Anotlier patriarchate which the Monophysites ap- propriated was that of Antioch. Peter the Fuller (yva- (pevc), an adherent of Eutyches, who had been driven out of two convents of Constantinople, having gone to Antioch with Zeno, a relation of the emperor, connect- ed himself there with the remaining Apollinarists, and opposed the orthodox bishop Martyrius ; the latter fled to ask help of the emperor, and in the mean time Fuller was appointed patriarch. He condemned the Council of Chalcedon, excommunicated all who held that God was not crucified, and introduced into the liturgy the formula ^toq u crrnj'pajSfit; Ci' yi-ictQ, which became subsequently the shibboleth of the Monophysites. He was finally deposed and exiled by the emperor.
The usurper Basiliscus, who succeeded Zeno on the throne in 476, protected Monophysitism, declaring it the religion of the state, and condemning the Council of Chalcedon and the epistle of Leo in an iytciiKXior. But Acacius, bishop of Constantinople, having in the mean time organized a dyopliysite counter-revolution, and gradually gaining strength, the orthodox succession was revived after the death of JLlurus (477), when Zeno, who had recovered the throne, appointed Timo- thy Salophakiolus as patriarch of Alexandria. At the death of the latter, who had ruled for twelve years, the Catholic party nominated John Talaia, and the Monophysites Peter Mongus, as his successor : the lat- ter succeeded through the influence of the emperor. In 482 Zeno issued his Henotikon for the purpose of uniting the two parties : it aimed at satisfying both parties, but it did not please either. The stricter Mo- nophj'sites of Egj'pt, wlio insisted on an unvarnished rejection of tlie Council of Chalcedon, separated from the others to form a Monophysite societj' of their own, which received the name of 'AKtfaXoi. See Aceph- ALi. The dyophj'sites also split into two parties, one of which accepted the Henotikon, while the other rejected it. At the head of the latter party stood Felix II of Rome, who excommunicated Acacius (484) ; thus this attempt at conciliation resulted only in making four parties instead of two, and in creating a schism be- tween the Latin and the Greek churches which lasted thirty-five years (484-519). Zeno's successor, Anas- tasius, adhered strictly to the Henotikon, and even in- clined somewhat to Monophj'sitism. In 513 Severus, one of the principal men among the Acephali, became patriarch of Antioch. His attempt to introduce the formula ^tbc (jravpoj!^ti(; £i' i/ncit: in the churches of Constantinople created fresh troubles ; the patriarch Macedonius, who opposed the innovation, was deposed, and the disorders which followed were hard to repress. [ But in consequence of the revolt of the general Vitali- I anus (514), the orthodox party were finally restored to the possession of their rights, and in 519 the unit}' with Rome was fully established. The partisans of the Henotilcon were taken oft" the church lists, and all the Monophysite bishops deposed. Most of these witlidrew to Egypt. Here they were soon divided among them- selves. Julian, formerly bishop of Halicarnassus, af- firmed that the body of our Lord was rendered incor- ruptible in consequence of the divine nature being blended with it. See Aphthartodocet.e. Others maintained that it was corruptible. See Agnoet^ and
MONOPHYSITES
510.
MONOTHEISM
PHTHARTODOCETiE. The leader of the last named ^vas Severus, the deposed patriarch of Antioch, who maintained the corruptibility of Christ's human nat- ure, or its identity with tiiat of ordinary pain-suffering, weak, and mortal manhood. This theologj- eventu- ally became tliat of the Monoph3'sites at large, hence he deserves special attention in this connection. Witli him Monojdiysitism receded another step from Eutych- ianisni ; and although it was still maintained that Clirist, after liis incarnation, was of one nature only, the doctrine came to be held in such a way as not to be extremely divergent from the Church. For "in tlie theologj' of Severus, the qualities of human nature were all retained in Christ after the incarnation, al- thougli the nature was in him so amalgamated with the divine Being that it could not be said to possess any being or identity of its own. Tlius the Monophy- site conception of Christ's person settled into that of a Theandric, or composite nature, analogous to that com- posite action of his person which later divines have called a Theandric operation (iiavcpiK)) tripytut). Yet belief in such a composite nature is inconsistent with the Nicene Creed, which asserts that Jesus Christ is 'of one substance with the Father,' and since the Father is not of such a composite nature, to declare the Son to be so is to declare him to be of a differ- ent suljstance from him." Thus the intellectual form which Severus gave to Monophysitism cannot escape from the charge of heresy any more than tliat earlier form of opinion which was condemned at Chalcedon. The instability of opinion, when disassociated from tlie safeguard of the Nicene Creed, was also strikingly' il- lustrated in the case of this later monophysite school as it had been in the earlier. Severus himself " held views respecting the soul of the united natures of Christ which were not logically consistent with the theologj' respecting their oneness, and thus it was only one step forward for Themistius, his deacon, to invent the tenet of the Agnoctae, that the human soul of Christ was like ours in everything, even in the want of omniscience or ignorance." Wlien, again, Severus maintained that the divine and the human wills in the united natures were also so united that there could be no volition of the one nature one way and of the other nature in the other direction, he was preparing the way for that development of his opinion which was made by the MonothdUes (q. v.), who maintained that " tliere was only one will in Christ, as well as only one nature." After the death of Severus, his followers di- vided— the men of wealth and the clergy clioosing as successor to Timothy a certain Theodosius, and the monks and lower classes choosing Gaianus, tlie leader of the Aphthartodocekf, whose partj' took the name of the Gaianites [see Gaiaxit^k] ; the latter, viewing the body of Christ as created (/criffrov), were also called Ktistolatr(F (comp. Dorner, ii, 159 sq. ; and Eljrard, Klr- clien- u. iJogmetif/esch. i, 2G8 sq.). This division, and the energy of tlie emperor Justinian in supporting the or- thodox cause, iinallj' led to a revival of the ortliodox patriarchate in the person of Paul (A.D. 539), and for a liundred years there were two lines in the patriarchate — one monopliysite, the other orthodox. Many other sects arose also, such as the Tritheists, the Philopo- iiists, the Conists, the Damianists. Indeed, the Gth cen- tury was an age 6f as great turbulence in the Church on account of mono]iliysitisni as anj' that preceded. Justinian was even moved to call a council, which, convening at Constantinople in A.D. 553, constituted tlie fifth oecumenical council, the result of whose de- liherati(ms was a partial victory for the Alexandrian mondpliysitc doctrine, so far as it could be reconciled witli tlic ildiiiitions of Chalcedon. Hut, notwitlistand- ing tin- ^Ml1l(•(•s^ions of the fifth oecumenical council, tlu' ^Nlonopliysitcs remained separated from the ortho- dox Cbiircli, refusing to ackmiwlodge in any manner tlic dyophysite Council of Ciialcedon. Another effort of Justinian to gain them, by sanctioning the Aphthar-