The Early Church a History of Schism.

The evolution of Byzantium was a very important factor in the history of Eastern Christianity, as the subsuming of the Church to Imperial ends created a ‘National’ Church. But for this to be a success the whole Empire had to be based upon a single homogeneous culture and society. This was not the case. The psychological decay of universalism can be seen in the ensuing Christological disputes, as the Eastern Churches were torn from Byzantine Orthodoxy, preferring the theological and historical dead ends of ‘Monophysitism’ and ‘Nestorianism’, to a continued enslavement under a Byzantine Hellenism.

Therefore to better understand the divisions that occurred in the Eastern Church from the third to the Seventh centuries it is necessary to look at the main disputes and their results. As the history of the Christological divisions and nationalistic weltanschauung of the various communities are vital components of this history. Therefore the history of each schism and division in the Eastern Church are to be found in the Christological disputes of this era, which along with the diffuse evolution of the main Church need to be examined.


A Short History of Eastern Christianity up to the Second Ecumenical Council of 381 CE (Constantinople):

From the beginnings of its history the Church has been divided from the world due to its sacred (eschatological) essence being incompatible with anything ‘this worldly’. In the Forth Century this was clear, yet it was slowly being effaced, so that by the Fifth Century there was a great coincidence of the Christian and Byzantine communities.

Religious belief within the Roman Empire was in the first few Centuries of Christianity very wide, stretching from nebulous pantheism to primitive animism. The Church in the East was born into a society that was syncretized with local traditions and Gods. The Original apostolic Church of Jerusalem was destroyed in the revolt of the Jews in 66 CE, forcing it to move into the wider Mediterranean hinterland. This resulted in the three most important early Eastern Sees; of Saint John at Ephesus, Saint Luke at Antioch and Saint Mark at Alexandria. Christianity unlike the other contemporary religions was able to appeal too many due to its social ethos, which allowed it to transcend borders, and not to be marked out as a ‘national’ religion.

The Church was still seen as an alien society to the plurality of the Roman Empire. It was not until the late Third Century, through the works of Justin the Martyr (100-165) and especially Origen (185-254), that it increasingly came to terms with Greco-Roman culture. Soon the Church was absorbing a whole society:

“This was probably the most important aggiornamento in the history of the Church… for the conversion of a Roman emperor to Christianity, of Constantine in 312, might not have happened… if it had not been preceded for two generations by the conversion of Christianity to the culture and ideals of the Roman world.”

The Apostolic Church had declared itself the only instrument of salvation, and due to this it never acknowledged a plurality of Churches, and its subsequent history shows the problems of a conforming mechanical Christianity within this institutional confidence.

In the early days of Christianity there was no fixed theology or Christology, but in the Fourth Century, with the espousal of Christianity by Constantine, it was inevitable that Christology would be recovered and re-examined. This was to divide the Church for centuries, as certain views on the relationship of the Son and the Logos to God, led to many different Christological theories being espoused at any one time.

But it was the Arian Heresy that bought about the need for the Church to define its orthodoxy, this was to be done at Constantine’s behest in Nicaea, at the First Ecumenical Council 325 CE. The Council was seen as a way for the Church and state to clarify their positions vis-à-vis the other. The whole issue of Fourth century Christology was a matter of political concern, as it would dictate the way the church would view the state. Nicaea was especially important in the development of Dogma, the first in the history of the Christian Church.

The resulting relationship of Church and State was complicated, but it was not a type of Caesaro-papism. The Emperor got authority from God, and was therefore Christos Kyriou. In early Byzantine history most clashes were caused by dogmatic disagreements. In each the will of the Emperor temporarily won, but heresies pushed by Emperors never won over the Church. Thus each held its own sphere of influence. Yet a large factor in the later schisms was the geo-political defining of the major Sees and especially the creation of Constantinople as a proposed ecumenical See for the East.

Nicaea had changed the whole theological landscape; God’s transcendent being was now Immutable and Impassible, Eternal and Underivative. The new Orthodox opposition to the Arian heresy had to account for the scriptural texts that ascribed weakness and death to the incarnate Logos. Therefore it was certain that the Christological problem would come up next, with terrible consequences for the unity of the Church. It would lead to schism.


The Ecumenical Council of Ephesus 431 CE and the Nestorian Schism:



In the early Fifth century the Roman Empire was divided and under attack by migrating Germanic tribes, in 410 CE Rome was sacked. This caused a weakening and partial vacuum in Imperial power. The original conflict over Christology started in the Antiochian See. The Syrian Church was divided among those of local Syrian culture and those of Greek culture. This schism was important as it contributed much too Church theology, due to its search into the meaning of the God-Manhood of Jesus. It questioned the nature of Jesus and the nature and task of Man. The clash of Nestorius and Cyril arose from the heresy of Apollinarianism. Nestorius was made the Patriarch of Constantinople in 428 CE, and from the outset was strong in his preaching against heretics. He was especially outspoken in his views on the Theotokos :

“Let no one call Mary Theotokos, for Mary was only a human being and it is impossible that God should be born of a human being.”

But Theotokos was part of the traditional Christian faith. Therefore this, along with his stance on the Pelagians was what made him a target of Cyril of Alexandria 412-444 CE.

What then occurred could be seen as a polemical pamphlet war, with Cyril sending letters demanding that Nestorius recant his position, and Nestorius defending his views. Each had their roots in different trends or schools of thought, and had different psychological attitudes to Christ too. These can be seen in the Schools of Antioch (Nestorius) and Alexandria (Cyril).

Cyril decided to involve Pope Celestine, who was loath of the position that Nestorius had taken against him on the Pelagian controversy. Therefore he backed up Cyril’s calls for Nestorius’s removal. Yet Nestorius held the backing of the Emperor Theodosius II, who called for an ecumenical council to be held at Ephesus in 431, ostensibly to defeat the charges leveled by Cyril against Nestorius.

The Council was an unmitigated disaster for Nestorius and Antioch and a great triumph for Alexandria and the Cyrillians. The passions of either side were high and there ensued reciprocal excommunications. The problem was that politics got caught up in the whole affair, and the condemnation of Nestorius was more an issue of political expediency than a definitive victory for one theology over the other. The Christological debate did not end in an ecumenical definition, thus it was too continue to divide the two sides (though to some there was no implicit difference in their Christological theologies).

Yet the outcome was the first major schism in the history of the Eastern Church. The lack of a clear proposition to the Christological problem was to ensure that it would rise again to divide the Church. Conciliation could have averted the Nestorian and the later Monophysite schism

The Nestorian Church (Church of the East):

The East Syrian or Nestorian Church, has its root far earlier than its official formation, it was only with the ‘National’ movements and political disaffection of the Fifth century that it decided to split from the Orthodox Church. It emerged as an autocephalous Church situated along the borders of the Roman and Persian Empires, and identifying itself with the Diophysitism of Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius. It was seen to be a Church championing a heresy of Greek origin, while at the same time being a ‘Nationalistic’ reaction against Greek ecclesiastical authority.

The Church was ruled by a Catholicos, the Metropolitan of Seleucia-Ctesiphon. Its Christology was based on Jesus being one person in which the two Ousiai, of the Godhead and manhood, were bought together. The Problem to the ‘Orthodox Church’ of the time was that the provisos used were not strong enough and from certain angles it could seem that the ‘Nestroians’ were postulating a ‘Two Sons’ Christology.

Though its historic origins were in Edessa and Nisibis it was a great evangelical Church in the East. There was always a lack of sympathy in the area towards Greek influence, and in the years after Ephesus Council, the Bishops of the area were hounded by Monophysite and Orthodox Patriarchates. The Emperor Zeno (474-91) finally expelled all ‘Nestorians’ from his realm.

The history of the Church in Persia is one of hegemony, it could claim to have its own Patriarchate equal to any in the Eastern Empire. Nisibis was the new center of learning replacing Edessa. By the Sixth century ‘Nestorian’ doctrine was fully developed , and the Church was focused on its extensive evangelical missions to the East.


The Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon 451 CE, and the Ensuing Monophysite Schism:


In 446-7 a new controversy erupted in Constantinople, as the Archimandrite Eutychus made his strong (extreme even) Monophysite views known. This controversy led to the shameful ‘Robber Council’ (latriconium) of Ephesus of 449 CE and division within the Byzantine Church. The outcome of the renewed dissection of Antioch and Alexandria was the Council of Chalcedon in 451 CE. Here the government was insisting on a definition of Church doctrine that could be used to determine Orthodoxy. Chalcedon presented a new Christological dogma, with two natures in union “Unconfusedly, Unchangeably, Indivisibly, Inseparably.”

The conclusions of Chalcedon were supposed to end the dialectical opposition of Alexandria and Antioch, with a new synthesis within the Byzantine Church. It was to be the theological formula for historical Orthodoxy. In political terms this was a triumph of Constantinople over the other Sees in the East. This was a victory for the Imperial structure over the peripheral Churches.

The outcome of the council was the first ‘great’ schism of the Apostolic Church. It led to an intensification of the controversy. The Monophysites were led by the Coptic Church, here the division was more an outward expression of a ‘National’ trend against Byzantine Imperialism (or its Greco-Roman culture) than an impossibly large difference over doctrine, which was in fact never too great. The Struggle waged against the Monophysite Church could be seen as a struggle for Christian Humanism.

For the next two centuries there was a struggle in the east to impose the Byzantine faith upon the Monophysite localities, especially Alexandria and Egypt. There were numerous Melkite Bishops put on Monophysite Sees, there was great resistance from the local party who had their own Bishops and Patriarchs, such as Timothy Aelurus and Peter Mongus, who were strong Cyrillians but were not backers of Eutyches. At the head of the revolt were the monastic monks who were of an anti-Hellenistic bent. Monophysism was also used as an outlet for ethnic passions, thus riots against Imperial prelates were justified by Monophysism.

In 475 CE the division hit at the heart of the Empire, as the pro-Monophysite usurper Emperor, Basiliscus, drove out of office the Emperor Zeno, and then published his Encyclion which condemned the conclusions of the ecumenical council of Chalcedon. This showed the strength and importance of Monophysism within the Empire. But the Forces of Chalcedon and Hellenism were too great in Constantinople and with the help of St. Daniel the Stylite, Zeno was returned to the throne. Yet the new order kept the rift wide, leaving Melikite Bishops to preside over empty churches.

This led to Zeno publishing the Henotikon to try and bring the two sides together. The formula agreed on the canonicity of Cyril’s anathemas and rejected Chalcedon as a dogmatic synod. This can be seen as a good piece of Caesaro-papism, as it temporarily halted the schism, though it did eventually lead to the Acacian schism between the Eastern and Western Churches.

Justinian, the Emperor from 527-65 CE, was the last great Roman Emperor. He idealized a singular Empire and followed this end. To the Orthodox East the Monophysites were not heretics, but distinguishers – diacrino menoi. Justinian used all his powers to push unity in the Church, some actions were very violent, but to no avail. Justinian died in 565 CE, and from then on the Orthodox Church of the East and the Imperial throne lost all power over most of the Monophysite areas as wars raged, first against the Persians and then the Arab invasions. This ensured the independence of the Monophysite Church (or Jacobite Church) from Imperial control, and the permanence of the Schism.


The Monophysite Churches:

Apart from the Copts in Egypt the other main Church in the Empire to follow the Monophysite doctrine was the Jacobite Church. This was a Mesopotamian Syriac Christian community. The ascetic leaning of this religion was important in its direction of growth, as the population increasingly put their pastoral office under the monks. The areas of the Empire where Monophysite and Jacobite Churches flourished were the poorer and more peripheral areas of the Empire.

Jacob Baradaeus was the savior of the Syrian Monophysite Church which was being persecuted violently by the Emperor Justinian. In 542 Jacob Baradaeus got awarded the Metropolitan seat in Edessa, from here he defended the Church and ordained new bishops and priests. He is seen as the spiritual father of the Monophysite Church. The Church in Syria never held a Patriarchate as Antioch was still a Greek city. But both the Egyptian (Coptic) and Syrian (Jacobite) Monophysite Churches got their independence and legality under Arab rule, yet as so were never recognized by Byzantium and Rome.


The Armenian Church:

Armenia is a slight aberration from the norm in the East. The Armenian Church was never under the direct rule of the Byzantine Empire, as Armenia held the status of an independent buffer State, though it was at times under direct Persian rule. Therefore as a state holding the balance of power between the two empires it soon found itself as a sanctuary for persecuted Christians in the Third century. The Armenian Church was not represented at many of the Ecumenical Councils.

Under the rule of Persia the Syriac Christianity of the area was revived, this had a pro-Nestorian leaning. This instituted a reaction form the Armenians who saw the need to put the script and Liturgy in their own language. Therefore, after the condemning of Nestorius at Ephesus in 431 CE, great pressure was bought upon the Armenian Catholicate to change to the Cyrillian view. This led in the Fifth century to the Armenian Church becoming caught up in the Christological war of Monophysites and Nestorians. Proclus of Constantinople in a Tome (437 CE) to the Armenians pushed for acceptance of Theotokos and the rejection of the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia. This led to the Armenian Church taking on a Monophysite leaning, basing their Christianity on the Henotikon. They took no part in Chalcedon, and viewing it as a Nestorian coup.


The Eastern Orthodox Church of Byzantium:


This can be seen as the position that the Patriarchate of Constantinople (after Nestorius) took upon the Christological affairs. This position avoided the two extremes, yet combined them in a creative synthesis. Therefore the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils can be seen as advancing and deepening the Chalcedonian dogma. It was in Byzantium that the Patristic testaments were defined and it remained the foundation of all Orthodox theology. Byzantine Orthodoxy was defined by the Christological disputes of the ‘Nestorians’ and ‘Monophysites’, it took a middle way, but was unable to reconcile its dogma and Hellenism with the extremists on either side.




A major cause of the Schisms was not just the divergence of dogmas and theologies, but the Byzantine Church itself which had been adjoined to the State in the time of Constantine. The State failed to recognize that the Church was a community separate from itself and had ontological independence from this world. The religious absolutism of the state and Emperor prevented this. The Church boundaries increasingly coincided with that of the state, so it was more and more identified to the state. Local conflicts arose and took on ecclesiastical and theological coloring. Thus, “The earliest extant sources of Syrian Christianity reveal a powerful spirit of self consciousness for independence.... Syrian gnosis is the least Hellenized of all. The pattern of Christian life carries its own attributes of sovereignty in every respect.”

The Empire was a multi-racial multi-National milieu, this led to inevitable social grievances against the central authority, thus centrifugal and even ‘Nationalistic’ forces increasingly involved the Church and Christianity. From the time of Paul of Samosata there was a Syrian (Egyptian) – Hellenic rift in the Church. The Christological positions of either side led to a division, which was to prove costly to Christianity and the Empire.