to confess, to repent, and to submit to any disciplinary action as Jacob decreed.

Tiberius refused to permit persecution. John of Ephesus relates that Tiberius responded to Patriarch John’s request by saying "By your own statements they are not heretics. Let them alone." A few years later Patriarch John died after suffering from a painful illness. When it became clear that Patriarch John would not recover, the Monophysites began to worship in public again.

With the passing of Patriarch John, his predecessor Patriarch Eutychius was brought out of retirement and again assumed the position of patriarch of Constantinople. Eutychius was welcomed as a confessor and a worker of miracles. He immediately excommunicated the recently departed Patriarch John and removed his name from the diptychs. The apocrisiarius of the Roman see protested — he was deacon Gregory, the future Pope Gregory I (590-604). Patriarch Eutychius let the conservative Monophysites in peace, permitting them to worship freely and allowing those who had been compelled to "convert" to the Chalcedonian faith to "reconvert" to Monophysitism. John of Ephesus relates that those who remained in Chalcedonian places were permitted to receive the Holy Eucharist from their own clergy after the Chalcedonians completed their liturgy. They were not considered heretics but rather dissenters. But Eutychius did persecute the Tritheist faction.

The cessation of persecution did not last long. The cause, however, came this time from a completely different direction. A petition had come to Tiberius while he was still regent, a petition from the Gothic Arian women in Constantinople — their husbands were soldiers in the imperial army and the women petitioned for the use of a church for their Arian services. An outburst of protest came from the Chalcedonians. This was too much! Tiberius, not wanting to offend the ecclesiastical authorities before he had taken the imperial throne, proclaimed an order of arrest for all Arians and Manichees. John of Ephesus claims that the anti-Monophysites used this as a pretext and set about to plunder the places of worship of the Monophysites and to arrest some of them, himself included.

In general, however, Eutychius’ attack on Monophysitism restricted itself to the writing of books against them. John of Ephesus refers to these writings contemptuously, claiming in essence that Eutychius made a fool of himself, that Eutychius revealed his lack of knowledge in these books and could never prove his point. Patriarch Eutychius found himself accused of heresy because of his teaching on the resurrection. His overly spiritualized interpretation of the resurrection smacked of Origenism and he was denounced by both the Monophysites and by the Roman deacon Gregory.

Internally Monophysitism would carry within it a schism resulting from supporters of Paul "the Black" and those of Jacob. Paul "the Black" submitted to three years of suspension as a form of penance. Jacob was quite under the control of the monks who for some reason detested Paul. The monks threatened to separate from Jacob’s communion unless Jacob denounced his reconciliation with Paul "the Black." Jacob did not deny the reconciliation, although John of Ephesus tells us that Jacob refers to it as "accidental," as "informal." When Theodosius died in Constantinople the Egyptian Church was without a patriarch. Indeed, exclusive of the Chalcedonian and Julianist bishops, there were only three Monophysite bishops in Egypt — Longinus, who was in distant Nubia; Theodore of Philae, now old and ill; and John of the Cells, who, though in Alexandria, was under discipline for some type of irregularity. The clergy in Alexandria wrote to Longinus of Nubia and to Theodore of Philae to urge them to come to consecrate a patriarch. Longinus responded quickly and undertook the trip. Along the way he met with Theodore of Philae who, too ill to travel, gave Longinus the authority to act in his name. Still underway Longinus met with two bishops in Mareotis and implored them to assist in the matter. They would assist only on the condition that the matter of the reconciliation with Paul "the Black" be clarified. Longinus’ choice for patriarch of Alexandria was Theodore, the abbot of Rhamnis in Nitria. The three bishops — Longinus and the two whom he met at Mareotis — consecrated Theodore of Rhamnis as patriarch of Alexandria. Paul "the Black" was present but did not participate precisely because he did not want the consecration to be challenged. He approved the consecration and exchanged the customary letter of enthronement as patriarch of Antioch. A letter of approval also came from Theodore of Philae.

But the consecration was challenged by some of the leaders of the Monophysite body in Alexandria, especially by a Theodosius and a deacon named Theodore. These men were indignant because, as they claimed, Paul "the Black" had been involved. They denounced and repudiated the consecration of Theodore of Rhamnis and sought to find another candidate. Their choice was a monk named Peter whom they consecrated — two visiting bishops from the orient and John of the Cells performed the consecration. Peter, now patriarch of Alexandria, acted quickly, according to Michael the Syrian, by consecrating seventy bishops. Immediately Peter convoked a council which deposed Paul "the Black." Theodore of Rhamnis graciously wrote from his monastery that he had no interest in high position and implored the new body not to create a schism, although he complained to the end of his life about the conduct of Longinus and Paul who had "elevated him and then dropped him."

The attitude of Jacob would now become crucial for the new body in Alexandria. Initially Jacob refused to recognize the consecration of Peter, referring to him as a "new Gaianus." But Jacob was under the control of the monks who detested Paul "the Black." Jacob left for Alexandria and, once there, fell under the influence of others who hated Paul. At this point Jacob supported the deposition of Paul "the Black." Paul wrote, Michael the Syrian tells us, to Jacob to request an audience with him. Paul was, of course, Jacob’s superior. Jacob had been given an unusual commission in specific conditions but he was still only a bishop, whereas Paul was "Patriarch of Antioch." Paul desired to restore unity among the Monophysite body. According to John of Ephesus Paul wrote to Jacob offering to accept any outcome as long as "this terrible schism ceases." Longinus’ very life was at stake but he managed to return to Nubia where it was impossible to harm him. He was deposed and excommunicated. John of Ephesus writes that "actions took place by both sides in which only Satan could have rejoiced."

When Peter, the recently consecrated patriarch of Alexandria, died in 577 Damianus was selected to succeed him. Damianus had just been consecrated when Jacob decided to go to Alexandria to meet him, accompanied by a group of eight bishops and priests. Jacob’s intention was not known. Some speculated that his purpose was to make peace; some that he intended to consecrate a new patriarch for Antioch. His motives had to remain clouded in mystery, for underway he and the others with him contracted an illness and died eight days later. The cause of Jacob’s death was subjected to rumor.

For two years the controversy continued. The Arab prince Al-Moundir, when on a visit to Constantinople on state business, requested that Tiberius issue an edict of toleration for the Mono -physites and to summon a conference of the disputing groups. Damianus of Alexandria decided to consecrate a patriarch for Antioch and summoned Syrian bishops who elected a monk named Sergius. Gregory, the Chalcedonian patriarch of Antioch, discovered what was taking place and attempted to arrest the "conspirators." Damianus and three others escaped. Damianus then went to Constantinople while the conference was taking place but did not participate. He did, however, meet privately with Al-Moundir and agreed to the decision of the conference, a decision which was that of reconciliation between the disputing parties. The monks, however, refused to accept the decision of union, claiming they had not been consulted.

When Damianus realized that the conference was unpopular with the monks, he denounced it. John of Ephesus relates that a substantial number of the Monophysites fled this schism by rejoining the Chalcedonians. A new patriarch for Antioch was finally consecrated — Peter of Callinicum, the original choice of Jacob. Paul "the Black" had essentially resigned to retire to a monastery. Few knew where Paul "the Black" was. Even his death in 585 was known to only a few and his followers continued to commemorate him as the living patriarch of Antioch. The schism continued and John of Ephesus ends his history with words of gloom: "Satan has realized his goal and now rejoices in dancing … rejoicing in the actions of both parties in the controversy."

Peter Callinicum was now Monophysite patriarch in Antioch and Damianus was Monophysite patriarch of Alexandria. The Monophysite patriarchs usually ruled not from a centralized patriarchal residence but rather from a monastery beyond the reach of the city officials. Damianus held that the individual charac -teristics or properties of the Trinity were identical with the persons, a view which came close to Tritheism. And yet each hypostasis somehow merged — without any distinction — into the oneness of the Godhead. Peter reacted by accusing Damianus of Sabellianism. As a result, communion was broken between the two Monophysite patriarchates for approximately twenty years.

The source from the Egyptian perspective claims that Damianus attempted to end the schism but was unsuccessful "because of the quarrelsome nature of those in Antioch." Michael the Syrian claims that Peter tried to heal the schism but failed "because of the complete malice of the Alexandrians." A con -ference was finally arranged and Michael the Syrian relates that Damianus’ behavior was intolerable. Initially, he arrogantly refused to attend the conference at Paralus. Changing his mind, Damianus finally attended and, in the view of Michael the Syrian, caused the schism to escalate into an unbecoming battle of personal insults which resulted in physical fights — indeed, it is claimed that one deacon had his head broken. The civil authorities, relates Michael the Syrian, were disgusted with the behavior of both sides. The sources further relate that Peter Callinicum, so desirous to bring this schism to an end, travelled to Egypt and offered to give up his see. But his well-intentioned trip only exacerbated the schism, the precise details of which are not related.

In Alexandria the usual theological discussions were taking place. An Alexandrian named Stephen maintained that one could not be an "orthodox" — orthodox Monophysite — if one held that the distinctions in the "two natures" continued after the union. Two of the followers of Peter Callinicum, a John and a certain Probus, disagreed. A council was convoked about 588 at the monastery of Gubba Βarraya, the residence of the Monophysite patriarchs of Antioch since 580. John and Probus, declaring that if one held that distinctions in the two natures remained after the union, then it was essentially the same teaching as the Chalcedonians. Indeed, it is related that both John and Probus became Chalcedonians, although Probus is said to have reconverted with approaching death. Anastasius, the Chalcedonian patriarch of Antioch, deposed by Justin II and then later restored to his throne, tried to use this new schism among the Monophysites to reunite them with the Chalcedonians, a project that failed in general but resulted in numerous individuals returning to the Chalcedonian Church.

The death of both Peter and Damianus did not end the quarrel, a quarrel which continually makes reference to the dispute over Paul "the Black." The Alexandrian patriarch of the Chalcedonians, Eulogius, was respected by the Monophysites and apparently was responsible for bringing many back to the Chalcedonian Church. Patriarch Eulogius wrote to Pope Gregory the Great about the "glad news of the increase in the number of "true" orthodox. Pope Gregory's letter to Eulogius — Letter 8 — is historically interesting. Pope Gregory, in whom many have found the beginnings of the evolution of the modern papacy, appears in a much different perspective when one considers his correspondence with the eastern patriarchs. Pope Gregory, the first pope to take the title of Servus servorum Dei, writes to Eulogius: "My brother, do not convey on me high titles . . . you are my brother in rank and in character my superior. Do away with words that only harm character and increase vanity." It is the same tone one finds in the astonishing and historically important correspondence of Pope St. Gregory with John the Faster, the first patriarch of Constantinople to adopt officially the title of "ecumenical patriarch" — the title had been used previously during the Acacian Schism and during the reign of Justinian I, although not with the consistency and frequency with which John the Faster used it.

An end to the schism between the Monophysite patriarchates of Alexandria and Antioch came after the death of Peter Callinicum's successor, Julian, in approximately 595. The council that met at the Gubba Barraya monastery could not decide on an acceptable candidate. The sources relate that the council finally decided to leave the decision to God — they would elect the first monk who appeared outside the monastery gates the next day. A monk who was in charge of the monastery camels, a certain Athanasius, was the first to appear. He was instantly grabbed and consecrated patriarch. Astonished, he declared that he had another year's obligation with the monastery to care for the camels. The council agreed to let him keep his oath for another year. A year later a delegation came to fetch him. Athanasius became a highly respected patriarch and his service lasted many years, from 597 until approximately 630.

During this period the wars with Persia were to take their toll in terms of reshaping the life of Christianity in the future generations, for they prepared in a sense the opportunity for a new religion to expand at the expense of the empire. From approximately 572 the empire had been engaged in serious if sporadic conflict with Persia. The military assistance of al-Moundir's Ghassanid kingdom helped the empire immensely — indeed, it is not an exaggeration to state that al-Moundir was one of the most important persons in the empire from a perspective of military logistics. Tiberius had appointed Maurice to head the imperial military forces in the east. Maurice was determined to strike a decisive a blow against the Persians, a blow designed to destroy the Persian capital, Ctesiphon. In 580 Maurice set out to secure the pivotal point, the bridge over the river at Circesium. John of Ephesus relates that when Maurice's forces arrived at Circesium, they found the bridge demolished by the Persians. Maurice immediately accused al-Moundir of sabotage and treason, placing this charge directly before Tiberius. Imperial orders went out to arrest al-Moundir. He was condemned for treason and exiled to Sicily, an action which proved controversial and ultimately devastating for the imperial military forces in the east.

The sources differ on the question of the guilt of al-Moundir. In his Church History Evagrius Scholasticus claims that al-Moundir, whom he calls a rogue, was fortunate to be sentenced only to exile — he was deserving of the death penalty. Writing during the reign of Emperor Heraclius (610-641), Theophylact Simocattes, in his lengthy study of eight books on the reign of Maurice, considers al-Moundir a "traitor." John of Ephesus, on the other hand, claims there was no truth to the charge, a position which Michael the Syrian appears to support without committing himself explicitly on the subject.

In 582 Maurice became emperor (582-602). In 584 al-Moundir’s Ghassanid kingdom split into fifteen different tribes, a historical reality which now meant that the empire had lost the solidity of support which the united kingdom under the Ghassanids had provided. Indeed, the Arabs formerly united under al-Moundir came to regard all Christianity with suspicion — moreover, many Arabs joined forces with the Persians. Michael the Syrian relates that this was the end of Christian Arab cooperation with the empire, the cause of which was "the treachery" of imperial officials. Lost now was that important conversion of the Ghassanids during the reign of Anastasius, a conversion which at that time saw the Ghassanids switch their loyalty from the Persians to the empire. Now the reversal occurred. The infuriated Ghassanids now pillaged Palestine. The imperial forces had opportunity to see the swiftness of the Arab cavalry, a swiftness that the Byzantine military could not match. Yet the Byzantines remained focused on Persia, neglecting the seriousness of the possibility of a future military force of Arabs — the rise of Islam.

In his Chronicle John of Nikiou writes that Emperor Maurice, a staunch Chalcedonian, made no attempt to negotiate a union with the Monophysites. Maurice, the son-in-law of Tiberius, was a very effective emperor — indeed, his reign is often overlooked because it is overshadowed by the reigns of Justinian and Heraclius. He was respected by most segments of Byzantine society, from the ascetical monks to the Monophysite John of Ephesus who refers to Maurice as "God-inspired." Yet, in Constantinople Maurice persecuted and imprisoned Monophysites, including John of Ephesus — over the protests of Patriarch John the Faster. Indeed, John of Ephesus puts the following words in the mouth of John the Faster: "What have the ‘dissenters’ done that permits us to persecute them?" The policy towards the Monophysites did not remain restricted to Constantinople — it spread to Syria, to Egypt, and then to Armenia.

In 591 Emperor Maurice, through diplomacy, was able to extend the imperial influence in Armenia up to Lake Van, a substantial increase from imperial control in Armenia when Maurice ascended the throne. The Armenian Catholicus John had accepted the Henotikon in about 571. Now Maurice was determined to restore the Chalcedonian faith in Armenia. He summoned the Armenian bishops within the imperial territory to Constantinople where they accepted Chalcedon. A new Chalcedonian patriarch was elected. This was not received well by the then Catholicus Moses whose residence was at Dvin. This action by Emperor Maurice did, however, have one lasting result, for it brought the kingdom of Georgia, then in a subservient relationship to Armenia, into the Chalcedonian faith. The Armenian Church was split.

The Monophysites, however, were gaining ground throughout the area of the border with Persia and also in eastern Cappadocia. In 599 a new persecution broke out in Syria, a persecution caused by the emperor’s nephew, Domitian, Bishop of Melitene. The zeal with which Domitian undertook his project is vividly described by Theophylact Simocattes in his Historiae (5, 4). Evagrius Scholasticus in his Church History (4, 18) and Michael the Syrian in his Chronicle (10, 23) also give an account of the zealous persecuting activity of Domitian, who confiscated the monasteries of the Monophysites in Melitene and in the province of Mesopotamia. It is not difficult to discern from the writing of Michael the Syrian that at this time Syrians came to be known as Monophysites, just as Coptic Christians in Egypt became identified with Monophysitism — in contradistinction, Chalcedon became identified as Greek. Michael the Syrian relates that the monks in Edessa who refused to obey imperial orders to leave their monasteries were killed by the military (Chronicle 10, 23). The reputation of Emperor Maurice suffered sorely in the eastern areas as a result, far worse than it had ever been. John of Nikiou, the Coptic bishop, in his Chronicle (101, 5) sees the cause of the earthquake in Antioch as a direct result of "the heresy of Emperor Maurice," as God’s judgment on the emperor. The Coptic and Syrian Mono physites will view the conquests by the Persians and then by the Arabs as also God’s judgment on the heresy of Chalcedon and on Ar ‘nfliction of persecution. Domitian died in 602, an important ίη the history of the eastern Church, for the break between the non-Chalcedonians and “empire" had been consummated.

Persia had been ruled for almost a century by Chosroes I and his grandson Chosroes II, from 531 until 638. In 592 Chosroes II had to flee from a revolt in Persia. It was Emperor Maurice who had responsible for restoring him to the Persian throne, where Chosroes II would rule in peace with the empire for the next ten years — surrounded by an imperial bodyguard provided by yCa rice The emperor had received a reputation for being extremely parsimonious, a reputation which was unfair since the empire he inherited had been financially depleted. Yet the reality in the minds of the imperial subjects was one of dislike for Maurice. In 602, having run out of finances necessary to continue the military compaign in the Balkans, Maurice ordered the imperial army to winter in Avar territory and "to live off the land." The amy mutinied and elected their military officer Phocas as exarch. Phocas immediately marched on Constantinople. Maurice, abandoned by the army, by the guards, and by the population — both the Greens and Blues revolted — fled with his family to Calcedon where he and four sons were murdered. His four sons were butchered before his eyes! Phocas was crowned by the army and entered Constantinople triumphantly.

The rule of Phocas (602-610), known as the "tyrant," is in j considered one of the lowest points in the history of the Bizantine empire. His reign is remembered as one of bloodshed both abroad and at home. He was wholly concentrated on mantaining the throne against inner treason and conspiracy and against the military advances of Chosroes II, who used the murder again benefactor and father-in-law Maurice as justification for resuming the war. The advances of the Persian army were almost unopposed and it proved to be a death blow thirty years later to the eastern provinces. The Persian forces overran Mesopotamia, Siria, Cappadocia, Paphlagonia, and finally reached and besieged Chalcedon at the very walls of Constantinople. The supply of corn from Egypt to Constantinople was suspended and famine broke out. The late Roman empire was in its death throes.

During the wars and the internal mutiny that characterized his reign, Phocas managed to carry out a conciliatory policy with Rome. The controversy between Pope Gregory I and Patriarch John the Faster had been essentially ignored by Emperor Maurice. Phocas issued an edict addressed to Pope Boniface III, an edict which acknowledged the Roman see, the "Apostolic Church of St. Peter," as the head of all churches. While Phocas became more and more hated in Byzantium, his reputation in Rome culminated with an inscription of praise in a column erected in the Roman forum. In general, Phocas responded to the chaotic situation by retaliating against the Monophysites in the eastern districts and against the Jews.

There is no incontrovertible evidence that the Monophysites assisted the advances of the Persian army. Although an anonymous Nestorian chronicler asserts that Chosroes II merely feigned to favor Christians, there is reason to believe that he was certainly not directly opposed to Christianity. Chosroes’ wife was the daughter of Maurice — indeed, she was permitted to establish a church and a monastery in the proximity of the Persian imperial palace. We are also told that Chosroes’ mistress, Shirin, whom he later married, was a convert to Jacobite Monophysitism. In general, however, Chosroes’ marriages remain difficult to place in chronology. Three sources testify to Chosroes’ giving of gifts to the church of St. Sergius at Circesium. Michael the Syrian relates that Nestorian and Monophysite bishops accompanied the Persian armies and, on the conquest of any Christian city, they expelled the Chalcedonian bishops. When Jerusalem fell in 604, Patriarch Zacharias and thirty-five thousand Chalcedonians, together with holy relics of the Cross, were taken to Ctesiphon. Chosroes’ policy was to leave the Monophysites in place when he conquered one of their cities. Michael the Syrian relates that the memory of Chalcedon was soon eradicated from the Euphrates to Syria.

In either 612 or 614 a conference of the bishops from the east took place at Seleucia under the sponsorship of Chosroes II. Whether the result was the acceptance of the Armenian "confession of faith" is not the issue. It is evident that Chosroes II allowed in general — for this would not be the case in Edessa — the Nestorians to control their congregations and the Monophysites theirs. As the former monk and the now Monophysite Patriarch of Antioch, Athanasius, wrote to the Patriarch of Alexandria, all that really mattered was that the dark night of Chalcedon had been lifted, an accomplishment which was met with rejoicing.

Despite the initial elation all was not well, for the Persian occupation was not popular — indeed, ultimately not even popular among the Monophysites. The Monophysites were deeply concerned with the insensitivity of Chosroes II, an insensitivity he revealed by appointing a Persian Nestorian bishop for Edessa. Michael the Syrian alludes to this as the creation of a "new Ibas." In addition, Persian taxation was exacting. And the threat of deportation to Persia was not a comforting thought.

The situation of the empire under Phocas looked hopeless. There seemed to be no one and no place to turn to. But in Africa the exarchate of Carthage was prospering under Heraclius the Elder, a valiant officer in the wars against the Persians during the reign of Emperor Maurice. He realized that if the empire could be saved, he would have to act. He sent his son Heraclius in a fleet and his nephew Nicetas with an army by land. Whoever reached Constantinople first would rule. In the early fall of 610 Heraclius’ fleet reached its destination and he was received as a deliverer, received with open arms. Phocas, despised by all, was seized, cut to pieces, and burned. Emperor Heraclius was one of the greatest rulers in Byzantine history. He appears to have come from Armenian stock. He was a pious Chalcedonian and an inspired leader who was capable of inspiring others with a sense of mission. He found the empire in shambles and left it restored, at least restored sufficiently to ensure its survival for another eight centuries.

The tragedy of Heraclius is that he worked energetically for thirty years and yet at the end of those thirty years it appeared as though he had accomplished nothing. Persia had been defeated. In 630 the Cross was brought back solemnly and triumphantly to Jerusalem by Emperor Heraclius himself and the territory of the empire existing at the end of the reign of Emperor Maurice had been restored. But a new military and religious force had come into existence and it was to capture the precious cities of the east Islam.

Heraclius, after the victory against Persia in 630, turned his attention to the unity of the Church. As with other emperors, his task was to attempt to devise a formula which would restore the Monophysites to the Chalcedonian Church. In the territories which Heraclius had reconquered the Monophysites were now in virtually complete control. Armenia, as a result of the Persian religious policy carried out with the advancing Persian victories, was Monophysite. The patriarchal sees of Alexandria and Antioch now had only Monophysite patriarchs and these patriarchs controlled not only the surrounding areas and the monasteries but also the cities. The influence and authority of the Monophysites had spread far beyond the border of the empire. The Monophysite patriarch of Antioch, Athanasius, had conveyed upon the monastery of Mar Matthai in Nineveh a primacy over all Christian converts in Persia.

The patriarch of Constantinople, Patriarch Sergius (610-638) worked for a formula of union. The doctrine of one energy in Christ, a doctrine which arose in the eastern provinces, seemed to provide some hope as a formula of compromise. Emperor Heraclius supported this position. Indeed, already during his counteroffensive against Persia Heraclius had been discussing the possibility of union, especially with the Church of Armenia. In 634 the monk Sophronius had become the new patriarch of Jerusalem — he had begun his strenuous opposition to the new doctrine of one energy before his consecration as patriarch, claiming that it was nothing more than a form of Monophysitism.

Pope Honorius (625-638) played an important role in this development. In 634 Patriarch Sergius I sent a letter to Pope Honorius outlining the developments in the East, the goal of which was to win back the Monophysites to Chalcedonian unity by means of a formula that emphasized the oneness of operation in Christ. A year earlier Patriarch Cyrus of Alexandria had won back the "dissenters" by the formula of " one theandric operation" in the Lord — μία θεανδρική ένέργεία Sophronius had already challenged the position while still a monk. He had brought forth patristic texts to demonstrate that there were two operations in Christ and requested that Patriarch Cyrus vow that he would not in the future speak of either one or two operations in Christ. Patriarch Sergius in his letter to Pope Honorius confessed that he held the faith as expounded by Pope Leo I and that he too had asked Patriarch Cyrus to refrain from speaking of operations, although he personally could accept a theology of a single operation — Sergius feared that two operations would imply that Christ possessed two conflicting wills. Sergius awaited the reaction of Pope Honorius.

The reply of Pope Honorius is preserved in the Greek trans -lation read at the Sixth Ecumenical Council, the Third Council of Constantinople in 681 (Mansi 11, 537-544). Honorius supported the decision to refrain from discussion on the subject — he considered that to be the work of grammarians, not theologians. He preferred to focus on the one Christ who "operates" in both his human and divine natures. In quoting from the Council of Chalcedon that the two natures are unconfusedly and immutably united, Honorius saw in this unity the existence of a single will in Christ. The best defense on the part of the defenders of the Roman doctrine of papal infallibility is that this letter to Sergius was no more than a private letter, a letter in which both he and Patriarch Sergius were striving to arrive at an acceptable and orthodox formula, a letter which cannot be construed as coming under the category of public papal definitions of faith. Patriarch Sergius also wrote to Pope Honorius but Honorius’ response is no longer extant.

The "question of Honorius" has long been debated. He was subjected to much criticism in his own time. It must be mentioned that St. Maximus the Confessor maintained in his response to the deposed Patriarch Pyrrhus that Honorius restricted himself to the confines of the problem as it was proposed to (Patrologia Graeca 91, 329). But further developments took place, complicating "the question him of Honorius." In 649 the Lateran Council summoned under Pope Martin I condemned Monothelitism and its eighteenth canon named Patriarch Sergius as a heretic. The Sixth Ecumenical Council (681) mentions Honorius several times and two of his letters to Patriarch Sergius read at the twelfth and thirteenth sessions. The latter session condemned the Monothelites and "expelled" them from the Church, a condemnation and expulsion that included Honorius (Mansi 11, 556). The final session also lists Honorius among the heretics (Mansi 11, 636; 656; 665). These condemnations, it should be mentioned, precisely define the guilt of Honorius — he followed Sergius and Cyrus. The acts of the council were sent to Pope Agatho for his confirmation. Agatho had died and the new pope, Leo II, evaluated the acts and wrote to Emperor Constantine IV that he had approved the acts, Leo II also condemns Honorius in this letter: [Hononus] qui hanc apostolicam ecclesiam non apostolice traditionis doctrina lustravit sed prophana pro traditione immaculatam fidem dari permittendo conatus est (Patrologia Latina 96, 408).

Although Patriarch Cyrus could claim that his formula had brought many of the Monophysites, "the dissenters," to the Chalcedonian faith, all was not well in Alexandria. Cyrus became known for his cruelty towards his opponents. The sources describe his rule as a reign of terror — indeed, he is accused of seizing and butchering opponents with no trial. He managed to instill hatred in the masses and in his opponents and this hatred was transferred to a hatred for the empire.

Seemingly exhausted from the war against Persia, Emperor Heraclius received bitter news in 634. The Arab advance in Palestine and Syria had become a serious threat. The Arab strategy was no longer that of sporadic attacks. Rather, under the enthusiasm and vitality of its new Islamic leaders, the military conquest of territory had begun with systematic attacks. One Arab force advanced along the coast of Palestine. Another moved north to the Sea of Galilee, stopped only by the Roman fortification at the Yarmuk river. Simultaneously, Arab forces under Khalid, fighting in Iraq, quickly moved across the desert and appeared before the walls of Damascus. The Islamic Arab forces then learned that the Byzantine military was to attempt to cut off the Arabs, that a Byzantine force was on the move from the north to cut off the Arab force along the Palestinian coast. Khalid swiftly moved to reinforce the Arab army already in position. In the summer of 634 the Byzantines confronted the two Arab forces between Gaza and Jerusalem. The Byzantine force wasdestroyed. Under the inspiration of Patriarch Sophronius Jerusalem held out for a while but was finally forced to surrender. But Patriarch Sophronius refused to make any agreement except with the Caliph Omar himself. Indeed, we are told that Omar conceded to the wish of Sophronius and left Medina to meet personally with Patriarch Sophronius. Theophanes relates that when Patriarch Sophronius saw Caliph Omar in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, he exclaimed: "Lo, the Abomination of Desolation, spoken of by the prophet Daniel, stands in the Holy Place." Meanwhile, the Persian empire was conquered, Mesopotamia was taken (639-640), and Armenia subdued (640). The Arabs then began their conquest of Egypt.

The tragedy of the imprecision of language at the Council of Chalcedon had resulted in the rise of Monophysitism. The desire to restore a unity to the Church had led Monophysitism to Monothelitism. The most significant opponent to Monothelitism is St. Maximus the Confessor.

Leontius of Byzantium, born probably in Constantinople about 500, probably died also in Constantinople about 543. About 520 Leontius entered the New Lavra [Laura] monastery in Palestine with his spiritual father, Nonnus, who was a disciple of the Origenist monk Evagrius Ponticus (d. 399). About 531 Leontius came back to Constantinople and apparently remained there until at least 536. While in Constantinople, Leontius defended the Council of Chalcedon against the Monophysites. In 532 he was an observer at the meeting between the Chalcedonians and the Monophysites. In 536 he was present at the council in Constantinople which banished the Monophysites. He became one of the leaders of an Origenistic pro-Chalcedonian party, led after 537 by his friend Theodore Askidas. Apparently Leontius was back in Palestine in 537 where he defended Origenism against the attacks by the orthodox. When this controversy was referred to the emperor, Leontius returned again to Constantinople about 540. The Origenistic pro-Chalcedonians were defeated and in 543 Emperor Justinian condemned Origenism. Shortly before his death in 543, Leontius’ work against Theodore of Mopsuestia became a catalyst in the movement which led to the condemnation of the Three Chapters at the Fifth Ecumenical Council in Constantinople in 553.

A number of important dogmatic and polemical compositions under Leontius’ name have been preserved in many manuscripts. However, it is by no means a simple and easy matter to establish who this Leontius, whose name is attached to all these manuscripts, is. Writers of the sixth century do not mention Leontius of Byzantium at all — neither historians nor theologians. St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 580-662) does not say anything about him either. In the seventh century Patriarch Sophronius of Jerusalem (c. 560-638) mentions Leontius in a list of men and fathers who "piously teach about Christ." Anastasius of Sinai [Anastasius Sinaita; d. c. 700], abbot of the famous monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai and a strong supporter of orthodoxy against all forms of heresy, quotes many passages from works attributed to a Leontius. In these quotations there is no mention of the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553, no mention of the condemnation of the Three Chapters, and no mention of the censure of the Ori genists. There is, however, a persistent defense of the Council of Chalcedon, and the ardor of the objections to the Monophysites and the Nestorians is present.

The "of Byzantium" could refer not only to his birth place but also to the place of his original activity — Byzantium was the former name of Constantinople. In a work traditionally ascribed to Leontius but definitely not his, the De sectis (perhaps the work of Theodore of Raithu), we find under the heading of the composition that "Leontius" is called a "Byzantine Scholastic," that is, a lawyer, although this title was also used figuratively to mean a learned man in general.

The paucity of biographical information prompted more recent historians to try to find Leontius the writer among others named Leontius, others who were well-known in the sixth century. Most such attempts have not produced conclusive results. Possible references to the person of Leontius include his own comment about having been influenced by "Nestorians" (see Patrologia Graeca 86, 1357-1360); Innocentius of Maronia’s Letter to Thomas, edited by E. Schwartz in Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum, volume IV, 2 (Berlin, 1914), pages 169-184; Cyril of Scytho polis’ Life of Sabas, edited by E. Schwartz in Kyrillos νon Skythopolis (Leipzig, 1939), pages 176 and 179; and the acts of the Council of Constantinople in 536 (see Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum), III, pages 130, 145, 158, 165, and 174.

Some critical studies of importance on the subject of Leontius of Byzantium are: E.Schwartz, Kyrillos von Skythopolis (Leipzig, 1939); M. Richard, "Leonce de Jerusalem et Leonce de Byzance," in Melanges de Science religieuse, i (1944), pages 35-88; M. Richard, "Leonce de Byzance etait-il origeniste?" in Revue des etudes byzantines, 5 (1947), pages 31-66; S. Rees, "The Literary Activity of Leontius of Byzantium," in Journal of Theological Studies, xix (1968), pages 229-242; S. Otto, Person und Subsistenz. Die philosophische Anthropologie des Leontios von Byzanz (Munich, 1968); David Evans’ doctoral dissertation in 1966 at Harvard Divinity School, titled Leontius of Byzantium and his published work, Leontius of Byzantium: An Origenist Christology (Washington, D.C., 1970); and J. H. I. Watts, "The Authenticity of the Writings Ascribed to Leontius of Byzantium. A New Approach by Means of Statistics," in Studia Patristica (Berlin, 1966).

The corpus attributed to Leontius of Byzantium by Migne in Patrologia Graeca (volume 86) consists of the following: De sectis (1193A-1268A); Contra Nestorianos et Eutychianos (1268B-1357A); Adversus Nestorianos (1400A-1768B); ContraMonophysitas (1769-1901A); Adversus Severum (1901A-1916B); and the Epilysis (1916C-1945D). Contemporary scholarship, though still tentative, makes it possible to consider only the following as being from Leontius of Byzantium: Contra Nestorianos et Eutychianos; the "Thirty Chapters" in Adversus Severum; and the Epilysis. Obviously there were reasons that the life of Leontius of Byzantium remained in the shadows, even though his works — and those ascribed to him incorrectly — became quite famous and widely read. But the actual reason still eludes us.

Contra Nestorianos et Eutychianos records the oral debates with the heretics. It was probably written sometime after 527-528, perhaps even after 535 (he refers to Antioch as Theupolis, its name being changed after the earthquake of 527-528). In this book Leontius investigates the basic Christological terms and tries to establish their precise meaning. He then gives a positive presentation of orthodox doctrine, particularly on the question of Christ’s sufferings and death. In the last part of the book, which is devoted to Nestorianism, the author dwells on a critique of the views of Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia and quotes many excerpts from their works and Nestorius’ compositions. In the conclusion of his discussion, Leontius cites a collection of patristic evidence. The "Thirty Chapters" in Adversus Severum are attached to this work. This is a short collection, a schematic enumeration of those questions, Severus’ answers to which separated him from the Church. Questions of terminology occupy an important place here as well. The Epilysis is a dialogue between an orthodox and an acephalos, which is a critique of Severus’ conclusions.

One work ascribed to Leontius which may actually belong to him and which modern scholarship should consider carefully is Against the Frauds of the Apollinarians. In the history of Monophysitism the so-called "forgeries of the Apollinarians" played a major and fateful role. Many of Apollinarius’ compositions were concealed and "armored" under the forged inscription of respected and honored names. Faith in such pseudo-patristic writings very much hindered Alexandrian theologians in their dogmatic confession — it is sufficient to recall St. Cyril of Alexandria. Even if the work titled Against the Frauds of the Apollinarians is someday conclusively proven to be not that of Leontius of Byzantium, it is discussed here. Regardless of the authorship of this work — and it is very possible that it was Leontius of Byzantium — it was a significant work which deserves attention.

It is difficult to reconstruct the history of these "forgeries" but they became especially wide-spread in the Monophysite milieu. Even Eutyches in his appeal to Pope Leo at the Council of Constantinople in 448 refers to the forged testimony of Pope Julius, Athanasius, and Gregory the Miracle-Worker. He referred to them in good conscience, not suspecting any "forgery." In his document to the monks of Palestine, Emperor Marcian observed that among the people books by Apollinarius were circulating which were being passed off as dicta of the holy fathers. Justinian also mentions some forgeries. The historian Evragius discusses the influence of these forgeries — the inscription of honorable names (Athanasius, Gregory, Julius) on Apollinarius1 books kept many people from condemning the impious opinions contained in them. At the famous "conference" with the Severians, which took place about 532 (between 531 and 533, in any case), Hypatius of Ephesus challenged a whole series of patristic references by pointing out their spuriousness, their the false inscriptions.

Under such circumstances the uncovering and demonstration of forgeries became a pointed and recurrent task of theological polemics. In performing this task, it is the author of Against the Frauds of the Apollinarians who occupies the most prominent place. The author gathered much material in this work. He adduces the false testimonies, and compares them with the original opinions of those persons to whom they are ascribed. (It is noteworthy that this same procedure is followed in the work Against the Monophysites, a work modern scholarship does not regard as that of Leontius of Byzantium). The author then collates these testimonies with the undisputed texts of Apollinarius and his followers and shows the points of correspondence between them. In this connection the author has to enter into a detailed critique of Apollinarianism. The author’s critical conclusions are distinguished by great precision and cogency.

The work Against the Nestorians, once ascribed to Leontius of Byzantium but no longer considered his, has come down to us in very revised form. Whoever is the author of this work, the text that has come down to us is quite probably not the original text. This work is rich in historical material. But the text is constantly being interrupted, the plan is muddled, and the styles of the individual parts differ substantially from one another. The same must be said for the work Against the Monophysites, once ascribed to Leontius of Byzantium, as previously mentioned. In addition, there appear in this work later interpolations which indicate events and circumstances of another time.

The work De sectis, once ascribed to Leontius of Byzantium and then to Leontius of Jerusalem, is no longer believed to be by either. In this work a certain "Theodore" is dictating through "his voice." It is difficult to say who this Theodore was, this "most God-loving abba and most wise philosopher." The context seems to indicate that the conversations were actually taken down from a living voice — traces of a lively conversational tone show through the text that has come down to us. It is possible, however, that we are dealing with a very creative author. Subsequently the book was subjected to revision — there are manifestly late interpolations in it. As far as its content is concerned, the book presents a systematic collection of heresiological material organized in historical order. The Christological sections are especially detailed.

The marred nature of the books by Leontius and the ones ascribed to him testifies to the fact that they were in constant use. They were abridged and excerpts were taken from them. Such is the origin of the so-called fragments or scholia extracted from the various collections. It is possible, however, that they are individual notes by Leontius or other authors. It has been conjectured that these "fragments" have come from a large polemical work by Leontius or another author, a work not preserved but similar to the collection known under the title The Ancient Fathers’ Teaching about the Incarnation of the Logos or to the Guide — όδηγός — of Anastasius Sinaita. It was furthermore conjectured that, in general, all of the preserved works by Leontius or under his name are also a revision of this basic work. Such a supposition does not warrant further detailed investigation. The question of the ancient collections of patristic testimonies and notes does deserve new and deeper study, however.

As a polemicist and theologian, Leontius is primarily a scholastic and dialectician. To begin with, he is striving for firm and precise definitions of the basic concepts — the very status of theological questions in his time demanded this. It was necessary to coin a uniform and complete Christological terminology and to substantiate it philosophically. But Leontius does not stop at this. He tries to substantiate his theological confession not so much by "natural reasoning" as by "the testimony of the Scriptures," from the "Holy Scriptures and the Holy Fathers." He makes especially wide use of the Fathers. He sees them as the wonderful councillors of the Holy Spirit. They did not speak for themselves — the Spirit of the Father spoke in them. Therefore, not accepting the Fathers, glorious and renowned in the Church, means opposing the will of God. Leontius attaches decisive significance to "agreement with the Fathers." However, Leontius does not regard patristic testimonies entirely uncritically. One has to be concerned not about words, but about ideas. And if there is some new word, he claims, we must respect and honor it as suitable if it answers its designation and agrees with originally and authentically professed orthodoxy. On the other hand, if some phrase or word used in Holy Scriptures and by the Holy Fathers is shifted away from its true meaning by someone through some impious innovation, then it must be cast away and we must keep away from them as if from crafty swindlers who forge not only the image but also the inscription on coins.

In his theological work Leontius was guided first of all by polemical requirements and problems of time. He was not a systematic thinker. If he did construct a system, then this was in order to eliminate through a coherent plan of theological ideas any ambiguity in incompletely expressed patristic texts which could prove favorable for heretical misinterpretation. He writes that a "general war" has arisen over theological terminology. It is, therefore, necessary to philosophize in order to recognize what we agree with and what we do not agree with.

Relying on the Fathers, Leontius subjects the old and undisputed definitions to a strict analysis, bringing them into an orderly and complete system. He relies on St. Cyril more than anyone else and wants to be the interpreter of St. Cyril’s Christology. In their struggle with the adherents of the Council of Chalcedon, the Monophysites stressed the divergence between St. Cyril’s formulae and die Chalcedonian oros, its definition of faith. Leontius primarily tries to show that despite an apparent discrepancy and lack of coordination among the literary formulae, St. Cyril and the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon were saying one and the same thing. On the other hand, he tries to draw a clear dividing line between orthodox doctrine and the Christology of the Severians.

Dogmatic polemics demanded firs