Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 13.djvu/830

 71)6 JUSTINIAN 3. Justinian s ecclesiastical policy was so complex and varying that it is impossible within the limits of this article to do more than indicate its bare outlines. For many years before the accession of his uncle Justin, the Eastern world had been vexed by the struggles of the Monophysite party, who recognized only one nature in Christ, against the view which then and ever since has maintained itself as orthodox, that the divine and human natures coexisted in Him. The latter doctrine had triumphed at the coun cil of Chalcedon, and was held by the whole Western Church, but Egypt, great part of Syria and Asia Minor, and a considerable minority even in Constantinople clung to Monophysitism. The emperors Zeno and Anastasius had been strongly suspected of it, and the Roman bishops had refused to communicate with the patriarchs of Con stantinople since 484, when they had condemned Acacius for accepting the formula of conciliation issued by Zeno. One of Justinian s first public acts was to put an end to this schism by inducing Justin to make the then patri arch renounce this formula and declare his full adhesion to the creed of Chalcedon. When he himself came to the throne he endeavoured to persuade the Monophysites to come in by summoning some of their leaders to a con ference. This failing, he ejected suspected prelates, and occasionally persecuted them, though with far less severity than that applied to the heretics of a deeper dye, such as Montanists or even Arians. Not long afterwards, his atten tion having been called to the spread of Origenistic opinions in Syria, he issued an edict condemning fourteen proposi tions drawn from the writings of the great Alexandrian, and caused a synod to be held under the presidency of Mennas (whom he had named patriarch of Constantinople), which renewed the condemnation of the impugned doctrines and anathematized Origen himself. Still later, he was induced by the machinations of some of the prelates who haunted his court, and by the influence of Theodora, herself much interested in theological questions, and more than suspected of Monophysitism, to raise a needless, mischievous, and pro tracted controversy. The Monophysites sometimes alleged that they could not accept the decrees of the council of Chal cedon because that council had not condemned, but (as they argued) virtually approved, three writers tainted with Nes- torian principles, viz., Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, and Ibas, bishop of Edessa. It was represented to the emperor, who was still pursued by the desire to bring back the schismatics, that a great step would have been taken towards reconciliation if a condemnation of these teachers, or rather of such of their books as were complained of, could be brought about, since then the Chalcedonian party would be purged from any appearance of sympathy with the errors of Nestorius. Not stopping to reflect that in the angry and suspicious state of men s minds he was sure to lose as much in one direction as he would gain in the other, Justinian entered into the idea, and put forth an edict exposing and denouncing the errors contained in the writings of Theodore generally, in the treatise of Theodoret against Cyril of Alexandria, and in a letter of Bishop ^ Ibas (a letter whose authenticity was doubted, but which passed under his name) to the Persian bishop Maris. This edict was circulated through the Christian world to be subscribed by the bishops. The four Eastern patriarchs, and the great majority of the Eastern prelates generally, subscribed, though reluctantly, for it was felt that a dangerous precedent was being set when dead authors were anathematized, and that this new movement could hardly fail to weaken the authority of the council of Chalcedon. Among the Western bishops, who were less disposed both to Monophysitism and to subservience, and especially by those of Africa, the edict was earnestly resisted. When it was found that Pope Vigilius did not forthwith comply, he was summoned to Constantinople. Even there he resisted, not so much, it would seem, from any scruples of his own, for he was not a high-minded man, as because he knew that he dared not return to Italy if he gave way. Long disputes and negotiations followed, the end of which was that Justinian summoned a general council of the church, that which we reckon the Fifth, which condemned the impugned writings, and anathe matized several other heretical authors. Its decrees were received in the East, but long contested in the Western Church, where a schism arose that lasted for seventy years. This is the controversy known as that of the Three Chapters (Trla capitida, rpia /&amp;lt;e(ay.cua), apparently from the three propositions or condemnations contained in Justinian s original edict, one relating to Theodore s writings and person, the second to the incriminated treatise of Theodoret (whose person was not attacked), the third to the letter (if genuine) of Ibas (see Hefele, Concilienyeschichte, ii. 777). At the very end of his long career of theological dis cussion, Justinian himself lapsed into heresy, by accepting the doctrine that the earthly body of Christ was incorrup tible, insensible to the weaknesses of the flesh, a doctrine which had been advanced by Julian, bishop of Halicarnassus, and went by the name of Aphthartodocetism. According to his usual practice, he issued an edict enforcing this view, and requiring all patriarchs, metropolitans, and bishops to subscribe to it. Some, who not unnaturally held that it was rank Monophysitism, refused at once, and were deprived of their sees, among them Eutychius the eminent patriarch of Constantinople. Others submitted or temporized ; but, before there had been time enough for the matter to be carried through, the emperor died, having tarnished if not utterly forfeited by this last error the reputation won by a life devoted to the service of orthodoxy. As no preceding sovereign had been so much interested in church affairs, so none seems to have shown so much activity as a persecutor both of heathens and of heretics. He renewed with additional stringency the laws against both these classes. The former embraced a large part of the rural population in certain secluded districts, such as parts of Asia Minor and Peloponnesus ; and we are told that the efforts directed against them resulted in the forcible baptism of seventy thousand persons in Asia Minor alone. Heathenism, however, survived ; we find it in Laconia in the end of the 9th century, and in northern Syria it has lasted till our own times. There were also a good many crypto-pagans among the educated population of the capital. Procopius, for instance, if he was not actually a pagan, was certainly very little of a Christian. Inquiries made in the third year of Justinian s reign drove nearly all of these persons into an outward conformity, and their offspring seem to have become ordinary Christians. At Athens, the philosophers who taught in the schools hallowed by memories of Plato still openly professed what passed for heathenism, though it was really a body of moral doctrine, strongly tinged with mysticism, in which there was far more of Christianity and of the speculative metaphysics of the East than of the old Olympian religion. Justinian, partly from religious motives, partly because he discoun tenanced all rivals to the imperial university of Constanti nople, closed these Athenian schools (529). The pro fessors sought refuge at the court of Chosroes, king of Persia, but were soon so much disgusted by the ideas and practices of the fire-worshippers that they returned to the empire, Chosroes having magnanimously obtained from Justinian a promise that they should be suffered to pass the rest of their days unmolested. Heresy proved more obstinate. The severities directed against the Montanists of Phrygia led to a furious war, in which most of the sectaries perished, while the doctrine was not extinguished. Harsh