THE NEW SCHAFP-HERZOG
More Abundant (London, 1881); Loin du Nid, poesies (Paris, 1882); Crucefiis avec Christ (1883); Au vent la voile, poesies (1898).
MONOGRAM OF CHRIST. See Jesus Christ, Monogram of.
MONOIMOS: Arabian Gnostic; known only from the Refutatio of Hippolytus (VIII., v.-viii., X., xiii.; Eng. transl. in ANF, v. 120-122, 146). His system, in so far as it is determined, is a mixture of Pythagorism and Biblical conceptions. The Supreme Being is the unborn and perfect " Man "; and from him the Son of Man proceeded, not in the way of procreation, but as light proceeds from fire. The perfect Man has for his symbol the " one iota "; and is, therefore, a monad. But as iota is the Greek numerical symbol for 10, he is likewise dekas, a decad. Men imagine, indeed, that the Son of Man is born of woman; but all who are involved in this error are powerless to apprehend his beauty. (The argument of Mono'imos reflects an acute phase of docetism, if it be not an utter rejection of the historic Christ.) The world is created not by the Son of Man, but by the hexad, contained in the decad. This thought is based upon the Mosaic narrative of the six days of labor, and is an obvious attempt to derive the world otherwise than from the Supreme Being, yet it does not attempt to offset him dualistically. Mono'imos construed the Old Testament allegorically. His use of the Mew Testament appears from the circumstance that he cites Matt. v. 18. R. Liechtenhan.
MONOPHYSITES, men-ef'i-saits.
The Chalcedonian Decree (§1).
Outbreak in Palestine (§ 2).
Events in Egypt (§ 3).
At Antioch and Constantinople (§ 4).
Attempts at Peace (§ 5).
The Henoticon (§ 6).
The Breach with Rome (§ 7).
Eastern Support of the Henoticon (§ 8).
Radical Monophysitism (§ 9).
Attempts at Reconciliation (§ 10).
Beginning of Victory for Orthodoxy (§ 11).
Events under Justinian (§ 12).
Theodora's Efforts for Monophysitism (§ 13).
Final Schism of Monophysite Churches (§ 14).
Various Aspects of Monophysitism (§ 15).
On Oct. 25, 451, the Council of Chalcedon proclaimed a new dogmatic definition, requiring all the faithful to acknowledge " our one Lord Jesus Christ, perfect God and perfect man of one substance
with the Father as touching his Godi. The head, of one substance with us as
Chalcedo- touching his manhood in two
nian Decree, natures without confusion, without change, without distinction, without separation," in such a way that " the difference of natures is in no way abolished by the union, but rather the properties of each nature are preserved and united in one person and one mode of being." The politicians agreed to this definition in the hope of securing peace. The edict of Feb. 7, 452, issued jointly by Marcian and Valentinian III., imposed severe penalties on all who should thenceforth publicly discuss the points of controversy. But this could be enforced only in the neighborhood of the court.
The first signs of the coming trouble appeared in Palestine, where a positive revolution broke out under the leadership of fanatical monks. Bishop Juvenal of Jerusalem (q.v.), who at Ephesus had been an active partizan of Dioscurus (see Eutychianism), had been induced at Chalcedon by the fear of danger to his ecclesiastical posi- 2. Out- tion not merely to break away from
break in the Alexandrians and their prot>
Palestine. Eutyches, but to support the definition, in the final formulation of which he had a hand. This change of front cost him the confidence of the monks, who were specially numerous and influential in Palestine. When after his return he declared his adhesion to the decrees of the council, a monk named Theodosius was set up as a rival bishop, and Juvenal was obliged to flee. A similar course was followed in other places; bishops of the orthodox party were driven out, sometimes with bloodshed, and their places filled by their opponents. The most noted intellectually of these was Peter the Iberian, who, brought up at the court of Theodosius II., had become a monk and was now made bishop of Majuma. They were supported by the widow of the Emperor Theodosius, Eudocia, who was then living in Jerusalem. Cyril asserts that almost all Palestine was carried away by the movement. Juvenal returned to Constantinople to ask for aid. Marcian, underestimating the force of the revolt, sought to suppress it by simple edicts, but when they went unheeded took stronger measures. The comes Dorotheus was sent with troops, who, after an attempt at compromise had failed, sternly put down the insurrection. Among the monks who took flight was Theodosius, who was afterward captured, suffered a long imprisonment in Constantinople, and was set free under Leo I. only to die as a result of the treatment he had received. Peter the Iberian escaped to Alexandria; but the movement was not even provisionally suppressed before July, 453.
Still more significant was the course of events in Egypt, where an irreconcilable conflict broke out. A large part of the people, apparently the monks and the lower classes, held to Dioscurus after his deposition; the other party elected Proterius, who seems to have been personally and in- 3. Events tellectually allied to Dioscurus until
in Egypt, the decision of the council caused him to change his attitude. Supported by the civil authorities, he enforced these decisions by means of confiscation and banishment, which led to riots and excesses. An imperial edict of July 28, 452, condemned in the sternest language those who held to the Eutychian errors and refused to acknowledge Proterius. Two thousand soldiers were ordered to Alexandria, and peace seemed likely to follow upon their vigorous repressive measures. But the death of Dioscurus in his exile at Gangra in Paphlagonia (Sept., 454) stirred up fresh excitement. There was a powerful party at court indisposed to harsh measures; and this tendency gained strength at the death of Marcian and the succession of Leo I. (Feb., 457). The party of Dioscurus in Alexandria took courage and elected as patriarch Timotheus ^Elurus, who had followed Dioscurus