The writings of St. Cyril were next examined, and the Severians further complained that the Council of Chalcedon had declared Theodoret and Ibas orthodox, notwithstanding that they had also admitted the union of the two natures in one person. This was the beginning of the controversy on. the Three Chapters, which shortly after broke out and excited such tumult. The Catholic bishops denied the authenticity of the quotations brought forward by the Severians, and Hypatius, Bishop of Ephesus, in particular, insisted that those attributed to Denys the Areopagite were supposititious. Although the conference did not effect the desired reconciliation between the contending parties, it at least brought about the conversion of Philoxenus and a few other Monophysite bishops and some monks.

Justinian was perfectly well aware that this attempt at reconciliation was a failure, and yet he issued a new edict, declaring that the proposition, "One of the three divine Persons was crucified," was orthodox. This occasioned a fresh controversy on the "addition" made to the Trisagion, which Pope Hormisdas had declared entirely useless, and, on account of the heretical interpretation put upon it by the Monophysites, even dangerous. Upon this, those about the emperor exerted themselves to obtain a favorable judgment on the “addition,” and succeeded in bringing over to their way of thinking the learned African bishop, Fulgentius Ferrandus of Ruspe, and Dionysius the Little. The two Popes, John II. and Agapetus I., also approved of it-not, however, without guarding their approvals with proper restrictions.

The Monophysite heresy was rendered doubly injurious to the Church through the ceaseless intrigues of Theodora. Through her efforts, Anthimus, the Monophysite Bishop of 229. On the occasion of this public appeal at these conferences, the question was at once asked by Hypatius, the Catholic Archbishop of Ephesus: Illa enim testimonia, quae vos Dionysii Areopagitae dicitis, unde potestis ostendere vera esse, sicut suspicamini? Si enim ejus erant, non potuissent latere beatum Cyrillum. (Mansi, T. VIII., p. 821.)

1

1 Cod. Justiniani, I. 1, 6 (of the year 533). Pope John's Letter of Approbation, Ibid. I. 1, 6, and Mansi, T. VIII., p. 797-800. Cf. the remarks thereon of Binnius, I. 1, and the explications of Fulgentius Ferrandus, in Galland. biblioth., T. XI.

Tribizond, was raised to the patriarchal see of Constantinople, A. D. 535. He had succeeded in reaching this exalted position by simulating orthodoxy, but, fortunately enough, Pope Agapetus, who was then at the capital, saw through the deceit, and exposed his dishonesty. He was deposed by Justinian, and sent into exile.' Mennas, one of Agapetus' friends, succeeded to him. The new patriarch called a synod, at which seventy bishops assisted. They anathematized the other leaders of the Monophysite party, and the sentence was ratified by the emperor.

Theodora's resources were not yet exhausted. She laid a still deeper plot, and endeavored to commit the Roman Pontiff to the establishment of Monophysitism. She contrived to have Pope Silverius banished, under pretense that he was suspiciously connected with the Goths. Belisarius, the imperial general, exiled him to the island of Palmaria, where, being deprived of necessary food by Vigilius, the tool and accomplice of Belisarius in this nefarious proceeding, he died of starvation June 20, A. D. 538.

Vigilius, a Roman deacon, then residing at Constantinople as Apocrisiarius or Papal Nuncio, was forced by Belisarius to accept the papal throne, after first having made a promise to Theodora to restore Anthimus and defend the Monophysite cause, A. D. 537.2 After the death of Silverius, Vigilius having been, through the influence of Belisarius, either lawfully elected (?) or tacitly acknowledged, disappointed the hopes of Theodora. He recalled the promise he had given her, wrote

1Acta synodi Constant. a. 536, in Mansi, T. VIII., p. 873 sq., particularly

p. 888.

2 As to Vigilius pledging himself to Monophysitism, conf. Liberati breviar., c. 22, and Victor. Tunun. chronic., in Canisii lection. antiq., ed Basnage, T. I., p. 330. Dr. Rump, in the German revised ed. of Rohrbacher's Ch. H., Vol. IX., p. 207, obs. 4, attempts to defend Pope Vigilius, but does not by any means "consider this controversy as settled." Also Vincenzi, in St. Gregorii Nyssen. et Origenis scripta et doctrinam recensio, Romae, 1864 sq., 4 vols., in Vol. IV. Compare, for the other view, Nihues, The Empire and the Papacy in the Middle Ages, Münster, 1863, p. 444 sq. Hefele, Hist. of Councils, Vol. II., p. 552 sq. Punkes, Pope Vigilius and the Controversy on the Three Chapters, Munich, 1864. Hergenroether, The Patriarch Photius, Ratisbon, 1867 sq., Vol. I., p. 163.

to Justinian and Mennas, declaring that he would scrupulously adhere to the decrees of the four Ecumenical Councils and to the teachings of his predecessors, Leo and Agapetus, and passed sentence of excommunication upon Anthimus and Severus.' He was, however, obliged to pay dearly for his ambition during the controversy on the Three Chapters.

By these and other acts of imperial interference in the af fairs of the Church, the Monophysites became more formidable than they otherwise would have been to the orthodox party.

§ 122. Origen Condemned as a Monophysite, and the Three Chapters as the Sources of Nestorianism.

SOURCES: Facundi Episcopi Hermian. (about 547) pro defens. trium capitulor., libb. XII.; lib. contr. Mocianum scholasticum (max. bibl. Lugd. T. X., p. 1-113; Galland. bibl., T. XI., p. 665 sq.) Fulgentii Ferrandi, diaconi Carthaginens., epist. ad Pelag. et Anatol. pro tribus capitulis (opp. ed. Chifflet, Divione, 1649; max. bibl., T. IX., p. 502 sq.; Galland., T. XI., p. 665). Rustici, diaconi Romani, disputatio contr. Acephalos (max. bibl., T. X., p. 350 sq.; Galland., T. II., p. 37 sq.)

WORKS: Norisii, dissert. de synodo V. (opp. T. V.) In reply to him, Garnerii dissert. de synodo V. (Theodoreti, opp. ed. Schulze, T. V.) Ballerinorum, defens. dissert. Norisii de syn. V. (Norisii opp. T. IV.) Vincenzi, in St. Gregor. Nysseni et Origenis scripta et doctrinam, etc., Vol. IV. Against his gratuitous assertions, see Reiser, in the Tübg. Theol. Quart. 1867, p. 352, and Hergenroether, in the Bonn Journal of Theol. Literature, 1866, p. 446–451. Hefele, Hist. of Councils, Vol. II., p. 775-899. Katerkamp, Ch. H., Vol. III., p. 375-412. [Added by the translator: Punkes, Pope Vigilius and the Controversy on the Three Chapters, Munich, 1865.]

It was thought that the Origenist controversy had entirely died out in the fourth century, but subsequent events showed that its embers were still smoldering, and only waited for an occasion to flame out into a fresh blaze. The questions involved in the Arian controversy and those which followed it, were of such vital importance that the disputes arising out of the teachings of Origen were for a time neglected, but never wholly lost sight of. They were again opened about the year 530, and carried on with increased warmth by the monks of Palestine. Nonnus and Leontius, two learned, but

1

1 His revocation of that promise in his epist. ad Justinian. and ad Mennam, in Mansi, T. IX., p. 35 sq.

restless and ambitious monks, had extracted from the writings of Origen a number of bold and startling assertions, which they began to discuss among the solitaries of New or Great Laura, of which the venerable Sabas1 was abbot, apparently with no other purpose than to disturb the peace and quiet of this retreat. Their influence for evil became more powerful after they had been joined by two kindred spirits— Domitian, afterward Bishop of Ancyra, and Theodore Askidas, later on Bishop of Caesarea, in Palestine; and, on the death of the abbot Sabas, led to the wanton destruction of Great Laura.

2

The controversy soon spread to the other monasteries, and begot everywhere a spirit of turbulence and division. The Catholic monks, who went under the name of Sabaïtes, were cruelly persecuted by the Origenists, and were not permitted, so great was the vigilance and power of the latter, to present their grievances to the emperor. After a time, however, Pelagius, the Papal Apocrisiarius, or Nuncio, who was journeying through Egypt, learning the state of affairs, took with him a deputation of these monks to Constantinople (î. D. 540), and, through the influence of the patriarch Mennas, obtained for them an opportunity of submitting to the emperor an extract from the writings of Origen, which, they said, would clearly establish the fact that there existed a contradiction between the teachings of the Church and those of the Alexandrian theologian.

The imperial theologian was delighted with this opportunity to come forth again as an ecclesiastical legislator, and in the year 541 published an edict, in which he condemned the errors of Origen, and particularly those contained in his work On First Principles. The most notorious Origenists, such as Domitian and Theodore Askidas, the latter of whom was at heart a Monophysite, simulated acquiescence to the imperial judgment and subscribed to the edict. They were obliged to

3

1An excellent source: Cyrillus Scythopolitan. vita S. Sabae (Cotelerii monum. eccl. Gr. T. III.)

2 Walch, de Sabaitis (novae comment. societ., Götting., T. VIII. p. 1 sq.) 3 Justiniani epist. ad Mennam Patriarch. adv. impium Origen. et nefarias ejus sententias. (Mansi, T. IX., p. 487–534; Harduin, T. III., p. 243 sq.)

take this step in self-defense, for they had all along been forwarding their cause by pretending to the emperor that they held the orthodox faith.

Mennas, by order of the emperor, convoked a council (σúvodos évanμovoa) of all the bishops still present at Constantinople (543), in which, it appears, the notorious fifteen heretical propositions of Origen were condemned.' But Theodore Askidas, who, through the influence of the empress, possessed great power at court, so worked upon the fears of Peter, Patriarch of Jerusalem, that the latter did not dare to take decisive measures against the Origenist monks. Theodore arranged matters so skillfully that these became more powerful than ever in Palestine, and their newly acquired influence emboldened them to commit fresh acts of outrage against the Sabaïtes. It was not long, however, before these Origenists split into the two opposing parties of the Protoctistoi and the Isochristoi, the former of which deified the preëxisting human soul of Christ, and were, on this account, called by their adversaries Tetratheïtes, because by the deification of the human soul of Christ they added a fourth person to the Trinity. The latter, starting with the proposition that in the beginning all souls were equal, argued that this equality would be finally restored, and all souls would become equal to Christ.

2

But Theodore was not yet satisfied with the vengeance he had taken upon his adversaries. In order to draw off the emperor's attention from the Origenist controversy, he artfully represented to him that the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, those of Theodoret against St. Cyril, and the famous epistle of Ibas to the Persian Maris, known as the

1 These fifteen canons, on account of their headings, are supposed to have been enacted in the Fifth Ecumenical Council, but more probably on this occasion. They were first published in Greek by Petrus Lambecius, in comment. bibl. August. Vindob., T. VIII., p. 435 sq. Then graecae addita interpretatio latina Joannis Harduini, S. J., by Mansi, T. IX., p. 395–400. Cf. Le Quien, Oriens christian., T. III., p. 210 sq., and Hefele, Hist. of Councils, Vol. II., p. 708-774.

2 This tendency is openly professed by the Origenist, Domitian, in the libell. ad Vigil. in Facund. Hermian. pro defensione trium capitulor., lib. IV., c. 4. Cf. also Liberatus, 1. 1., c. 24.