A Source Book for Ancient Church History Part 62

In this period, the imperial ecclesiastical system, which had begun with Constantine, found its completion in the Csaropapism which was definitively established by Justinian as the const.i.tution of the Eastern Church. But at the same time the Monophysite churches seceded and became permanent national churches. The long Christological controversy found, at least as regards Monophysitism, its settlement on a basis derived from the revived Aristotelian philosophy; and the mystical piety of the East, with its apparatus of hierarchy and sacraments, found its characteristic expression in the works of Dionysius the Areopagite.

While in the East the Church was a.s.suming its permanent form, in the West the condition of the Church was being profoundly influenced by the completely changed political organization of what had been the Roman Empire of the West, but was now parcelled out among new Germanic nationalities. The Church in the various kingdoms, in spite of its adherence to the see of Rome as the centre of Catholic unity, came, to no small extent, under the secular authority, and Christianity in Ireland, in Spain, among the Franks, Anglo-Saxons, and even among the Lombards in Italy a.s.sumed a national character, coming largely under the control and subject to the laws and customs of the nation. In this period were laid the foundations of the leading ecclesiastical inst.i.tutions of the Middle Ages, as the Church, although still under the influence of antiquity, adapted itself and its inst.i.tutions to the changed condition due to the political situation and took up its duty of training the rude peoples that had come within its fold.

The seventh and eighth centuries saw the completion of the revolution in the ecclesiastical situation. In the East, in the territories in which the national churches of the Monophysites were established, the Moslem rule protected them from the attempts of the orthodox emperors to enforce uniformity. The attempts made to recover their allegiance before they succ.u.mbed to Islam had only ended in a serious dispute within the Orthodox Church, the Monothelete controversy, which ended in the Sixth General Council of 681. In Italy the Arian Lombards were gradually won to the Catholic faith, but the Roman see soon found itself embarra.s.sed by the too near secular authority. Accordingly, when the controversy with the East over Iconoclasm broke out, the Roman Church became practically independent of the Eastern imperial authority, and in its conflict with the Lombards came into alliance with the rising Frankish power. With this, the transition to the Middle Ages may be said to have been completed. It was, however, only the last of a series of acts whereby the Church was severing itself from the ancient order and coming into closer alliance with the new order in the life of the West. Henceforth the Church, which found its centre in the Roman see, belongs to the West, and its relations to the East, although no formal schism had occurred, are of continued and increasing estrangement or alienation.

The _Cambridge Medieval History_, vol. II, will cover the entire period and give ample bibliographical references.

Chapter I. The Church In The Eastern Empire

The century extending from the accession of Justin I (518-528) to the end of the Persian wars of Heraclius (610-641), or from 518 to 628, is the most brilliant period of the Eastern Empire. The rise of Islam had not yet taken place, whereby the best provinces in Asia and Africa were cut off from the Empire. A large part of the West was recovered under Justinian, and under Heraclius the power of Persia, the ancient enemy of the Roman Empire, which had been a menace since the latter part of the third century, was completely overthrown in the most brilliant series of campaigns since the foundation of the Roman Empire. With the death of Justin II (565-578), the family of Justin came to an end after occupying the throne for sixty years. But under Tiberius (578-582) and Maurice (582-602) the policy of Justinian was continued in all essentials in the stereotyped form known as Byzantinism. The Church became practically a department of the State and of the political machinery. The only limitation upon the will of the Emperor was the determined resistance of the Monophysites and smaller factions. Maurice was succeeded by the rude Phocas (602-610), whom a military revolution placed upon the throne, and who inst.i.tuted a reign of terror and blood. Upon his downfall, Heraclius (610-641) ascended the throne.

93. The Age of Justinian

Justinian I, the greatest of all the rulers of the Eastern Empire, succeeded his uncle Justin I (518-527); but he had, from the beginning of the latters reign, exercised an ever-increasing influence over the imperial policy, and to him can be attributed the direction of ecclesiastical affairs from the accession of Justin. No reign among the Eastern emperors was more filled with important events and successful undertakings. His first great work was the reduction of the vast ma.s.s of Roman law to what approached a system. This was accomplished in 534, resulting in the Digest, made up of the various decisions and opinions of the most celebrated Roman legal authorities, the Codex, comprising all the statute law then in actual force and applicable to the conditions of the Empire, and the Inst.i.tutes, a revision of the excellent introductory manual of Gaius. No body of law reduced to writing has been more influential in the history of the world. The second great undertaking, or series of undertakings, was the reconquest of the West. In 533 Belisarius recovered North Africa to the Empire by the overthrow of the Vandal kingdom. In 554 the conquest of Italy by Belisarius and Na.r.s.es was completed. Portions of Spain had also been recovered. No Eastern Emperor ruled over a larger territory than did Justinian at the time of his death.

The third great line of work on the part of Justinian was his regulation of ecclesiastical and theological matters. In this he took an active personal part. The end of the schism with the West had been brought about under the reign of his uncle. Three controversies fill the reign of Justinian: the Theopaschite (519-533) over the introduction of the phrase into the Trisagion, stating that G.o.d was crucified for us, so that the Trisagion read as follows, Holy G.o.d, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, who was crucified for us, have mercy upon us; the Second Origenistic controversy (531-543) in which those elements of Origens teaching which had never been accepted by the Church were condemned along with Origen himself; and the Three Chapters controversy, 544-553, in which, as an attempt to win back the Monophysites, which began even before the Conference with the Severians in 533, three of the leading Antiochians were condemned. In connection with the two last controversies, the Fifth General Council was held A. D. 553.

Additional source material: Evagrius, _Hist. Ec._, Lib. IV-VI; John of Ephesus, _The Third Part of His Ecclesiastical History_, trans. by R. Payne Smith, Oxford, 1860; Percival, _Seven Ec.u.menical Councils_ (PNF).

(_a_) Justinian, _Anathematisms against Origen_. Mansi, IX, 533. (MSG, 86:1013; MSL, 65:221.)

The Origenistic controversy arose in Palestine, where the learned monks were nicknamed Origenists by the more ignorant. The abbot St. Sabas was especially opposed to the group which had received this name. But several, among whom the more important were Domitian and Theodore Askidas, won the favor of Justinian and the latter received promotion, becoming bishop of Csarea in Cappadocia. Supported by them, struggles broke out in various places between the Sabaites and the Origenists. Ephraem, patriarch of Antioch, in a synodal letter thereupon condemned Origenism. The Origenists tried in vain to win the support of John, patriarch of Constantinople. But he turned to Justinian, who thereupon abandoned the Origenists and issued an edict condemning Origen and his writings, and appending a summary of the positions condemned in ten anathematisms. Text in Denziger, nn. 203 _f._ Synods were ordered for the condemnation of Origen, and among these was the synod under Menas, patriarch of Constantinople, in which were issued fifteen anathematisms based upon the ten of Justinian (Hefele, 257, 258). With this action, the controversy may be said to be closed, were it not that in spite of the renewed condemnation at the Fifth General Council (see below) disputes and disturbances continued in Palestine until 563.

1. If any one says or thinks that human souls pre-existed, that is, that they had previously been spirits and holy powers, but that satiated with the vision of G.o.d, they turned to evil, and in this way the divine love in them became cold [?p????e?sa?] and they were there named souls [?????] and were condemned to punishment in bodies, let him be anathema.

2. If any one says or thinks that the soul of the Lord pre-existed and was united with G.o.d the Word before the incarnation and conception of the Virgin, let him be anathema.

3. If any one says or thinks that the body of the Lord Jesus Christ was first formed in the womb of the holy Virgin, and that afterward there was united with it G.o.d the Word and the pre-existing soul, let him be anathema.

4. If any one says or thinks that the Word of G.o.d has become like to all heavenly orders, so that for the cherubim He was a cherub and for the seraphim a seraph, in short, like all the superior powers, let him be anathema.

5. If any one says or thinks that, at the resurrection, human bodies will arise spherical in form and not like our present form, let him be anathema.

6. If any one says or thinks that the heavens, the sun, moon, and stars, and the waters above the firmament have souls and are spiritual and rational beings, let him be anathema.

7. If any one says or thinks that Christ the Lord in a future age will be crucified for demons as He was for men, let him be anathema.

8. If any one says or thinks that the power of G.o.d is limited and that He created only as much as He was able to comprehend, let him be anathema.

9. If any one says or thinks that the punishment of demons and impious men is only temporary and will have an end, and that a restoration [_apocatastasis_] will take place of demons and impious men, let him be anathema.

10. Let Origen be anathema together with that Adamantius who set forth these opinions together with his nefarious and execrable doctrine, and whoever there is who thinks thus or defends these opinions, or in any way hereafter at any time shall presume to protect them.

(_b_) Vigilius, _Judicatum_. Mansi, IX, 181.

This important doc.u.ment was addressed to Menas of Constantinople and is dated April 11, 548. Unfortunately it exists only in detached fragments, which are given below, taken from the text as given by Hefele, 259. The first is given in a letter of Justinian to the Fifth Council, an abridgment of which may be found in Hefele, 267. Other fragments are from the _Const.i.tutum_ (see below), where they are quoted by Vigilius from his previous letter to Menas, which Hefele has identified with the _Judicatum_.

In this opinion Krger (art. Vigilius in PRE). and Bailey (art.

Vigilius in DCB) and other scholars concur. The force of the first is that the writings condemned by the Three Chapters are heretical; of the others, that the credit of the Council of Chalcedon must be maintained. How the two positions were reconciled is not clear.

1. And because certain writings under the name of Theodore of Mopsuestia have been handed to us which contain many things contrary to the right faith, we, following the warnings of the Apostle Paul, who said: Prove all things, hold fast that which is good, therefore anathematize Theodore, who was bishop of Mopsuestia, with all his impious writings, and also those who defend him. We anathematize also the impious epistle which is said to have been written by Ibas to Maris the Persian, as contrary to the right faith, and also all who defend it and say that it is right. We anathematize also the writings of Theodoret which were written contrary to the right faith and against the capitula of Cyril.(204)

2. Since it is evident to us by sufficient reason, that whosoever attempts to do anything to the disparagement of the aforesaid council, will rather sin against himself.

3. If it had been shown conclusively by us to be contained in the acts [_i.e._, of the Council of Chalcedon], no one would have dared to be the author of so great a presumption or would have regarded as doubtful or undecided anything which was brought before that most holy judgment; since it is to be believed that those then present could have investigated things diligently even apart from writing, and have defined them positively, which appears to us after so much time and on account of unknown causes still unsettled; since also it is a part of reverence for the synods that in those things which are less understood one recognizes their authority.

4. All things being accepted and remaining perpetually established which were defined in the venerable councils at Nica, and Constantinople, in the first at Ephesus, and at Chalcedon, and confirmed by the authority of our predecessors; and all who in the said holy councils were deposed are without doubt condemned, and those are no less absolved whose absolution was decreed by the same synods.

5. Subjecting also him to the sentence of anathema who accepts as of any force whatsoever may be found against the said synod of Chalcedon, written in this present letter, or in anything in the present case whatever done by us or by any one; and let the holy synod of Chalcedon, of which the authority is great and unshaken, perpetual and reverenced, have the same force as that which the synods of Nica, Constantinople, and the first at Ephesus have.

6. We anathematize also whoever does not faithfully follow and equally venerate the holy synods of Nica. of Constantinople, the first of Ephesus, and the synod of Chalcedon as most holy synods, agreeing in the one and immaculate faith of the Apostles, and confirmed by the pontiffs of the Apostolic See, and whoever wishes to correct as badly said, or wishes to supply as imperfect, those things which were done in the same councils which we have mentioned.

(_c_) Vigilius, _Oath to Justinian_, August 15, A. D. 550. Mansi. IX, 363.

(MSL, 69: 121.)

The _Judicatum_ met with great opposition in the West. Vigilius, to still the clamor against it, withdrew it and proposed other measures in consultation with Justinian. In connection with this he bound himself with an oath to support Justinian in putting through the condemnation of the Three Chapters, and this oath Justinian produced later, when Vigilius had presented his _Const.i.tutum_ to him refusing to condemn the chapters. The Emperor thereupon suppressed the _Const.i.tutum_.

The most blessed Pope Vigilius has sworn to the most pious lord Emperor in our presence, that is of me, Theodorus, bishop of Csarea, in Cappadocia [see DCB, _Theodorus of Askidas_], and of me, Cethegus, the patrician, by the sacred nails with which our Lord G.o.d Jesus Christ was crucified and by the four holy Gospels, as also by the sacred bridle,(205) so also by the four Gospels; that, being of one mind and will with your piety, we shall so will, attempt, and act, as far as we are able, so that the three chapters, that is, Theodore of Mopsuestia, the epistle attributed to Ibas, and the writings of Theodoret against the orthodox faith and his sayings against the twelve capitula of the holy Cyril, may be condemned and anathematized; and to do nothing, either by myself or by those whom we can trust, either of the clerical or lay order, in behalf of the chapters, against the will of your piety, or to speak or to give counsel secretly in behalf of those chapters. And if any one should say anything to me to the contrary, either concerning these chapters or concerning the faith, or against the State, I will make him known to your piety, without peril of death, and also what has been said to me, so that on account of my place you do not abandon my person; and you have promised, because I observe these things toward your piety, to protect my honor in all respects, and also to guard my person and reputation and to defend them with the help of G.o.d and to protect the privileges of my see. And you have also promised that this paper shall be shown to no one. I promise further that in the case of the three chapters, we shall treat in common as to what ought to be done, and whatsoever shall appear to us useful we will carry out with the help of G.o.d. This oath was given the fifteenth day of August, indiction XIII, the twenty-third year of the reign of our lord Justinian, the ninth year after the consuls.h.i.+p of the ill.u.s.trious Basil. I, Theodore, by the mercy of G.o.d bishop of Csarea, in Cappadocia, have subscribed hereunto as a witness to this oath; I, Flavius Cethegus, patrician, have subscribed hereunto as a witness to this oath.

(_d_) Vigilius, _Const.i.tutum_, May 14, 553. (MSL, 69:67.)

The synod known as the Fifth General Council met May 5, 553, and proceeded to condemn the Three Chapters, as directed by the Emperor. Vigilius refused to attend, but consented to p.r.o.nounce his judgment on the matter apart from the council. This he did in his _Const.i.tutum ad Imperatorem_, May 14, 553. In it he condemns the teaching of Theodore of Mopsuestia, but opposes the condemnation of Theodore himself, inasmuch as he had died in the communion of the Church. He also opposes the condemnation of Theodoret and Ibas, because both were acquitted at Chalcedon. This _Const.i.tutum_ is to be distinguished from the _Const.i.tutum_ of 554 (MSL, 69:143, 147), in which, after the council had acceded to the proposals of the Emperor and condemned the Three Chapters and had excommunicated Vigilius by removing his name from the diptychs, the latter confirmed the decisions of the council and joined in the condemnation of the Three Chapters. For a discussion of the whole situation, see Hefele, 272-276. The devious course followed by Vigilius has been the subject of much acrimonious debate. The facts of the case are now generally recognized. The conclusion of Cardinal Hergenrther, KG. I, 612, is the best that can be said for Vigilius: In the question as to the faith, Vigilius was never wavering; but he was so, indeed, in the question as to whether the action was proper or opportune, whether it was advisable or necessary to condemn subsequently men whom the Council of Chalcedon had spared, to put forth a judgment which would be regarded by the Monophysites as a triumph of their cause, which was most obnoxious for the same reason, and its supposed dishonoring of the Council of Chalcedon, and was likely to create new divisions instead of healing the old.

The portions of the _Const.i.tutum_ given below are the conclusions of Vigilius as to each of the Three Chapters. The whole is a lengthy doc.u.ment.

All these things have been diligently examined, and although our Fathers speak in different phrases yet are guided by one sentiment, that the persons of priests, who have died in the peace of the Church, should be preserved untouched; likewise the const.i.tutions of the Apostolic See, which we have quoted above, uniformly define that it is lawful for no one to judge anew anything concerning the persons of the dead, but each is left in that condition in which the last day finds him; and especially concerning the name of Theodore of Mopsuestia, what our Fathers determined is clearly shown above. Him, therefore, we dare not condemn by our sentence, and we do not permit him to be condemned by any one else; the above-written chapters of dogmas, which are d.a.m.ned by us, or any sayings of any one without name affixed, not agreeing with, or consonant with, the evangelical and apostolic doctrine and the doctrines of the four synods, of Nica, of Constantinople, of the first of Ephesus, and of Chalcedon, we, however, do not suffer to be admitted to our thought or even to our ears.

But concerning the writings which are brought forward under the name of that venerable man, Theodoret, late bishop, we wonder, first, why it should be necessary or with what desire anything should be done to the disparagement of the name of that priest, who more than a hundred years ago, in the judgement of the sacred and venerable Council of Chalcedon, subscribed without any hesitation and consented with profound devotion to the Epistle of the most blessed Pope Leo. The truth of these things having been considered, we determine and decree that nothing be done or proposed by any one in judgement upon him to the injury and defamation of a man most approved in the synod of Chalcedon, that is to say, Theodoret of Cyrus. But guarding in all respects the reverence of his person, whatsoever writings are brought forward under his name or under that of another evidently in accord with the errors of the wicked Nestorius and Eutyches we anathematize and condemn.

Then follow these five anathematisms, the test of which may be found in Hahn, 228: