§ 143. THE MONOPHYSITE CONTROVERSIES. 705
m.'itic churches. In Palestine Theodosius (451-453) thus set up in opposition to the patriarch Juvenal of Jerusalem ; in Alexandria, TimotheusJ^^lurus' and Peter Mongus * (454-460), in opposition to the newly-elected patriarch Protarius, wlio was murdered in a riot in Antioch ; Peter the Fuller ^ (463-470). After thirty years' confusion the Monophysites gained a temporary victory under the protection of the rude pretender to the empire, Basiliscus (475-477), who in an encyclical letter,* enjoined on all bishops to condemn the council of Chalcedon (476). After his fall, Zeno (474-475 and 477-491), by advice of tlie patriarch Acacius of Constantinople, issued the famous formula of concord, the Henoticon^ which proposed, by avoiding disputed expressions, and condenming both Eutychianism and Nestorianism alike, to reconcile the monophysite and dyophysite views, and tacitly set aside the Chalcedonian formula (482). But this was soon followed by two more schisms, one among the Monophysites themselves, and cue between the East and the West. Felix IT., bishop of Rome, immediately rejected the Henoticon, and renounced communion with the East (484-519). The strict Monophysites were as ill content with the Henoticon, as the adherents of the council of Chalcedon ; and while the former revolted from their patriarchs, and became Acephali,* the latter attached themselves to Rome. It was not till the reign of the emperor Justin I. (518-527), that the authority of the council of Chalcedon was established uhder stress of a popular tumult, and peace with Rome was •estcred. The Monophysite bishops were now deposed, and fled for the most part to Alexandria, where their party was too powerful to be attacked.
The internal divisions of the Monophysites turned especially on the degree of essential diflference between the humanity of Christ and ordinary human nature, and the degree, therefore,
* AJfAoupoy, Cat.
* M(i77os, the Stammerer ; literally, *,he Hoarse.
' Fullo, 7i'a(/>ei;y. He introduced the formula: ©ebs iaraupw^r} Si' rjnas into the Eturgy. He was in 485 again raised to the patriarchate.
* 'EyKVKAioi/. This, however, excited so much opposition, that the usurper in 477 revoked it in an auTfyKmAiov.
' 'Aicf<l)a\oi, without head.
766 THIRD PERIOD. A.D. 311-590.
of tlieir deviation from the orthodox doctrine of the full eon substantiality of the humanity of Christ with ours.' The most iraportant of these parties were the Severians (from Severus, the patriarch of Antiocli) or Phthartolaters (adorers of the corruptible)," who taught that the body of Christ 'before the resurrection was mortal and corruptible ; and the Julianists (from bishop Julian of Halicarnassus, and his contemporary Xenajas of Hierapolis) or Aphthartodocetje/ who affirmed the body of Christ to have been originally incorruptible, and who bordered on docetism. The former conceded to the Catholics, that Christ as to the flesh was consubstantial with us (Kara crdpKa o/xoovaioi tj/jliv). The latter argued from the commingling {avyxv<^i'^) of the two natures, that the corporeality of Christ became from the very beginning partaker of the incorruptibleness of the Logos, and was subject to corruptibleness merely Kar olKovo/j.iav. They appealed in particular to Jesus' walking on the sea. Both parties were agreed as to the incorruptibleness of the body of Christ after the resurrection. The word (pS-opd, it may be remarked, was sometimes used in the sense of frailty, sometimes in that of corruptibleness.
The solution of this not wholly idle question would seem to be, that the body of Christ before tlie resurrection was similar to that of Adam before the fall ; that is, it contained the germ of immortality and incorruptibleness: but before its glorification it was subject to the influence of the elements, was destructible, and was actually put to death by external violence, but, through the indwelling power of the sinless spirit, was preserved from corruption, and raised again to imperishable life. A relative immortality thus became absolute.*
' Petavius, 1. c. lib. i. c. 17, enumerates twelve factions of ti.e Monophjsites.
* *^apTo\drpai (from (pbaprSs, corruptible, and \arpri^, servant, worshipper), oorrupticolae.
* 'A(i>S)apToSoKr)rai, also called Phantasiast^, because thev appeared to acknowledge only a seeming body of Christ. Gicseler, however, in the second part of tlie above-mentioned dissertation, has shown that tlie Julianist view was not strictly docetistic, but kindred with the view of Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Hilary, Gregory of Nyssa, and Apollinaris.
* Comp. tbe Augustinian distinction of immortali^as minor and iraniortalitaj major.