RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Justinian I Juvenal
gates were found in the East subservient to Justinian, yet there were many, especially the Monophysites, left unsatisfied. So the emperor's efforts were wasted on an impossible task; the more bitter for him because during his last years he took greater interest in theological matters.
It can not be doubted that Justinian also took an actual, personal hand in the theological manifestoes which he put forth as emperor; although, in
view of the author's exalted position, 5. Writings, it is a difficult matter to ascertain
whether the documents current under his name are the direct product of his pen. Apart from letters to the Popes Hormisdas, John II., Agapetus I., and Vigilius, and sundry other compositions (collected in MPL, Ixiii., lxvi. and Ixix.), the following documents may be noted (all to be found in MPG, lxxxvi. 1, pp. 945-1152) : (1) the edict on Origen's heterodoxies, in 543 or 544; (2) summons to the bishops assembled at Constantinople on occasion of the council of 553, with reference to their sitting in judgment on errors in circulation among the monastic followers of Origen at Jerusalem; (3) an edict on the Three Chapters, probably framed in 551; (4) an address to the council of 553, concerning the Antiochian theology; (5) a document probably antedating 550, addressed to some unnamed defenders (perhaps Scythians) of the Three Chapters; (6) writ of excommunication against Anthimus, Severus and companions; (7) an address to some Egyptian monks, with a refutation of Monophysite errors; (8) fragment of a document, mentioned in (7), to the Patriarch Zoilus of Alexandria. The theology upheld in these writings agreed, in general, with that of Leontius of Byzantium (q.v.) ; that is, it aims at the final solution of the problem by interpreting the Chalcedonian symbol in terms of the theology of Cyril of Alexandria. Two points are worth noting in this connection. First, the clever way in which the emperor, or his representative, contrives to defend the reputation and the theology of Cyril; secondly, his antagonism to Origen: a clear sign of the characteristic disinclination of that age for independent thinking; at least among personages of weight and influence. A word or two should be subjoined on the subject of Aphthartodocetism; a doctrine professed by the emperor toward the close of his life. Evagrius reports (Hist, eccl., iv. 39), and other sources confirm the point, that Justinian promulgated an edict in which he declared Christ's body to be incorruptible and not susceptible to natural suffering, and commanded bishops everywhere to accept this doctrine. The fall of the Patriarch Eutychius (q.v.) is associated with this final phase of the imperial policy. The sources saw a lamentable decline from the right faith in Justinian's latter conduct. The train of thought underlying Aphthartodocetism, however, is not necessarily unorthodox (see Julian of Halicaenassus) ; because it need not be opposed to the acceptance of the essential identity of Christ's nature with human nature. Hence it is not necessary to regard Justinian's final theological views as those of an old man, to be disregarded in surveying the aims of his full-bodied activity. G. Kruger.
Bibliography: Gibbon, Decline and Fall, chaps, xl.-xliv.; C. W. F. Walch, Historie der Ketzereien, vols, vi.-viii., Leipsio, 1773-78; J. B. Bury, Hist, of the Later Roman Empire, 2 vols., London, 1889; A. Knecht, Die Religionspolitik Kaiser Justinians I., Wurzburg, 1896; idem, System des justinianischen Kirchenvermogensrechtes, Stuttgart, 1905; W. H. Hutton, The Church of the Sixth Century, London, 1897; C. Diehl, Justinien et la culture byzantine, Paris, 1901; G. Pfannm tiller, Die kirchliche Gesetzgebung Justinians, Berlin, 1902; W Norden, Das Papsttum und Byzanz, ib. 1903; J. Pargoire, L'Eglise byzantine, 527-847, Paris, 1905; W. G. Holmes, The Age of Justinian and Theodora, 2 vols., London, 1905-07; Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, vol. ii., Eng. transl., vol. iv.; DCB, iii. 538-559 (elaborate discussion); Neander, Christian Church, vol. iii. passim; Schaff, Christian Church, iii. 768 sqq. et passim; the literature under the articles referred to in the text. Consult further: F. A. Biener, Geschichte der Novellen Justinians, Berlin, 1824; J. Cauvet, L'Empereur Justinien et son aruvre legislative, Caen, 1880.
JUSTUS: First bishop of Rochester and fourth archbishop of Canterbury; d. at Canterbury Nov. 10, 627. He was sent to England with Mellitus (q.v.) and others in 601. Augustine (q.v.) consecrated him bishop for West Kent in 604 and Ethelbert, king of Kent, built him a church at Rochester. In 617 during the heathen reaction under Eadbald, with Mellitus he fled into Gaul, but was recalled after a year and restored to his bishopric (see Laurence of Canterbury; Mellitus). He succeeded Mellitus as archbishop in 624, consecrated Romanus as his successor at Rochester, and sent Paulinus (q.v.) to Northumbria. He received the pallium from Boniface V.
Bibliography: Bede, Hist, eccl., i. 29, ii. 3, 4, 8, 18; Haddan and Stubbs, Councils, iii. 72-81; W. F. Hook, Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury, i. 99-109, London, 1860; W. Bright, Chapters of Early English Church Hist., passim, Oxford, 1897; DCB, iii. 592-593.
JUVENAL, ju've-nal: First patriarch of Jerusalem; d. c. 458. Of his life little is known, and the date and place of his birth, consecration, and death are also uncertain. The aim of his life was to make Jerusalem one of the important sees of Christendom, and the Council of Nic«a had, as a matter of fact, accorded the bishop of Jerusalem special rank and honor, though it placed him under the jurisdiction of the metropolitan of Cffisarea. Juvenal endeavored to realize the concession, and took the first step in this direction by transcending his authority in consecrating in the neighborhood a certain Peter bishop of a newly converted tribe of Saracens, and attaching him as so-called bishop "of Tarembolae " (i.e., " of the camp ") to the see of Jerusalem, most probably in 425. This was considered a distinct breach of canon law by the metropolitan of Caesarea. The resulting difficulties came to a head at the Council of Ephesus in 431. The conditions of the time favored Juvenal. Nestorius, patriarch of Constantinople, was accused of heresy; Cyril of Alexandria was temporarily imprisoned; John of Antioch held a separate council; and the see of Rome was represented only by legates. To Juvenal, therefore, in Cyril's absence fell the right of precedence in signing the resolutions; or, in case Cyril was present, Juvenal's name came second. Juvenal did not hesitate to make the most of these conditions. He summoned John of Antioch to proceed at once to Ephesus, ranked
Juvenal Kabasilas