Justinian's general failure to convince the Monophysites of the merits of his conciliatory plans. In fact, during his reign the Monophysites started ordaining their own bishops, thereby setting up an autonomous ecclesiastical hierarchy which existed parallel to the canonical one (537). Later on, Jacob Bar' Addai, a Monophysite bishop, consecrated at Constantinople at Theodora's request, established - through intense missionary activities in Asia Minor, Armenia, Syria, and Egypt (542-578) - the so called
`Jacobite' Church. 114
The colloquy of 532 was a turning point for Justinian's conciliatory policy. He must have realised that there was very little hope of the Monophysites coming back to
the ecclesial communion on the basis of the acceptance of Chalcedon. In fact, four years later, Justinian endorsed the deposition of Severus along with the pro-Monophysite Anthimus of Constantinople, at the Home Synod (aVvoSoq Ev5)7, tot oa) of
Constantinople (536). At this synod, Chalcedon was reaffirmed beyond any doubt. 855
However, for many historians Justinian's efforts to win over the Monophysites continued through another plan: the universal condemnation of the Three Chapters. In
544,856 as already mentioned, Justinian issued an edict against the Three Chapters. In it, he asked the Church to condemn a) the person and the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, b) the writings of Theodoret of Cyrus against Cyril of Alexandria and the
Council of Ephesus and c) the letter of Ibas of Edessa to Maris the Persian.
The Origenist crisis
Justinian's initiative to ask for the condemnation of the Three Chapters is often linked to a development not immediately related to the christological issue. In 531 a controversy about Origen broke out among the monks in Palestine. "' In the Lavra, the famous
ass Innocent, ACO Iv, 2, p. 183.
as' On the advance of the Monophysite cause during Justinian's reign see Frend, pp. 255-295.
ess ACO III, p. 27,11 ff.
This is the commonly accepted date of composition of the edict, the years 543,545,546 having also been suggested. Cf. Hefele, Iv, pp. 242-243. The edict has been lost. Information about its content is found in Facundus of Hermiana, Pro defensione trium capitulorum II, PL 67,537D and Pontianus, Letter to Vigilius, Mansi Ix, p. 45. Excerpts in E. Schwartz, `Zur Kirchenpolitik Justinians', pp. 321-28;
es. For details of the controversy see E. Schwartz, Kyrillos von Scythopolis (Leipzig: 1939), pp. 85-200.
185
monastery headed by the great ascetic, Sabbas, some monks caused unrest by their overt adherence to Origen's ideas. "' Sabbas, a supporter of Chalcedon who considered many of Origen's theses as heretical, complained to the emperor asking for their expulsion from Palestine (531). The Origenist monks, however, managed to remain in Palestine and, expelled from Sabbas' monastery, to establish a community of their own, the New Lavra, from where they continued their activities. Chief among them was Theodore Ascidas, who became Justinian's theological adviser and bishop of Caesarea in
Cappadocia (537).
Yet, despite the presence of influential Origenists in the imperial environment, the increasing complaints against the extreme behaviour of the Origenist monks - they even tried to destroy the Lavra8S9 - and the influence of the papal delegate to Constantinople, Pelagius, convinced Justinian to issue an edict against Origen and his followers (543). 860 The edict contained ten anathemas against basic heretical theses of Origen (pre-existence of the souls, general restoration, eternal creation etc. ) which were supported by references to the fathers who had spoken against Origen (Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, Basil of Caesarea, Cyril of Alexandria et al. ). The content
of these anathemas was ratified by the Home Council of Constantinople (543) in its own fifteen anathemas against Origen, and the Fifth Ecumenical Council. This condemned Origen in its eleventh anathema having incorporated the fifteen anathemas of the Home Council in its minutes. 961
According to many historians who base their judgement on the witness of Facundus of Hermiana862 and Liberatus of Carthage, 863 the foregoing Origenists, and in particular Theodore Ascidas, persuaded Justinian to issue the edict which stirred up the Three Chapters Controversy. " Thus the emperor's plans to win the Monophysites over would be facilitated; a condemnation of the Three Chapters would satisfy them and help
"" Origen's ideas of the pre-existence of human souls and the eventual restoration of all beings in God (d)roaardcraojs) were the background of a christology developed mainly by Evagrius Ponticus (346- 399). According to this, Christ's soul had existed before the incarnation in union with God. Thus, the Logos did not exactly assume humanity but, by uniting flesh to himself, he revealed Christ's partly existing hypostasis to the world. The Logos unites himself to humanity `according to essence' (Kay'
00Qiav) or `according to hypostasis' (KaO' üZöQravtv). Meyendorff, Imperial, p. 233.
5' Schwartz, Kyrillos, pp. 190ff.
60
60 Collectio Sabbaitica, ACO Iii, pp. 189-214; PG 86, pt 1,945-993.
861 The traditional opinion that the Fifth Council dealt with Origen has been challenged by historians.
This suggestion should be dismissed. See Grillmeier, Christ II, 2, pp. 402-410.
"2 Facundus, Pro Defensione, Iv, 4, PL 67, col. 627.
"' Liberatus, Breviarum causae Nestorianorum et Eutychianorum 24, ACO II, 5, p. 140.
"6' Hefele, Iv, pp. 229-230; Bury, p. 384; Sellers, Chalcedon, p. 324; Feidas, p. 702; D. Constantelos,
`Justinian and the Three Chapters Controversy', GOTR 8 (1962-63), p. 82; Grillmeier, Christ, II, 2, pp.
419-421, et al.
186
remove their suspicion of Chalcedon. However, Ascidas' real motive was allegedly `to divert Justinian and the other theologians from the persecution of Origen'865 by engaging them in another doctrinal dispute. At the same time Ascidas would take revenge against Theodore of Mopsuestia who had written against Origen. 866
Although this explanation seems to be very plausible we think that it is unfair to Justinian. "' For his entire ecclesiastical policy reveals a quite independent character and a deep knowledge of theology. We agree with the following remarks by E. Chrysos:
The fact that Justinian fought simultaneously and systematically against the Origenism of the monks of Palestine, significant representatives of whom belonged to his environment, and against the Nestorianism of the Three
Chapters despite the opposite opinion of other of his colleagues, indicates that his theological treatises and his ecclesiastical policy sprung up from an advanced and mature theological thought. 868
To support this view we could add that Justinian continued prosecuting the Origenists even more strongly after stirring up the Three Chapters controversy and finally managed to have the condemnation of Origenism sanctioned at the Fifth Ecumenical Council with the assent of Theodore Ascidas.
We think that the emperor was sincere when he said that he asked for the condemnation of the Three Chapters, not for the sake of a possible reunion with the Monophysites, 869 but because of their `impiety', and the fact that `some pretending that they denounced Nestorius himself tried to introduce him and his erroneous belief through the Three Chapters, claiming that their impiety is identified with the teaching of the Catholic Church'. "'
As we have seen, Justinian was certainly not stirring up a new issue when he asked for the condemnation of the Three Chapters. Nor was it only the Monophysites
865 Hefele, W, pp. 229. This is also Evagrius' account of events although in his view Theodore's suggestion to Justinian for a condemnation of the Three Chapters was not wrong; rather through it God was taking care so that the impiety of both the Origenists and the Three Chapters would be dealt with (HE IV, 38).
e"' Liberatus asserted that Theodore Ascidas apart from an Origenist was also a Monophysite and, in particular, an Acephalos ([Theodorus], secta Acephalus) (Breviarum, ACO IT, 5, p. 140,14). But this cannot be seriously taken into account as nowhere else Theodore Ascidas is charged with Monophysite tendencies. Cf. Hefele, iv, p. 241.
86' Meyendorff considers the theory of Theodore Ascidas' intrigue based on the witness of two sworn enemies of the emperor as `rather naive and malevolent'. Imperial, p. 236.
e68 Ecclesiastical, pp. 24-25 (my tr. from the Greek).
869 It should be noted, however, that even Justinian's friends thought that his actions against the Three Chapters were intended to bring the Monophysites back. See Leontius Schol., De sectis, PG 83, pt I,
1237.
60 Epfstula contra tria capitula, Schwartz, p. 82,30-33. Similarly, Leontius of Byzantium tells us that the supporters of Theodore of Mopsuestia claimed that their doctrine was that of Chalcedon and thus deceived the simple people. C. Nestorianos et Eutychianos, PG 86, pt I, 1361A; 1364A.
187
who considered them Nestorian. The teaching of the Three Chapters had been condemned before Justinian by authoritative orthodox fathers. In particular, Theodore of Mopsuestia was criticised not only by Cyril but also by Proclus of Constantinople. In his celebrated Tomus ad Armenios the Patriarch calls Theodore's teaching `a weak
spider web' and `words written with water'. "' As regards Theodoret of Cyrus, he was treated as a Nestorian not only by the Monophysites but also by Chalcedonians, despite his rehabilitation at Chalcedon. An evidence of this is a letter by Emperor Justin (a Chalcedonian beyond suspicion) to Hypatius, a military man. In this letter, which was written in 520, the emperor orders Hypatius to investigate reports according, to which
Sergius, the bishop of Cyrus, organised celebrations in honour of Theodoret, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Diodore of Tarsus and `a certain Nestorius' (Nestorii cujusdam) who was treated as `a martyr'. Justin refers to Theodoret as a man `who everywhere is accused of error in faith' (qui undique inculpatur propter fidel errorem). 872
With these remarks, we do not mean to question the undoubted fact that Justinian sought to reconcile the Monophysites with the Catholic Church, but as regards the Three Chapters issue it seems to us that his actions are better understood as resulting from his own commitment to Cyrillian-Chalcedonian orthodoxy (which excludes both the Eutychian Monophysite and the strict Antiochene approach of the Three Chapters) and not so much as stemming from expediency.
2.3 JUSTINIAN'S MAIN CHRISTOLOGICAL WORKS
Justinian's main christological works are three: a) Contra Monophysitas (henceforth cited as CM 873 This is a copy of a letter that Justinian sent to a group of Alexandrian monks (542-543) who having first professed the `one physis' later rejoined the
Chalcedonians. To this letter Justinian appended twelve anathemas. b) Epistula contra tria capitula (henceforth cited as CTC). 874 This is Justinian's reply to letters of
a" ACO Iv, 2, pp. 191-2.
an Mansi ix, 364; ACO iv, 1, pp. 199-200. Engl. tr. of the letter in CN 3,559.
"3 Schwartz, pp. 6-79; PG 86, pt. 1,1104-1146. We shall use the Greek text of Schwartz as edited by M.
Amelotti and refer to page numbers of this edition - not the original ones by Schwartz. When applicable we will also refer to lines.
a" Schwartz, pp. 82-127; Mansi 9,589-645; PG 86,1041-1095; PL 69,275-327. The date and the recipients of the letter are not known. Grillmeier suggests that it was sent to the members of an Illyrian synod who had not subscribed the imperial edict of 544, Christ, II, 2, p. 422. This is also the view of
Schwartz who identifies the council with one held in Eastern Illyricum (c. 549) (Drei dogmatische Schriften Iustinians, p. 173). Gerostergios dates the letter at a time after 553 assuming that Justinian's
phrase: `we have asked the priests of the Church to give us their judgment on them (the Three Chapters)' refers to the Fifth Ecumenical Council. Justinian the Great: Emperor and Saint, p. 45. We think that there is good reason to believe that the recipients were not Illyrian but the Latin bishops who were opposing the edict. In our view Justinian's reference to the recipients' dioceses as `a land where the true faith had always been kept in purity (i. e. before the recipients were influenced by erroneous teaching)'