RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Monogram of Christ Monophysitee
into banishment. He was consecrated in a tumultuous and irregular manner. Military aid enabled Proterius to expel him; but after bloody riots his partizans gained the upper hand, when he returned, and Proterius was murdered by the mob at Easter,
457. Timotheus now took energetic measures to confirm his power, and drove out a number of orthodox bishops, who appealed to the pope and the emperor. Leo ordered an investigation of the murder of Proterius and inflicted severe penalties on those who were found responsible; but he did not at once move against Timotheus, in spite of urgent requests from Rome. He thought of calling another council, but was persuaded out of the notion by Anatolius, who suggested a circular letter asking all the bishops of the empire their opinion on the decrees of Chalcedon. Such a letter was sent out, probably in Oct., 457, and the replies, as was to be expected, were for the most part unfavorable to Timotheus, even where a certain lack of enthusiasm for the decrees of Chalcedon may be read between the lines. Pope Leo answered on Aug. 17,
458, in a long letter (Epist., clxv.) which should be read in connection with his famous " Tome." Meantime Anatolius had died (July 3, 458) and been succeeded by the learned Gennadius (q.v.), a determined adherent of the definition of Chalcedon. He did not, however, accomplish the banishment of Timotheus ^Elurus until the beginning of 460, when another Timotheus, known as Salophaciolus, was chosen in his place.
Even in Antioch, the place where in general Alexandrian theology was most unfavorably received, trouble was now made by the instigation of Peter
the Fuller, a presbyter of Chalcedon,
4. At who was supported by the emperor's
Antioch son-in-law Zeno. He was zealous for
and Con- the proposition that " God was cruci-
stantinople. fied," and for the insertion in the
Trisagion of the words " Who was crucified for us," in such a way as to make it appear that the Son of God in his deity suffered for us. He intruded into the see, driving out the legitimate Bishop Martyrius, but was himself expelled by the emperor on the advice of Gennadius not long afterward. Meantime political intrigue had been busy at the court, and after the death of Leo I. (Feb. 3, 474) and his seven-year-old grandson Leo II. (Nov., 474), Zeno secured the throne for himself, having practically held the power for some time. Only a few weeks later, however, he was overthrown in his turn by Basiliscus, another son-in-law of Leo I. In the train of the usurper, Timotheus ^Elurus held a prominent place, and in spite of the efforts of the patriarch of Constantinople, Acacius, who had succeeded Gennadius in Sept. (?), 471, he persuaded Basiliscus to send out a circular letter or encyclical condemning the " Tome " of Leo and the definition of Chalcedon, and threatening their adherents with the severest penalties. The weakness of the eastern bishops is shown by the fact that at least five hundred of them accepted this pronouncement. Timotheus ^Elurus was now able to return to Alexandria, from which see his namesake had already been removed. On the way he consecrated a bishop of his own party for Ephesus
and presided at a synod which sent a solemn admonition to the emperor, exhorting him to remain constant in the good work and to remove Acaeius, as unworthy, from the patriarchate of Constantinople.
But the day of Timotheus was nearly over, although Antioch and Jerusalem were occupied by Monophysite bishops. Acacius was absolutely firm, and did all he could to arouse the capital against the usurper. The populace responded 5. Attempts to his efforts; a great ecclesiastical at Peace, demonstration was arranged, and Daniel the Stylite came down from his pillar to bear witness to the orthodox faith. Basiliscus was forced to abandon the city, and Zeno, gathering strength as he came, approached. A last means of averting the counter-revolution was tried in the recall of the encyclical; but it was of no avail, and Zeno, resuming the throne, annulled the acts of his opponent (Dec. 17, 476). The bishops of Asia Minor made haste to declare with the utmost penitence that their assent to the encyclical had been extorted from them by force. Pope Simplicius had already written to Basiliscus, and now wrote again to Zeno, to demand the deposition of Timotheus iElurus; but Timothy died July 31, 477. The Monophysite party elected Petrus Mongus, then archdeacon, to succeed him, but the government restored Timotheus Salophaciolus by military force. Feeling his end approaching, he was urgent with the emperor that only an orthodox bishop should be chosen to succeed him. When he died (probably in June, 482) his ceconomus John Talaja contrived to secure the succession; but it was not long before Zeno saw fit to restore Petrus Mongus, on condition of his assenting to the document (afterward so famous under the name of Henoticon) put forth by Acacius with the view of securing peace.
Acacius was an accomplished politician, as is sufficiently proved by his ability to maintain himself for eighteen years (471-489) amid all 6. The the changes and conflicts of the times. Henoticon. Unfortunately the sources are unsatisfying on the preliminaries to the issue of the Henoticon; but there must have been negotiations in which Acacius endeavored to secure the good-will of Petrus Mongus, evidently his candidate for Alexandria and like himself a politician. The formula of union, addressed to the bishops, clergy, monks, and people of Alexandria, Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, is a masterpiece of tactical skill. It is avowedly based on the faith of Nicsea, Constantinople, and Ephesus, condemns Nestorius and Eutyches, adopting the twelve articles of Cyril against the latter, and while not expressly repudiating the decisions of Chalcedon, rejects the statements of " anyone who now or at any time, in Chalcedon or elsewhere, has thought or thinks otherwise." On the positive side, it asserts the consubstantiality of the Son of God with both the Father and man, going on to insist that it was one and the same person who wrought wonders and endured suffering — thus virtually accepting the " God crucified " of the Monophysites. It repudiated all separation as confusion (of the natures, although the term is carefully avoided), as well as anything like
Monophysites