« السابقةمتابعة »
in Constantinople, met with a sympathetic response in Alexandria. Dioscurus, the successor of Cyril, was the leading spirit in the synod of Ephesus in 449, and that synod asserted the orthodoxy of Eutyches.
Two years later the council of Chalcedon was convened. This was the most important council of the early Church which passed decisions upon the subject of Christology. Its creed, based largely upon the epistle of Leo the Great to Flavian, marked an era in the development of the doctrine of Christ's person. On the one hand, it repelled the error of separating too widely between the two natures of Christ; on the other, it repudiated the error of mingling and confounding the two natures. It asserted that the human and the divine are each entire in the Redeemer, and that each retains its distinctive nature, while yet the two belong to one and the same person.
The natures are two, the personality is one.
The Monophysites, as the advocates of the doctrine of only one nature in Christ came to be called, were by no means satisfied with the creed of Chalcedon, or disposed to acknowledge its authority. In Egypt the malcontents formed a numerous body. They had also a considerable representation in Palestine, Syria, and some other regions. Various attempts were made to bring about their reconciliation. The Emperors Zeno and Justinian manæuvred, to a conspicuous degree, for this end. Under the latter a new ecumenical council was convened, that of Constantinople, in 553. This council paid a species of tribute to the Monophysites, in that it reflected upon those most hated by them, passing anathemas against the person of Theodore of Mopsuestia and certain writings of Theodoret and Ibas. It had no perceptible effect, however, toward the pacification of the Monophysites, and they settled into the condition of permanent schism. The principal branches or sects of the schismatics were the Jacobites (in Syria, Mesopotamia, and Babylonia), the Armenians, the Copts of Egypt, and, in close relation with these last, the Abyssinians. The Maronites, dwelling in the Lebanon region, were an offshoot of the closing era of the Christological controversies in the seventh century.
1 The Jacobites are so called from their distinguished leader and episcopal head, Jacob, surnamed Baradai or Zanzalus, whose extraordinary activity, in the sixth century, saved the persecuted Monophysites of Syria from threatened extinction. The schismatic position of the Armenians was assumed about the middle of the sixth century, shortly after their country passed under Persian rule. For a long time they have occupied the first rank among these sects, in point of numbers and influence. One branch of the Armenians, since the union effort put forth at the council of Florence, in the fifteenth century, has been connected with the Church of Rome. The Egyptian Monophysites, or the Copts, too numerous to be repressed, and persistent in their opposition to the council of Chalcedon, had their own patriarch and separate ecclesiastical organization after the year 536. The Mohammedan conquest in the next century, which their hatred of the Catholics much facilitated, resulted in a great reduction of their strength. They have survived, however, till the present day. One peculiar feature of this communion is its strong Jewish tinge. Circumcision is practised, and the Mosaic distinction of meats observed. An equal or even greater affiliation with Jewish custom characterizes the daughter-church of Abyssinia, which confesses its subordination in receiving its episcopal head by the choice of the Coptic patriarch. By the Abyssinian Christians the Jewish sabbath, as well as the Lord's Day, is observed. The ark has a prominent place in their worship. Among the Monophysite sects they prob ably represent the extreme of ignorance, ceremonialism, and superstition, though all of these bodies are in sore need of a spiritualizing and vitalizing reform.
IV. - ORIGENISTIC CONTROVERSIES.
Outside the main current of the great doctrinal interests, but still causing no little agitation, were the Origenistic controversies. These arose from the very diverse estimates that were passed by different parties upon the distinguished Alexandrian. While broadminded men, like Athanasius, were able to draw from Origen without blindly following him, or to reject certain of his teachings without uttering wholesale anathemas, men of narrow mind were inclined to run to the one or the other extreme. Conspicuous among the fanatical opponents of Origen was Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis in Cyprus. In 394 he stirred up a controversy on the subject in Palestine, where he won Jerome to his side. Rufinus, on the other hand (who was also in Palestine at that time), refused to take sides against Origen. The result was a rupture with Jerome, and a bitter controversy. Among the monks of Egypt, one faction were of the same mind as Epiphanius, while another class were enthusiasts for Origen. Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, was moved, largely by personal considerations, to side with the former party, and persecuted the Origenistic monks with such vigor that many fled from the country. A company of them sought an asylum in Constantinople, where John Chrysostom was then bishop. Chrysostom was somewhat disposed to befriend them, and undertook to intercede with Theophilus in their behalf. This provoked the unappeasable wrath of the jealous and intolerant Alexandrian prelate; and, entering into a league with the enemies of Chrysostom in the church and court of Constantinople, he was able to secure a sentence of banishment against the noble bishop in 403. This was indeed speedily revoked, but was renewed the next year; and the prince of pulpit orators was obliged to spend his last days in exile. This treatment of Chrysostom was strongly disapproved by the Bishop of Rome, though his predecessor had followed the example of Theophilus in condemning Origen. Another assault against the memory of Origen took place in the sixth century. Justinian, ambitiously taking up the role of the theologian, issued ten anathemas against the teachings of Origen; and a synod, convened at his instance in 543, incorporated these with other specifications, making in all fifteen anathemas.
i See Socrates, vi. 9-18; Sozomen, viii. 11-26; Gieseler, $$ 83, 109; Hefele, SS 255-237.
V.-CONTROVERSIES ON ANTHROPOLOGY.
The Eastern Church, in this period, indulged very little debate on the subject of man's sinfulness and the province of divine grace in his recovery. While Eastern bishops in the synod at Ephesus in 431 pronounced against Pelagianism, their decision was more or less influenced by extraneous motives, and was not based upon any thorough investigation of the Pelagian system, or upon any profound aversion to the same. It was in the Latin Church alone that the great problems of anthropology received a profound and earnest canvassing.
The radical theories of Pelagius, a monk from Britain, were the primary cause of the controversy that arose. The more essential features of his doctrinal system were a denial of inherited corruption in the moral nature of man, a strong assertion of the freedom of the will, and a decided emphasis upon man's ability to work out his own salvation as opposed to his radical dependence upon divine grace. Such a system naturally provoked the profound opposition of Augustine, whose ardent soul was ever burning with zeal for the honor of divine grace. All the powers of his great mind were brought to the task of refutation. The Pauline conception of sin and grace found in him a more appreciative interpreter than the Church had as yet produced. He criticised, to good effect, the superficial points of Pelagianism, but greatly impaired his service by inculcating an exaggerated idea of divine sovereignty. Augustine was the first of the Christian Fathers to advocate the creed of unconditional predestination.
The positive beginning of the Pelagian controversy may be located about the year 412, when Cælestius, a prominent disciple of Pelagius, was excommunicated by a Carthaginian synod. In 416 two African synods condemned the Pelagian doctrines, and the Roman bishop Innocent expressed his agreement with their decision. His successor, Zosimus, after a temporary show of favor to the condemned party, gave the full weight of his authority to their proscription. Some ad. herents still defended the doctrines of Pelagius, among whom the learned and talented Julian of Eclanum especially distinguished himself. No new sect, how. ever, was formed in the interest of Pelagianism; and, as a theoretical system, it was pretty well overthrown in the Latin Church before the death of Augustine. Semi