THREE
708
THREE
peror engaged upon a treatise which was to convert a
sect of Monophysites known as the Acephali, sug-
gested a more expeditious plan. Tf the writings of
Theodore and the epistle of Ibas were anathematized,
the Council of Chalcedon being thus revised and ex-
purgated (Synodus . . . retractata et expurgata)
would no longer be a stumbling block to the Mono-
physites. The admissions, quoted by Facundus
(Def., I, 2; IV, 4), made by Domitian, Bishop of An-
cyra, to Vigilius, tell the same story of an Origenist
intrigue.
The leading Eastern bishops were coerced, after a short resistance, into subscribing. Mennas, Patriarch of Constantinople, first protested that to sign was to condemn the Council of Chalcedon, and then yielded on the distinct understanding, as he told Stephen the Roman apocrisarius at Constantinople, that his sub- scription should be returned to him if the Apostolic See disapproved of it. Stephen and Dacius, Bishop of Milan, who was then at Constantinople, broke off communion with him. Mennas had next to coerce his suffragans. They also yielded, but lodged protests with Stephen to be transmitted to the pope, in which they declared that they acted under compulsion. Ephraim, Patriarch of Alexandria, resisted, then yielded and sent a message to Vigilius, who was in Sicily, affirming that he had signed under compulsion. Zoilus, Patriarch of .\ntioch, and Peter, Bishop of Jerusalem, made a like resistance and then yielded (Facundus, "Def.", IV, 4). Of the other bishops, those who subscribed were rewarded, those who re- fused were deposed or had to "conceal themselves" (Liberatus, "Brev.", 24; Facundus, "Def.", II, 3 and "Cont. Moc. ", in Gallandi, XI, 813). While the resistance of the Greek-.speaking bishops collapsed, the Latin, even those like Dacius of Milan and Facundus, who were then at Constantinople, stood firm. Their general attitude is represented in two letters still extant. The first is from an ^Vfrican bishop named Pontianus, in which he entreats the emperor to withdraw the Three Chapters on the ground that their condemnation struck at Chalcedon. The other is that of the Carthaginian deacon, Fer- randus; his opinion as a most learned canonist was asked Ijy the Roman deacons Pelagius (afterwards pope, at this time a strong defender of the Three Chapters) and Anatolius. He fastened on the epistle of Ibas — if this was received at Chalcedon, to anathe- matize it now was to condemn the council. An even stronger use of the benevolence of the council towards this epistle was made by I^acundus at one of the con- ferences held by Vigilius before he issued his "Judi- catum". He wished it to protect the memory of Theodore of Mop.suestia because Ibas had spoken of him in terms of commendation (Cont. Moc, loc. cit.). When in January, 547, Vigilius arrived at Constanti- nople while Italy, Africa, Sardinia, Sicily, and the countries of lUyricum and Hellas through which he journeyed were up in arms against the condemnation of the Three Chapters, it was clear that the Greek- speaking bishops as a whole were not prepared to withstand the emperor.
With regard to the merits of the controversy, theo- logical errors and, in the case of Theodore, verj' seri- ous one.-), were to be found in the incriminated wTit- ings (Theodore was practically a Nestorian before Nestorius); the mistakes of Theodoret and Ibas were chiefly but not wholly due to a misunderstanding of St. Cyril's language. Yet these errors even when ad- mitted did not make the question of their condemna- tion an easy one. There were no good precedents for thus dealing harshly with the memory of men who had died in the peace of the Church. St. Cyprian, as Facundus argued ("Cont. Moc", in Gallandi, X, 815), had erred about tlie rebaptism of heretics, yet no one would dream of anathematizing him. The condemnation was not demanded to crush a heresy,
but to conciliate heretics who were implacable enemies
of the Council of Chalcedon. Both Ibas and Theo-
doret had been deprived of their bishoprics by here-
tics, and had been restored by the Holy See and the
Council of Chalcedon on anathematizing Nestorius.
Yet the council had their writings before it, and, in
the case of the epistle of Ibas, things were said which
could easily be construed into an approval of it. All
this made the condemnation look like an oblique blow
at St. Leo and Chalcedon.
The matter was further complicated by the fact that the Latins, Vigilius among them, were for the most part ignorant of Greek and therefore unable to judge the incriminated writings for themselves. Pela- gius II in his third epistle to Elias, probably drawn up by St. Gregory the Great, ascribes all the trouble to this ignorance. All they had to go upon was the general attitude of the Fathers of Chalcedon. These facts should be remembered in judging the conduct of Vigilius. He came to Constantinople in a very reso- lute frame of mind, and his first step was to excommu- nicate Mennas. But he must have felt the ground v/as being cut from under his feet when he was sup- plied with translations of some of the worst passages in the writings of Theodore. In 548 he issued his "Judicatum" in which the Three Chapters were con- demned, and then temporarily withdrew it when the storm it raised showed how ill-prepared the Latins were for it. Next he and Justinian agreed to a gen- eral council in which Vigilius pledged himself to bring about the condemnation of the Three Chapters, it being understood that the emperor should take no further stejjs till the council should be arranged. The emperor broke his pledge by issuing a fresh edict con- demning the Chapters. Vigilius had twice to take sanctuary, first in the Basihca of St. Peter, and then in the Church of St. Euphemia at Chalcedon, from which he issued an Encyclical to the whole Church describing the treatment he had received. Then an agreement was patched up and Vigilius agreed to a general coun- cil but soon withdrew his assent. Nevertheless, the council was held, and, after refusing to accept the "Consitutum" of Vigilius (see Vigilius, Pope), it then condemned the Three Chapters. Finally Vigilius succumbed, confirmed the council, and was set free. But he died before reaching Italy, leaving his successor Pelagius the task of dealing with the schisms in the West. The most enduring of these were those of Aquileia and Milan. The latter came to an end when Fronto, the schisniatical bishop, died about 581.
Original Sources. — The writings of Facundus in P.L., LXVII, 527-878, Galundi. XI. 661-.821: Fulgentius Fer- RANDos, £;)is(. I'J in P.L., LXVII. Gallandi, XI; Liber.\tC8, Brenariumin P. I... LXVIII, Mansi, IX (Florence. 17.59>. 659- 700. Gallindi, XII; Pontianus, Episl. in P.L.. LXVI, 995; Hardouin, Concilia. III. The Chronicon of Victor Tcntj- NEN81S is contained in P.L„ LXVIII, 957 sqq.. and Gallandi. XII; this is especially valuable for the historj' of the suppression of the schi.sm in Africa. For the schism in Italy the most im- portant documents are certain epistles of Pelagius I, Pelagius II, and St. Gregory the Great. For editions see Peu^gius I. Pope; Pelagius II. Pope; Gregory I (the Great). S.ii.vt, Pope.
General Literature. — Duchesne. Vigile et Pilage in Ret. des quest, hisl. (October, 1884); Hefele, Hist, of the Church Councils, tr. Clark, IV (Edinburgh, 1895), 229 sqq.. where also abundant references to older literature of the subject will be found ; Chapman, The first Eight General Councils (London). 48-59; Dudden, Gregory the Great: Mann, LirM of the Popes in the early Middle .Ages. I. pt. i (London, 1902); HoDOKiNS, Italy and her Invaders, IV, V. VI; Grisar. Hist, of Rome and the Popes in the Middle .Ages. I (London. 1911).
F. J. Bacchus.
Three Rivers, Diocese op (Tripluvianensis), formed from the .\rchdioceso of Quebec, to which it is now suffragan, founded on S June. \Sr,2. The diocc.se at first comprised on the northern shoreof the St. Law- rence, the Counties of Champlain and of St. Maurice — the Countv of Maskinongt'^ being .at that time a part of the County of St. Maurice; on the southern bank, the Counties Of Yamaska, Nicolet, Drummond, and
