FIRST DIVISION. History of the Development of the Church during the Græco-Roman and Græco-Byzantine Periods. (continued 8)

§ 50.3. Victory of Homoiousianism, A.D. 357-361.―The Eusebians now, however, fell out among themselves. The more extreme party, with the Antiochean deacon Aëtius and bishop Eunomius of Cyzicus at their head, carried their heresy so far as to declare that the Son is unlike to the Father (ἀνόμοιος). They were hence called Anomœans, also Exucontians (ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων). But also the distinctly moderate party, called semi-Arians153 or Homoiousians, from their adoption of the formula ὁμοιούσιος, made preparations for a decisive conflict. At their head stood Basil, bishop of Ancyra, and Constantius too was favourable to them. But the intriguing court bishops, Ursacius and Valens, strictly Arian at heart, knew how to gain their ends by secret paths. With the emperor’s consent they held a second Council at Sirmium in A.D. 357, where it was resolved to avoid wholly the non-biblical phrase οὐσία, which caused all the contention, to abandon all definitions of the nature of God which to man is incomprehensible, and to unite upon the simple formula, that the Son is like the Father (ὅμοιος hence the name Homoians). Hosius of Cordova, facile through age and sufferings, bought his reprieve by subscription. He died, after a bitter repentance, in A.D. 361, when almost a hundred years old. The rest of the Westerns, however, at the Synod of Agenum renewed their Nicene Confession; the semi-Arians under Basil at Ancyra their Antiochean Confession. The latter, too, found access to the emperor, who let their Confession be confirmed at a third Synod at Sirmium in A.D. 358, and obliged the court bishops to sign it. The latter then came to a compromise with the semi-Arians in the formula: τὸν Υἱὸν ὅμοιον τῷ Πατρὶ εἶναι κατὰ πάντα ὡς αἱ ἅγιαι γραφαὶ λέγουσιν. Liberius of Rome, too, worn out with three years’ exile, agreed to sign this symbol and ventured to return to Rome (§ 46, 4). The formula pleased the emperor so well that he decided to have it confirmed by an œcumenical Council. But in order to prevent the dreaded combination of the Homoousians and Homoiousians in the West, Ursacius and Valens contrived to have two Councils instead of one, an Eastern Council at Seleucia and a Western Council at Rimini, A.D. 359. Both rejected the formula of Sirmium; the Easterns holding by that of Antioch, the Westerns by that of Nicæa. But Ursacius knew how by cunning intrigues to weary them out. When the bishops had spent two years at Seleucia and Rimini, which seemed to them no better than banishment, and their messengers after a half year’s journey had not succeeded in obtaining an audience of the emperor, they at last subscribed the Homoian symbol. Those who refused, Aëtius and Eunomius, were persecuted as disturbers of the church’s peace. Thus the Homoian creed prevailed through the whole Roman empire. Constantius’ death, however, in A.D. 361, soon broke up this artificial bond.

§ 50.4. Final Victory of the Nicene Creed, A.D. 361-381.―Julian gave equal rights to all parties and recalled all the banished bishops, so that many churches had two or three bishops. Athanasius also returned. For the restoration of church order he called a Synod at Alexandria in A.D. 362, and here in the exercise of a gentle and wise temper he received back into church fellowship the penitent Arian bishops, in spite of the protest of the strict zealot Lucifer of Calaris. The happy results of Athanasius’ procedure led the emperor again to banish him, on the pretext that he was a disturber of the peace. Julian’s successor, Jovian, was favourable to the Nicene doctrine and immediately restored Athanasius, A.D. 364, meanwhile extending toleration to the Arians. But Valens, to whom his brother Valentinian I. surrendered the East, A.D. 364-378, proved a zealous Arian. He raged with equal violence against the Athanasians and against the semi-Arians, and thus drove the two into close relations with one another. Athanasius was obliged to flee, but ventured after four months to return, and lived in peace to the end of his days. He died in A.D. 373. Valens was meanwhile restricted in his persecutions on two sides, by the pressing representations of his brother Valentinian, and by the manly resistance of eminent bishops, especially the three Cappadocians (§ 47, 4). The machinations of the Western empress Justinia, during the minority of her son Valentinian II., were successfully checkmated by Ambrose of Milan. He passively but victoriously opposed the soldiers who were to take possession of his church for the Arians by a congregation praying and singing psalms. Theodosius the Great gave its deathblow to Arianism. He called Gregory Nazianzen to the patriarchal chair at Constantinople. To Gregory also at a subsequent time he assigned the presidency of the so-called Second Œcumenical Council at Constantinople in A.D. 381.154―When, however, his patriarchate was attacked, because he had changed his bishopric (§ 45), he resigned his office. No new Symbol was here drawn up, but only the Nicene Symbol was confirmed as irrefragable. On the so-called Nicæan-Constantinopolitan Symbol, comp. § 59, 2. After this the Arians ventured only to hold services outside of the cities. Subsequently all churches in the empire were taken from them.―The Constantinopolitan Council of A.D. 381 did not fairly represent parties. Being called by the then merely Eastern emperor, and so consisting only of Eastern bishops, it was not properly an œcumenical synod, and for a long time even in the East itself was not regarded as such. Still it was of importance to the bishop of Constantinople that it should have this rank, and his endeavours were favoured by the circumstance that it had been called by Theodosius who was honoured both in East and West as Sole Potentate and “second Constantine.” After the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451 (§ 46, 1) the whole East was unanimous in recognising it. The West, however, at least Rome, still rejected it, until finally under Justinian I., in consequence of the Roman chair becoming dependent upon the Byzantine court (§ 46, 9), the dispute was here no longer agitated.

§ 50.5. The Pneumatomachians, A.D. 362-381.―Arius and the Arians had described the Holy Spirit as the first creature produced by the Son. But even zealous defenders of the Homoousia of the Son vacillated. The Nicene Symbol was satisfied with a bare καὶ εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα ἅγιον; and even Hilary of Poitiers, avoiding all exact definition, contented himself with recording the phrases of Scripture. But Athanasius, at the Synod of Alexandria in A.D. 362, Didymus the Blind, and the three Cappadocians, consistently applied their idea of the Homoousia to the Spirit and won the adhesion of the Nicene theologians. It was hardest for the semi-Arians who had accepted the Nicene platform, at whose head stood Macedonius, bishop of Constantinople, who had been deposed by the Homoians in A.D. 360, to acquiesce in this conclusion (Macedonians, Pneumatomachians). The so-called second œcumenical Council of A.D. 381 sanctioned in a now lost doctrinal “Tome” the full Homoousia of the Holy Spirit. The West had already in A.D. 380 at a Roman Synod under the presidency of Bishop Damasus condemned in 24 anathemas, along with all other trinitarian errors, every sort of opposition to the perfect Homoousia of the Spirit.155

§ 50.6. The Literature of the Controversy.―Arius himself developed his doctrine in a half poetical writing, the Θάλεια, fragments of which are given by Athanasius. Arianism found a zealous apologist in the Sophist Asterius, whose treatise is lost. The church historian, Philostorgius (§ 5, 1), sought to vindicate it historically. On the semi-Arian side Eusebius of Cæsarea wrote against Marcellus―Κατὰ Μαρκέλλου and Περὶ τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς θεολογίας. The Ἀπολογητικός of Eunomius is lost. Among the opponents of Arianism, Athanasius occupies by a long way the first place (IV. Orations against the Arians, Ep. concerning Councils of Seleucia and Ariminum, Hist. of Arians to the Monks, Apology against the Arians, etc., all included in Hist. Tracts of Athanasius, “Lib. of Fath.,” 2 vols., Oxf., 1843 f.). On the works of Apollinaris belonging to this controversy see § 47, 5. Basil the Great wrote 4 bks. against Eunomius; Περὶ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεῦματος, Ad Amphilochium, against the Pneumatomachians. Gregory Nazianzen wrote five Λόγοι θεολογικοί. Gregory of Nyssa 12 Λόγοι ἀντιῤῥητικοὶ κατὰ Εὐνομίου. Didymus the Blind, 3 bks. De Trinitate. Epiphanius, the Ἀγκυρώτος. Cyril of Alexandria a θησαυρὸς περὶ τῆς ἁγίας καὶ ὁμοούσιας Τριάδος. Chrysostom delivered twelve addresses against the Anomoians. Theodoret wrote Dialogi VII. d. s. Trinitate. Ephraëm [Ephraim] Syrus, too, combated the Arians frequently in his sermons. Among the Latins the most celebrated polemists are: Lucifer of Calaris (Ad Constantium p. Lb. II. pro Athen.); Hilary of Poitiers (De Trinitate Lb. I., de Synodus s. de fide Orientalium, contra Constantium Aug.; C. Auxentium); Phœbadius, bishop of Agenum about A.D. 359 (C. Arianos); Ambrose (De fide ad Gratianum Aug. Lb. V.); Augustine (C. Sermonem Arianorum; Collatio cum Maximo Arianorum episc.; C. Maximinum); Fulgentius of Ruspe (C. Arianos, and 3 bks. against the Arian Vandal king Thrasimund).

§ 50.7. Post-Nicene Development of the Dogma.―Even the Nicene Symbol did not completely surmount every trace of subordinationism. It is at least capable of a subordinationist interpretation when the Father alone is called εἷς θεός and so identified with the Monas. Augustine completely surmounted this defect (De Trinitate Lb. XV.). The personality of the Spirit, too, as well as His relation to the Father and the Son, had not yet been determined. A step was taken towards the formulating of the doctrine of the Spirit’s personality by the acknowledgment in the now lost Tome of the Council of Constantinople of A.D. 381 of the full Homoousia of the Spirit with the Father and the Son.156 But the doctrine of the Spirit’s relations to Father and Son still continued undetermined and even by the addition (to the εἰς τὸ πν. ἅγ.) of: τὸ κυρίον, τὸ ζωοποιὸν, τὸ ἐκ πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον, τὸ σὺν τῷ πατρὶ καὶ τῷ υἱῷ συνπροσκυνούμενον καὶ συνδοξαζόμενον in the so-called Symbolum Nic.-Constant. (§ 59, 2), a definition so incomplete was obtained, that even five hundred years afterwards the great schism that rent the church into an Eastern and a Western division found in this its doctrinal basis (§ 67, 1). Augustine, too, had meanwhile come forward with a further development of this doctrine, and taught in his speculation upon the Spirit that He proceeded from the Son as well as from the Father (John xv. 26). Fulgentius of Ruspe was the next most famous representative of the further development of the dogma (De s. Trinitate). The so-called Athanasian Creed (§ 59, 2) simply adopted this advanced development in the proposition: qui procedit a Patre et Filio. Similarly the Filioque is found also in the so-called Nic.-Constant. Creed laid before the Synod of Toledo in A.D. 589 (§ 76, 2).―Continuation § 67, 1; § 91, 2.

§ 50.8. Schisms in consequence of the Arian Controversy.

The Meletian Schism at Antioch. The Arians at Antioch had already in A.D. 330 driven away Eustathius, the bishop of the see, who favoured the Nicene doctrine. A portion of his people, however, remained attached to him and Homoousianism under the leadership of the Presbyter Paulinus, and were called Eustathians. When in A.D. 360 Eudoxius, the Arian bishop, left Antioch, in order to take possession of the episcopal chair of the capital, his former congregation chose Meletius, bishop of Sebaste, formerly a Eusebian, but for some time friendly to the Nicene party, as his successor. His first sermon, however, served to undeceive those who had chosen him, so that after a few weeks they drove him away and put Euzoius, a decided Arian, in his place. Yet he had already won a following in the congregation which, when Julian’s succession made it possible for him to return, took him back as bishop. Athanasius and the Alexandrian Synod of A.D. 362 had meanwhile made every effort to reconcile these Meletians and the Eustathians and to unite them under the banner of Nicæanism. But Lucifer, bishop of Calaris, sent to Antioch for this purpose, confirmed the schism instead of healing it by ordaining Paulinus bishop on the death of Eustathius in A.D. 360. The whole church now took sides, the East that of Meletius, the West along with Egypt, that of Paulinus. The Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381 gave to Meletius the presidency as the oldest bishop present. When, after two days, he died, Gregory Nazianzen, his successor in the presidency, recommended that the next election should be postponed till the death of the aged Paulinus and that then both parties should join the election. It was, however, all in vain. Flavian was appointed successor to Meletius, and when Paulinus died in A.D. 388, the Presbyter Evagrius was chosen opposition bishop in his stead. Theodosius I., from A.D. 392 sole ruler, insisted upon the West recognising Flavian. But in Antioch itself the schism lasted down to the death of Evagrius. Finally, in A.D. 415, the able successor of Flavian, bishop Alexander, effected a reconciliation, by taking part on a feast day along with his congregation in the public worship of the Eustathians, joining with them in singing and prayer, and in this way won them over to join him in the principal church.

The Schism of the Luciferians. After Lucifer by his irrational zeal had caused so much discord in Antioch, he returned in A.D. 362 to Alexandria, and there protested against Athanasius for receiving back penitent Arians and semi-Arians. He and his fanatical adherents formed the sect of Luciferians, which renewed the Novatianist demands for Church purity, and continued to exist down to the fifth century.

On the Schism of Damasus and Ursacius at Rome, see § 46, 4.

§ 51. The Origenist Controversies, A.D. 394-438.

Naturally and necessarily the Christological are closely connected with the Trinitarian controversies (§ 52). But between the two comes in another controversy, the Origenistic, which was indeed more of personal than of ecclesiastical interest, but still strengthened the church in the conviction that Origen was an arch-heretic.

§ 51.1. The Monks of the Scetic and Nitrian Deserts.―The most distinguished defenders of Nicene orthodoxy, Athanasius, the three Cappadocians, Didymus, Hilary, etc., had all held Origen in high esteem. But the constant references of the Arians to his authority brought him into discredit, not only among the more narrow-minded opposers of Arius, especially in the West, but also among the monks of the Scetic desert in Egypt, with Pachomius at their head. These repudiated the speculation of Origen as the source of all heresy, and in their views of God and divine things adopted a crude anthropomorphism. Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis, also belonged originally to this party (§ 47, 10). In direct opposition to them, another Egyptian monkish order in the Nitrian desert adhered to Origen with enthusiastic reverence and occupied themselves in a pious contemplative mysticism that tended to a somewhat extreme spiritualism.

§ 51.2. The Controversy in Palestine and Italy, A.D. 394-399.―In Palestine Origen had a warm supporter in bishop of Jerusalem, and in the two Latins Jerome and Rufinus who were staying there (§ 47, 16, 17). But when in A.D. 394 a couple of Westerns who happened to come there expressed their surprise, Jerome, anxious for his reputation for orthodoxy, was at once prepared to condemn the errors of Origen. Meanwhile the Scetic monks had called the attention of the old zealot Epiphanius to the Palestinian nursery of heresy. Immediately he made his way thither and took advantage of John’s friendly invitation to occupy his pulpit by preaching a violent sermon against Origenism. John then preached against anthropomorphism. Epiphanius pronounced an anathema against that tendency but desired John to do the same in regard to Origenism. When John refused, then Epiphanius, together with Jerome and the Bethlehemite monks withdrew from communion with John and Rufinus, and invaded John’s episcopal rights by ordaining a presbyter over the Bethlehemite monks. Now sprang up a violent controversy, which Theophilus of Alexandria, by sending the presbyter Isidore, sought to allay. Jerome and Rufinus were reconciled at the altar in A.D. 396. The latter soon again returned to the West. He translated, omitting objectionable passages, Origen’s work Περὶ ἀρχῶν, and was indiscreet enough to remark in the preface that even the orthodox Jerome was an admirer of Origen. Stirred up by his Roman friends, Jerome began with unmeasured violence a passionate polemic against Origenism and the friend of his youth. He produced at the same time a literal rendering, no longer extant, of the Περὶ ἀρχῶν. Rufinus replied with equal bitterness, and the passion displayed by both led to further causes of offence. The Roman bishop Siricius took part with Rufinus, but his successor Anastasius summoned him to answer for his opinions at Rome. Rufinus did not appear, but sent an apology which so little satisfied Anastasius that he rather consented to send letters to John of Jerusalem and other oriental bishops in condemnation of Origenism, A.D. 399. Rufinus withdrew to Aquileia and there continued to translate the writings of Origen and others of the Greeks.

§ 51.3. The Controversy in Alexandria and Constantinople, A.D. 399-438.―Theophilus, patriarch of Alexandria, a pompous, ambitious and strong-handed ecclesiastical prince, had down to A.D. 399 been on good terms with the Origenist monks and even in the Easter address of that year expressed himself in strong terms against the heresy of the anthropomorphists. The monks rose in rebellion over this, attacked him with clubs and forced him to pronounce an anathema upon Origen. Soon thereafter he had a personal dispute with his former friends. The aged and venerable presbyter Isidore and the four so-called “long brothers,” ἀδελφοὶ μακροί, two of whom served in his church as œconomi, refused to pay him pupils’ and legates’ money and fled from his passionate displeasure to their companions in the Nitrian desert. In A.D. 399, however, at an endemic Synod at Alexandria he condemned Origen, and in A.D. 401 published a violent manifesto against the Origenists.157 The noble but shortsighted Epiphanius approved it and Jerome hastened to translate it into Latin. With rude military force the Nitrian monks were scattered and driven away. Persecuted by the warrants issued by the patriarch, they sought protection from bishop John Chrysostom at Constantinople (§ 47, 8), whose intercession, however, Theophilus contemptuously rejected. For peace sake Chrysostom now wished to retire. But the monks found access to the Empress Eudoxia, and upon her appeal to the Emperor Arcadius, Theophilus was cited before a Synod at Constantinople over which Chrysostom presided. Theophilus foamed with rage. He succeeded by misrepresentation of the facts to win to his side the zealot Epiphanius. The noble old man hasted full of zeal and prejudice to Constantinople, but coming to see things in their true light, he withdrew from them with the words, “I leave to you the court and hypocrisy.” Theophilus, however, knew well how to get on with the court and hypocrisy. Chrysostom, by severe and searching preaching, had aroused the anger of the Empress. Relying upon this, Theophilus landed with a great retinue at Constantinople, and organized at the Empress’s estate of Drus, the Oak, near Chalcedon, a Council, Synodus ad Quercum, A.D. 403, which pronounced Chrysostom guilty of immorality, offences against the church and high treason. The Emperor condemned him to exile. Chrysostom soothed the people excited in his favour, and allowed himself quietly to be sent away. A violent earthquake, however, next night and the incontrollable excitement of the populace, led the Emperor to entreat the exile by special messenger immediately to return. After three days’ absence he had a triumphal entrance again into the city. Theophilus fled precipitately to Alexandria. Soon thereafter Chrysostom very solemnly denounced the noisy inauguration of a statue of the empress during the celebration of worship, and when on this account her rage flamed up against him afresh, the unfortunate words were uttered by him in a sermon on the day of John the Baptist: Πάλιν Ἡρωδίας μαίνεται, πάλιν πράσσεται, πάλιν ἐπὶ πίνακι τὴν κεφαλὴν τοῦ Ἰωάννου ζητεῖ λαβεῖν. Now the game was again in Theophilus’ favour. His party fanned the flame at the court. During the Easter vigils, A.D. 404, armed men burst into the church of Chrysostom and carried him away an exile to Cucusus in Armenia. With heroic courage he bore all the miseries of the journey, the climate and the wild lawless neighbourhood. With his people from the place of his banishment he maintained regular pastoral intercourse.―Soon after the outbreak of the conflict, Theophilus as well as Chrysostom had diligently sought to obtain the support of the West. Both sent letters and messengers to Rome, Milan and Aquileia, seeking to justify their cases before the churches. Innocent I. of Rome urged the deciding of the controversy at an œcumenical Council, but did not carry his point. After the disgraceful banishment of Chrysostom the whole West took his side, and Innocent got Honorius to apply to Arcadius for his recall; but the only result was that in A.D. 407 he was sent to still more severe banishment at Pityus, on the Black Sea. He succumbed to the fatigues of the journey and died on the way with words on his lips that had been the motto of his life: Δόξα τῷ θεῷ πάντων ἕνεκεν. A great part of his congregation at Constantinople refused to acknowledge the new patriarch Arsacius and his successor Atticus, and continued apart, notwithstanding all persecutions, under the name of Johannites, until Theodosius II. in A.D. 438 fetched back with honour the bones of their revered pastor and laid them in the imperial vault. Amid personal animosities and embittered feelings the Origenist controversy was long lost to view, but we must return to it again further on (§ 52, 6).158

§ 52. The Christological Controversy.159

In the Trinitarian controversy we dealt with the pre- and extra-historical existence of the Son of God, with His divine nature in itself; but now, at the crucial point of Christian speculation and ecclesiastical conflict, we come to treat of His historical existence as that of the incarnate Son of God, of the connection of the divine nature of the Logos with the human nature of the Son of Mary, and of the mutual relations of both to one another. Even during the Arian controversy the conflict was begun, and while the church maintained against Arius the full divinity of Christ, it also affirmed against Apollinaris the completeness of His humanity. In three further phases this conflict was continued. In the Dyoprosopic controversy the church maintained the unity of the Person of Christ against the Antiochean extreme represented by Nestorius, which hold both natures so far apart that the result seemed to be two persons. In the Monophysite controversy the opposite extreme of the new Alexandrian school was combated, which in the unity of the person lost sight of the distinctness of the natures. In the Monothelite controversy a unionistic effort was resisted which indeed allowed the duality of natures to be affirmed nominally, but practically denied it by the acknowledgment of only one will.

§ 52.1. The Apollinarian Controversy, A.D. 362-381.160―Previously the older Modalists, e.g., Beryllus and Sabellius, had taught that by the incarnation the Logos had received merely a human body. Marcellus shared this view; but also his antipodes Arius had adopted it in order to avoid postulating two creatures in Christ. Athanasius held by the doctrine of Origen, that the human soul in Christ is a necessary bond between the Logos and the body, as well as an organ for giving expression to the Logos through the body. At the Synod of Alexandria, A.D. 362, therefore, he obtained ecclesiastical sanction for the recognition of a complete human nature in Christ. Apollinaris of Laodicea (§ 47, 5), who had helped to arrange for this Council, also disapproved of the expression σῶμα ἄψυχον, but yet thought that the doctrine of the completeness of the human nature must be denied. He was led to this position by his adoption of trichotomic principles. He maintained that Christ has taken merely a σῶμα with a ψυχὴ ἄλογος, and that the place of the ψυχὴ λογικὴ (ὁ νοῦς) was represented in him by the divine Logos. If this were not so then, he thought, one must assume two persons in Christ or let Christ sink down to the position of a mere ἄνθρωπος ἔνθεος. Only in this way too could absolute sinlessness be affirmed of him. On the other hand, Athanasius and the two Gregories saw that in this way the substantiality of the incarnation and the completeness of redemption were lost. The so-called second œcumenical Council of A.D. 381 rejected the doctrine of Apollinaris, who with his party was excluded from the Church. The Apollinarians subsequently joined the Monophysites.

§ 52.2. Christology of the Opposing Theological Schools.―In consequence of the Arian controversy the perfect divinity, and in consequence of the Apollinarian controversy the perfect humanity, of Christ were finally established. On the relation between the two natures conditioned by the union there was definite result attained unto. Apollinaris had taught a connection of the divinity with the incomplete manhood so intimate that he had unwittingly destroyed the duality of the natures, and by means of an ἀντιμεθίστασις τῶν ὀνομάτων transferred the attributes of the one nature to the other; so that not only the body of Christ must have been deified and have been therefore worthy of worship, but also birth, suffering and death must be referred to His divinity. In his treatise: Κατὰ μέρος πίστις, he teaches: οὐ δύο πρόσωπα, οὐδὲ δύο φύσεις, οὐδὲ γὰρ τέσσαρα προσκυνεῖν λέγομεν, θεὸν καὶ υἱὸν θεοῦ καὶ ἄνθρωπον καὶ πνεῦμα ἅγιον, and in the tract De incarnatione Verbi, wrongly attributed to Athanasius: Ὁμολογοῦμεν εἶναι αὐτὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ θεὸν κατὰ πνεῦμα, υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου κατὰ σάρκα· οὐ δύο φύσεις τὸν ἕνα υἱὸν, μίαν προσκυνητὴν καὶ μίαν ἀπροσκύνητον, ἀλλὰ μίαν φύσιν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκομένην καὶ προσκυνομένην μετὰ τῆς σάρκος αὐτοῦ μίᾳ προσκυνήσει. So, too, in the Epistle ascribed to Julius of Rome. The Alexandrian Theology, although rejecting the mutilation of the human nature favoured by Apollinaris, sympathized with him in his love for the mystical, the inconceivable and the transcendental. In opposition to the Arian heresy it gave special emphasis to the divinity of Christ and taught a ἕνωσις φυσική of both natures. Only before the union and in abstracto can we speak of two natures; after the incarnation and in concreto we can speak only of one divine-human nature. Mary was therefore spoken of as the mother of God, θεοτόκος. Athanasius in his treatise against Apollinaris acknowledged an ἀσύγχυτος φυσικὴ ἕνωσις τοῦ λόγου πρὸς τὴν ἰδίαν αὐτοῦ γενομένην σάρκα, and explained this φυσικὴ ἕνωσις as a ἕνωσις κατὰ φύσιν. The Cappadocians (§ 47, 4) indeed expressly admitted two natures, ἄλλο καὶ ἄλλα, but yet taught a commingling of them, σύγκρασις, κατάμιξις, a συνδραμεῖν of the two natures, εἰς ἕν, a μεταποιηθῆναι of the σὰρξ πρὸς τὴν θεότητα. Cyril of Alexandria taught that the ἐνσάρκωσις was a φυσικὴ ἕνωσις, an incarnation in the proper sense. Christ consists ἐκ δύο φύσεων, but not ἐκ δύο φύσεσι, i.e. only before the incarnation and in abstracto (κατὰ μόνην τὴν θεωρίαν) can we speak of two natures. In the God-man two natures would be two subjects, and so there would be two Christs; the redeemer would then only be an ἄνθρωπος θεοφόρος and not a θεάνθρωπος, and could thus afford no guarantee of a complete redemption, etc. The Antiochean Theology (§ 47, 8, 9), in opposition to Apollinaris, affirmed most emphatically the complete and unchangeable reality of the human nature of Christ at and after its union with the divine. It would therefore only admit of a συναφεία or a ἕνωσις σχετική, by which both are brought into the relation (σχέσις) of common being and common action. Expressions like θεοτόκος, θεὸς ἐγγέννηθεν, θεὸς ἔπαθεν, seemed to the thinkers of this school blasphemous, or at least absurd. They acknowledged indeed that the σάρξ of Christ is worthy of adoration but only in so far as it is the organ of the redeeming Logos, not because in itself it shares in the divine attributes. The most developed form of this doctrine was presented by Theodore of Mopsuestia in strict connection with his anthropology and soteriology. The historical development of the God-man is with him the type and pattern of the historical redemption of mankind. Christ assumed a complete human nature, with all its sinful affections and tendencies, but he fought these down and raised His human nature by constant conflict and victory to that absolute perfection to which by the same way He leads us through the communication of His Spirit. He expressly guarded himself against the charge of making Christ into two persons: Christ is ἄλλο καὶ ἄλλο, but not ἄλλος καὶ ἄλλος for the human nature has in the incarnation renounced personality and independence.―Each of these two schools represented one side of the truth of the church’s doctrine; in the union of the two sides the church proclaimed the full truth. On the other hand the two schools proceeded more and more one-sidedly to emphasise each its own side of the truth, and so tended toward positive error. Thus arose two opposite errors, the separating of the natures and the confusing of the natures, which the church rejected one after the other, and proclaimed the truth that lay at the root of both.―During this discussion arose the Western Theology as the regulator of the debate. So long as it dealt with the one-sided extreme of the Antiocheans it stood side by side with the Alexandrians. Augustine, e.g. used indeed the expression mixture, but in reality he explains the relation of both natures to one another quite in accordance with the afterwards settled orthodoxy. But when at last the method of exclusions reached the error of the Alexandrians, the Westerns turned quite as decidedly to the other side and maintained the union of the two sides of the truth (Leo the Great). The conflict attracted great attention when it broke out at first in the West, but it was so quickly settled that soon no trace of it remained. In Southern Gaul a monk Leporius came forward teaching the Antiochean doctrine of the union of the two natures. In A.D. 426 he went to Africa, entered into conflict with Augustine, but retracted his errors almost immediately.

§ 52.3. The Dyoprosopic or Nestorian Controversy, A.D. 428-444.161―In A.D. 428 a monk of Antioch called Nestorius, a distinguished orator, was appointed patriarch of Constantinople. He was an eloquent and pious man but hasty and imprudent, with little knowledge of the world and human nature, and immoderately severe against heretics. The hatred of an unsuccessful rival in Constantinople called Proclus and the rivalry of the patriarch of Alexandria, who hated him not only as a rival but as an Antiochean, made the position of the unsupported monk a very hard one, and his protection of the expatriated Pelagians (§ 53, 4) excited the Roman bishop Cœlestine against him. Anastasius, a presbyter brought with him by Nestorius, was annoyed at the frequent use of the expression θεοτόκος and preached against it. Nestorius took his part against people and monks, sentenced the monks who had insulted him personally to endure corporal punishment, and at an endemic Synod in A.D. 439 condemned the doctrine objected to. And now Cyril of Alexandria (§ 47, 6) entered the lists as champion of the Alexandrian dogmatics. He won to himself Cœlestine of Rome (§ 46, 6), as well as bishops Memnon of Ephesus and Juvenalis [Juvenal] of Jerusalem, and at the court, Pulcheria (sister of Theodosius II. A.D. 408-450); while the empress Eudocia (§ 48, 5) and the Syrian bishops took the side of Nestorius. All conciliatory attempts were frustrated by the stiffness of the two patriarchs. Cœlestine of Rome in A.D. 430 demanded of Nestorius a recantation within ten days, and Cyril at a Synod of Alexandria in A.D. 430 produced twelve strong counterpropositions containing anathemas, which Nestorius answered immediately by twelve counteranathemas. Thus the controversy and the parties engaged in it became more and more violent. For its settlement the emperor called the so-called Third (properly Second, comp. § 50, 4) Œcumenical Council at Ephesus in A.D. 431. Nestorius enjoyed the decided favour of the emperor, the imperial plenipotentiary was his personal friend, and a portion of the emperor’s bodyguard accompanied him to Ephesus. But Cyril appeared with a great retinue of bishops and a faithful guard of servants of the church and seamen, who should in case of need prove the correctness of the Alexandrian dogmatics with their fists. In addition Memnon of Ephesus had in readiness a crowd of clergy, monks and people from Asia Minor. Before the Roman legates and the Syrian bishops had arrived Cyril opened the Council without them with 200 bishops. Nestorianism was condemned, Nestorius excommunicated and deposed, and Cyril’s anathematizing propositions adopted as the standard of ecclesiastical orthodoxy. The Roman legate recognised the Council, but the imperial commissioner refused his approval; and the Syrian bishops, under the presidency of John of Antioch proceeded, on their arrival, to hold an opposition Council, which excommunicated Cyril and Memnon. Nestorius of his own accord retired into a monastery. Meanwhile in Constantinople, at the instigation of Pulcheria, a popular tumult was raised in favour of Cyril. The emperor set aside all the three leaders, Nestorius, Cyril and Memnon, and authorised a mediating creed drawn up by Theodoret (§ 47, 9) in which the θεοτόκος was recognised but an ἀσύγχυτος ἕνωσις was affirmed. Cyril and Memnon still remained in their offices. They subscribed Theodoret’s formula and John subscribed the condemnation of Nestorius, A.D. 433, who was deposed and given over to the vengeance of his enemies. Driven from his monastic retreat and in many ways ill-treated, he died in destitution in A.D. 440. The compromise of the two leaders called forth opposition on every side. The Syrian church was in revolt over their patriarch’s betrayal of the person of Nestorius. John avenged himself by deposing his opponents. This had well-nigh been the fate of the noble Theodoret; but the patriarch exempted him from condemning the person of Nestorius in consideration of his condemnation of the doctrine.―The Egyptians also charged their patriarch with the denial of the true doctrine. He was at pains, however, to give proof of his zeal by the vindictiveness of his persecutions. Not without an eye to results he wrought to have the anathema of the church pronounced upon the heads of the Antiochean school, and one of their partisans, bishop Rabulas of Edessa, pounced upon the famous theological school at Edessa, at the head of which then stood the distinguished presbyter Ibas (§ 47, 13). After the death of Rabulas, however, in A.D. 436, the school again rose to great eminence. Theodoret and Cyril meanwhile contended with one another in violent writings. Death closed the mouth of Cyril in A.D. 444. But Rabulas unweariedly sought out and burnt the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, which Ibas had translated into Syriac. The latter published a letter to Maris bishop of Hardashir in Persia, which at a subsequent period obtained symbolical rank among the Nestorians, and Thomas Barsumas, bishop of Nisibis, wrought successfully for the spread of Nestorianism in the Persian church. In A.D. 489 the school of Edessa was again destroyed by order of the emperor Zeno. Teachers and scholars migrated to Persia, and founded at Nisibis a school that long continued famous. At a Synod in Seleucia in A.D. 499, under the patriarch Babäus of Seleucia, the whole Persian church finally broke off from the orthodox church of the Roman empire (§ 64, 2). They called themselves according to their ecclesiastical language Chaldean Christians. Their patriarch bore the title Jazelich, καθολικός. The Nestorian church passed on from Persia into India, where its adherents, appropriating the old legend that the apostle Thomas had introduced Christianity into India (§ 16, 4), called themselves Thomas-Christians.

§ 52.4. The Monophysite Controversy.

Eutychianism, A.D. 444-451.―Cyril’s successor was Dioscurus, who was inferior to his predecessor in acuteness, but in passionateness and tyrannical cruelty left him far behind. An old archimandrite in Constantinople called Eutyches taught not only that after His incarnation Christ had only one nature, but also that the body of Christ as the body of God is not of like substance with our own. The patriarch Domnus of Antioch accused him without success to Theodosius II., and Theodoret wrote against him a controversial treatise under the title Ἐρανιστὴς ἤτοι Πολύμορφος, in which he opposed the doctrine of Eutyches as a conglomeration of many heresies. Dioscurus now joined in the fray, and wrought upon the emperor, whose minister the eunuch Chrysaphius and whose consort Eudocia he had won over to his side, to pass severe measures against the Syrians, and especially Theodoret, whom the emperor forbade to pass beyond the range of his diocese. Eusebius, bishop of Doryläum, in Phrygia, however, accused Eutyches before an endemic Synod at Constantinople, in A.D. 448, presided over by the patriarch Flavian. Eutyches, though under imperial protection, was nevertheless, upon his refusal to retract, excommunicated and deposed. He appealed to an œcumenical Synod and betook himself to Leo the Great (§ 46, 7) at Rome. Flavian also appeared before the Roman bishop. Leo took the side of Flavian, and in a letter to that patriarch developed with great acuteness and clearness the doctrine of the two natures in Christ. The emperor, however, convoked an œcumenical Council at Ephesus, A.D. 449, at which Dioscurus presided, while Flavian and his party had no vote and Theodoret was not even present, but at which for the first time there was a representative of the monastic order in the person of the zealous monophysite, the Abbot Barsumas. The Council was conducted in an extremely arbitrary and violent manner. The doctrine of two natures was rejected, and when Eusebius stepped forward to defend it, the Egyptians shouted: Away with him! Burn him! Tear him in two pieces, as he has torn the Christ! Flavian as well as Eusebius appealed to the bishop of Rome; but the Synod pronounced on both the sentence of excommunication. When now some bishops sprang forward, and embracing Dioscurus’ knees entreated him to desist from such injustice, he called in the soldiers to his help who with chains and unsheathed swords rushed into the church, after them a crowd of fanatical monks, stout parabolani and a raging rabble. Flavian was sorely injured by blows and kicks, and died soon afterwards in banishment. The Roman legates and Eusebius escaped similar maltreatment only by speedy flight. During the later sittings Eutyches was restored, but the chiefs of the opposite party, Ibas, Theodoret, Domnus, etc., were deposed and excommunicated. Leo the Great addressed to the emperor a vigorous protest against the decisions of this Robber Synod, Latrocinium Ephesinum, σύνοδος ληστρική. The result was that Theodosius quarrelled with Eudocia, was reconciled to Pulcheria, and dismissed his minister. Flavian’s body was now taken in state to Constantinople, and honourably buried. Theodosius’ death in A.D. 450 prevented any further steps being taken. His sister Pulcheria, with her husband Marcian, ascended the throne. A new Œcumenical Council (the so-called fourth) at Chalcedon in A.D. 451, deposed Dioscurus, who was banished to Gangra in Paphlagonia, but spared the other party leaders of the Monophysites, and condemned Nestorianism as well as Eutychianism. Cyril’s synodal rescripts against Nestorius and Leo’s Epistle were made the basis of the formal statement of the orthodox doctrine: “that Christ is true God and true man, according to His Godhead begotten from eternity and like the Father in everything, according to his humanity born of Mary the Virgin and God bearer in time and like to us men in everything, only without sin; and that after His incarnation the unity of the person consists in two natures which are conjoined without confusion (ἀσυγχύτως) and without change (ἀτρέπτως), but also without rending (ἀδιαιρέτως) and without separation (ἀχωρίστως).” In this Synod too there were frequently scenes which in unruly violence were little behind those of the Robber Synod. When, for example, Theodoret entered amid the loud cheers of the orientals, the Egyptians saluted him with wild shouts (δι’ εὐσέβειαν κράζομεν, said they): “Away with the Jew, the blasphemer of God!” A scene of wild confusion and tumult followed which only with the greatest difficulty was quelled by the imperial commissioners. Then at the eighth session, when the Egyptians demanded not only the express and special condemnation of the doctrine but also that of the person of Nestorius, and Theodoret sought to justify him, the storm broke out afresh, and this time the Egyptians gained their point, but they were again defeated after violent debate, in their attempt to secure the condemnation of the person and writings of Ibas.162

§ 52.5.

Imperial Attempts at Union, A.D. 451-519.―The supporters of the Alexandrian dogmatics left the Council full of resentment at the defeat which they had sustained. They were henceforth called Monophysites. The whole church was now in a state of feverish excitement. In Palestine the monk Theodosius, secretly co-operating with the dowager empress Eudocia living there in exile, roused the mob into rebellion. In Egypt the uproar was still more violent. Timotheus Aëlurus assumed the position of an opposition patriarch and drove out the orthodox patriarch Proterius. The same thing was done in Antioch by the monk Petrus [Peter] Fullo (ὁ γραφεύς). In order to give a Monophysite colour to the liturgy he added to the Trishagion (Is. vi. 3), which had been liturgically used in the oldest churches, the formula θεὸς ὁ σταυρωθεὶς δι’ ἡμᾶς. Party violence meanwhile went the length of insurrections and blood-shedding on both sides. The new emperor Leo I. the Thracian, A.D. 457-474, a powerful and prudent ruler, interposed to bring about a pacification. In accordance with the advice of the most distinguished bishops of the empire the two mutinous leaders of the Monophysites were banished, and the patriarchal sees thus vacated filled by moderate Dyophysites. But after Leo’s death and the dethronement of his son-in-law Zeno in A.D. 475, the usurper Basiliscus issued an edict in A.D. 476, under the name of an Encyclion, by which the Chalcedonian Symbol, along with Leo’s Epistle, was condemned, and Monophysitism was proclaimed to be the universal national religion. Fullo and Aëlurus were also reinstated. The patriarch Acacius of Constantinople, on the other hand, organized a Dyophysite counter-revolution, Basiliscus was overthrown, and the emperor Zeno again placed upon the throne in A.D. 477. About this time Aëlurus died, and his party chose Petrus [Peter] Mongus (μογγός, stammering) as his successor; but the court appointed a Dyophysite Johannes Talaja. Acacius, when Talaja took up a hostile position towards him, joined with his opponent Mongus. Both agreed upon a treaty of union, which also found favour with the emperor Zeno, and by an edict, the so-called Henoticon of A.D. 482 obtained the force of a law. Nestorianism and Eutychianism were condemned, Cyril’s anathematisms were renewed, the Chalcedonian decisions abrogated, and the Nicene faith alone declared valid, while all controverted points were to be carefully avoided in teaching and preaching. Naturally protests were made from both sides. The strict Monophysites of Egypt threw off Mongus, and were now called Ἀκέφαλοι. Felix III. of Rome, at the head of the Dyophysites, refused to have church fellowship with Acacius. Thus arose a 35 years’ schism, A.D. 484-519, between East and West. Only the Acoimetæ monks in Constantinople (§ 44, 3) continued to hold communion with Rome. Church fellowship between the parties was not restored until Justin I., who thought that the schism would hinder his projected reconquest of Italy, in conjunction with the Roman bishop Hormisdas in A.D. 519, cancelled the Henoticon, and deposed those who adhered to it.

§ 52.6.

Justinian’s Decrees, A.D. 527-553.―During the violent conflict of parties Justinian I. entered upon his long and politically considered glorious reign, A.D. 527-565. He regarded it as his life task permanently to establish orthodoxy, and to win back heretics to the church, above all the numerous Monophysites. But the well-disposed emperor, who moreover had no deep insight into the thorny questions of theological controversy, was in various ways misled by the intrigues of court theologians, and the machinations of his crafty consort Theodora, who was herself secretly a Monophysite. The Theopaschite Controversy first called forth from him a decree. The addition made to the Trishagion by Petrus [Peter] Fullo, θεὸς ὁ σταυρωθεὶς δι’ ἡμᾶς, had been smuggled into the Constantinopolitan liturgy about A.D. 512. The Acoimetæ pronounced it heretical, and Hormisdas of Rome admitted that it was at least capable of being misunderstood and useless. But Justinian sanctioned it in A.D. 533. Encouraged by this first success, Theodora used her influence to raise the Monophysite Anthimus to the episcopal chair of the capital. But the Roman bishop Agapetus, who stayed in Constantinople as ambassador of the Goths, unmasked him, and obtained his deposition. Mennas, a friend of Agapetus, was appointed his successor in A.D. 536. All Monophysite writings were ordered to be burnt, their transcribers were punished by the loss of their hand. Two Palestinian abbots, Domitian and Theodore Ascidas, secret Monophysites and zealous friends of Origen, lived at court in high favour. To compass their overthrow, Mennas at an endemic Synod at Constantinople in A.D. 543 renewed the condemnation of the arch-heretic and his writings. The court theologians, however, subscribed without objection, and in concert with Theodora plotted their revenge. Justinian had long regarded Egypt with peculiar interest as the granary of the empire. He felt that something must be done to pacify the Monophysites who abounded in that country. Theodora persuaded him that the Monophysites would be satisfied if it were resolved, along with the writings of Theodore, the father of the Nestorian heresy, to condemn also the controversial writings of Theodoret against the venerated Cyril and the Epistle of Ibas to Maris. The supposed errors of these were collected before him in the Three Chapters. The emperor did this by an edict in A.D. 544, and demanded the consenting subscription of all the bishops. The orientals obeyed; but in the West opposition was shown on all sides, and thus broke out the violent Controversy of the Three Chapters. Vigilius of Rome, a creature of Theodora (§ 46, 9), had secretly promised his co-operation, but, not feeling able to face the storm in the West, he broke his word. Justinian had him brought to Constantinople in A.D. 547 and forced from him a written declaration, the so-called Judicatum, in which he agreed to the condemnation of the Three Chapters. The Africans, under Reparatus of Carthage excommunicated the successor of Peter, and fought manfully for the rights and honour of the calumniated fathers. Fulgentius Farrandus [Ferrandus] wrote Pro tribus capitt., Facundus of Hermiane, Defensío III. capitt., and the deacon Liberatus of Carthage, a Breviarium causæ Nestorian. et Eutychianorum, an important source of information for the history of the Christological Controversies. Justinian finally convened the Fifth Œcumenical Council at Constantinople in A.D. 553, which confirmed all the imperial edicts. Vigilius issued a Constitum ad Imp., in which he indeed rejected the doctrines of the Three Chapters but refused to condemn the persons. Under imprisonment and exile he became pliable, and subscribed in A.D. 554. He died in A.D. 555 on his return to his bishopric. His successor Pelagius formally acknowledged the Constantinopolitan decrees, and North Africa, North Italy and Illyria renounced the dishonoured chair of Peter. At last Gregory the Great, with much difficulty, gradually brought this schism to an end.

§ 52.7.

The Monophysite Churches.―Justinian, however, did not thereby reach the end he had in view. The Monophysites continued their separation because the hated Chalcedonian Symbol was still acknowledged. But more injurious to them than the persecutions of the orthodox national church were the endless quarrels and divisions among themselves. First of all the two leaders in Alexandria, Julianus and Severus, became heads of rival parties. The Severians or φθαρτολάτραι taught that the body of Christ in itself had been subject to corruption (the φθορά); the Julianists denied it. This first split was followed by many others. By transferring the Monophysite confusion of οὐσία and ὑπόστασις to the doctrine of the Trinity arose the Monophysite sect of the Tritheists, who taught that in Christ there is one nature, and that in the Trinity a separate nature is to be ascribed to each of the three persons. Among them was the celebrated philosopher, Johannes Philoponus (§ 47, 11), who supported this doctrine by the Aristotelian categories. He also vindicated the notion that the present world as to form and matter would perish at the last day, and an entirely new world with new bodies would be created. In opposition to this Conon, bishop of Tarsus, affirmed that the overthrow of the world would be in form only, and that the risen saints would again possess the same bodies though in a glorified form. His followers the so-called Cononites separated from the main stem of the Tritheists and formed an independent sect.―The Monophysites were most numerous in Egypt. Out of hatred to the Greek Catholics they forbade the use of the Greek language in their churches, and chose a Coptic patriarch for themselves. They aided the Saracens in their conquest of Egypt in A.D. 640, who out of gratitude for this drove away the Catholic patriarch. From Egypt Monophysitism spread into Abyssinia (§ 64, 1). Already in A.D. 536 Byzantine Armenia had been conquered by the Persians, who showed favour to the previously oppressed Monophysites (§ 64, 3). In Syria and Mesopotamia, during Justinian’s persecutions, the unwearied activity of a monk, Jacob Zanzalus, commonly called el Baradai, because he went about clad as a beggar, ordained by the Monophysites as bishop of Edessa and the whole East, saved the Monophysite church from extinction. He died in A.D. 538. After him the Monophysites were called Jacobites. They called the Catholics Melchites, Royalists. Their patriarch resided at Guba in Mesopotamia. Subordinate to him was a suffragan bishop at Tagrit with the title of Maphrian, i.e. the Fruit-bearer. At the head of the Armenian Monophysites stood the patriarch of Aschtarag with the title Catholicus. The Abyssinian church had a metropolitan with the title Abbuna163―Continuation § 72, 2.

§ 52.8. The Monothelite Controversy, A.D. 633-680.―The increasing political embarrassments of the emperor made a union with the Monophysites all the more desirable. The emperor Heraclius, A.D. 611-641, was advised to attempt a union of parties under the formula: that Christ accomplished His work of redemption by the exercise of one divine human will (μιᾷ θεανδρικῇ ἐνεργείᾳ). Several Catholic bishops found nothing objectionable in this formula which had already been used by the Pseudo-Dionysius (§ 47, 11). In A.D. 633 the patriarchs Sergius of Constantinople and Cyrus of Alexandria on the basis of this concluded a treaty, in consequence of which most of the Severians attached themselves again to the national church. Honorius of Rome also was won over. But the monk Sophronius, who soon thereafter in A.D. 634 became patriarch of Jerusalem, came forward as the decided opponent Of this union, which led back to Monophysitism. The conquest of Jerusalem, however, soon after this, A.D. 637, by the Saracens put him outside of the scene of conflict. In A.D. 638 the emperor issued an edict, the Ecthesis, by which it was sought to make an end of the strife by substituting for the offensive expression ἐνέργεια the less objectionable term θέλημα, and confirming the Monothelite doctrine as alone admissible. Now the monk Maximus (§ 47, 12) entered the lists as the champion of orthodoxy. He betook himself to Africa, where since Justinian’s time zeal for the maintenance of the Chalcedonian faith was strongest, and here secured political support in Gregorius [Gregory] the imperial governor who sought to make himself independent of Byzantium. This statesman arranged for a public disputation at Carthage in A.D. 645 between Maximus and the ex-patriarch Pyrrhus of Constantinople, the successor of Sergius, who, implicated in a palace intrigue, deposed from his office and driven from Constantinople, sought refuge in Africa. Pyrrhus willingly submitted and abjured his error. An African General Synod in A.D. 646 unanimously condemned Monothelitism, renounced church fellowship with Paulus, the new patriarch of Constantinople, and demanded of Pope Theodorus, A.D. 642-649, a fulmination against the heresy. In order to give this demand greater emphasis, Maximus and Pyrrhus travelled together to Rome. The latter was recognised by the pope as legitimate patriarch of Constantinople, but, being induced by the exarch of Ravenna to recant his recantation, he was excommunicated by the pope, with a pen dipped in the sacramental wine, returned to Constantinople and was, after the death of Paulus, reinstated in his former office. Maximus remained in Rome and there won the highest reputation as the shield of orthodoxy.―The proper end of the union, namely the saving of Syria and Egypt, was meanwhile frustrated by the Mohammedan conquest of Syria in A.D. 638, and of Egypt in A.D. 640. The court, however, for its own honour still persevered in it. Africa and Italy occupied a position of open revolt. Then emperor Constans II., A.D. 642-668, resolved to annul the Ecthesis. In its place he put another enactment about the faith, the Typus, A.D. 648, which sought to get back to the state of matters before the Monothelite movement; that neither one nor two wills should be taught. But Martin I. of Rome at the first Lateran Synod at Rome in A.D. 649 condemned in the strongest terms the Typus as well as the Ecthesis along with its original maintainers, and sent the Acts to the emperor. The exarch of Ravenna, Olympius, was now ordered to take the bold prelate prisoner, but did not obey. His successor sent the pope in chains to Constantinople. In A.D. 653 he was banished for high treason to the Chersonese, where he literally suffered hunger, and died in A.D. 655 six months after his arrival. Still more dreadful was the fate of the abbot Maximus. At the same time with Martin or soon after he too was brought to Constantinople a prisoner from Rome. Here for a whole year every effort imaginable was made, entreaties, promises, threats, imprisonment, hunger, etc., in order to induce him to acknowledge the Typus, but all in vain. The emperor then lost all patience. In a towering rage at the unparalleled obstinacy of the monk’s resistance he doomed him, A.D. 662, to dreadful scourging, to have his tongue wrenched out and his hand hewn off, and to be sent into the wildest parts of Thrace, where he died a few weeks after his arrival at the age of 82 years. Such barbaric severity was effectual for a long time. But under the next emperor Constantinus Pogonnatus, A.D. 668-685, the two parties prepared for a new conflict. The emperor resolved to make an end of it by a General Council. Pope Agatho held a brilliant Synod at Rome in A.D. 679, where it was laid down that not one iota should be abated from the decisions of the Lateran Synod. With these decisions and a missive from the pope himself, the papal legates appeared at the Sixth Œcumenical Council at Constantinople in A.D. 680, called also Concil. Trullanum I., because it was held in the mussel-shaped vaulted hall Trullus in the imperial castle, under the presidency of the emperor. As at Chalcedon the Epistle of Leo I., so also here that of Agatho lay at the basis of the Council’s doctrinal decrees: δύο φυσικὰ θελήματα ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀμερίστως, ἀσυγχύτως, οὐχ ὑπεναντία, ἀλλὰ ἑπόμενον τὸ ἀνθρώπινον καὶ ὑποτασσόμενον τῷ θείῳ. The Synod even condescended to grant the pope a report of the proceedings and to request his confirmation of its decisions. But the Greeks, finding a malicious pleasure in the confusion of their rivals, contrived to mix in the sweet drink a strong infusion of bitter wormwood, for the Council among the other representatives of Monothelite error ostentatiously and expressly condemned pope Honorius as an accursed heretic. Pope Leo II. in a letter to the emperor confirmed the decisions of the Council, expressly homologating the condemnation of Honorius, “qui profana proditione immaculatam fidem subvertere conatus est.”―Henceforth Dyothelitism prevailed universally. Only in one little corner of Asia, to which the arm of the state did not reach, a vestige of Monothelitism continued to exist. Its scattered adherents gathered in the monastery of St. Maro in Lebanon, and acknowledged the abbot of this cloister as their ecclesiastical head. They called themselves Maronites, and with sword in hand maintained their ecclesiastical as well as political independence against Byzantines and Saracens (§ 72, 3).

§ 52.9. The Case of Honorius.―The two Roman Synods, A.D. 649 and 679, had simply ignored the notorious fact of the complicity of Honorius in the furtherance of Monothelite error, and Agatho might hope by the casual statement in his letter, that the Roman chair never had taken the side of heretical novelties, to beguile the approaching œcumenical Synod into the same obliviousness. But the Greeks paid no heed to the hint. His successor Leo II. could not do otherwise than homologate the Eastern leaders’ condemnation of heresy, even that of Honorius, hard though this must have been to him. On the other hand, the biographies of the popes from Honorius to Agatho in the Roman Liber pontificalis (§ 90, 6) help themselves out of this dilemma again by preserving a dead silence about any active or passive interference of Honorius in the Monothelite controversy. In the biography of Leo II. for the first time is Honorius’ name mentioned among those of the condemned Monothelites, but without any particular remark about him as an individual. So too in the formulary of a profession of faith in the Liber diurnus of the Roman church made by every new pope and in use down to the 11th century (§ 46, 11). From the biography of Leo in the Pontifical book was copied the simple name into the readings of the Roman Breviary for the day of this saint, and so it remained down to the 17th century. It had then been quite forgotten in the West that by this name a pope was designated. Oftentimes it had been affirmed that even Roman popes might fall and actually had fallen into error; but only such cases as those of Liberius (§ 46, 4), Anastasius (§ 46, 8), Vigilius (§ 52, 6), John XXII. (§ 110, 3; 112, 2) were adduced; that of Honorius occurred to nobody. It was only in the 15th century, through more careful examination of Acts of Synods that the true state of matters was discovered, and in the 16th century when the question of the infallibility of the pope had become a burning one (§ 149, 4), the case of Honorius became the real Sisyphus rock of Roman Catholic theology. The most laborious attempts have been made by most venturesome means to get it out of the way. The condemnation of Honorius by the sixth œcumenical Council has been described as merely a spiteful invention of later Greeks, who falsified everything relating to him in the Acts of the Council; so, e.g. Baronius, Bellarmine, etc.―The condemnation actually took place but not at the œcumenical first, but at the schismatical second, Trullan Council of A.D. 692 (§ 63, 2), and the record of procedure has been by the malice of later Greeks transferred from the record of the second to that of the first.―Forged epistles of Honorius were laid before the sixth œcumenical Council, by means of which it was misled into passing sentence upon him.―The condemnation of the pope did not turn upon his doctrine but upon his unseasonable love of peace.―The pope meant well, but expressed himself so as to be misunderstood; so e.g. the Jesuit Garnier in his ed. of the Liber diurnus, the Vatican Council, and Hefele in the 2nd ed. of his Hist. of the Councils.―In the epistles referred to he spoke as a private individual and not officially, ex cathedra.―It is, however, fatal to all such explanations that the infallible pope Leo II. solemnly denounced ex cathedra his infallible predecessor Honorius as a heretic. Besides the only other possible escape by distinguishing the question du fait and the question du droit has been formally condemned ex cathedra in connection with another case (§ 156, 5).164

§ 53. The Soteriological Controversies, A.D. 412-529.165

While the Trinitarian and Christological controversies had their origin in the East and there gave rise to the most violent conflicts, the West taking indeed a lively interest in the discussion and by the decisive voice of Rome giving the victory to orthodoxy at almost every stage of the struggle, it was in the West that a controversy broke out, which for a full century proceeded alongside of the Christological controversy, without awakening in the East more than a passing and even then only a secondary interest. It dealt with the fundamental questions of sin and grace. In opposition to the Pelagian Monergism of human freedom, as well as the semi-Pelagian Synergism of divine grace and human freedom, the Augustinian Monergism of divine grace finally obtained the victory.

§ 53.1. Preliminary History.―From the earliest times the actual universality of sin and the need of divine grace in Christ for redemption from sin received universal acknowledgment throughout the whole church. But as to whether and how far the moral freedom of men was weakened or lost by sin, and in what relation human conduct stood to divine grace, great uncertainty prevailed. Opposition to Gnosticism and Manichæism led the older fathers to emphasise as strongly as possible the moral freedom of men, and induced them to deny inborn sinfulness as well as the doctrine that sin was imprinted in men in creation, and to account for man’s present condition by bad training, evil example, the agency of evil spirits, etc. This tendency was most vigorously expressed by the Alexandrians. The new Alexandrian school showed an unmistakable inclination to connect the universality of sin with Adam’s sin, without going the length of affirming the doctrine of inherited sinfulness. In Soteriology it remained faithful to its traditional synergism (comp., however, § 47, 7k, l.) The Antiochean school sought to give due place to the co-operation of the human will alongside of the necessity of divine grace, and reduced the idea of inherited sin to that of inherited evil. So especially Chrysostom, who was indeed able to conceive that Adam by his actual sin become mortal could beget only mortal children, but not that the sinner could beget only sinners. The first man brought death into the world, we confirm and renew the doom by our own sin. Man by his moral will does his part, the divine grace does its part. The whole East is unanimous in most distinctly repudiating all predestinational wilfulness in God. In the West, on the other hand, by Traducianism or Generationism introduced by Tertullian, which regards the soul as begotten with the body, the way was prepared for recognising the doctrine of inherited sin (Tradux animæ, tradux peccati) and consequently also of monergism. Tertullian, himself, proceeding from the experience, that in every man from birth there is present an unconquerable tendency to sin, spoke with great decidedness of a Vitium originis. In this he was followed by Cyprian, Ambrose and Hilary. Yet even these teachers of the church had not altogether been emancipated from synergism, and alongside of expressions which breathe the hardest predestinationism, are found others which seem to give equal weight to the opposite doctrine of human co-operation in conversion. Augustine was the first to state with the utmost consistency the doctrine of the divine monergism; while Pelagius carried out the synergism of the earlier fathers until it became scarcely less than human monergism.―Meanwhile Traducianism did not succeed in obtaining universal recognition even in the West. Augustine vacillates; Jerome and Leo the Great prefer Creationism, which represents God as creating a new soul for each human being begotten. Most of the later church fathers, too, are creationists, without, however, prejudicing the doctrine of inherited sin. Those of them who supported the trichotomic theory (§ 52, 1) held that it was the cobegotten ψυχὴ ἄλογος, anima sensitiva as opposed to the anima intellectualis, while those who supported the dichotomic theory, which posits merely body and soul, held that it was the soul created good by God, which was infected on its passing into the body begotten by human parents with its inherited sin. The theory of Pre existence, which Origen had brought forward (§ 31, 5) had, even in the East, only occasional representatives (§ 47, 7m, n, o).166

§ 53.2. The Doctrine of Augustine.―During the first period of his Christian life, when the conflict with Manichæism still stood in the forefront of his thinking and controversial activity, Augustine, looking at faith as a self-determining of the human will, had thought a certain measure of free co-operation on the part of man in his conversion to be necessary and had therefore refused to maintain his absolute want of merit. But by his whole life’s experience he was irresistibly led to acknowledge man’s natural inability for any positive co-operation and to make faith together with conversion depend solely upon the grace of God. The perfect and full development of this doctrine was brought about by means of his controversy with the Pelagians. Augustine’s doctrinal system in its most characteristic features is as follows: Man was created free and in the image of God, destined to and capable of attaining immortality, holiness and blessedness, but also with the possibility of sinning and dying. By the exercise of his freedom he must determine his own career. Had he determined himself for God, the being able not to sin and not to die, would have become an impossibility of sinning and dying, the Posse non peccare et mori would have become a Non posse peccare et mori. But tempted by Satan he fell, and thus it became for him impossible that he should not sin and die, non posse non peccare et non mori. All prerogatives of the Divine image were lost; he retained only the capacity for outward civil righteousness, Justitia civilis, and a capacity for redemption. In Adam, moreover, all mankind sinned, for he was all mankind. By generation Adam’s nature as it was after sin, with sin and guilt, death and condemnation, but also the capacity for redemption, passed over to all his posterity. Divine grace, which alone can redeem and save man, attached itself to the remnant of the divine image which expressed itself in the need of redemption and the capacity for redemption. Grace is therefore absolutely necessary, in the beginning, middle and end of the Christian life. It is granted man, not because he believes, but that he may believe; for faith too is the work of God’s grace. First of all grace awakens through the law the consciousness of sin and the desire for redemption, and leads by the gospel to faith in the Redeemer (gratia præveniens). By means of faith it thus secures the forgiveness of sin as primum beneficium through appropriating the merits of Christ and in part the powers of the divine life through the implanting of living fellowship with Christ (in baptism). Thus is free will restored to the good (Gratia operans) and evidences itself in a holy life in love. But even in the regenerate the old man with his sinful lusts is still present. In the struggle of the new with the old he is continually supported by Divine grace (Gratia co-operans) unto his justification (Justificatio) which is completed in the making righteous of his whole life and being through the Divine impartation (Infusio) of new powers of will. The final act of grace, which, however, according to the educative wisdom of God is not attained in this life, is the absolute removal of evil desire (Concupiscentia) and transfiguration into the perfect likeness of Christ through resurrection and eternal life (Non posse peccare et mori). Apart from the inconsistent theory of justification proposed, this view of nature and grace is thoroughly Pauline. Augustine, however, connects with it the doctrine of an absolute predestination. Experience shows that not all men attain to conversion and redemption. Since man himself can contribute nothing to his conversion, the ground of this must be sought not in the conduct of the man but only in an eternal unconditional decree of God, Decretum absolutum, according to which He has determined out of the whole fallen race of man, Massa perditionis, to save some to the glory of His grace and to leave others to their deserved doom to the glory of His penal righteousness. The ground of this election is only the wise and mysterious good pleasure of the divine will without reference to man’s faith, which is indeed only a gift of God. If it is said: “God wills that all men should be saved,” that can only mean, “all who are predestinated.” As the outcasts (Reprobati) can in no way appropriate grace unto themselves, the elect (Electi) cannot in any way resist it (Gratia irresistibilis). The one sure sign that one is elected is, therefore, undisturbed perseverance in the possession of grace (Donum perseverantiæ). To the heathens, even the noblest of them, he refused salvation, but made a distinction in the degrees of their penal tortures. So too unbaptized children were all regarded as lost. Although over against this he also set down the proposition: Contemtus, non defectus sacramenti damnat, the resolution of this contradiction lay in the special divine election of grace, which secures to the elect the dispensation of the sacrament.167

§ 53.3. Pelagius and his Doctrine.―Pelagius (§ 47, 21), a British monk of respectable learning and decided moral earnestness, living far away from the storms and strife of life, without any strong inward temptations, without any inclination to manifest sins and without deep experience of the Christian life, knowing and striving after no higher ideal than that of monkish asceticism, had developed a theory quite antagonistic to that of Augustine. He was strengthened in his opposition to Augustine’s doctrine of the corruption of human nature and its unfitness for all co-operation in conversion and sanctification, by observing that this doctrine was often misused by careless men as an excuse for carnal confidence and moral selfishness. He was thus made more resolute in maintaining that it is more wholesome to preach to men an imperative moral law whose demands they, as he thought, could satisfy by determined will and moral endeavour. Man at first was created mortal by God, and not temporal but spiritual death is the consequence and punishment of sin. Adam’s fall has changed nothing in human nature and has had no influence upon his descendants. Every man now is born just as God created the first man, i.e. without sin and without virtue. By his wholly unweakened freedom he decides for himself on the one side or the other. The universality of sin results from the power of seduction, of mere example and habit. Still there may be completely sinless men; and there have been such. God’s grace facilitates man’s accomplishment of his purpose. It is, therefore, not absolutely, but by the actual universality of sin, relatively necessary. Grace consists in enlightenment by revelation, in forgiveness of sin as the expression of divine forbearance, and in the strengthening of our moral powers by the incentive of the law and the promise of eternal life. God’s grace is destined for all men, but man must make himself worthy of it by honest striving after virtue. Christ became man, in order by His perfect teaching and by the perfect pattern of His life to give us the most powerful incentive to reformation and the redeeming of ourselves thereby. As in sin we are Adam’s offspring, so in virtue shall we be Christ’s offspring. He regarded baptism as necessary (infant baptism in remissionem futurorum peccatorum). Children dying unbaptized he placed in a lower stage of blessedness. The same inconsistent submission to the fathers of ecclesiastical tradition shows itself in the acceptance of ecclesiastical views of revelation, miracles, prophecy, the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ, whereas a more consistent and systematic thinker would have felt compelled from his anthropological principles to set aside or at least modify these supernaturalistic elements.

§ 53.4. The Pelagian Controversy, A.D. 411-431.―From A.D. 409 Pelagius resided in Rome. Here he gained over to his views Cœlestius, a man of greater acuteness and scientific attainments than himself. Both won high respect in Rome for their zeal for morality and asceticism and promulgated their doctrine without opposition. In A.D. 411 both went to Carthage, whence Pelagius went and settled in Palestine. Cœlestius remained behind and obtained the office of presbyter. Now for the first time his errors were opposed. Paulinus deacon of Milan (§ 47, 20) happening to be there formally complained against him, and a provincial Synod at Carthage A.D. 412 excommunicated him, on his refusal to retract. In the same year too Augustine published his first controversial treatise: De peccatorum meritis et remissione et de baptismo parvulorum, Lb. III. In Palestine Pelagius had attached himself to the Origenists. Jerome, besides passing a depreciatory judgment upon his literary productions, contested his doctrine as an expounder of the Origenist heresy (Ep. ad Ctesiphontem and Dialog. c. Pelagium, Lb. III.), and a young Spanish presbyter Paulus [Paul] Orosius (§ 47, 20) complained of him to the Synod of Jerusalem A.D. 415, under the presidency of bishop John of that city. The synergistic orientals, however, could not be convinced of the dangerous character of his carefully guarded doctrine. Such too was the result of the Synod of Diospolis or Lydda in A.D. 415 under bishop Eulogius of Cæsarea, where two Gallic bishops appeared as accusers. Augustine proved to the Palestinians in De gestis Pelagii that they had allowed themselves to be kept in the dark by Pelagius. Orosius too published a controversial tract, Apologeticus c. Pelag., in reply to which, or more probably to Jerome, Theodore of Mopsuestia wrote the book now lost, Περὶ τοὺς λέγοντας, φύσει καὶ οὐ γνώμη πταίειν τοὺς ἀνθρώπους. Then the Africans again took up the controversy. Two Synods at Mileve and Carthage, in A.D. 416, reiterated their condemnation and sent their decree to Innocent I. at Rome. The Pope acquiesced in the proceedings of the Africans. Pelagius sent a veiled confession of faith and Cœlestius appeared personally in Rome. Innocent died, however, in A.D. 417, before his arrival. His successor Zozimus [Zosimus], perhaps a Greek and certainly weak as a dogmatist, allowed himself to be won over by Cœlestius and brought severe charges against the Africans, against which again these entered a vigorous protest. In A.D. 418 the emperor Honorius issued his Sacrum rescriptum against the Pelagians and a general Synod at Carthage in the same year emphatically condemned them. Now Zozimus [Zosimus] was prevailed on also to condemn them in his Epistola tractatoria. Eighteen Italian bishops, among them Julian of Eclanum in Apulia, the most acute and able apologist of Pelagianism, refused to subscribe and were banished. They sought and obtained protection from the Constantinopolitan bishop Nestorius. But this connection did harm to both. The Roman bishop Cœlestine took part with those who opposed the Christological views of Nestorius (§ 52, 3), and at the Œcumenical Council of Ephesus in A.D. 431, the orientals condemned along with Nestorius also Pelagius and Cœlestius, without, however, determining anything positive in regard to the doctrine under discussion. To this end with unwearied zeal laboured Marius Mercator, a learned layman of Constantinople, who published two Commonitoria against Pelagius and Cœlestius, and a controversial treatise against Julian of Eclanum. Meanwhile too Augustine rested not from his energetic polemic. In A.D. 413 he wrote De spiritu et littera ad Marcellinum; in A.D. 415 against Pelagius, De natura et gratia; against Cœlestius, De perfectione justitiæ hominis. In A.D. 416, De gestis Pelagii. In A.D. 418, De gratia Dei et de peccato originali Lb. II. c. Pelag. et Cœl. In A.D. 419, De nuptiis et concupiscentia Lb. II., against the charge that his doctrine was a reviling of God-appointed marriage. In A.D. 420, C. duas epistolas Pelagianorum et Bonifatium I., against the vindicatory writings of Julian and his friends. In A.D. 421, Lb. VI. c. Julianum. And later still, Opus imperfectum c. secundam Juliani responsionem. Engl. Transl.; Ante-Nicene Lib.: Anti-Pelag. Wr., 3 vols., Edin., 1867 ff.

§ 53.5. The Semi-Pelagian Controversy, A.D. 427-529.―Bald Pelagianism was overthrown, but the excessive crudeness of the predestination theory, as set forth by Augustine, called forth new forms of opposition. The monks of the monastery of Adrumetum in North Africa, by severely carrying out the predestination theory to its last consequences, had fallen, some into sore distress of soul and despair, others into security and carelessness, while others again thought that to avoid such consequences, one must ascribe to human activity in the work of salvation a certain degree of meritoriousness. The abbot of the monastery in this dilemma applied to Augustine, who in two treatises, written in A.D. 427, De gratia et libero arbitrio and De correptione et gratia, sought to overcome the scruples and misconceptions of the monks. But about this time in Southern Gaul there was a whole theological school which rejected the doctrine of predestination, and maintained the necessity of according to human freedom a certain measure of co-operation with divine grace, in consequence of which sometimes the one, sometimes the other, is fundamental in conversion. At the head of this school was Johannes Cassianus († A.D. 432), a disciple and friend of Chrysostom, founder and president of the monastery at Massilia. His followers are thence called Massilians or Semi-Pelagians. He had himself contested Augustine’s doctrine, without naming it, in the 13th of his Collationes Patrum (§ 47, 21). Of his disciples the most famous was Vincentius [Vincent] Lerinensis (of the monastery of Lerinum), who in his Commonitorium pro Catholicæ fidei antiquitate et universitate (Engl. Transl., Oxford, 1836) laid down the principle that the catholic faith is, quod semper, ubique et ab omnibus creditum est. Judged by this standard Augustine’s doctrine was by no means catholic. The second book of this work, now lost, probably contested Augustinianism expressly and was, therefore, suppressed. But Augustine had talented supporters even in Gaul, such as the two laymen Hilarius and Prosper Aquitanicus (§ 47, 20). What took place around them they reported to Augustine, who wrote against the Massilians De predestinatione Sanctorum and De dono perseverantiæ. He was prevented by his death, which took place in A.D. 430, from taking part longer in the contest. Hilarius and Prosper, however, continued it. Since the Roman bishop Cœlestine, before whom in A.D. 431 they personally made complaint, answered with a Yes and No theology, Prosper himself took up the battle in an able work De gratia Dei et libero arbitrio contra Collatorem, but in doing so unwittingly smoothed off the sharpest points of the Augustinian system. This happened yet more decidedly in the ingenious treatise De Vocatione gentium, whose author was perhaps Leo the Great, afterwards pope but then only a deacon. On the other side, opponents (Arnobius the younger?) used the artifice of presenting, in the notable work entitled Prædestinatus, pretending to be written by a follower of Augustine, a caricature of the doctrine of predestination carried to the utmost extreme of absurdity, and these sought to justify their own position. The first book contains a description of ninety heresies, the last of which is predestinationism; the second gives as supplement to the first the pretended treatise of such a predestinarian; and the third confutes it. A certain presbyter Lucidus, a zealous adherent of the doctrine of predestination, was by a semi-Pelagian synod at Aries in A.D. 475 forced to recant. Faustus, bishop of Rhegium (§ 47, 21), sent after him by order of the Council a controversial treatise De gratia Dei et humanæ mentis libero arbitrio, and also in the same year A.D. 475, a Synod at Lyons sanctioned semi-Pelagianism. The treatise of Faustus, although moderate and conciliatory, caused violent agitation among a community of Scythian monks in Constantinople, A.D. 520. They complained through bishop Possessor of Carthage to pope Hormisdas, but he too answered with a Yes and No theology. Then the Africans banished by the Vandals to Sardinia took up the matter. They held a Council in A.D. 523, by whose order Fulgentius of Ruspe (§ 47, 20), a zealous apologist of Augustinianism composed his De veritate prædest. et gratia Dei Lb. III., which made an impression even in Gaul. And now two able Gallic bishops, Avitus of Vienne and Cæsarius of Arles (§ 47, 20) entered the lists in behalf of a moderate Augustinianism, and won for it at the Synod of Oranges in A.D. 529 a decided victory over semi-Pelagianism. Augustine’s doctrine of original sin in its strictest form, and his assertions about the utter want of merit in every human act and the unconditional necessity of grace were acknowledged, faith was extolled as exclusively the effect of grace, but predestination in regard to the Reprobati was reduced to mere foreknowledge, and predestination to evil was rejected as blasphemy against God. A synod held in the same year, A.D. 529, at Valence confirmed the decrees of Oranges. Boniface II. of Rome did the same in A.D. 530.168―Continuation § 91, 5.

§ 54. Reappearance and Remodelling of Earlier Heretical Sects.

Manichæism (§ 29) had still numerous adherents not merely in the far off eastern provinces but also in Italy and North Africa; and isolated Marcionite churches (§ 27, 11) were still to be found in almost all the countries within the empire and also beyond its bounds. An independent reawakening of Gnostic-Manichæan tendencies arose in Spain under the name of Priscillianism.

§ 54.1. Manichæism.―The universal toleration of religion, which Constantine introduced, was also extended to the Manichæans of his empire (§ 29, 3). But from the time of Valentinian I. the emperors issued repeatedly severe penal laws against them. The favour which they obtained in Syria and Palestine led bishop Titus of Bostra in Arabia Petræa, about A.D. 370, to write his 4 Bks. against the Manichæans. The Manichæan church stood in particularly high repute in North Africa, even to the 4th and 5th centuries. Its most important representative there, Faustus of Mileve, published a controversial treatise against the Catholic church, which Augustine, who had earlier been himself an adherent of the Manichæans, expressly answered in 33 Bks. (Engl. Transl.: “Ante-Nicene Lib.” Treatises against Faustus the Manichæan, Edin., 1868). When the Manichæan Felix, in order to advance the cause of his church, came to Hippo, Augustine challenged him to a public disputation, and after two days’ debate drove him into such straits that he at last admitted himself defeated, and was obliged to pronounce anathema on Mani and his doctrine. With still greater zeal than by the imperial government were the African Manichæans persecuted by the Vandals, whose king Hunerich (§ 76, 3) burnt many, and transported whole ships’ loads to the continent of Europe. In the time of Leo the Great († A.D. 461) they were very numerous in Rome. His investigations tend to show that they entertained antinomian views, and in their mysteries indulged in lustful practices. Also in the time of Gregory the Great († A.D. 604) the church of Italy was still threatened by their increase. Since then, however, nothing more is heard of Manichæan tendencies in the West down to the 11th century, when suddenly they again burst forth with fearfully threatening and contagious power (§ 108, 1). In the eastern parts of the empire, too, numerous Gnostic-Manichæan remnants continued to exist in secret, and from the 9th to the 12th century reappeared in a new form (§ 71). Still more widely about this time did such views spread among the Mussulman rulers of the Eastern borderlands, as far as China and India, as the Arabian historians of this period testify (§ 29, 1).

§ 54.2. Priscillianism, A.D. 383-563.―The first seeds of the Gnostic-Manichæan creed were brought to Spain in the 4th century by an Egyptian Marcus. A rich and cultured layman Priscillian let himself be drawn away in this direction, and developed it independently into a dualistic and emanationistic system. Marriage and carnal pleasures were forbidden, yet under an outward show of strict asceticism were concealed antinomian tendencies with impure orgies. At the same time the sect encouraged and required lies and perjury, hypocrisy and dissimulation for the spread and preservation of their community. “Jura, perjura, secretum perdere noli.” Soon Priscillianists spread over all Spain; even some bishops joined them. Bishop Idacius of Emerida by his passionate zeal against them fanned the flickering fire into a bright flame. A synod at Saragossa in A.D. 380 excommunicated them, and committed the execution of its decrees to Bishop Ithacius of Sossuba, a violent and besides an immoral man. Along with Idacius he had obtained from the emperor Gratian an edict which pronounced on all Priscillianists the sentence of banishment. Priscillian’s bribes, however, not only rendered this edict inoperative, but also an order for the arrest of Ithacius, which he avoided only by flight into Gaul. Here he won over the usurper Maximus, the murderer of Gratian, who, greedy for their property, used the torture against the sect, and had Priscillian as well as some of his followers beheaded at Treves in A.D. 385. This was the first instance of capital punishment used against heretics. The noble bishop, Martin of Tours (§ 47, 14), to whom the emperor had previously promised that he would act mildly, hastened to Treves and renounced church fellowship with Ithacius and all bishops who had assented to the death sentence. Ambrose too and other bishops expressed their decided disapproval. This led Maximus to stop the military inquisition against them. But the glory of martyrdom had fired the enthusiasm of the sect, and among the barbarians who made their way into Spain from A.D. 409 they won a rich harvest. Paulus [Paul] Orosius (§ 47, 20) wrote his Commonitorium de errore Priscillianist. in A.D. 415, looking for help to Augustine, whom, however, concern and contests in other directions allowed to take but little part in this controversy. Of more consequence was the later interference of Leo the Great, occasioned by a call for help from bishop Turribius of Astorga. Following his instructions, a Concilium Hispanicum in A.D. 447 and still more distinctly a Council at Braga in A.D. 563 passed vigorous rules for the suppression of heresy. Since then the name of the Priscillianists has disappeared, but their doctrine was maintained in secret for some centuries longer.169

V. WORSHIP, LIFE, DISCIPLINE AND MORALS.

§ 55. Worship in General.

Christian worship freed by Constantine from the pressure of persecution developed a great wealth of forms with corresponding stateliness of expression. But doctrinal controversies claimed so much attention that neither space nor time was left for carrying the other developments in the same way through the fire of conflict and sifting. Hence forms of worship were left to be moulded in particular ways by the spirit of the age, nationality and popular taste. The public spirit of the church, however, gave to the development an essential unity, and early differences were by and by brought more and more into harmony. Only between East and West was the distinction strong enough to make in various ways an impression in opposition to the levelling endeavours of catholicity.

The age of Cyril of Alexandria marks an important turning point in the development of worship. It was natural that Cyril’s prevailing doctrine of the intimate connection of the divine and human natures in the person of Christ should have embodied itself in the services of the church. But this doctrine was yet at least one-sided theory which did not wholly exclude its perversion into error. In the dogma, indeed, thanks to the exertions of Leo and Theodoret, the still extant Monophysite error had no place given it. But in the worship of the church it had embedded itself, and here it was not overcome, and its presence was not even suspected, so, it could now not only develop itself undisturbed in the direction of worship of saints, images, relics, of pilgrimages, of sacrifice of the mass, etc., but also it could decisively deduce therefrom a development of dogmas not yet established, e.g. in the doctrine of the church, of the priesthood, of the sacraments, especially of the Lord’s Supper, etc., etc.

§ 56. Festivals and Seasons for Public Worship.

The idea of having particular days of the week consecrated in memory of special incidents in the work of redemption had even in the previous period found expression (§ 37), but it now passed into the background all the more as the church began to apply itself to the construction in the richest possible form of a Christian year. The previous difference in the development of East and West occasioned each to take its own particular course, determined in the one case very much by a Jewish-Christian, in the other by a Gentile-Christian, tendency. Nevertheless in the 4th century we find a considerable levelling of these divergences. This at least was attained unto thereby that the three chief festivals received an essentially common form in both churches. But in the 5th and 6th centuries, in the further development of the Christian year, the two churches parted all the more decidedly from one another. The Western church especially gave way more and more unreservedly to the tendency to make the natural year the type and pattern for the Christian year. Thus the Western Christian year obtained a richer development and grew up into an institution more vitally and inwardly related to the life of the people. The luxuriant overgrowth of saints’ days, however, prevented the church from here reaching its ideal.

§ 56.1. The Weekly Cycle.―Constantine the Great issued a law in A.D. 321, according to which all magisterial, judicial and municipal business was stopped on Sunday. At a later period he also forbade military exercises. His successors extended the prohibition to the public spectacles. Alongside of Sunday the Sabbath was long celebrated in the East by meetings in the churches, avoidance of fasting and by standing at prayers. The Dies stationum, Wednesday and Friday (§ 37), were observed in the East as fast days. The West gave up the Wednesday fast, and introduced in its place the anti-Judaic Sabbath fast.

§ 56.2. Hours and Quarterly Fasts.―The number of appointed hours of prayer (the 3rd, 6th and 9th hours, comp. Dan. vi. 10-14; Acts ii. 15; iii. 1; x. 9) were increased during the 5th century to eight (Horæ canonicæ: Matutina or matins at 3 a.m.; Prima at 6 a.m.; Tertia at 9 a.m.; Sexta at 12 noon; Nona at 3 p.m.; Vesper at 6 p.m.; Completorium at 9 p.m.; and Mesonyktion or Vigils at 12 midnight); yet generally two of the night hours were combined, so as to preserve the seven times required in Ps. cxix. 164. This arrangement of hours was strictly observed by monks and clerics. The common basis of prayer for devotions at these hours was the Psalter divided among the seven days of the week. The rest of the material adapted to the course of the Christian year, consisting of scripture and patristic readings, legends of martyrs and saints, prayers, hymns, doxologies, etc. gradually accumulated so that it had to be abbreviated, and hence the name Breviarium commonly given to such selections. The Roman Breviary, arranged mainly by Leo the Great, Gelasius and Gregory the Great, gradually throughout the West drove all other such compositions from the field. An abbreviation by Haymo, General of the Minorites, in A.D. 1241 was sanctioned by Gregory IX., but had subsequently many alterations made upon it. The Council of Trent finally charged the Papal chair with the task of preparing a new redaction which the clergy of the whole catholic church would be obliged to use. Such a production was issued by Pius V. in A.D. 1568, and then in A.D. 1631 Urban VIII. gave it the form in which it is still current.―In the West the year was divided into three-monthly periods, quatuor tempora, corresponding to the seasons of prayer recurring every three hours. There were harvest prayer and thanksgiving seasons, occupied, in accordance with Joel ii., with penance, fasting and almsgiving. Leo the Great brought this institution to perfection. The quatuor tempora, ember days, occur in the beginning of the Quadragesima, in the week after Pentecost, and in the middle of the 7th and 10th months (Sept. and Dec.), and were kept by a strict fast on Wednesday, Friday and Saturday with a Sabbath vigil.

§ 56.3. The Reckoning of Easter.―At the Council of Nicæa in A.D. 325 the Roman mode of observing Easter prevailed over that of Asia Minor (§ 37, 2). Those who adhered to the latter method were regarded as a sect (Quartadecimani Τεσσαρεσκαιδεκατῖται). The Council decreed that the first day of full moon after the spring equinox should be regarded as the 14th Nisan, and that the festival of the resurrection should be celebrated on the Sunday following. The bishop of Alexandria undertook the astronomical determination of the festival on each occasion, because there astronomical studies were most diligently prosecuted. He published yearly, usually about Epiphany, a circular letter, Liber paschalis, giving to the other churches the result of the calculation, and took advantage generally of the opportunity to discuss the ecclesiastical questions of the day. First of all at Alexandria, probably to prevent for all time a combination of the Jewish and Christian Easter festivals, the practice was introduced of keeping the feast when the 14th and 16th of the new moon fell upon Friday and Sunday, not on the same Sunday but eight days later,―a practice which Rome also, and with her a great part of the West, adopted in the 5th century (§ 77, 3). A further difference existed as to the point of time with which the day of full moon was to be regarded as beginning. The Easter Canon of Hippolytus (§ 31, 3) had calculated it in a very unsatisfactory manner according to a sixteen-years’ cycle of the moon, after the course of which the day of full moon would again occur on the same day of the year. In Alexandria the more exact nineteen-years’ cycle of Anatolius was adopted, according to which the day of full moon had an aberration of about one day only in 310 years, and even this was caused rather by the imperfection of the Julian year of 365 days with three intercalary days in 400 years. But in Rome the reckoning was made as the basis of an eighty-four years’ cycle which had indeed the advantage of completing itself not only on the same day of the year but on the same day of the week; while, on the other hand, it had this drawback that after eighty-four years it had fallen about a day behind the actual day of full moon. There was also this further difference that in Alexandria the 21st of March was regarded as the day when day and night were equal, and at Rome, but wrongly, the 18th of March. The cycle of 532 (28 ✕ 19) years reckoned in A.D. 452 by Victorius, a bishop of Aquitaine, was assimilated to the Alexandrian, without, however, losing the advantage of the eighty-four years’ cycle above referred to, which, however, it succeeded in obtaining only by once in every period of nineteen years fixing the equinox on the 20th of March. The Roman abbot Dionysius Exiguus (§ 47, 23), finally, in A.D. 525 harmonized the Roman and the Alexandrian reckoning by setting up a ninety-five years’ cycle (5 ✕ 19), and this cycle was introduced throughout all the West by Isidore of Seville and the Venerable Bede (§ 90, 2). The error occasioned by the inexactness of the Julian calendar continued till the Gregorian reform of the calendar (§ 149, 3).