RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Monophysites
them, however, to keep it secret that he might the more effectively work for their cause. At the same time he was officially declaring his adherence to the faith of Chalcedon, and in his letters to Justinian and Mennas (Sept. 17, 540) he formally approved the anathemas of the synod of 536 against the three Monophysite patriarchs. The Monophysites maintained their existence as a party in Constantinople to the end of Justinian's reign, and had a preponderating influence in Syria and Egypt. At Theodora's bidding Jacobus Baradseus was consecrated bishop in Constantinople by Theodosius, the Severian patriarch of Alexandria at the time of the conflict with the Julianists, and set out to begin his career as organizer of eastern Monophysitism (see Jacobites). Justinian himself became increasingly interested in theological discussions, and toward the end of his life gave fresh offense to the orthodox by his support of the Aphthartodocetaj (see Julian of Halicarnassus). Eutychius (q.v.), patriarch of Constantinople from 552, was deposed and banished for refusing to agree to this (Jan. 22, 565), and Anastasius Sinaita, patriarch of Antioch, escaped a similar fate only by the emperor's death (Nov. 13, 565).
Justinian's nephew Justin II., who succeeded him (565-578), was a tool in the hands of the patriarch Johannes III. Scholasticus (q.v.), and from 571 there were severe persecutions of the Monophysites in the capital. There were,
14. Final however, long-continued negotiations
Schism of with the party leaders, of whom the Mono- principal ones were now John of physite Ephesus (q.v.) and Paul " the Black,"
Churches, nominal bishop of Antioch. A diplomatic appeal was made to the union formula of 433 (see Nestorius) and the authority of Cyril in its favor. The Monophysite bishops were distrustful and hesitated a long time; they were just on the point of avowing their readiness to reenter the communion of the Church when the patriarch startled them by saying that the matter must first be referred to Rome. Feeling that they had been deceived and regretting their concessions, they drew back, and after being summoned before the emperor were banished. Few of the Egyptians accepted the patriarch of Alexandria who had been appointed under the influence of Justinian; the great majority chose a patriarch of their own, and formed a schismatic church which was never reconciled, and the Ethiopian church cast in its lot with the Alexandrian. In Armenia also the Monophysite party, favored by the Persian rulers of the country, gained the upper hand toward the end of the fifth century. Early in the sixth the Synod of Theoria declared in favor of Monophysite views, and about 600 the Armenian church ceased to be in communion with the Iberian, which held to the decrees of Chalcedon. In Syria and Mesopotamia the Monophysites, persecuted and forsaken, seemed to be on the point of disappearing altogether, when they were revived by the extraordinary zeal and energy of Jacobus Baradfflus, after whom they were called Jacobites (q.v.). As was the case with other opposition parties
in the Church, the Monophysites were united only in their repudiation of the orthodox formula; among
themselves they differed widely and 15. Various fiercely. The party whose most prom- Aspects inent representative was Severus always of Mono- protested energetically against the imphysitism. putation of Eutychianism and Apol-
linarianism; in fact, they accused the adherents of Chalcedon of being Nestorians, and called themselves the orthodox; they emphasized the view that their faith was that of the fathers of Nicsea, which was confirmed at Constantinople and Ephesus, and made the rejection of the definition of Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo a matter of principle, while they could accept the Henoticon of Zeno only by putting their own interpretation on the passage relating to Chalcedon. Severus and other like-minded theologians were far from wishing to reduce the human element in the Logos to mere appearance, nor did they entertain the idea of a mixture or transubstantiation. According to them, the Christ came into being by the junction of two natures, whose attributes were in the abstract distinguishable; but they refused to speak of two natures after the incarnation, because the conception of two independent factors seemed necessarily to involve that of two subjects or individual beings. Following the phraseology of Cyril and of the Areopagite, Severus spoke of a divine nature and person of the Logos complete in itself, which by the assumption of flesh, together with a reasonable soul, became flesh and man; the united elements form one nature and divine-human hypostasis to which all the activities of the Savior are to be referred. The radical Monophysites, on the other hand, adhering to an expression of Eutyches, refused to speak of the body of Christ as consubstantial with us; nothing merely human was to cling about the person of the Incarnate Word. This fanatical party of extremists was always powerful in Alexandria, and was constantly receiving accessions from the lower clergy and the monks. It was out of such elements that the faction of Julianists or Gaianites grew up there in contradistinction from the Theodosians (see above). Julian's doctrine of aphtharsia (see Julian of Halicarnassus), that the human nature of Christ was so absorbed in the divine that he was not subject to the accidents of humanity or to corruption, from which his party gained the name of Aphthartodocetae or Phantasiasts, had nothing in common with the assertion of consubstantiality by the orthodox and the Severians alike, although Severus was forced by the need of support against the upholders of Chalcedon to make common cause with him. A section of the Julianists even went so far as to say that the body of Christ, from the moment of the incarnation, was actually uncreated, whence they got the name of Actistetse. There was division, too, among the Severians. Against the Patriarch Timothy IV. of Alexandria arose a deacon Themistius with the assertion (supported by passages like Mark xiii. 22; John xi. 34) that as the body of Christ was subject to natural conditions, so also he could not be conceived as omniscient. The doctrine of the Themistians, or Ag-
Monophysites Monothelites