MONOPH'YSITES ( k. IT , ono physitt's, one who affirms the single nature of (fod. from p6vos, mono; single + otfais, physic, Maitre). The 11;1111e applied to a large number of Christians in the fifth and sixth centuries who maintained that Christ had only one nature. as against the orthodox doctrine that in Bhp humanity and divinity. were perfectly united without detriment to either. The .lionophysites called the orthodox, by analogy, Dyophysites, i.e. believers in two natures (Ck. Sire, two, and epticral. The controversy sprang out of the fourth century discussions respecting the Trinity (q.v.), and the connecting link may be found in the speculations of Apollinaris of Laodicea (d. 392), who raised the question how the divine and the human could exist together in Christ.
The lonophysite controversy passed tiirough several preliminary stages. (Me of these is marked by the name of Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople, whose Clu•istology was suspected to he unsound, and who was condemned by the Council of Ephesus (431). under the leadership "f Cyril of Alexandria. (See NEsTonfus; EI'll ESUS, COUNCILS Or. ) Another stage is eon neeted with the monk Eutyches (q.v.). who held a peculiar view of the natures in Cln•ist, differ ent from that of Nestorius, yet open to sus• Orion. Be, too. was adjudged heretical (148), and although he was received hack into fellow ship by the 'Robber Synod' of Ephesus (449), his vindication did not stand. Meanwhile, Pope Leo ((4(1-4G)) had written to the Bishop of Con.t a nt inople in is cclehrated 'Tome.' or letter, in which he defined the Catholic doctrine of the two natures. This was bronght into requisition at the Council of Chaleedon (451), and upon it was based the official decree which set forth the orthoditx Christadogy. According to this definition. Christ is "perfect in deity and perfect in humanity, truly and truly man.
. . one and the sane• Christ. in two natures thou( confusion, change, livkion, or separa The adopt ion of I he rhalvedoniall decree Hilly be as 114-initiating the theologieal and introducing the political period of the Mono PI Mt iln•er-y.
• at that time confronting the Empire was that of harmonizing the theolog ically discordant elements of the population. Christianity icing the State religion, it was necessary for all to accept whatever doctrinal decisions :night be reached by the proper• auiliori ties. BM a large part of the Eastern Church was strongly Monophysite, and would not sur render its convictions, in spite of the Connell.
The Emperors themselves did not all think alike. although they all sought, if possible. to unify the opinions of their subjects. A usurper ill the East. Basiliseus by name, issued a decree con demning the definition of Chaleedon (476). and while many of the Eastern clergy accepted his decree. a storm of opposition was aroused. A later Emperor. Zeno, endeavored to reach a com promise by his lit:no/icon, or instrument of union (482), which practically ignored what had been accomplished at ('halcetion, and reverted to the Nicamo.Constantinopolitan creed as the sole standard of orthodoxy. Pope Felix condemned the Ilenoticon, mid the result was a schism be tween East and West. lasting for about thirty five years (481-519). Before the close of the fifth century several national churches had been formed in the East, independent of Constanti nople, yet patriarchal in their organization. anti all professing the Monophysite faith, e.g. the Jacobites, Marollites. Armenians. Copts, Abys sinians, etc. In Egypt some of the most extreme 31onophysites separated from the Patriarch of Alex:Inch-1a and formed a sect of their own. They were called Accpholi, i.e. 'without a head; Jus tinian (527-505). a champion of orthodoxy, at tempted to induce his subjects to unite on the basis of the Chalcedonian decree, and partially succeeded, chiefly by forcing his will upon the Fifth Ecumenical Council (553). But his most important utterances on the subject pleased neither party, and by a sort of irony of fate at the close of his life he was said himself to have fallen into a heresy akin to "Monophysitism (cf. Evagrins, (fist. Eccies„ iv. 39). Only after the separation of the schismatic elforelws of the East, and, still mitre, after the rise of Moham medanism, which forced Oriental Christians, in self-defense, to seek closer relations with Rome, can the long Monophysite struggle be said to have come to an end. The two-nature doc trine, as defined at Chalcedons triumphed. in spite of its inherent difficulties, and remained the orthodox faith of Christendom. Consult: Gibbon, Roman h'mpire. chap. )7 (ed. by J. 11. Bury, London, 1890-1900) ; Ilarnack. History of noyino, vol. iv. (London, 18981: Fisher. Ilis tor•)l of Christian Doctrine (New• York, 189(1) ; Smith and Waee, Dietionary of Christian !iog euphy, article "Person of Christ. Controversiee. Respecting" ( Lomlon, 1887) : Hutton. The Church of the Nixth Century ( ',midi»). 1897) : tory of the Councils, vols. iii. and iv. (Edin burgh.