THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
THEONAS, the-6'nas (THEON) : Arian bishop of Marinarica, in the Egyptian province of Cyrenaica, in the fourth century. He is mentioned in the synodal letter of Bishop Alexander (given in Athanasius, Select Works and Letters, in NPNF, 2 ser., iv. 69 sqq.) as an adherent of Arius. He and Secundus of Ptoleniais were the only two Egyptian bishops who sided with Arius; and it is probable that their line of conduct was regulated by political rather than by theological reasons. At all events, they absolutely refused at the Council of Niciva (325) to condemn Arius, and were consequently deposed and banished.
Bibliography: Theodoret, Hist, eccl., i. 7, Eng. transl. in XPXF, 2 ser., iii. 43-46; Socrates, Hist, eccl., i. ix., Eng. transl., ut sup., ii. 12-17; Epiphanius, Hwr., lxix. 8; TOlemont, Memoires, vi. 2.
THEOPASCHITES, the-6-pas'kaits : A term designating in its widest sense all Christians who recognize as correct the formula " God has suffered " or '' God has been crucified.'' In very early times (Ignatius, Ad Eph., i. 1, Ad Rom., vi. 3; Tertullian, De carne Christi, v.) naive expressions like the " blood of God," the " suffering of God " were used. Then came Modalism (q.v.) and Patripassianism (see Christology, II., §§ 1-2; Monarchianism), and finally theopaschitic terms became suspicious to pious ears since they could be used in a Sabellian sense. They had some attractiveness, however, for those who spoke of Mary as theotokos; if God could be born, why could he not die? What from the standpoint of the Trinity was unendurable was not so from a christological point of view. As an ecclesiastical matter occasion for controversy came from Peter the Fuller's (see Monophysites, §§4 sqq.) addition to the Trisagion (q.v.), making it read " Holy God, Holy the Mighty One, Holy the Immortal One who was crucified for us." The Patriarch Calandion attempted to relieve the baldness of the expression by preceding it with the words " O Christ the King." Of the preceding events in Antioch no reports have come down, since the letters of Felix from Rome, of Acazius from Constantinople, and of other bishops, to Peter are falsified, though they have value as showing how in certain circles the new expression was decided ; the situation both with reference to the Trinity and to incarnation was missed. The history of the Monophysitic controversy shows that the unionists decided otherwise, and they are justified from the point of view of the Henoticon (q.v.). But Harnack is right in asserting (Dogma, iv. 231) " That attempt (to extend the Trisagion in a theopaschitic sense) was rejected because it involved an innovation in worship and because it could be interpreted in a Sabellian sense."
After the death of Anastasius the theopaschitic controversy broke out again. At the beginning of the year 519 there appeared in the capital many monks (called in the sources Scythic monks, who in the great schism between Rome and Constantinople had held with Rome) with the motto " one of the Trinity has suffered in the flesh," which seems to have called forth opposition. But they found support for their formula in the sentences of the Henoticon, At Constantinople at that time all
thoughts were directed to the consummation of union with Rome. After the stoppage of negotiations under Anastasius, Justinian did not rest until he had reached an agreement with Hormisdas; at the time of the monks' coming, the pope's legates were expected, and after their arrival on Mar. 25, 519, the schism ended. The monks alienated in various ways the sympathy of the papal legates, who, however, acted upon the direction of the pope not to become involved in anything except that which was their only concern, the matter of union. The legates also took the position that they could receive only what the four councils had settled and what Leo's letters contained; their leader, Dioscurus, expressed his opinion against the formula of the monks. But these despatched to Rome partizans to plead their case before the pope — Johannes Maxentius, Leontius, Achilles, Mauritius, and perhaps others. Their leader, in a writing directed to the legates, had traversed the position of Dioscurus cutting off additions to statements of belief, and supporting the monks' position by citing Cyril, Augustine, Flavian, Proclus, and others. He saw neither a trinitarian nor a christological problem; but sought to illustrate a long-fixed article of faith. Letters from the legates and Justinian to the pope, however, put the monks in an unfavorable light, and Justinian demanded that they be sent home. The pope found himself in a dilemma; he did not care to disavow his legates in favor of the monks nor to come to a disagreement with Justinian; on the other hand, he did not care to dismiss the monks. He therefore temporized; a letter from Justinian in July he answered on Sept. 2 to the effect that he was awaiting the return of the legates, and to the latter he said that he was referring the matter to John of Constantinople, while the legates repeated their accusations (of the monks). Meanwhile Justinian was coming to think that the monks were being treated badly, but did not wish to mix in a dogmatic affair and anew wrote the pope to decide, for the matter was one of words or terms only, and the monks need not fear to return home. In December the pope wrote his legates, and letters from Justinian (Jan. 19, 520) and from the pope (end of March) show that the whole question was trinitarian. The monks appealed to the senate and also sought support outside Rome, where they gained a point in confirmation of the orthodoxy of their position. In a letter to the African Bishop Possessor, then in Constantinople, the pope expressed his dejection over the querulous spirit manifested, which drew a bitter reply from Maxentius and is the last trace of the Scythic monks. On July 9, 520, Justinian had appealed again for a decision from the pope, calling the attention of the pope to the fact that it was ambiguous to speak of " one of the Trinity " without prefixing the name of Christ. Not till Mar. 25, 521, did Hormisdas reply, and then avoided committing himself on the point in controversy; yet he asserted that according to the conclusions reached in the synods against Nest onus and Eutyches and according to the pronouncements of Pope Leo, new dogmatic distinctions were not feasible. While this was the pope's last word, Justinian did not give the case up; the monks' formula