THREE CHAPTERS
A theological controversy of the 6th century concerning three representatives of the Antiochene school: TEODORO (v.) of Mopsuestia, TEODORO (v.) of Cyrrhus, IBAS (v.) of Edessa. The expression T. C. derives from the first decree of condemnation issued by Justinian, who proposed against the three Antiochene doctors certain *κεφάλαια* (chapters or anathemas); later, the same incriminated writings were called by this name, and finally so were their authors.
### I. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The struggle over the T. C. initially appears as a continuation of the Nestorian controversy; after Nestorius was condemned at Ephesus (431), TEODORO (v.) of Mopsuestia, regarded as the true father of the heresy, and to TEODORO and IBAS, who had most strongly opposed the work and Christology of St. Cyril.
The agitation against TEODORO began in the period between the Council of Ephesus and the union act between Cyril and the Orientals (433), through Rabbûlâ of Edessa (d. 436); he, who at the Ephesus council was still a partisan of the Orientals, took the side of St. Cyril and warned the Armenian bishops against the works of TEODORO, which were then being read attentively in the Armenian Church. Against TEODORO, Proclus of Constantinople soon intervened; when consulted by the Armenians, he replied with his famous *tome* (435) which, rejecting the Antiochene distinction between the Son of Man and the Son of God, insisted on the personal unity of Christ (PG 65, 856-73; *Acta Conc. Oec.*, ed. E. Schwartz, IV, II, Berlin 1925, pp. 187-195). While in the tome Proclus had avoided naming TEODORO, three years later (438) he asked the Orientals to formally condemn a collection of passages from TEODORO appended to his dogmatic letter. John of Antioch refused to anathematize a bishop who had died in the peace of the Church (letter to Proclus: PG 65, 878), an argument often cited during the course of the controversy over the T. C. Through the intervention of St. Cyril, Proclus dropped the request, and the struggle against TEODORO subsided for the moment, and not even the Council of Chalcedon dealt with him.
TEODORO of Cyrrhus, urged by John of Antioch, had composed a work against the anathemas of St. Cyril, in which he saw a veiled Apollinarianism; he repeated his criticisms in a long letter to the monks of the East (Ep. 151: PG 83, 1416-40). At Ephesus and in the subsequent negotiations at the imperial court, he again opposed St. Cyril, and upon returning to Cyrrhus, composed a treatise in five books against him and against the Council of Ephesus. After long hesitation, he signed the union act, communicated his acceptance to Cyril, and worked to secure the submission of still-resistant bishops. Around 447, he published the *Evanistes*, against Eutyches (v.) and his friends. Already in 448, he was struck by two imperial decrees that confined him to his see and forbade his participation in the council already convoked; he was deposed by the "Robber Synod" of Ephesus (449), his works banned by an edict of Theodosius II, and he himself confined to the monastery of Apamea. Rehabilitated by the Council of Chalcedon (451), admitted—though not without violent protests from some bishops—as both accuser of Dioscorus and later in his episcopal rank, he subscribed to the Tome of Leo and the profession of faith issued by the Council, and in the 9th session (Oct. 26) was formally reinstated in his office after having anathematized Nestorius.
When, after the Council of Ephesus, Rabbûlâ, then bishop of Edessa, began to attack the ancient Antiochene doctors as responsible for Nestorianism, IBAS (v.), master of the famous school of Edessa, wrote his Christological letter to Mári "the Persian," shortly after the union act of January 433, in defense of Mopsuestia (Greek text in *Acta Conc. Oec.*, ed. cit., II, 1, pp. 32-34; Latin trans. in Facundus of Hermiana: PL 67, 662-65; the Syriac text is a later translation from the Greek). Though not excusing Nestorius, the letter is severe toward the Christological formula of St. Cyril and vigorously defends the memory of TEODORO of Mopsuestia. IBAS was therefore accused before the patriarch of Antioch by Proclus of Constantinople (Ep. 3: PG 65, 875). Succeeding Rabbûlâ on the see of Edessa (436), he was again incriminated in 448. The trial, begun by Domnus of Antioch and continued before a tribunal in Beirut, led to IBAS’s acquittal after the reading of a letter from the clergy of Edessa attesting to the orthodoxy of their pastor. A kind of reconciliation followed in February 449 at Tyre, where IBAS declared his adherence to the union act and the Council of Ephesus, but already in April of the same year he underwent a new trial at Edessa, was deported to Antioch, and deposed by the "Robber Synod" of Ephesus (Aug. 22, 449). In two sessions (the 10th and 11th), the Council of Chalcedon dealt with the case of IBAS; after the reading of the relevant documents, including the famous letter to Mári, the delegates of the Pope recognized the orthodoxy of the Syrian bishop, and the Council restored him to his see after he had anathematized Nestorius.
The question of TEODORO and IBAS seemed definitively resolved at Chalcedon. Yet one must bear in mind the deep aversion of the Monophysites to the Council of Chalcedon, the strong desire to accommodate the Monophysites expressed at Constantinople under Emperor Zeno (v. HENOTICON), and the constant propaganda against a supposed Nestorian danger that followed the end of Anastasius’s reign and continued under Justin (518-27).
### II. THE CONTROVERSY OF THE 6TH CENTURY AND THE CONDEMNATION OF THE T. C.
The struggle against the T. C. belongs to the series of unsuccessful theological initiatives of Justinian aimed at reconciliation between Orthodox and Monophysites (especially Severians), adhering to the letter of the Council of Chalcedon but interpreting it in the sense of the writings of St. Cyril and freeing it from any suspicion of Nestorian tendencies; nor should the work of TEODORO, favorable to the Monophysites, be forgotten. A starting point for the resumption of the controversy over the T. C. is usually seen in the organized demonstrations at Cyrrhus, in the Euphratensian region, in honor of Diodorus, TEODORO of Mopsuestia, TEODORO, and Nestorius, at the time of the repression of the Monophysites in Syria (519). The immediate occasion, however, is connected with Justinian’s Edict against Origenism. TEODORO Askidas, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, formerly a monk of the New Laura and sympathetic to Origenism, in order to distract the Emperor’s attention and avenge the condemnation of Origen, sought to obtain the anathema against TEODORO of Mopsuestia, who had discredited the allegorism of the great Alexandrian, and at the same time to harm Abbot Gelasius of the Great Laura, an opponent of Origen and a great admirer of TEODORO. He therefore proposed to the Emperor to condemn TEODORO and his writings, as well as the letter of IBAS, which contained his praise; with this, the Council of Chalcedon would be accepted by all.
In the religious conference held at Justinian’s initiative in 533 between five Chalcedonian bishops and six Severian colleagues, the latter in fact reproached the Council of 451 for having received into its communion certain ancient Nestorians, such as TEODORO and IBAS. The Emperor adopted the suggestion and in the winter of 543-44 published against the T. C. a decree of condemnation, the text of which has been lost. The edict was not well received even in the East, and the patriarchs and bishops subscribed to it only under duress. Menas, patriarch of Constantinople from 536, subscribed only with the clause that he would withdraw his signature if the Roman See did not accept II. The bishops of the Permanent Synod, the patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria, followed his example to avoid deposition.
The reaction in the West was much more decisive. Stephen, an apocrisiary of the Holy See at the court, broke off all relations with the signatories; Pope Vigilius seemed hesitant, but
On 22 November 545, the imperial representative forced him to embark for Constantinople; during a ten-month stopover in Syracuse, he received the reply from the Africans consulted by the deacon Pelagius. The Carthaginian deacon Ferrandus, a disciple of St Fulgentius of Ruspe, replied that condemning the Three Chapters would compromise the authority of the Council of Chalcedon (Ferrandus, Ep. 6: PL 67, 921-28).
Vigilius, who arrived in Constantinople on 25 January 547, remained inactive for several months and broke off relations with Patriarch Menas, who refused to withdraw his signature. But finally he yielded to Justinian’s will and in two confidential letters to the Emperor in June 547 declared himself ready to condemn the Three Chapters (Mansi, IX, 351). This condemnation was in fact issued on Holy Saturday, 11 April 548, with the publication of the *Judicatum*. Only fragments of this decree survive, preserved in a message from Justinian to the Fifth Council (Mansi, IX, 181) and in a later decree of Vigilius, the *Constitutum* (Mansi, IX, 104); it condemned the person of Theodore of Mopsuestia and all his works, the letter to Mári “which is said to have been written by Ibas,” and the writings of Theodore against the true faith and against the anathemas of St Cyril, but with the explicit reservation that the authority of the great Councils with their condemnations and absolutions remained intact, which amounted to saying that the Pope did not intend to proceed against the persons of Ibas and Theodore, formally absolved by the Council of Chalcedon.
Despite these reservations, the decree of Vigilius provoked a violent reaction even among the Pope’s own household, the deacons Sebastian and Rusticus, Vigilius’s nephew, so that together with six other members of the Roman clergy they were suspended by the Pope (Mansi, IX, 351-59). Opposition spread to Illyricum, and in Dalmatia the bishops opposed the *Judicatum*; Gaul was in turmoil; an African council, presided over by Reparatus, bishop of Carthage, excommunicated the Pope “with reservation and as a penance” (Victor of Tunnuna, *Chron.* ad a. 550: PL 68, 958). According to Facundus, the Africans saw in the condemnation of the Three Chapters a concession to the Monophysites and an attack on the authority of the Council of Chalcedon; moreover, they found it unheard-of to condemn a bishop who had died in communion with the Church.
Thus matters reached a kind of truce between Vigilius and Justinian, with a mutual obligation to leave things in statu quo until a future council. The Pope’s *Judicatum* was restored to him, but he had to swear to join forces with the Emperor to secure the condemnation of the Three Chapters (15 August 550; cf. Mansi, IX, 363 ff.). Justinian, however, soon broke the agreement under the instigation of Theodore Askidas; he sought to remove the opposition of the Africans by bringing a political charge against Reparatus of Carthage, who was deposed and exiled, and in July 551 he published against the Three Chapters his celebrated Profession of Faith, a kind of lay encyclical in which after an exposition of the Christological dogma he appended thirteen anathemas; the last three of these struck precisely the Three Chapters. Formal rupture followed between Pope and Emperor. Vigilius, feeling himself no longer safe, sought asylum in the church of St Peter in Constantinople and later in that of St Euphemia at Chalcedon, from where (5 February 552) he issued an encyclical to the whole Christian world (PL 69, 53-59; Mansi, IX, 50-55), a sentence of deposition against Theodore Askidas and the excommunication of Patriarch Menas. The two, on Justinian’s orders, sought pardon from the Pope. Returning to Constantinople, Vigilius (28 January 553) approved the profession of faith of the new patriarch Eutychius, who had succeeded Menas (d. August 552), and declared himself ready to preside over an ecumenical council to settle the question of the Three Chapters. But the convocation proved difficult, since Vigilius wished the council to be held in Italy or Sicily, whereas Justinian intended to exclude as far as possible representatives from the Latin West and had chosen those of Africa to his own liking.
On 20 April 553 Vigilius received from the Emperor a collection of texts taken from the works of Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodore of Cyrus; the Pope promised to reply within twenty days and forbade the Council to decide on the matter before he had communicated his own sentence. The Council, however, opened on 5 May 553 without the Pope, who declined repeated invitations, demanding a larger representation of Italian bishops. While the Council on 12 and 13 May began the proceedings against the Three Chapters, on 14 May the Pope published his *Constitutum*, subscribed by himself, sixteen bishops and three Roman ecclesiastics, including Pelagius, in which he condemned sixty propositions, those transmitted by the Emperor, “which are said to be marked with the name of Theodore of Mopsuestia,” but Vigilius firmly refused to condemn the person of Theodore, since he had died in communion with the Church; he also condemned a certain number of propositions attributed to Theodore, again rejecting any condemnation of the person since “cleansed” of the suspicion of Nestorianism by the Council of Chalcedon; similarly the decision of Chalcedon in favour of Ibas of Edessa was to be respected.
Justinian, greatly enraged, retaliated by ordering the Council to erase the Pope’s name from the diptychs, while still claiming to maintain union with the Apostolic See. The Council continued its work against the Pope, and at its eighth and final session (2 June 553) it issued the final sentence in fourteen anathemas, almost all reproducing verbatim those of the *Confessio inperialis* of 551; it condemned the person and writings of Theodore (anath. XII), the writings of Theodore against Ephesus and against Cyril (anath. XIII) and the letter of Ibas (anath. XIV; text in Denz.-U., 226-28). After six months Vigilius too gave his consent, approving the condemnation of the Three Chapters (without mentioning the other anathemas issued by the Council), first in a letter to Patriarch Eutychius (8 December 553) and then by the publication of a second *Constitutum* (23 February 554); the authenticity of these two documents has recently been questioned (cf. C. Silva-Tarouca, *Fontes historiae ecclesiasticae medii aevi*, Rome 1930, p. 32). Vigilius left Constantinople in the spring of 555, but died at Syracuse on 7 June.
### III. SUBSEQUENT SCHISMS
The deacon Pelagius, a leading figure and principal instigator of the *I Constitutum*, attacked Vigilius in a *Refutatorium* (now lost) and in a lengthy memorandum, *In defensione Trium Capitulorum* (q.V. bibliography). Imprisoned for this, Pelagius (q.v.) at an unspecified date later appears to have approached Justinian, who sent him back to Italy and, after the death of Vigilius, imposed him as pope (until 555). Pelagius had to overcome considerable opposition even within Rome itself; he therefore professed adherence to the first four ecumenical councils and, without naming the Fifth Council, referred to Ibas and Theodore as “venerable bishops.” Opposition to the condemnation of the Three Chapters was particularly strong in the African Church. Many recalcitrant bishops were exiled and maltreated, among them Victor of Tunnuna and Facundus of Hermiane, who in the early years of the controversy had vigorously defended the Three Chapters (*Pro defensione Trium Capitulorum*: PL 67, 527–82). The Carthaginian deacon Liberatus shared the exile of his metropolitan Reparatus and defended the cause of the Three Chapters in his *Breviarium causae nestorianorum et eutychianorum* (PL 68, 969–1050). Felix, abbot of Gillitanum, composed a memorandum against the Council, aided by the Roman deacon Rusticus, Vigilius’s nephew. The latter, despite his excommunication and deposition, continued the struggle for the Three Chapters and compiled, in their defense, an extensive collection of conciliar acts (the *Synodicum*, in *Acta Conc. Oec.*, ed. cit., I, III, and IV).
In Italy, the ecclesiastical provinces of Milan and Aquileia even separated from the Apostolic See, and the Lombard invasion encouraged their opposition. Aquileia was joined in common cause by the Churches of Illyricum. Milan soon returned to communion with Rome, but Aquileia (q.v.) only under Pope Sergius I (687–701).
### IV. CONCLUSION
The emperor’s absurd pretension to settle dogmatic questions by imperial decrees, far from achieving the desired religious unity, exacerbated divisions and ultimately led Justinian himself toward the doctrines of Julian (q.v.) of Halicarnassus, paving the way for the equally unhappy imperial interventions of the following century (q.V. MONOTHELITISM). From the vacillations of Pope Vigilius, who combined moments of true greatness with weaknesses—indeed, with cowardice—the prestige of the Apostolic See emerged gravely diminished. In the doctrinal sphere, the legitimate affirmation of Neo-Chalcedonian theology—which, in order to remove any suspicion of Nestorianism and to facilitate agreement with a Monophysitism often merely verbal, sought to integrate the properly Chalcedonian terminology with the formulae of St. Cyril cherished by the Monophysites—was obscured by the deficiencies of the juridical action against Theodore and his defenders, conducted in a manner not always objective or fair (though the extent of the manipulations should not be exaggerated, cf. J. Ortiz de Urbina, in *Or. Christ. Per.*, 15 [1949], p. 441).
All this, obviously, does not prevent the judgment of the Council, approved by the Popes, from retaining its full validity (q.V. CONSTANTINOPLE, Second Council of).
**