Rinotmetos, one of the most heartless tyrants that ever disgraced a Christian throne. He ruled from 685-695, was deposed by a revolution and sent to exile with a mutilated nose, but regained the throne in 705 and was assassinated in 711.2

The supplementary council was purely oriental in its composition and spirit. It adopted 102 canons, most of them old, but not yet legally or oecumenically sanctioned. They cover the whole range of clerical and ecclesiastical life and discipline, and are valid to this day in the Eastern church. They include eighty-five apostolic canons so called (thirty-five more than were acknowledged by the Roman church), the canons of the first four œcumenical councils, and of several minor councils, as Ancyra, Neo-Cæsarea, Gangra, Antioch, Laodicea, etc.; also the canons of Dionysius the Great of Alexandria, Peter of Alexandria, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Athanasius, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Nazianzum, Amphilochius of Iconium, Timothy of Alexandria, Cyril of Alexandria, Gennadius of Constantinople, and an anti-Roman canon of Cyprian of Carthage. The decretals of the Roman bishops are ignored.

The canons were signed first by the emperor; the second

1 'Pivóτuntos, from pís, nose, in allusion to his mutilation.

2 Gibbon (ch. 48) gives the following description of his character: 6 After the decease of his father the inheritance of the Roman world devolved to Justinian II.; and the name of a triumphant law-giver was dishonored by the vices of a boy, who imitated his namesake only in the expensive luxury of building. His passions were strong; his understanding was feeble; and he was intoxicated with a foolish pride that his birth had given him the command of millions, of whom the smallest community would not have chosen him for their local magistrate. His favorite ministers were two beings the least susceptible of human sympathy, a eunuch and a monk: to the one he abandoned the palace, to the other the finances; the former corrected the emperor's mother with a scourge, the latter suspended the insolvent tributaries, with their heads downward, over a slow and smoky fire. Since the days of Commodus and Caracalla the cruelty of the Roman princes had most commonly been the effect of their fear; but Justinian, who possessed some vigor of character, enjoyed the sufferings, and braved the revenge of his subjects about ten years, till the measure was full of his crimes and of their patience."

place was left blank for the pope, but was never filled; then follow the names of Paul of Constantinople, Peter of Alexandria, Anastasius of Jerusalem, George of Antioch (strangely after that of the patriarch of Jerusalem), and others, in all 211 bishops and episcopal representatives, all Greeks and Orientals, of whom 43 had been present at the sixth œcumenical council.

The emperor sent the acts of the Trullan Council to Sergius of Rome, and requested him to sign them. The pope refused because they contained some chapters contrary to ecclesiastical usage in Rome. The emperor dispatched the chief officer of his body guard with orders to bring the pope to Constantinople. But the armies of the exarch of Ravenna and of the Pentapolis rushed to the protection of the pope, who quieted the soldiers; the imperial officer had to hide himself in the pope's bed, and then left Rome in disgrace.1 Soon afterwards Justinian II. was dethroned and sent into exile. When he regained the crown, with the aid of a barbarian army (705), he sent two metropolitans to Pope John VII. with the request to call a council of the Roman church, which should sanction as many of the canons as were acceptable. The pope, a timid man, simply returned the copy. Subsequent negotiations led to no decisive result.

The seventh œcumenical Council (787) readopted the 102 canons, and erroneously ascribed them to the sixth oecumenical Council.

The Roman church never committed herself to these canons except as far as they agreed with ancient Latin usage. Some of them were inspired by an anti-Roman tendency. The first canon repeats the anathema on Pope Honorius. The thirtysixth canon, in accordance with the second and fourth œcumenical Councils, puts the patriarch of Constantinople on an equality of rights with the bishop of Rome, and concedes to the latter only a primacy of honor, not a supremacy of

1 This is related by Anastasius, Bede, and Paulus Diaconus. See Mansi, XII. 3, Baronius ad a. 692, and Hefele, III. 346.

jurisdiction. Clerical marriage of the lower orders is sanctioned in canons 3 and 13, and it is clearly hinted that the Roman church, by her law of clerical celibacy, dishonors wedlock, which was instituted by God and sanctioned by the presence of Christ at Cana. But second marriage is forbidden to the clergy, also marriage with a widow (canon 3), and marriage after ordination (canon 6). Bishops are required to discontinue their marriage relation (canon 12). Justinian had previously forbidden the marriage of bishops by a civil law. Fasting on the Sabbath in Lent is forbidden (canon 55) in express opposition to the custom in Rome. The second canon fixes the number of valid apostolical canons at eighty-five against fifty of the Latin church. The decree of the Council of Jerusalem against eating blood and things strangled (Acts, ch. 15) is declared to be of perpetual force, while in the West it was considered merely as a temporary provision for the apostolic age, and for congregations composed of Jewish and Gentile converts. The symbolical representation of Christ under the figure of the lamb in allusion to the words of John the Baptist is forbidden as belonging to the Old Testament, and the representation in human form is commanded (canon 82).

These differences laid the foundation for the great schism between the East and the West. The supplementary council of 692 anticipated the action of Photius, and clothed it with a quasi-œcumenical authority.

§ 115. Reaction of Monotheletism. The Maronites.

The great oecumenical councils, notably that of Chalcedon, gave rise to schismatic sects which have perpetuated themselves for a long time, some of them to the present day.

For a brief period Monotheletism was restored by Bardanes or Philippicus, who wrested the throne from Justinian II. and ruled from 711 to 713. He annulled the creed of the sixth œcumenical Council, caused the names of Sergius and Honorius to be reinserted in the diptycha among the orthodox patriarchs,

and their images to be again set up in public places. He deposed the patriarch of Constantinople and elected in his place a Monotheletic deacon, John. He convened a council at Constantinople, which set aside the decree of the sixth council and adopted a Monotheletic creed in its place. The clergy who refused to sign it, were deposed. But in Italy he had no force to introduce it, and an attempt to do so provoked an insur

rection.

The Emperor Anastasius II. dethroned the usurper, and made an end to this Monotheletic episode. The patriarch John accommodated himself to the new situation, and wrote an abject letter to the Pope Constantine, in which he even addressed him as the head of the church, and begged his pardon for his former advocacy of heresy.

Since that time Dyotheletism was no more disturbed in the orthodox church.

But outside of the orthodox church and the jurisdiction of the Byzantine rulers, Monotheletism propagated itself among the inhabitants of Mount Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon under the lead of abbot John Marun (Mapáv), their first patriarch (d. 701). The MARONITES,' as they were called after him, maintained their independence of the Greek empire and the Saracens, and adhered to the Monotheletic doctrine till the time of the crusades, when they united themselves with the Roman church (1182), retaining, however, the celebration of the communion under both kinds, the Syrian liturgy, the marriage of the lower clergy, their own fast-days, and their own saints.

§ 116. The Adoptionist Controversy. Literature.

I. SOURCES.

The sources are printed in HARDUIN, Vol. IV., MANSI, XIII., and in Alcuin's Opera, ed. Frobenius (1777), reprinted by Migne (in his "Patrol. Lat.," vols. 100 and 101), with historical and dogmatical dissertations.

(1.) The writings of the Adoptionists: a letter of ELIPANDUS Ad Fide

1 Μαρωνεῖται.

lem, Abbatem, A. D. 785, and one to Alcuin. Two letters of the Spanish bishops-one to Charlemagne, the other to the Gallican bishops. FELICIS Libellus contra Alcuinum; the Confessio Fidei FELICIS; fragments of a posthumous book of Felix addressed Ad Ludovicum Pium, Imperat.

(2.) The orthodox view is represented in BEATUS et ETHERIUS: Adr. Elipandum libri II. ALCUIN: Seven Books against Felix, Four Books against Elipandus, and several letters, which are best edited by Jaffé in Biblioth. rer. Germ. VI. PAULINUS (Bishop of Aquileja): Contra Felicem Urgellitanum libri tres. In Migne's “Patrol. Lat,” vol. 99, col. 343-468. AGOBARD OF LYONS: Adv. Dogma Felicis Episc. Urgellensis, addressed to Louis the Pious, in Migne's "Patrol. Lat.," vol. 104, col. 29-70. A letter of Charlemagne (792) to Elipandus and the bishops of Spain. The acts of the Synods of Narbonne (788), Ratisbon (792), Francfort (794), and Aix-la-Chapelle (799).

II. WORKS.

(1.) By Rom. Cath. MADRISI (Congreg. Orat.): Dissertationes de Felicis et Elipandi hæresi, in his ed. of the Opera Paulini Aquil., reprinted in Migne's "Patrol. Lat.," vol. 99 (col. 545-598). Against Basnage. ENHUEBER (Prior in Regensburg): Dissert, dogm. hist, contra Christ. Walchium, in Alcuin's Opera, ed. Frobenius, reprinted by Migne (vol. 101, col. 337-438). Against Walch's Hist. Adopt., to prove the Nestorianism of the Adoptionists. FROBENIUS: Diss. hist. de hær. Elip. et Felicis, in Migne's ed., vol. 101, col. 303-336. WERNER: Gesch. der apol. und polem. Lit. II. 433 sqq. GAMS: Kirchengesch. Spaniens (Regensb., 1874), Bd. II. 2. (Very prolix.) HEFELE: Conciliengesch., Bd. III. 642–693 (revised ed. of 1877). HERGENRŐTHER: Kirchengesch., 2nd ed., 1879, Bd. I. 558 sqq. BACH: Dogmengesch. des Mittelalters (Wien, 1873), I. 103–155.

(2.) By Protestants. JAC. BASNAGE: Observationes historicæ circa Felicianam hæresin, in his Thesaurus monum. Tom. II. 284 sqq. CHR. G. F. WALCH: Historia Adoptianorum, Göttingen, 1755; and his Ketzergeschichte, vol. IX. 667 sqq. (1780). A minute and accurate account. See also the lit. quoted by Walch. NEANDER, Kirchengeschichte, vol. III., pp. 313–339, Engl. transl. III. 156– 168. GIESELER, vol. II., P. I., p. 111 sqq.; Eng. transl. II. 75–78. BAUR: Die christliche Lehre von der Dreieinigkeit und Menschwerdung Gottes, Tübingen, 1842, vol. II., pp. 129-159. DORNER: Entwicklungs-Geschichte der Lehre von der Person Christi, second ed., Berlin, 1853, vol. II., pp. 306-330. HELFFERICH: Der Westgothische Arianismus und die spanische Ketzergeschichte, Berlin, 1880. NIEDNER: Lehrbuch der christl. K. G., Berlin, 1866, pp. 424–427. J. C. RobertSON: History of the Christian Church from 590 to 1122 (Lond., 1856),