Monophysites Sentence Examples

When, in the 5th century A.D., owing to theological differences the Syriac-using Christians became divided into Nestorians or East Syrians and Jacobites (Monophysites) or West Syrians, certain differences of pronunciation, chiefly in the vowels, began to develop themselves.

Nevertheless she retained great influence; although involved in the revolt of the Syrian monophysites (453), she was ultimately reconciled to Pulcheria and readmitted into the orthodox church.

The short reign of Basiliscus (474-476) favoured the Monophysites, but the restoration of the rightful emperor Zeno marked an attempt at conciliation.

Justinian himself, with the aid of Leontius of Byzantium (c. 4 8 5-543), a monk with a decided turn for Aristotelian logic and metaphysics, had tried to reconcile the Cyrillian and Chalcedonian positions, but he inclined more and'more towards the monophysite view, and even went so far as to condemn by edict three teachers (Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, the opponent of Cyril, and Ibas of Edessa) who were offensive to the monophysites.

Among the early Monophysites were two of the best of Syriac writers - Jacob of Serugh and Philoxenus of Mabbogh, who have been treated in special articles.

The result was to bring about the deposition and banishment of the Monophysites from the latter city.

In the 6th century they received a new impulse from a monk of 'the name of Jacob, who united the various divisions into which the Eutychians, or Monophysites, had separated into one church, which exists at the present time under the name of the Jacobite Church, and has numerous adherents in Armenia, Egypt and Ethiopia.

Later he devoted himself to the revision of the Syriac version of the Bible, and with the help of his chorepiscopus Polycarp produced in 598 the so-called Philoxenian version, which was in some sense the received Bible of the Monophysites during the 6th century.

The Monophysites had the sympathy of the emperor Anastasius, and were finally successful in ousting Flavian in 512 and replacing him by their partisan Severus.

It was an attempt to provide a more accurate rendering of the Greek Bible than had hitherto existed in Syriac, and obtained recognition among the Monophysites until superseded by the still more literal renderings of the Old Testament by Paul of Tella and of the New Testament by Thomas of Harkel (both in 616-617), of which the latter at least was based on the work of Philoxenus.

But Kunze thinks that it was not used as a base of operations against Eutyches because there is some evidence that Monophysites were willing to accept it.

The middle ages were far more disastrous for the Monophysites than for the Nestorians; in their case there was no alternation of rise and decline, and we have only a long period of gradual exhaustion to chronicle.

But the Abyssinians rejected the council of Chalcedon, and still remain monophysites.

Neither could the Armenians keep on good terms even with the Syriac monophysites.

The Monophysites, who had taken advantage of the Persian occupation, were persecuted and their patriarch expelled.

The Monophysites sometimes alleged that they could not accept the decrees of the council of Chalcedon because that council had not condemned, but (as they argued) virtually approved, three writers tainted with Nestorian principles, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, and Ibas, bishop of Edessa.

The Nestorians and the Eutychian Monophysites were not threatened with such severe civil penalties, although their worship was interdicted, and their bishops were sometimes banished; but this vexatious treatment was quite enough to keep them disaffected, and the rapidity of the Mahommedan conquests may be partly traced to that alienation of the bulk of the Egyptian and a large part of the Syrian population which dates from Justinian's persecutions.

The Monophysites, who like the Greeks knew themselves simply as the Orthodox, were grievously persecuted by the emperor Justinian and the graecizing patriarchs of Antioch, because they rejected the decrees of the council of Chalcedon, in which they - not without good reason - saw nothing but a thinly veiled relapse into those opinions of Nestorius which the previous council of Ephesus had condemned.

They used leavened bread in the Eucharist mixed with salt and oil, and like other Monophysites add to the Trisagion the words "Who wast crucified for our sake."

The Monophysites accept the first three councils, but reject the decree of Chalcedon and all that come after it.

The advocates of the one nature theory were called Monophysites (q.v.), and they gave rise to numerous sects, and to at least three separate national churches - the Jacobites of Syria, the Copts of Egypt and the Abyssinian Church, which are treated under separate headings.

The controversy had its origin in the efforts of the emperor Heraclius to win back for the church and the empire the excommunicated and persecuted Monophysites or Eutychians of Egypt and Syria.

It was in Armenia, while on his expedition against Persia, in 622 that, in an interview with Paul, the head of the Severians (Monophysites) there, Heraclius first broached the doctrine of the µia EvEp-yECa of Christ, i.e.

His first act was to repudiate the Henoticon, a deed of union, originating, it is supposed, with Acacius, patriarch of Constantinople, and published by the emperor Zeno with the view of allaying the strife between the Monophysites and their opponents in the Eastern church.

The church of the Nestorians, and that of the Monophysites, in their several schools and monasteries, carried on from the 5th to the 8th century the study of the earlier part of the Organon, with almost the same means, purposes and results as were found among the Latin schoolmen of the earlier centuries.

Meanwhile the Monophysites had followed in the steps of the Nestorians, multiplying Syriac versions of the logical and medical science of the Greeks.

The energy of the Monophysites, however, began to sink with the rise of the Moslem empire; and when philosophy revived amongst them in the 13th century, in the person of Gregorius Bar-Hebraeus (Abulfaragius) (1226-1286), the revival was due to the example and influence of the Arabian thinkers.

Nevertheless it seems to have originated in the East, perhaps as a protest against the extreme Monophysites, who even denied the passibility of Christ.

With this statement, which was formally subscribed in the presence of the emperor, the development of the Christological doctrine was completed, but not in a manner to obviate further controversy (see Monophysites and Monothelites).

The cause of his leaving Amid was probably either the great pestilence which broke out there in 534 or the furious persecution directed against the Monophysites by Ephraim (patriarch of Antioch 529-544) and Abraham (bishop of Am id c. 520-541).

Among other severities towards the Monophysites, he persuaded the Persian king Peroz (457-484) to banish many of them into the Roman dominions.

The Constantinopolitan Acoemeti took a prominent part in the Christological controversies of the 5th and 6th centuries, at first strenuously opposing Acacius, patriarch of Constantinople, in his attempted compromise with the monophysites; but afterwards, in Justinian's reign, falling under ecclesiastical censure for Nestorian tendencies.

The history of the Jacobites or Syrian Monophysites who, like the Nestorians, diverged from the Byzantine Church, but in an exactly opposite direction, is told elsewhere (see Jacobite Church, &c.).

When he himself came to the throne he endeavoured to persuade the Monophysites to come in by summoning some of their leaders to a conference.

Religious feeling in the West recoiled from the crucifix as late as the 6th century, and it was equally abhorrent to the Monophysites of the East who regarded the human nature of Christ as swallowed up in the divine.

The Manichaeans were therefore, by reason of their dualism, arch-enemies no less of Christian art than of relics and cross-worship; the Monophysites were equally so by reason of their belief that the divine nature in Christ entirely absorbed and sublated the human; they shaded off into the party of the aphthartodoketes, who held that his human body was incorruptible and made of ethereal fire, and that his divine nature was impassible.