The Controversy Of The Three Chapters And The Fifth Oecumenical Synod. F481 CHAPTER -Events Preceding The Opening Of The Fifth Synod.

SEC. 258. ORIGIN OF THE CONTROVERSY OF THE THREE CHAPTERS.

In order to divert the Emperor Justinian and also, as Evagrius adds (4. 37), the theologians of that period from the persecution of the Origenists, Theodore Ascidas, archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, of whom we have already heard, stirred up the controversy of the three chapters.

Although a leader of the Origenists at that time, yet in order that he might not lose his position and influence at Court, where he resided almost continually, he had assented to the rejection of Origen; but selfpreservation now bid him give a different direction to the Emperor’s passion for dogmatising. When Justinian was occupied with the notion of drawing up an extensive document with the view of reuniting the Acephali, a sect of the Monophysites, to the Church (see vol. 3, sec. 208), Ascidas, together with some friends, represented to him that there was a much shorter and surer way to that end, and it might spare him the trouble of a lengthy treatise, if he would only pronounce an anathema on Theodore of Mopsuestia and his writings, on the letter of Bishop Ibas of Edessa to the Persian Maris, and, finally, on those writings of Theodoret which had been put forth in defense of Nestorius and against Cyril and the Synod of Ephesus. This suggestion, which, as Liberatus indicates (l .c .), was supported by the Empress Theodora, who had Monophysite tendencies, was not without favoring circumstances, for, in fact, the Severians had declared, in the religious conference, A.D. 533 (see vol. 3, sec. 208, and above, sec. 246), that one of the reasons why they could not accept the Council of Chalcedon was that Ibas and Theodoret were there declared to be orthodox. The Emperor entered into the proposal and issued an edict, in which he pronounced the threefold anathema required, and thus provoked the controversy of the three chapters.

By kefa>laia , Capitula , were generally understood some propositions drawn up in the form of anathematisms, which threatened with excommunication everyone who maintained this or that. Thus the twelve well-known anathematisms of Cyril were constantly entitled his twelve kefa>laia . Similar kefa>laia were also contained in the edict which the Emperor Justinian now issued. We see this partly from the few fragments of it still extant (see below in this section), and also from a quite similar later edict, the oJmologi>a pi>stewv jIoustianou~ aujtokra>torov kata< triw~n kefalai>wn (see below). In the latter he says: “He wishes to draw up only a few kefa>laia in the interest of the orthodox faith,” and among these the most interesting are kefa>laia 12 to 14, as follows: “Whoever defends Theodore of Mopsuestia … let him be anathema”; “Whoever defends certain writings of Theodore … let him be anathema”; and “Whoever defends the impious letter written by Ibas … let him be anathema.” Three kefa>laia quite similar to these seem to have been contained in the first edict of the Emperor (on this subject), which is now lost; and we see from this in what sense the expression “tri>a kefa>laia, ” or “three chapters,” was originally to be understood. To be exact, we should have to say: “Whoever obeys the imperial edict, subscribes the tri>a kera>laia ; whoever does not, rejects them”; but the expression did not attain to this form; but rather by the kefa>laia quite generally, not those three popositions , but the persons and writings designated in them; and when we meet with the expression tri>a kefa>laia , or tria capitula , in the later imperial edicts, in the minutes of the fifth Oecumenical Synod, in papal and other letters, we understand by this:] (1) the person and writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia; (2) the writings of Theodoret for Nestorius and against Cyril and the Synod of Ephesus; and (3) the letter of Ibas to the Persian Maris.

The fifth Oecumenical Synod, in its closing sentence, thus declares: “Praedicta igitur tria capitula anathematisamus, id est, Theodorum impium Mopsuestenum cum nefandis ejus conscriptis, et quae impie Theodoritus conscripsit, et impiam epistolam, quae dicitur Ibae.” To a similar effect the Emperor Justinian expresses himself in that decree which was read at the first session of the fifth Council: “That he had consulted the bishops respecting the impia tria capitula , and that these impia tria capitula were nevertheless by many defended.” In the letter of Pope Vigilius to Bishop Eutychius of Constantinople, in which he gave his approval to the fifth Oecumenical Council, we read: ta< proeirhme>na toi>nun tri>a ajsebh~ qeo>dwron, k.t.l . Facundus, bishop of Hermiane, in Africa, a contemporary of these events and a zealous opponent of the imperial edict, named his extensive treatise in defense of Theodore, etc., Libri 12 pro defensione trium capitulorum ; and Liberatus (l .c .) relates that the Emperor had demanded the damnatio trium capitulorum . Thus by tria capitula are generally understood, not the three propositions of the imperial edict, but the well-known three points, Theodore and his writings, some writings of Theodoret, and the letter of Ibas. Only in the oJmologi>a of the Emperor, and probably in his first edict, was the original meaning of the kela>laia maintained. In the present superscription, probably not original, of the work of Facundus, as in the Chronicle of S. Isidore of Seville, we meet with the expression, tria Chalcedonensis concilii capitula ; and this has been translated by several scholars as “three decrees of the Council of Chalcedon”; others, with greater probability, “three questions which were discussed in that Synod.” But, in the first place, whilst at Chalcedon there were discussions on Ibas and Theodoret, there were none respecting Theodore of Mopsuestia, nor was any decree on him put forth. Besides, no decrees of Chalcedon were ever put forth with the predicate impia capitula , or ajsebh~ kela>laia . That this statement and translation is not admissible is finally shown by this, that the Emperor Justinian, Pope Vigilius, and all who rejected the three chapters, expressly declared that they had not in the least impugned the decrees of Chalcedon.

How it was, however, that these three chapters could become the subject of a violent controversy, will be understood when we consider more closely the three men around whose persons or writings the controversy was carried on. We have already seen (vol. 3, sec. 127) that Bishop Theodore of Mopsuestia, formerly a priest at Antioch, was the head of that Syrian theological school which, in opposition to Apollinarianism, endeavored to hold fast, in a new way, the truth of each of the two natures of Christ. The ecclesiastical term “Incarnation of God” appeared to him dangerous, as though it taught a change of God the Word into a man; and for this reason he wished to recognize only an indwelling or ejnoi>khsiv of the Word in a man and thereby divided the one Christ into two , into the man and the dwelling in Him, or, into the temple and the God who dwelt in it. Thus Theodore of Mopsuestia was the real father of that heresy which received its name from one of his disciples, Nestorius. Theodore had died before the Nestorian controversy broke out (A.D. 428), and this is undoubtedly the reason why the third Oecumenical Synod at Ephesus condemned Nestorius, and made no reference to Theodore of Mopsuestia (see vol. 3, sec. 134). In the same way his writings were spared, when the Emperor Theodosius II. had those of Nestorius burnt. Taking advantage of this circumstance, the confessed and secret Nestorians hastened to circulate the books of Theodore and those of the still earlier Diodorus of Tarsus, his master, and to translate them into Syriac, Armenian, and Persian. The principal seat of this movement was Edessa in Mesopotamia, in consequence of which, in the year 435, the bishop of this city, Nabulas, felt himself obliged to point out Theodore of Mopsuestia publicly as the real father of the Nestorian heresy, and to draw the attention of all his colleagues to this fact. Several of these were of a different view, and ascribed the action of Nabulas to personal resentment. The great Cyril of Alexandria, on the contrary, and the celebrated Proclus of Constantinople, recognized the correctness of the contention of Nabulas, and issued memorials warning against the errors of the Mopsuestian. They demanded an anathema to be pronounced upon him; and Cyril turned to the Emperor for this purpose.

Along with these orthodox opponents of Theodore, however, there appeared also, at the same time, monks and Armenians of Monophysite tendencies as accusers, and pointed out many orthodox statements of his as heresies. This caused Cyril and Proclus on the other side to defend the Mopsuestian, and to abstain from the demand for an anathema. Theodosius II. also issued an edict to the effect that the peace of the Church should be maintained, and that it should not be allowed that men who had died in the communion of the Catholic Church should be blackened (see vol. 3, sec. 160). Thus, for the time, the controversy was kept under, but not settled, and was therefore sure to break out again on the first opportunity. It was natural that the Monophysites should come forward from the beginning as violent opponents of the Nestorian Theodore. Even Eutyches had accused him and Diodorus of Tarsus of heresy (see vol. 3, sec. 171), whilst the Nestorians honored the Mopsuestian as one of the greatest teachers, and do so to this day. The judgments of the orthodox theologians were doubtful. On the one side, they could not deny the relationship between Theodore and Nestorianism; on the other hand, however, they would not go against what had been done by Cyril and the Emperor Theodosius II., and the fourth Oecumenical Synod of Chalcedon let it pass, without any remark in the way of correction, when, at their tenth session, that passage from the letter of Ibas was read, in which he said: “The tyrant of Edessa (Bishop Nabulas), under the pretext of religion, has persecuted even the dead, e .g . the late Theodore (of Mopsuestia), this herald of the truth and teacher of the Church,” and so forth (see sec. 196 in vol. 3). When the Emperor Justinian, a hundred years afterwards, demanded an anathema upon the person and writings of Theodore, the one party might regard this as well founded, whilst the other could think it was wrong at so late a period to anathematize a bishop who had died in Church communion more than a hundred years ago; besides that, the reputation of the Council of Chalcedon must in that way suffer.

The second man about whom the controversy of the three chapters turned was Theodoret, the learned bishop of Cyrus in Syria, already so often mentioned. He had also been a disciple of Theodore of Mopsuestia; and if he did not go so far as he did, yet he had, in former times, frequently maintained that, by the doctrine of Cyril and Ephesus, the natures in Christ are mingled. With peculiar violence he had in particular opposed the anathematisms of Cyril as Apollinarian (sec. 132 in vol. 3). At the third Oecumenical Synod at Ephesus he appeared in company with his patriarch, John of Antioch, and he was one of the most zealous members of the Conciliabulum which opposed the Ephesine Synod and decreed the deposition of Cyril and Memnon (sec. 135). For this reason he was, like others, excommunicated until he should amend (sec. 139). When the Emperor summoned deputies of both parties, as well of the Ephesine Synod as of the Antiochene faction, Theodoret was among the latter, came in this capacity to Chalcedon, distinguished himself here also by his polemic against Cyril, and would know nothing at all of Church communion with him. He was pained by the Emperor taking the orthodox envoys with him to Constantinople, whilst the Antiochenes were obliged to remain at Chalcedon; and still endeavored by speeches, letters, etc., to labor for what he thought the true doctrine, and cried “Woe” over the persecutors of Nestorius (secs. 145, 147, 148, 149).

After his departure from Chalcedon we meet with him again active against Cyril at Synods and by writings (secs. 151 152); soon, however, the explanation of Cyril, that he taught no mingling of the natures, gave him great satisfaction (sec 153). That he was not really a Nestorian he showed by his offer to anathematize all who separate the one Lord into two Sons, as well as by his endeavoring to gain over other Oriental bishops for the restoration of Church unity. When the union between Cyril and John of Antioch was actually effected, Theodoret was in agreement with the dogmatic part of the document of union, but would not at all consent with the anathematizing of Nestorius, which was contained in it, as he held his friend to be innocent in the principal matter, and considered him to be misunderstood (secs. 158, 159). He took, therefore, for some time a middle position between the decided friends and the complete opponents of the union, went, therefore, temporarily with his Patriarch John, became reconciled again after a conference with him, and entered into the union, after John had allowed that anyone who was unwilling need not subscribe the deposition of Nestorius (sec. 159).

When, after the death of Cyril, the Monophysite party began to grow powerful under the protection of his successor Dioscurus, Theodoret again came under suspicion of Nestorianism, and although he put forth a dear confession of his orthodoxy, Dioscurus nevertheless pronounced him excommunicated. The Emperor, too, became very ill-disposed towards him, and forbade him to appear at the next Synod unless he were expressly summoned (secs. 170, 175). Afterwards he was deposed at the Robber- Synod, and banished by the Emperor (sees. 179, 181). He appealed to the Pope, and petitioned for an impartial examination of his case at another Synod. The new Emperor Marcian recalled him; but he could not at once enter upon his bishopric, because the Synod of Chalcedon had first to decide on the subject. When he appeared at the eighth session, he was required immediately to pronounce anathema upon Nestorius. He hesitated, and at first was unwilling to do so unconditionally; yet he put his own orthodoxy out of doubt, and at last consented to the anathema, whereupon he received his bishopric back, and was troubled no more to his death (A.D. 457).

The Emperor Justinian, as we know, had not wished to anathematize the person nor all the works of Theodoret, but only those written against Cyril and the Synod of Ephesus and those in defense of Nestorius; and he was materially so far right, as the books in question contained, in fact, much that was erroneous, particularly many unfair attacks upon Cyril and the third Synod, many misrepresentations of the doctrine of Cyril and the third Synod, and a too favorable exposition of the Nestorian theses. From the orthodox side, therefore, it was possible to give an unhesitating assent to the anathema required in regard of these matters. As, however, the Synod of Chalcedon restored Theodoret without further demand, and pronounced no sentence on any part of his works, many of the orthodox supposed that the edict of the Emperor contained an attack upon the credit of the Council of Chalcedon, and the Monophysites could not fail, in fact, to use it in this sense. This scruple could not but arise when it was remembered that formerly at the religious conference at Constantinople, A.D. 533, the Severians had made the restoration of Theodoret a reproach against the Council of Chalcedon (sec. 246), and had maintained that he had not pronounced anathema on Nestorius at Chalcedon honestly, but only in appearance and deceptively. f493 Finally, in regard to the letter of Ibas to Maris, we have already seen (sec. 160) that, when Nabulas came forward with his violent polemic against the dead Theodore of Mopsuestia, Ibas was a priest of Edessa, and a great admirer of Theodore. After the death of Nabulas he became himself bishop of Edessa. About twelve years later some of his clergy brought a complaint against him, before the Patriarch Dominus of Antioch, on several grounds, particularly because he had circulated the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, had allowed himself in heretical expressions, and had made his dissolute nephew, Daniel, bishop of Carrae, and had spent Church property (sec. 169). In order to the investigation of the matter two commissions had to meet in Berytus and Tyre (about the year 448); the subject, however, came up at the ninth and tenth sessions of Chalcedon, at which the earlier minutes of Berytus and Tyre were read again (sec. 196). The chief Corpus delicti was the letter to Maris, bishop of Hardaschir in Persia, ascribed to Ibas, and this was naturally also read at Chalcedon. We gave a short extract from it under the tenth session of Chalcedon (sec. 196). The letter judges Cyril and the first Ephesine Synod with distinct unfairness and injustice, misrepresents the history of the Synod, accuses Cyril of having held an Apollinarian doctrine before the union with the Orientals, and casts the same reproach against the Synod of Ephesus because they approved the anathematisms of Cyril. Later, however, he says, Cyril and his adherents had corrected themselves, and, in the union, had accepted the true faith. The letter also will not admit the Communicatio idiomatum . In such a view of the matter an anathema on him (Ibas) was fully justified, in an objective sense, for he was really in a high degree offensive and insulting, not only towards the friends of Cyril, but also towards all who respected the third Oecumenical Synod. This part of its contents was capable of only one meaning.

On the contrary, the letter offered also a side in respect to which double and opposed judgment was possible. The author also declares in the letter that he holds fast that doctrine which had been enunciated at the union between Cyril and the Orientals, and recognizes the unity of the one Lord in the duality of the natures. If importance were attached to this, it might be inferred that Ibas had been peculiarly orthodox, and only through a misunderstanding had earlier opposed Cyril, and later denied the Communicatio idiomatum . But we might also understand that the author was only in appearance at the point of view of the union, and that his continued denial of the Communicatio idiomatum , and also the manner in which he still expressed himself in this letter respecting Cyril and the third Oecumenical Council, showed that then, too, he was still heretical, and that the whole letter was penetrated with the Nestorian leaven.

The Emperor and the members of the subsequent fifth Oecumenical Synod had taken the latter view; the defendants of the three chapters, on the contrary, formed a more favorable and kindly judgment on the letter and its author. On this side could be urged the circumstance that Ibas at the transactions at Tyre (sec. 196) had declared his adhesion to the third Oecumenical Synod, and at the same time had himself recognized and retracted a leading error in the letter. He was therefore, and because he gave assurance of his orthodoxy, agreed to the anathema on Nestorius, and could present a good testimony from his clergy, acquitted by his judges at Tyre (sec. 196). It is true that the Robber-Synod deposed him again, but the Synod of Chalcedon annulled this sentence again, declared the accusations brought against Ibas to be groundless, and restored him to his bishopric. This judgment was preceded by the reading of the Acts already passed in this matter, the minutes of Berytus and Tyre, the letter to Maris, and the testimony of the clergy of Edessa in favor of Ibas; and the Synod thereupon decreed the restoration of Ibas on the condition that he should pronounce anew an anathema upon Nestorius and his heresy. On the letter to Maris in specie the Synod pronounced no judgment. Whatever was Nestorian in it Ibas must have abjured by the required anathema on Nestorius. Some few of the voters at Chalcedon, however, namely, the papal legatees and Bishop Maximus of Antioch, expressed themselves in such a manner as to imply that in this very letter to Maris (on its bright side) they had discovered a proof of the orthodoxy of Ibas. That this explanation of their words is the correct one, we shall discuss later on, in the third chapter of this book, when we treat of the confirmation of the fifth Oecumenical Council by Pope Vigilius; and in any case it was not surprising that many among the orthodox should see, in the demand for an anathema upon the letter, an insult to the Synod of Chalcedon.

In order to pacify them the Emperor and his friends endeavored to bring proof that Ibas had never acknowledged that letter to be his, nay, that at the Synod at Chalcedon he had denied the authorship rather clearly. But the proof was insufficient; and also the way in which they sought to explain the votes of the papal legates, etc., and to show in an artificial manner that the Synod of Chalcedon had specially rejected that letter, could give no satisfaction. Many of the orthodox, particularly Bishop Facundus of Hermione in his Defensio trium capitulorum , also for some time Pope Vigilius, maintained, likewise going too far, the exact contrary, that the Council of Chalcedon had dearly approved the letter of Ibas to Maris, and declared it orthodox, and that an anathema upon it was not possible without detracting from that Synod. From all this we see how the imperial edict for the condemnation of the three chapters found, and must have found, differences of judgment among the orthodox.

If, now, we look a little closer at this edict itself, the contemporary Liberatus (l .c .), in the first place, tells us only that the Emperor demanded an anathema upon Theodore of Mopsuestia and the letter of Ibas. Of Theodoret he is silent at first; but some lines later he says: “Theodore Ascidas counselled the Emperor cunningly to declare an anathema on the three chapters in a special imperial decree,” i .e . not to bring the subject in a more uncertain manner before a Synod, but to decide it by a peremptory imperial decree. “Thereupon,” he says, “the Emperor actually issued a book (a detailed edict) in damnationem trium capitulorum .” To a similar effect Facundus also, in lib. 1 c. 2 of his Defensio trium capitulorum , speaks first of the letter of Ibas, the anathematizing of which had been advised to the Emperor; but in other places, and in the preface to the work mentioned, he says expressly that an anathema had been demanded and pronounced upon some writings of Theodoret, and on the person and writings of Theodore. f495 Liberatus maintains (l.c .) that Theodore Ascidas gave this advice to the Emperor chiefly on two grounds: First, because he was himself not merely an Origenist, but also an Acephalus, and, moreover, because, as an Origenist, he hated Theodore of Mopsuestia, who had written against Origen. There is no doubt that Liberatus was here mistaken, as no one else says anything of the Monophysitism of Ascidas, and, in fact, he is not to be suspected of it. The opposition of the Mopsuestian to Origen, however, had reference only to his exegetical methods, and certainly did not give occasion for the controversy of the three chapters. The thorough accurate account of its origin is given by the man who must have been best informed on the subject, Bishop Domitian of Ancyra, the friend of Ascidas, and the second head of the Origenisis. In his letter to Pope Vigilius he writes that, “on account of the doctrine of the pre-existence and apokatastasis they had unjustly attacked and condemned Origen and other holy and celebrated teachers. Those who wished to defend such doctrines had not been able to do so; therefore they had completely given up this controversy, and had begun another over Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia, and had endeavored to get an anathema pronounced upon him, with the intention of abolishing the movement that was going on against Origen” (ad abolitionem ut putabant eorum, quoe contra Originem mota constituerant or constiterant ). Facundus, who communicates this fragment of a letter (l.c. lib. 4, chap. 4, p. 708, and lib. 1, chap. 2, p. 667), infers from it illegitimately that the Origenisis had acted only from revenge, and for this reason had sought to stir up disturbance in the Church (l.c. lib. 1, chap. 2); but he may be right in this, when he declares that the Monophysites, who hitherto had labored in vain to destroy the credit of the Synod of Chalcedon, had now made use of the Origenists, in order through these, who on this point (in regard to the Council of Chalcedon) were not suspected, to carry out their plans.

That the first edict, in which Justinian, at the wish of Ascidas, published the three anathematisms of which we have heard, was drawn up, not by the Emperor himself, but by the Monophysites and Origenists, Facundus maintains repeatedly, and professes to know that these had prefixed the name of the Emperor by imposition (lib. 2, chap. 1). This, however, is only facon de parler , in order the more easily to attack the edict in question; and, in fact, he only means to say that they had outwitted the Emperor, as this edict stands in contradiction with other decrees, particularly his declarations of faith (lib. 2, chap. 1). Theodore Ascidas is generally considered to be the author of this imperial edict. Walch, however (Ketzerhist. Bd. 8, S. 152), has contested this view, as Ascidas expressly asserted later, on his reconciliation with Vigilius, that he had written nothing in this matter. But Walch is here plainly wrong, since Theodore Ascidas, Mennas, and their associates in the letter in question, say only they had written nothing that was contrary to the union effected between the Emperor and the Pope of the year 550 (sec. 261). Thus it is only the authorship of the later imperial edict, the oJmologi>a , which is denied.

We can no more settle with certainty the time of the composition than we can the authorship of the first edict, as this has been lost together with the subscription. Baronius removed it into the year 546, whilst Cardinal Noris (De Synodo , 5, chap. 3) showed that it was probably issued towards the end of the year 543, or at the beginning of 544. In opposition to him the learned Jesuit Garnier contended for the year 545; but the Ballerini, Walch, and others concerned in the reckoning of Noris, have also given the preference to the beginning of A.D. 544. It is incontestable that the edict cannot have been drawn up before the year 543, for it is plain that it was issued after the anathema on Origen, and to draw the Emperor away from this. It cannot, however, be placed later than 545, for in this year Pope Vigilius traveled from Rome to Constantinople, and the edict had been issued some time before his departure. We said that the edict in question had been lost. Baronius (ad ann. 546, n. 10), Mosheim (Inst. Hist.

Ecclesiastes p. 249), and others thought that we might find its contents in the later oJmologi>a of the Emperor, of which we shall hereafter have to speak more fully; but Noris has completely disproved this; and all subsequent writers, particularly the Ballerini and Walch, have justly coincided with him. To give only a few reasons, we note: In the oJmologi>a , among other things, mention is made of that Synod at Mopsuestia, summoned by the Emperor, which was not held until the year 550, whilst our edict was drawn up in the year 544. Moreover, we do not find in the oJmologi>a those fragments which Facundus communicates from the first edict of the Emperor. Of these fragments there are three. The first occurs in Facundus (l.c. lib. 2, chap. 3), and contains the anathematismus: “Si quis dicit, rectam esse ad Marim impiam epistolam, quae dicitur ab Iba esse facta, ant ejus assertor est, et non magis anathemati subjicit, utpote male tractantem sanctum Cyrillum, qui dicit quia Deus Verbum factus est homo, et ejusdem Sancti Cyrilli 12 capitulis detrahentem, et primam Ephesinam synodum impetentem, Nestorium vero defendentem, laudantem autem Theodorum Mopsuestiae, anathema sit.” A second fragment, in Facundus (lib. 4, chap. 4, l.c. p. 709), runs: “Si quis dicit haec nos ad abolendos ant excludendos sanctos patres, qui in Chalcedonensi fuere concilio, dixisse, anathema sit.” The third fragment, finally (in Facundus, 2:3), in its content, is connected with the first, and contains no anathematism, but the words: “Oportet aperte inspicere ad Marim epistolam, omnia quidem sine Deo et impie dicentem, illud tantummodo ostendentem bene, quia ex illo Theodorus per Orientem in ecclesia anathematizatus est.” Further information in regard to the nature of the first imperial edict is given by the African Bishop Pontianus, in his letter to the Emperor Justinian, in which he says that the Emperor’s letter contains first a correct explanation of the faith; and at its close a demand that an anathema should be pronounced upon Theodore, on certain writings of Theodoret, and on the letter of Ibas.

The first imperial edict, as Facundus declares, was again altered by the Origenist and Monophysite counsellors of the Emperor, and instead of the longer formula of anathema against the letter of Ibas given above (Fragment 1), the shorter was substituted: “Si quis dicit, rectam esse ad Marim impiam epistolam, aut eam defendit, et non anathematizat eam, anathema sit. This later edition is called by Facundus the Formula subscriptionis, whilst he designates the earlier as the Epistola damnationis.

As reason for this alteration he states that, in the first formula, only some parts of the letter had been rejected as objectionable, namely, the passages against Cyril, etc., but that now the Monophysites had demanded an anathema on the letter in general, so that its orthodox content as well, the doctrine of the two natures, might seem to be anathematized. Walch (l.c. p. 151 f.) supposes that the Emperor Justinian himself had, at a later period, withdrawn his edict, as he was obliged to bring the controversy of the three chapters before a Synod, and for this reason it had been so soon lost.

The first from whom the Emperor demanded the subscription of the edict was the Patriarch Mennas of Constantinople. He hesitated at first, and declared that we must not imperil the credit of the Council of Chalcedon, and that he would do nothing without the apostolic see. At last, however, he subscribed; but after they had promised him on oath that, in case the bishop of Rome should not agree, his subscription should be given back to him. In the same way Ephraim, patriarch of Antioch, would not agree; but when he was threatened with deposition, he also subscribed, his office, as Facundus (4, 4) remarks, being dearer to him than the truth. Similar weakness and inconsistency were shown by the Patriarch Peter of Jerusalem. When, at the beginning, a company of monks visited him (for what purpose Facundus does not say), he declared, with an oath, that whoever agreed with the new decree attacked the Council of Chalcedon. In spite of this he agreed himself later on.

Finally, Zoilus, patriarch of Antioch, wrote very soon and spontaneously to Pope Vigilius, that he also had subscribed under constraint. Similar compulsion was brought to bear upon the other bishops, and it was resolved to extort the subscriptions of the whole episcopate, in order, says Facundus, that it might appear as though the whole Church were opposed to the Synod of Chalcedon. Liberatus also speaks of this constraint, remarking that some had been caught by presents, and others frightened by the threat of banishment. In particular, Mennas compelled the bishops under him to subscribe, as a number of them complained in a memorial to Stephen, the papal legate. Garnier assumed that Mennas, for this purpose, held a special Synod at Constantinople; but there is nothing said of this in the original documents. In order to produce a better inclination to a subscription of the imperial edict, it was from the beginning declared that the question would also be put on the subject to the Roman Church; but Facundus shows (l.c. 4, 3) how deceptive such a supplementary inquiry would have been, since everyone who judged otherwise than the edict on the matter would have been previously anathematized.

Cunning and violence succeeded, by degrees, in gaining the whole East to subscribe the edict. The Latins were not so pliant. The papal legate, Stephen, who resided in Constantinople, immediately reproached the Patriarch Mennas for his weakness, and broke off Church communion with him. faa15 The same was done by Bishop Dacius of Milan, who was residing at Milan at that time, and subsequently went thence to Sicily (hinc reversum ), in order to make the Pope acquainted with what had happened. At the same time, or soon afterwards, there were also residing in Constantinople several African bishops, among them Facundus of Hermione. That this was so, and that Facundus, at the instigation of his colleagues, even before the arrival of Pope Vigilius in Constantinople, composed a memorial to the Emperor against the condemnation of Theodore, etc., we see from his Praefatio to his Defensio trium capitulorum . Moreover, he and his friends broke off Church communion with Mennas and all adherents of the imperial edict. Before Facundus had quite finished that document, Pope Vigilius arrived at Constantinople; and when, afterwards, there was begun, under his presidency, an examination of the points of controversy, the Pope suddenly broke up the proceedings, and required that each one of the bishops present should give in his vote in writing (see below, sec. 259).

For this business the imperial Magister Officiorum allowed Facundus no more than seven days, in which were two holy days, on which account he hastily took a good deal out of his now half-ready book into his new Responsio , and added more. Subsequently, with greater leisure, he completed and improved the first work, and in particular corrected many patristic passages, which he must formerly have drawn from inferior manuscripts, and which must have been transferred from this inaccurate text into that Responsio. He remarks this expressly for the enlightening of those readers who might compare the Responsio with his improved principal work — Defensio trium capitulorum. It is therefore quite a mistake to say, as was formerly done, that Facundus composed the Defensio itself in seven days.

When the copy of the imperial decree came to Rome, a favorable judgment of it by the learned deacon, Ferrandus of Carthage, was brought forward; and the Roman deacons, Pelagius and Anatolius, wrote to him, asking him, together with the bishop of Carthage and other zealous and learned men, to give them counsel as to what in general they should do. Already, in the question of inquiry of the Romans it was expressed that the Acephali, with the assistance of so-called orthodox men, had stirred up the whole affair to the prejudice of the Council of Chalcedon and the Epistola dogmatica of Leo I.; and Ferrandus replied that the letter of Ibas, which the OEcumenical Synod of Chalcedon had approved, and generally the three chapters, could not be objected to, because otherwise the estimation of all synodal decrees might be called in question. In consequence of this the whole of Africa and Rome was opposed to the wishes of the Emperor, and an interesting evidence of this sentiment is given in the still extant letter of the African Bishop Pontianus to the Emperor, recently referred to. Justinian, however, now summoned Pope Vigilius to Constantinople, in order to get him to assent to his plans. Vigilius obeyed unwillingly, for he foresaw the inconveniences which awaited him; but he was forced to take the journey, as a letter of the Italian clergy testifies; and Victor of Tununum also asserts that the Emperor had compelled him. Indeed, Anastasius (Vit.

Pontif .) professes to know that the Empress Theodora sent the officer of State, Anthemius, to Rome with orders, if the Pope did not agree to come, to take him by force from his palace, or even out of any church except St.

Peter’s, and carry him on board ship. He says, too, that this had actually been done, and that the Pope was seized on the 22nd of November, in the Church of St. Cecilia, and that the people had thrown stones, etc., at the ship on which he was carried off, and had invoked hunger and pestilence on the imperial commissioner.

We are assured by the much more trustworthy Facundus, that when Vigilius departed from Rome the whole of Rome entreated him not to agree to the condemnation of the three chapters. The same petition was presented to him after he had arrived at Sicily by the Christians of Sardinia and Africa. Here in Sicily he also met with Bishop Dacius of Milan, arrived from Constantinople, and commended him highly and his own legate Stephen on account of their breach with Mennas. Here also he met an envoy of the Patriarch Zoilus of Alexandria, who was instructed to inform him that the patriarch had subscribed only under compulsion. Later on, when Vigilius, after a long stay of about a year in Sicily, sailed for the Peloponnesus, and traveled from thence to Constantinople by land, over Hellas and Illyricum, the faithful of these two countries besought him not to agree to this innovation; and he himself on his journey wrote a letter to Mennas, in which he expressed his strong disapproval of his proceedings, and of all that had been done in this matter, and demanded a retractation. From this it is clear how greatly Victor of Tununum is mistaken, when he relates, under the year 543, that the Empress Theodora had obtained a promise from Vigilius, before he became Pope, to anathematize the three chapters. This is an evident anachronism.

SEC. 259. — POPE VIGILIUS AND HIS JUDICATUM OF APRIL 11, 548.

When Vigilius arrived in Constantinople, January 25, 547, he was received by the Emperor with many honors. According to Theophanes we might suppose that the Pope had pronounced a condemnation of the three chapters immediately after his arrival; but the chronicler condenses the narrative, and says that Vigilius, inflated by the friendly reception of the Emperor, had punished Mennas by separating him from Church communion for four months. The Pope inflicted the same censure on all the other bishops who had subscribed the imperial edict. Naturally, Mennas now had the name of the Pope struck out of the diptychs of his church. Gregory the Great professes to know that Vigilius then pronounced anathema also on the Empress Theodora and the Acephali, at the very time that Rome was plundered by the enemy (the Goths). Before long Vigilius altered his position in the most surprising manner.

How this happened is not fully known. What is certain is, that the Emperor had frequent personal intercourse with him, and also repeatedly sent officers of State and bishops to him, to induce him to agree with Mennas and the rest. The vehement Facundus (l.c. p. 814, a and b ) maintains that no violence was done to him, but that he was led astray by ambition and by bribery. The Italian clergy, on the contrary, speak of the imprisonment and serious persecution of the Pope, and relate that he said on one occasion to his persecutors: “Contestor, quia etsi me captivum tenetis, beatum Petrum apostolum captivum facere non potestis. After some time, however, Vigilius first gave privately a promise that he would anathematize the three chapters; and the imperial Minister Constantine, as commissioned by his master, gave the assurance at the seventh session of the fifth Council that the Pope had given this promise in writing and by word of mouth, and this in the presence of the Emperor, his Ministers, and some bishops. To this time probably belong also the two letters, containing these promises, from Vigilius to the Emperor and the Empress. They are short, and have almost verbally the same contents. The one to the Emperor runs: “We never were heretical, and are not so. But I demand the rights which God has granted to my see. But your Piety must not infer from this that I defend heretics. Behold, I respond to your irresistible command, and anathematize the letter of Ibas, and the doctrines of Theodoret, and of Theodore formerly bishop of Mopsuestia, who was always foreign to the Church, and an opponent of the holy Fathers.

Whoever does not confess that the one only-begotten Word of God, that is, Christ, is one substance, and one person, and unam operationem (mi>an ejne>rgeian ), we anathematize,” etc. These letters were read subsequently in the seventh session of the fifth and in the third session of the sixth OEcumenical Synod, and at the latter their genuineness was contested by the papal legates. This led to an inquiry, the result of which will be given below, sec. 267, when we come to treat of the Acts of the fifth OEcumenical Synod. For the present it is sufficient to remark that these two letters are probably genuine, but interpolated, and that the words unam operationem were inserted by a Monothelite. At the time of Vigilius there was still a controversy as to whether there were one or two operations and wills in Christ.

When Vigilius began to change his mind, he again resumed Church communion with Mennas, and his name was again received into the diptychs of Constantinople. The fact, however, stated by Theophanes, that his name was put in the first place in the diptychs of Constantinople, even before the bishop of Constantinople, did not take place until A.D. 552. Theophanes says further, that it was particularly the Empress Theodora who brought about the reconciliation, and that it took place on June 29, the festival of the Apostles Peter and Paul, A.D. 547. This agrees entirely with his previous statement in regard to the four months; for, if Vigilius arrived at Constantinople on January 25, 547, and shortly afterwards broke off communion with Mennas, then four months elapsed from that time to the reconciliation on June 29.

By the will of the Emperor conferences were now begun, to which nearly all the bishops present in Constantinople were summoned. After the arrival of the Pope, many of the bishops who had not yet subscribed the imperial edict had betaken themselves to Constantinople, in order to watch the further development of the matter; and Facundus states that about seventy bishops attended the conferences, besides those who had previously subscribed. These conferences are frequently described as a Constantinopolitan Synod of A.D. 547 and 548; e.g. by Baronius (ad ann. 547, n. 32 sq.), Pagi (ad ann. 547, n. 8), Walch (l.c . S. 171 sq.); but Facundus, who was himself a member of this assembly, and to whom we owe our information on the subject, never uses the expression Synod, but Judicium and Examen (l.c. pp. 665, 813), calls the Pope who presided over it repeatedly Judex (l.c . p. 814), and describes the whole in such a manner as to make us understand that it was a conference for the examination of the anathematisms of the three chapters laid before them by the Emperor, a judicium or examen on the question whether the Pope could agree to give the final decision, whilst the bishops present had only to give counsels.

Facundus says quite distinctly (l.c. p. 814), that if the votes given by the bishops in writing had not pleased the Pope, he would have torn them up or burnt them, or by his own sentence he could have invalidated them (ea scindere vel urere, ant per suam evacuare sententiam ). So also we learn from Facundus (l.c. p. 813a ), that three such conferences took place, and he communicates the following particulars from the gestis of the third. He requested that the Pope would institute an examination into the question as to whether the letter of Ibas was really accepted (suscepta ) by the Synod of Chalcedon or not, since the opponents maintain that the anathema on Theodore of Mopsuestia was actually no attack upon the importance of that Synod, since it had not received the letter of Ibas in which Theodore was commended. He, Facundus, admitted often that he had not broken off communion with Mennas, etc., on account of the anathema on Theodore in itself. He could not indeed approve of this anathema, but he regarded it partly as endurable, partly as not particularly important; but the aim of his opponents was, by this means, to undermine the authority of the fourth OEcumenical Synod. It was natural that this question of Facundus should be very inconvenient for Pope Vigilius, since he had already given private assurances to the Emperor. He would therefore simply put it aside by answering that “this was not known to him (either that the Synod of Chalcedon had received the letter of Ibas, or also that the other party wanted to destroy the importance of that Synod)”; but Facundus now asked leave “to bring proof that that letter was really received at Chalcedon, and to invalidate all the arguments of the opponents.” Upon this Vigilius broke up the whole consultation in perplexity, and required a vote in writing of each of the bishops. The seventy bishops, who had not hitherto subscribed, were now individually plied by the adherents of the imperial edict, and led astray to declarations which were hostile to the Synod of Chalcedon; and, in order that they might not be able to recant, they were conducted, some days later, in public procession, well guarded, to Vigilius, in order to present their votes to him. We have already seen (sec. 258) that Facundus, in this emergency, drew up in seven days an extract from his work, Defensio trium capitulorum, which was not yet quite complete. He further tells us that Vigilius immediately carried these votes of the seventy bishops into the palace, where they were added to the declarations of those bishops who had already subscribed. In order, however, to excuse this conduct, he declared to the party of Facundus that he did not intend to take those votes with him to Rome, nor to deposit them in the Roman archives, so that it might not be inferred that he himself had approved of them. Soon afterwards, on Easter Eve, April 11, 548, Vigilius issued his Judicatum , addressed to Mennas, which, as its title indicates, professed to give the result obtained by him as Judex through the conferences and votes (the judicium and examen ). Unfortunately this important document is also lost, and up to the present day it has been generally maintained, that only a single fragment of it has been preserved, which is found in a letter of the Emperor Justinian to the fifth OEcumenical Synod, according to the text edited by Baluze. It was overlooked that five such fragments exist in another contemporaneous document.

First of all, let us examine closely that first fragment. After the Emperor had said that the Judicatum issued by the Pope (first to Mennas) had been made known to all the bishops, he gives the anathema, contained in it, on the three chapters, with Vigilius’s own words: “Et quoniam quae Nobis de nomine Theodori Mopsuestini scripta porrecta sunt, multa contraria rectae fidei releguntur, Nos monita Pauli sequentes apostoli dicentis: Omnia probate, quod bonum est retinete, ideoque anathematizamus Theodorum, qui fuit Mopsuestiae episcopus, cum omnibus suis impiis scriptis, et qui vindicant eum.

Anathematizamus et impiam epistolam, quae ad Marim Persam scripta esse ab Iba dicitur, tamquam contrariam rectae fidei Christianae, et omnes, qui eam vindicant, vel rectam esse dicunt. Anathematizamus et scripta Theodoreti, quae contra rectam fidem et duodecim Cyrilli capitula scripta sunt. Besides this fragment it was known only that Vigilius had introduced in his Judicatum a clause or caution to the effect, that “the importance of the Council of Chalcedon should not be called in question.” Noris and Natalis Alexander might mislead us to the opinion that, with reference to this, the words in the Judicatum stood thus: “Salva in omnibus reverentia Synodi Chalcedonensis.” But this formula was invented by Noris himself, because he found in the original documents that Vigilius had repeatedly protested that the Judicatum contained nothing which could detract from the importance of the four ancient OEcumenical Councils or that of his predecessors the Popes. The same was testified also by the Italian clergy, writing to the Frankish ambassadors, “that Vigilius, in the Judicatum, solicite monuit, ne per occasionem aliquam supradicta synodus (of Chalcedon) pateretur injuriam”; and that “they had afterwards wanted to compel the Pope to anathematize the three chapters anew, without such a clause or caution in favor of the Synod of Chalcedon, ut absolute ipsa capitula sine Synodi Chalcedonensis mentione damnaret. So much was formerly known of the Judicatum . A repeated dealing with the later Constitutum of Vigilius (of May 14, 553) led me to see that in this there are five more fragments of the Judicatum to be discovered. Towards the end of the Constitutum, Vigilius mentions that his predecessors, Popes Leo and Simplicius, had repeatedly and solemnly declared that the decrees of Chalcedon must remain unweakened in force, and from this that it was clear what care he (Vigilius) must also take pro apostolicae sedis rectitudine et pro universalis ecclesiae consideratione. “Being long mindful,” he proceeds, “of this caution, in the letter which we then addressed to Mennas, and which (after it had been, in the presence of all the bishops and the Senate, handed to your Majesty by Mennas, and by your Majesty with his consent handed back to us) we now annul, so far as the three chapters are concerned, — in that letter we provided that all due respect should be paid to the Synod of Chalcedon, as the contents of that letter testify. In proof we will add a few considerations out of many that might be given.” There can be no doubt that by the letter to Mennas, here referred to, the Judicatum is meant, for this agrees admirably with all that is further added, that Mennas handed it to the Emperor, and that he in a solemn assembly had restored this document to the Pope, in order by this means to calm the excitement which had arisen on that subject and against Vigilius. Cf. below, sec. 261. We have therefore no doubt that the five passages which Vigilius took into his Constitutum from the letter in question to Mennas must be considered as fragments of the Judicatum. These are mere variations on the theme Salvi in omnibus reverentia Synodi Chalcedonensis, merely passages in which, although he anathematized the three chapters, yet protested and maintained his adhesion to the Council of Chalcedon; so that no one should, through that anathema, regard the decrees of Chalcedon as partially incorrect or as imperfect. These five fragments run: — 1. Cum apud nos manifesta ratione praeclareat, quicumque in contumeliam antefatae Synodi aliquid tentat agere, sibi potius nociturum. 2. Item post alia: Sed si evidenter nobis fuisset ostensum in ipsis gestis potius contineri, nullus auderet tantae praesumptionis auctor existere, aut aliquid, quod in ilium sanctissimum judicium productum est, velut dubium judicaret; cum credendum sit, illos tunc praesentes a praesenti rerum memoria diligentins, etiam praeter scriptum, aliqua requirere vel definire certius potuisse, quod nobis nunc post tanta tempora velut ignota causa videatur ambiguum; cum et hoc deferatur reverentiae synodorum, ut et in his quae minus intelliguntur, eorum cedatur auctoritati. 3. Item post alia: Salvis omnibus atque in sua perpetua firmitate durantibus, quae in Nicaeno, Constantinopolitano, Ephesino primo, atque Chalcedonensi venerandis constat conciliis definita, et praedecessorum nostrorum auctoritate firmata; et cunctis, qui in memoratis sanctis conciliis abdicati sunt, sine dubitatione damnatis; et his nihilominus absolutis, de quorum ab iisdem synodis absolutione decretum est. 4. Item post alia: Anathematis sententiae eum quoque subdentes, qui quaevis contra predictam Synodum Chalcedonensem, vel praesenti, vel quaelibet in hac causa sive a nobis sive a quibuscumque gesta scriptave inveniantur, pro aliqua susceperit firmitate; et sancta Chalcedonensis Synodus, cujus magna et inconcussa est firmitas, perpetua et veneranda, sicut Nicaena, Constantinopolitana, ac Ephesina prima habent, suam teneant firmitatem. 5. Item post alia: Anathematizamus et eum quoque, quicumque sanctam Nicaenam, Constantinopolitanam, Ephesinam primam, atque Chalcedonensem sanctissimas Synodos in una et immaculata fide de Apostolis consonantes, et ab Apostolicae sedis praesulibus roboratas, non et fideliter sequitur et aequaliter veneratur; et qui ea quae in ipsis conciliis, quae prefati sumus, gesta sunt, vult quasi prave dicta corrigere, aut vult imperfecta supplere. From the letter of Vigilius to Rusticus and Sebastian we learn that Rusticus, a nephew of the Pope and a deacon, his attendant in Constantinople, at first extolled the Judicatum to the echo, declared it to be quite excellent, and circulated it without the knowledge or will of the Pope in many copies. The deacon Sebastian and other Roman clerics who were about the Pope had also at first approved of it; but they afterwards went over to the other party of the Africans, and offered the Pope such opposition, that he was obliged to place them under anathema, which he did in the letter in question. Significant for the point of view of Vigilius is his utterance, three years later, on the aim and character of his Judicatum, in the bull of excommunication against Theodore Ascidas. He said that, “in order to remove present offense, he had condescended, in order to quiet men’s minds, he had relaxed the severity of right, and in accordance with the need of the time had ordered things medicinally .” To the same effect the Italian clergy about this time, that “Vigilius had at first been unwilling to agree to the anathema on the three chapters, but in consequence of negotiations (tractatu habito ), he had ordered the matter sub aliqua dispensatione, carefully admonishing that the Synod of Chalcedon must in no way suffer depreciation.” We can see that these clergy, as well as Vigilius, proceeded on the supposition that nothing could be undertaken against Theodore of Mopsuestia in particular, as he had died more than a hundred years ago in the communion of the Church, and had not been condemned by the Council of Chalcedon. In the same way the reputation of the two other men was not to be attacked, as the Synod of Chalcedon had restored Theodoret and Ibas to their sees, after they both had pronounced anathema on Nestorius, without condemning the letter of the one, or certain writings of the other. But as, on the other hand, the three Capitula had given so great offense to many, and troubled the peace of the Church, an anathema on them might be justified as a remedy for the sickness of the time, and as a compromise, since, objectively considered, the anathema on Theodore of Mopsuestia and his writings, and also that on some writings of Theodoret, and on the letter of Ibas, might be justified. If, therefore, on the other hand, an anathema should be pronounced over the really reprehensible three chapters, and, on the other hand, should protect the authority of the Council of Chalcedon in the most effectual manner, nothing wrong would be done, and both parties would be satisfied.

Cardinal Noris therefore (l.c. t. 1, p. 595) remarks quite accurately: “Et quidem utrique parti si fecisse satis Vigilius arbitrabatur: Graecis, quod tria capitula condemnasset; Latinis, quod salva synodo Chalcedonensi id se fecisse contestaretur.”

SEC. 260. OPPOSITION TO THE JUDICATUM.

Soon after the publication of the Judicatum, the Empress Theodora, the great enemy of the three chapters, died, June 28, 548; but her death seems to have had no influence on the progress of the controversy. That the Emperor Justinian was not quite contented with the Judicatum, and demanded a similar document from the Pope without the clause in reference to the Council of Chalcedon, we are told by the Italian clergy in their letter to the Frankish envoys. As, however, no one else speaks of this, and the Emperor Justinian was always a great admirer of the fourth OEcumenical Council, this intelligence deserves little credit; and, moreover, the remark of Victor of Tununum rests upon an anachronism, when he says that Justinian now issued new commands against the three chapters. On the contrary, it is certain that an energetic opposition to the Judicatum soon arose, and Vigilius was bitterly blamed by many, and accused of treachery. This happened principally in Constantinople itself, where the Pope spent several years, because the Emperor wished it, perhaps also because Rome had at that very time fallen into the hands of the Goths. Prominent among those who were dissatisfied with the Judicatum in Constantinople were Bishop Dacius of Milan and Facundus of Hermione. It is well known that the latter composed a large work in twelve books in defense of the three chapters and presented it to the Emperor, and the only question is as to the time of its completion and presentation. Victor of Tununum would place it in the eleventh year after the consulate of Basil. According to the ordinary mode of reckoning, the year 551 would be signified; but, as Noris has long ago excellently showed (l.c. t. 1, p. 652 sq.), Victor follows another mode of reckoning.

As is known, Basil was the last consul in the year 541; but for a long time they indicated the years following by his name. Accordingly the year must be called simply post Consulatum Basilii, but the year 543, ann. ii. post Cons. Bas. Departing from this manner of reckoning, Victor designates the year 542 as ann. ii. post Cons. Bas. (regarding it as the second year of his enduring consulate), and thus, with him, ann. xi. post Cons. Bas. is not identical with 551, but with 550. But neither must we place the composition of the Defensio trium capitulorum, by Facundus, in the year 550. Baronius (ad ann. 547, n. 32) thinks that the whole contents of the book point to the conclusion that it was completed before the rupture of the author with the Pope, and thus before the issuing of the Judicatum, and before Facundus took up a schismatical position. In fact, Pope Vigilius is never attacked in this Defensio, whilst, in his second treatise, Contra Mocianum, Facundus falls upon him most violently. Yet Baronius was partly wrong; and the correct account of the matter is, that half of the Defensio was composed before the Judicatum; but the work was interrupted by the conferences (sec. 259), and it was not until the end of these, and so after the appearance of the Judicatum, which followed directly after the conferences, that it was completed.” This completion, however, must not be brought so late as the year 550, but rather to a period immediately after the appearance of the Judicatum. Later on Facundus would have written much more violently; but at that time the tension between him and the Pope had not yet led to a complete rupture.

He still spared Vigilius, so that even in the last books of the Defensio he did not refer to the Judicatum, and he might then still hope to bring about an agreement with the Emperor. At a later period he would certainly have no longer cherished sanguine expectations of this kind, and to such a later time belongs the composition of his book, Contra Mocianum Scholasticum, which blamed the African bishops because they had broken off communion with Vigilius after the appearance of the Judicatum. In this book Facundus attacks the Judicatum as a nefandum. He had then, for the sake of his safety, fled from Constantinople, and was in a place of concealment known only to his friends. The time of composition falls between the appearance of the Judicatum and that of the Constitutum ; for by the latter, in which he now defended the three chapters, Vigilius had again propitiated Facundus. That the treatise in question should not be removed to a still later period, when Vigilius had anathematized the three chapters a second time and confirmed the fifth Synod, we learn from the fact that Facundus in the treatise is quite silent on this subject.

We learn from Vigilius himself that at an early period some in Constantinople so strenuously opposed him and his Judicatum, that he had been obliged to excommunicate them. With these, he says, his own nephew, the deacon Rusticus who had previously commended the Judicatum so highly, secretly associated himself, and stirred up others against him both in Constantinople and in Africa. When examined on the subject he had, in writing, given his assurance on oath never again wilfully to infringe his obedience to the Pope. Nevertheless he had attached himself to the much worse Roman deacon Sebastian, who had likewise formerly commended the Judicatum, and called it a heaven-descended book. Both had cultivated intercourse with the monks Lampridius and Felix, who, on account of their opposition to the Judicatum, had already been excommunicated by the general threat of excommunication contained in that document, and also, with other excommunicated men, had arrogated to themselves the teaching office, and had written to all the provinces that “the Pope had done something to the disparagement of the Council of Chalcedon.”

By their position as Roman deacons it had become possible to them to lead many astray, and thus through them such confusions and party fights had arisen in different places that blood had been shed in the churches. Further, they had ventured to assert, in a memorial to the Emperor, that Pope Leo I. had approved the heretical writings of the Mopsuestian, etc. Vigilius had long tolerated this, and, in priestly patience, had deferred their punishment (resecatio ), hoping that they would come again to reflection. As, however, they had despised his repeated exhortations, which he had conveyed to them by bishops and other clergy, and by layman of high standing, and had refused to return either to the Church or to the Pope, he must now punish them, and herewith depose them, until they amended, from the dignity of the diaconate. In the same way the other Roman clerics who had taken their side, John, Gerontius, Severinus, John, and Deusdedit, should be deprived of their posts as subdeacons, notaries, and defensors until they began to amend. The like judgment shall befall the monk (abbot) Felix, already mentioned, who presided over the Gillitan convent in Africa, and by his levity scattered his monks, and also all those who would keep up communication with him or any other excommunicated person, particularly with Rusticus and the others. If this sentence of excommunication was sent forth after March 18, 550, as we shall shortly show, we can also see: (a) that, immediately after the appearance of the Judicatum, some of those at Constantinople opposed the Pope so violently that he was obliged to excommunicate them; (b) that two monks, Lampridius and Felix of Africa, came to Constantinople and opposed the Judicatum by speech and by writing; (c) that the Pope’s nephew Rusticus and other Roman clergy joined these opponents, and circulated detrimental reports concerning the Pope in all the provinces; (d) that the Pope gave them repeated warnings before proceeding to extremities; and that (e) in many provinces parties arose for and against the Judicatum , and there arose between them bloody frays even in the churches.

That Rusticus and Sebastian had, at a very early period, occasioned movements in the province of Scythia, we see from the Pope’s letter to Bishop Valentinian of Tomi, dated March 18, 550. The latter had given the Pope intelligence respecting the rumors circulated in his province, and the disturbances which had arisen, and Vigilius, in his answer, declares that it is entirely untrue that he had censured the persons of Theodoret and Ibas, or generally that he had done wrong to any of those bishops who had subscribed the Council of Chalcedon. If his Judicatum to Mennas were read, it would be shown that he had done or ordained nothing which was contrary to the faith and the doctrine of the four venerable Councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, or the decrees of the earlier Popes. The originators of that scandal which arose in Scythia, were Rusticus and Sebastian, whom he had excommunicated some time ago, and who would soon, unless they amended, receive the canonical punishment (deposition from office). He requested Valentinian to warn all connected with him against these promoters of disturbances; and if any had doubts, they might come personally to the Pope. Archbishop Aurelian of Arles, as well as Valentinian of Tomi, had written to the Pope in the year 549. Occasion for this also was given by the accusation, circulated in Gaul, that the Pope had done something which contradicted the decrees of his predecessors, and the creed of the four OEcumenical Councils. Vigilius quieted him on this subject, and appointed him to be his vicar in Gaul, to warn all the other bishops against false and lying rumors. He adds that he will explain to Aurelian, as far as possible, all that has happened, through Anastasius, whom Aurelian had sent with his letter to Constantinople; and further, that when the Emperor allows him to return to Rome, he will send from thence a special envoy to Arles. Meanwhile let Aurelian unceasingly petition Childebert, king of the Franks, that he would apply to the King of the Goths (Totilas), who had taken the city of Rome, on behalf of the Roman Church and its rights. Still more violent than in Gaul and Scythia was the opposition to the Judicatum in Illyria, Dalmatia, and Africa. That the bishops of Dalmatia did not receive the Judicatum, we learn from the letter of the Italian clergy, already frequently quoted. The Illyrian bishops, however, according to the account given by Bishop Victor of Tununum, assembled in a Synod in the year 549, according to his corrected chronology, already noted. Where this Synod was held is not known; but the bishops declared themselves for the three chapters, addressed a document in defense of them to the Emperor, and deposed their Metropolitan Benenatus from Justiniana I., because he defended the rejection of the three chapters. The Africans went still further, and at their Synod, A.D. 550, under the presidency of Reparatus of Carthage, formally excommunicated Pope Vigilius on account of the Judicatum until he should do penance. They also sent memorials in favor of the three chapters, through the Magistrian Olympius, to the Emperor. The latter found the matter of such importance, that he addressed rescripts to the Illyrians and Africans, in which he defended the anathema on the three chapters. They are lost; but we gain information respecting them in Isidore of Seville. SEC. 261. THE JUDICATUM IS WITHDRAWN, AND A GREAT SYNOD PROPOSED.

For the appeasing of the disputes which had arisen over the Judicatum, the Pope and Emperor, about the year 550, agreed, first, to withdraw the Judicatum, and further, to have the question of the three chapters decided anew by a great Synod. The Emperor therefore gave leave to Vigilius to withdraw the Judicatum, and it was decided in consultation between the two, in which also Mennas, Dacius of Milan, and many Greek and Latin bishops took part, that, before the decision of the Synod which was to be called, no one should be allowed to undertake anything further for or against the three chapters. This is related by Vigilius himself in the edict against Theodore Ascidas. The Italian clergy, however, tell us, besides, that Vigilius demanded that five or six bishops should be summoned from each province, and explained, that only that which should then be peacefully determined in common should prevail, since he, for his own part, would do nothing whereby, as people said, the credit of the Synod of Chalcedon should be called in question. He thus took back, formally at least, his Judicatum ; but, that he might not give it up materially, nor oppose the Emperor at the coming Synod, he took an oath to him in writing, on the 15th of August 550, to the effect that he would be of one mind with the Emperor, and labor to the utmost to have the three chapters anathematized; whilst, on the other hand, for the security of the Pope, this oath should be kept secret, and the Emperor should promise to protect him in case of necessity. SEC. 262. SYNOD AT MOPSUESTIA, A.D. 550.

In preparation for the intended great Council, the Emperor caused a kind of Synod of the bishops of Cilicia II. to be held at Mopsuestia, in order to ascertain whether the name of Theodore of Mopsuestia had been entered on the diptychs there. The Acts of this Synod are found in the minutes of the fifth session of the fifth OEcumenical Synod, at which they were read. The first document referring to this assembly is the letter of the Emperor Justinian, dated May 23, 550 (not May 13, as Noris gives it), to Bishop John of Justinianopolis, metropolitan of Cilicia II., to the effect that he would come to Mopsuestia to meet the bishops belonging to his Synod, and then have a meeting with all the aged people there, clergy and laity, in order to learn whether they could remember the time at which the name of Theodore had been struck from the diptychs. If they could not do this, they might declare that, in their knowledge, the name of Theodore had never been read out at divine service; finally, the diptychs were to be exhibited in their presence, and in the presence of the bishops, in order to see who had been inscribed in them instead of Theodore. A messenger with intelligence of the result of this inquiry should be sent to the Emperor, and another to the Pope. The Emperor sent Bishop Cosmas of Mopsuestia information of this command given to the metropolitan, with commissions referring to it. This second document is dated May 22, 550. The Acts of the Synod of Mopsuestia are appended to it, the Synod being held June 17, 550, in the Secretarium of the church there, under the presidency of the metropolitan named, and in presence of eight other bishops and many other distinguished men. The office of imperial commissioner was discharged by the Comes domesticorum, Marthanius. The holy Gospels were placed in the middle of the place of assembly, and first of all the command of the Emperor was read. Thereupon the Defensor of the Church of Mopsuestia, the deacon Eugenius, presented seventeen aged priests and deacons, and the same number of aged lay-men of distinction (among them comites and palatini ) from Mopsuestia; and the Custos of the church effects, the priest John, brought in the diptychs, as well those which were then used in the church as two older which had formerly been used. These diptychs were first publicly read, then each bishop read them individually, and then the presbyter John took oath that he knew of none besides or older than these.

In the same way the aged witnesses were required to make declarations on oath, laying their hands upon the book of the Gospels.

The first and oldest, the priest Martyrius, declared: “I am now eighty years old, for sixty years in Orders, and do not know and have never heard that Theodore’s name was read from the diptychs; but I heard that, instead of his name, that of St. Cyril of Alexandria had been inscribed, and the name of Cyril does, in fact, occur in the present diptychs, although there never was a Bishop Cyril of Mopsuestia. The Theodore, however, whose name is found in two diptychs, in the place before the last, is certainly not the older one, but the bishop of Mopsuestia who died only three years ago, and who was a native of Galatia.” The like was deposed by all the other witnesses, clergy and laymen; whereupon the bishops, in somewhat prolix discourse, brought together the results of these testimonies and of the examination of the diptychs, namely, that at a time beyond the memory of any living man, the Theodore in question had been struck from the diptychs, and Cyril of Alexandria inscribed in his place. This declaration was subscribed by all the bishops, and also the two documents required of them for the Emperor and Pope, in which they communicated the principal contents of the minutes of the Synod. SEC. 262B. THE AFRICAN DEPUTIES.

About the same time the Emperor summoned the bishops of Illyricum and Africa for the contemplated great Synod at Constantinople. The Illyrians refused to come. From Africa, however, appeared, as deputies of the collective episcopate, Reparatus, archbishop of Carthage; Firmus, primate, or primae sedis Episcopus, of Numidia; and Bishops Primasius and Verecundus, from the province of Byzacene. Soon Greek bishops endeavored, by flatteries and threats, to gain them over to subscribe the anathema on the chapters. As this remained without result, Reparatus of Carthage was blamed, as being the cause of the imperial Magister militum in Africa, Areobindus, a relative of the Emperor, being murdered by the usurper Guntarit (Gontharis ); and upon this accusation Reparatus was deprived of his office and property, and was banished. At the same time, by imperial authority, the faithless representative of the deposed bishop, Primasius (who is not to be confounded with the bishop of the same name mentioned above), was placed on the throne of Carthage, in an uncanonical manner, during the lifetime of Reparatus, against the wishes of the clergy and laity, after he had condemned the three chapters. His intrusion was not carried through without effusion of blood.

The second African deputy, the Primate Firmus of Numidia, allowed himself to be bribed by presents, and subscribed the required anathema, but died on the return journey to the sea, a disgraceful death. His colleague, Primasius, of the Byzacene province, was at first steadfast, and was therefore sent into a monastery; but afterwards, when Boethius, the primate of the Byzacene province, had died, he agreed to sign the anathema on the three chapters, in order to become his successor. He returned to Africa and oppressed and plundered the bishops of the opposite party, until at last the merited punishment overtook him, and he was forced to give up all his unrighteous possessions, and died a miserable death.

Finally, the fourth African deputy, Bishop Verecundus, on account of his adhesion to the three chapters, was forced subsequently to flee with Pope Vigilius to Chalcedon, and take refuge in the Church of St. Euphemia, where he also died. The governor of Africa, moreover, sent all those bishops whom he had discovered to be willing to receive a bribe, or to be otherwise perverted, to Constantinople, in order that they might subscribe the condemnation of the three chapters. SEC. 263. THE SECOND IMPERIAL EDICT AGAINST THE THREE CHAPTERS.

How little the Emperor and his party really wanted a new synodal examination of the whole question is shown not only by what has already been mentioned, but also by the strange conduct of Theodore Ascidas. In the harshest contradiction to the union between the Pope and Emperor already mentioned (sec. 261), at his suggestion a document was read aloud in the imperial palace, in which the three chapters were anathematized, and to which the subscriptions of several Greek bishops were demanded.

Vigilius remonstrated on the subject with him and his friends, and they asked forgiveness with specious excuses. In spite of this, Theodore Ascidas circulated that document still more widely, irritated the Emperor, and made him discontented with Vigilius, and brought it about that, without waiting for the Synod, edicts were drawn up, containing an anathema on the three chapters. Vigilius himself tells this; and the new edicts in question were certainly nothing else, in several places, than passages taken from the complete oJmologi>a pi>stewv jIoustinianou~ aujtokra>torov kata< tw~n triw~n kefalai>wn . This second edict of the Emperor against the three chapters was drawn up between 551 and 553, probably in the year 551, was addressed to the whole of Christendom, and is still extant. Nothing is so calculated, the Emperor says, to propitiate the gracious God, as unity in the faith; therefore he lays down here the orthodox confession. Then follows a kind of creed, in which, first, the doctrine of the Trinity, principally in opposition to Sabellius and Arius, is defined; but much more completely is the doctrine of the Person of Christ explained, in opposition to the Nestorians and Monophysites. For example, “He who was born of Mary is one of the Holy Trinity, according to His Godhead of one substance with the Father, and according to His manhood of one substance with us, capable of suffering in the flesh, but incapable of suffering in the Godhead; and no other than the Word of God subjected Himself to sufferings and death. It is not one Word (Logos) that worked miracles, and another Christ who suffered; but one and the same Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, became flesh and man.... If we say that Christ is composed (su>nqetov ) of two natures, Godhead and manhood, we bring no confusion (su>gcnsiv ) into this unity (e[nwsiv ), and since we recognize in each of the two natures the one Lord