CHAPTER I

THE OCCURRENCES BEFORE THE SIXTH ŒCUMENICAL SYNOD

SEC. 291. Rise of the Monothelite Heresy

IN order to preserve entire the two natures in Christ, the divine and the human, the Nestorians had sacrificed the true unity of the Person. But in order, again, to save the latter, the permanent duality of the natures was given up by the Monophysites, and the proposition was maintained, that Christ was of two natures, but that after the union of these at the Incarnation we should speak only of one nature. In opposition to both these errors, it was necessary to maintain both the duality of the natures and the unity of the Person, and the one as strongly as the other; and this was done by the Council of Chalcedon, by the doctrine, that both natures were united in the one Person of the Logos without confusion and without change, without severance and without separation (vol. iii. sec. 193).

The Council of Chalcedon had spoken only in general of the two natures which are united in Christ, and a series of new questions necessarily arose, when the two natures came to be considered apart in their elements and in their powers, and an attempt was made to determine their special character in Christ. A standard for this inquiry was indeed given implicite in the words of the Council of Chalcedon: “The property of each nature remains”; and in the passage of the celebrated dogmatic epistle of S. Leo to Flavian: “Agit enim utraque forma (nature) cum alterius communione, quod proprium est.” But only a part of the orthodox understood how to draw the proper conclusions from this statement. The others did not penetrate into the sense of the words, and however often they repeated them, they remained for them a fruit, the shell of which they did not break so as to reach the kernel.

The question concerning the special character of the two particular elements and powers of the natures united in Christ was, chronologically, first raised by the Monophysites, in their controversies as to whether the body of Christ had been corruptible, and whether His (human) soul had been ignorant of anything. For Monophysites who had let slip the human nature of Christ, it was obviously not admissible to inquire respecting the human soul of Christ, and the Agnoëtæ were therefore excommunicated by their former associates, because the hypothesis of ἀγνοε͂ιν must lead, as a consequence, to the acceptance of the two natures. It was, however, natural that the orthodox should also take notice of the controversies of the Monophysites, and resolve them from their own point of view. From, the question respecting the knowledge of Christ, however, there is only a step to that respecting His willing and working: and we can well understand that, apart from all exciting cause from without, and apart from all foreign aims, e.g., those which were eirenical, the dogmatic development would of itself have led to the question: “What is the relation between the divine and human wills in Christ?” If an eirenic aim came in, and it was thought that, by a certain solution of this question, the long-wished-for union between the orthodox and the Monophysite might be brought about, the interest in this inquiry must naturally have been infinitely increased. But this influence of the practical element, on the other hand, destroyed the dispassionateness and calm of the inquiry, and gave occasion to the Monothelite controversy, the course of which must now engage our attention.

Heraclius, Byzantine Emperor since 610, soon after the first years of his reign, was forced to see how the Persians renewed the expeditions which they had begun under his predecessor Phocas; how in repeated aggressions they seized and plundered many Eastern provinces of the Roman Empire, laid waste Syria and Jerusalem, sold 90,000 Christians to Jews, bore the Patriarch Zacharias of Jerusalem into captivity, and plundered immense quantities of valuables, among them a part of the holy cross (A.D. 616). Soon afterwards (A.D. 619) they plundered Egypt, wasted Cappadocia, and besieged Chalcedon within sight of Constantinople. Heraclius wished to conclude a peace, but the Persian King Chosroes II. gave to the Greek ambassadors the insolent answer: “Your master must know that I will hear of no conditions, until he with his subjects shall abandon the crucified God and worship the Sun, the great God of the Persians.” Heraclius, on this, took courage, and, concluding a peace with the Avari, etc., put himself at the head of a great army, and set out for the East against the Persians, on Easter Monday, 622, and, taking Armenia first, attacked them with success in their own country.

Whilst he was in Armenia, as Sergius of Constantinople relates in his letter to Pope Honorius, “there came to him Paul, the leader of the Severians (Monophysites), and addressed to him a discourse in defence of his heresy, whereupon the Emperor, who, by God’s grace, was well versed in theological questions, opposed the heresy, and confronted the impious subtlety with the unadulterated dogmas of the Church, as their faithful champion. Among these he mentioned the μία ἐνέργεια of Christ, our true God, i.e. that there were not in Christ two kinds of activities or operations to be distinguished, one divine and one human. This was the utterance of the Shibboleth of Monothelitism, consisting in this, that the human nature of Christ, united with the divine, possessed indeed all the proprietates of manhood, as the Council of Chalcedon teaches, but that it does not work, but that all the operation and activity of Christ proceeds from the Logos, and that the human nature is only its instrument herein.

Pagi (ad ann. 622, n. 2 and 3) and Walch (Ketzerhist. Bd. ix. S. 19 and 103) have so represented the matter as to make it appear as though the doctrine of the μία ἐνέργεια had not been uttered by the Emperor in opposition to Paul, but that Paul himself had given expression to it, and had won the Emperor to that side. This is incorrect, and is derived from an erroneous explanation of the authorities. Entirely without foundation, therefore, is the reproach brought by Walch (S. 103) against Combefis, who rightly understood the matter, and concluded from what happened that the formula of the μία ἐνέργεια must have been known to the Emperor before his interview with Paul, and this undoubtedly through Sergius.

Even later writers, e.g., Mosheim, not infrequently assert that the doctrine of the μία ἐνέργεια was put forth for the first time on his arrival in Armenia, and that here we are to seek for the first beginning of Monothelitism. But, as Pagi long ago remarked (ad ann. 616, n. 6), the celebrated disputation of Maximus with Pyrrhus (see below, sec. 303) takes us several years further back, and shows that Sergius (since 610 patriarch of Constantinople) had given expression to this doctrine in letters before the year 619, and had secured patrons for it in several provinces. In that disputation Pyrrhus maintained that the monk Sophronius (since 636 patriarch of Jerusalem) had very unseasonably begun the whole strife concerning the energies in Christ. Maximus, the champion of the orthodox doctrine, replied: “But tell me now, where was Sophronius (i.e. he was not until long afterwards on the stage of the conflict) when Sergius wrote to Bishop Theodore of Pharan (in Arabia), sent him the alleged letter of Mennas (of this later), tried to gain him over to the doctrine contained therein of one energy and one will (καὶ ἑνὸς θελήματος), and Theodore answered, agreeing? Or where was he when Sergius at Theodosiopolis (Garin in Armenia) wrote to the Severian, Paul the one-eyed, and also sent to him the letter of Mennas and that of Theodore of Pharan? Or where was he when Sergius wrote to George, named Arsas, the Paulianist, requesting that he would send him passages in proof of the μία ἐνέργεια, that he might thereby reconcile them (the Severians) with the Church?” This letter was received by Bishop (πάπας) John of Alexandria from the hand of Arsas. And when he was about to depose him (Arsas or Sergius) for this, he was prevented by the invasion of the Persians into Egpyt.

It is known that Egypt was ravaged, A.D. 619, by the Persians, and that the patriarch, S. John Eleemosynarius of Alexandria, in consequence fled from hence to Cyprus, and died there in 620. Hence it is clear that Sergius had entered into union with the Monophysite Arsas, on the subject of the μία ἐνέργεια, before 619, and had intended, by the application of this formula, to bring about the union of the Monophysites with the orthodox.

In what year Sergius had recourse to Theodore of Pharan is not mentioned by Maximus; but it lies in the nature of the case that he first conferred with orthodox bishops on the admissibility of the μία ἐνέργεια before he introduced the subject to the Monophysites. It was necessary that an approval should come first from the orthodox side, if Sergius was to hope for anything from his project of union. If, however, Theodore of Pharan had, at so early a period, given an affirmative answer to the question of Sergius respecting the admissibility of that formula, we can understand how his contemporary, Bishop Stephanus of Dor (in Palestine), who played an important part in the Monothelite controversy, could designate him as the first Monothelite. The sixth Œcumenical Synod said, on the contrary: “Sergius was the first to write of this (the Monothelite) doctrine”; and as, in fact, by his letter to Theodore of Pharan, he gave him an impulse towards this heresy, it can hardly be doubted that he first conceived the thought of turning the formula μία ἐνέργεια to the purposes of union. He says repeatedly that he found it used by Cyril of Alexandria, and in the letter of the former patriarch of Constantinople, Mennas († 552), to Pope Vigilius. He says that a whole collection of such passages occur later on; but as Sergius has not adduced one of them, we must content ourselves with the supposition, that the most important of them were those to which Pyrrhus afterwards appealed in his disputation with Maximus. At the head of them, as the banner of the Monothelites, stands the passage from Cyril (Tom. 4. In Joannem): “Christ set forth μίαν συγγενῆ διʼ ἀμφοῖν ἐνέργειαν.” This certainly has a Monothelite sound. But even Maximus showed (see below, sec. 303) that the great Alexandrian used these words in another sense and connection. “He was far removed,” says he, “from ascribing only one φυσικὴ ἐνέργεια to the Godhead and manhood, for he teaches quite differently: ‘No reasonable person will maintain that the Creator and the creature have one and the same energy.’ Rather does he mean to show that the divine energy is one and the same whether without union with the manhood or in union with it, just as the energy of fire is one and the same whether in or without union with ὕλη. S. Cyril, then, did not speak of one energy of the two natures in Christ, but said that the divine energy was one and the same, alike in the Incarnate Son as in the Father, and that Christ worked His miracles, not by an almighty command (= divine energy), but asomatically; for even after His Incarnation He is still ὁμοεργὸς with the asomatically working Father; but that He also worked them somatically by bodily touch (ἀφῇ), and thus διʼ ἀμφοῖν. The raising of the maiden and the healing of the blind, which took place through the word and the almighty will, was united with the healing which was accomplished somatically by touch. The divine energy did not do away with the human, but used it for its own manifestation. The stretching out of the hand, the mixing of the spittle and earth (at the healing of the blind), belonged to the ἐνέργεια of the human nature of Christ, and in the miracle God was at the same time acting as man. Cyril did not, therefore, overlook the property of either nature, but saw the divine energy and the ζωτικὴ (i.e. bodily energy worked by the human soul) as united ἀσυγχύτως in the Incarnate Logos.”

As a second witness for their doctrine, the Monothelites quoted repeatedly a passage from Dionysius the Areopagite (Epist. 4. ad Caium), and certainly this was also adduced in the letter of Mennas, although Sergius (l.c.) did not expressly refer to it. It is known that the Severians, at the Religious Conference, A.D. 633, for the first time brought forward the books of the pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, maintaining that there also only one nature of Christ was taught (see vol. iv. sec. 245). The Acts of that Conference do not show to what passages in these books they appealed. If their contention was correct, and pseudo-Dionysius was a Monophysite, he would naturally have taught only one energy in Christ. But in truth, pseudo-Dionysius expresses himself repeatedly in a sense opposed to Monophysitism. Thus he says (De divinis nominibus, c. 2, sec. 3): “We must separate (distinguish), (α) the perfect unaltered human nature of Jesus, and (β) the essential mysteries which are found in it” (i.e. the Godhead united with it); and ibid. sec. 6: “The supernatural Logos takes His nature (human nature) entirely and truly from our nature.” So, in sec. 10, he teaches: “The Godhead of Jesus, which transcends all, assumed the substance of our flesh, and God, who is over all, became man: without mixture or change He communicated Himself to us. But even in His manhood His supernatural and transcendent nature shines forth; and He was supernatural in our natural.” And in the fourth letter to Caius: “You ask how Jesus, who is exalted over all in His nature, has come into the same order with all men. For not merely as Creator of man is He named man (the Areopagite thus teaches that all the names of His creatures belong to God), but because according to His whole nature He is a truly existing man.… The supernatural has assumed a nature from the nature of men; but is nevertheless overflowing from a transcendent nature.” As the Areopagite, in his theology, proceeded from the fundamental principle, “God is the true being of all things: He is in all creatures, and yet far above them, perfect in the imperfect, but also not completely in the perfect, but transcendent,” in a similar, and yet again in another manner, he considered that Christ was true man, and yet far above man.

If in these passages he recognised the true human nature in Christ, so in that which immediately follows he passes on to the question respecting the ἐνέργεια. “Therefore the transcendent, when He entered into the existent, became an existence above existence, and produced humanity above human nature. To this also testifies the Virgin, who bears supernaturally, and the otherwise yielding unsteady water, which bears the weight of material, earthly feet, and does not yield, but stands solid in supernatural power. We might adduce much besides by which we understand that that which is said of the manhood of Jesus has the power of transcendent negation. In brief, He was not man, as though He had not been man, but: From men He was exalted above men, and whilst far transcending them He truly became man. Moreover, Christ did not produce the divine as God, and the human as man; but He has shown us the divine-human operation of the Incarnate God” (καὶ τὸ λοιπὸν οὐ κατὰ θεὸν τὰ θεῖν δράσας, οὐ τὰ ἀνθρώπινα κατὰ ἄνθρωπον ἀλλὰ ἀνδρωθέντος θεοῦ καὶ καινήν τινα τὴν θεανδρικὴν ἐνέργειαν ἡμῖν πεπολιτευμένος). In another passage, too (De div. nom. c. 2, sec. 6), Dionysius speaks of the “human divine-working,” by which Christ had done and suffered all.

Superficially considered, these passages might be thought to teach that the two natures in. Christ had only one common composite will, and that both together had only one operation. But in truth, Dionysius has in view only the concrete activities or functions of Christ during His earthly life, and says that they are not purely divine nor purely human, but divine-human. Earlier, before Christ, it was either God or man who worked; there were only purely divine and purely human activities; but now in Christ there is shown a new, wonderful manner of operation: the transcendent God works in a human manner, but so that at the same time the superhuman shines through, and the human is raised above itself. He walked, e.g., on the water, and this is, in the first place, a human action; but the bearing up of His body by the water was divinely wrought. He was born—that is, human; but of a Virgin—that is superhuman, and is divinely wrought. On the question, however, as to whether we are to recognise in the God-man a divine will identical with that of the Father, and, on the other hand, a human will to be distinguished from that, Dionysius gives no opinion.

In the same manner, S. Maximus, in his disputation with Pyrrhus, explains the celebrated passage of the Areopagite, and thus deprives the Monothelites of the right to appeal to it. He asks whether Pyrrhus explains the καινὴ θεανδρικὴ ἐνέργεια as something quantitatively or qualitatively new. Pyrrhus first thought it quantitatively new. Thereupon Maximus said: “Then we must assume a third nature, θεανδρικὴ in Christ, for a third energy (and it would be such, if it were quantitatively new) presupposes a third nature, since the element of proper essential activity belongs to the notion of nature. If, however, the new is qualitatively new, this cannot express μία ἐνέργεια, but the new mysterious way and manner of the human activities (energies) of Christ, which is a consequence of the mysterious union and perichoresis (reciprocal movement) of the two natures in Christ. Indeed, proceeds Maximus, in the expression θεανδρικὴ ἐνέργεια, as he adduces the (duality of the) natures numerically, at the same time also the duality of the energies is periphrastically (mediately) taught. For if we take away the two opposites (divine and human in Christ), there remains nothing between. And provided there were only a single energy in Christ, the θεανδρικὴ, then Christ, as God, would have a different energy from the Father, for that of the Father cannot possibly be divine-human.”

As we have seen, Sergius also appealed, for his formula, μία θεανδρικὴ ἐνέργεια, to a letter of his predecessor Mennas to Pope Vigilius; but the examination of this at the sixth Œcumenical Council (see below, sec. 321) made its spuriousness more than probable (cf. vol. iv. sec. 267), and not a few have supposed that Sergius had himself manufactured this document, which no one knew of before. The introduction of unam operationem into two letters of Pope Vigilius could not have been accomplished at that time (see vol. iv. secs. 259 and 267), otherwise Sergius would certainly have also brought forward Pope Vigilius as a witness on his side. There is, however, no doubt that he thought in all seriousness that he had found, in the formula μία ἐνέργεια, the precious means of bringing about the long-wished-for union; and even if it were true, as Theophanes and those who followed him declared, that Sergius came from Jacobite, and so Monophysite parents, it would not therefore follow that he had intentionally and craftily put forth a formula in the interest of Monophysitism, which in its consequences should lead back to this heresy. On the contrary, it is very probable that, after he had made the supposed discovery, he immediately made the Emperor acquainted with it, and thus gave occasion for Heraclius’ reference to the μία ἐνέργεια in his intercourse with the Monophysite Paul in Armenia. Statesmanlike prudence demanded of the Emperor to make zealous use of that which appeared so valuable a means of union; for, if the attempt succeeded, millions of minds which had been estranged by Monophysitism from the throne and the State Church would have been restored, chiefly in those provinces which the Emperor was now meditating to seize again, particularly Egypt, Syria, Armenia, and the countries adjoining the Caucasus. In Egypt the Melchitic party, that is, the orthodox and those who were well disposed to the Emperor, now numbered about 300,000 heads, whilst the Coptic, i.e. the National-Egyptian and Monophysite party, was between five and six millions strong. The proportions were similar among the Jacobites in Syria. No wonder if the Emperor, at the beginning of his campaign against the Persians, having in view the ecclesiastical reunion of the Oriental provinces, recommended the formula μία ἐνέργεια. He did so naturally with still greater urgency and energy after the successful termination of the campaign, and after he had, by the peace of the year 628, received back the lands which he had wrested from the Persians.

The next certain chronological point in the history of Monothelitism is the stay of the Emperor Heraclius in Lazia (Colchis), and his interview there with Cyrus, metropolitan of Phasis, A D. 626. Theophanes says (p. 485) that Heraclius, in the year of the world 6117, corresponding with September 1, 625–626, of our reckoning (see above, p. 3, not had tarried for a considerable time in the country of Lazia, on a new expedition against the Persians. The same date, 626, for the interview with Cyrus, may be inferred from a passage of the thirteenth session of the sixth Œcumenical Council, where it is said that Cyrus had written to Sergius fifty-six years before. But an event still more important for the history of Monothelitism had preceded this of the year 626, as we learn from Cyrus himself, who in his letter to Sergius declares: “When I met the Emperor, I read the decree which he sent to Archbishop Arcadius of Cyprus against Paul, this head of the bishopless (ἀνεπισκόπων). The orthodox doctrine is therein accurately set forth. As, however, I found that in this decree it is forbidden to speak of two energies of our Lord Jesus Christ after the union (of the two natures in Christ), I did not agree to this point, and appealed to the letter of Pope Leo, which expressly teaches two energies in mutual union. After we had further discussed this subject, I received the command to read your (Sergius’) honoured letter, which, as was said, and as inspection showed, was a reply (ἀντίγραφον) to that imperial decree (to Arcadius); for it also referred to that evil Paul and a copy of the decree against him, and approved of its contents. I received command in the first place to be silent, no longer to contradict, and to apply to you for further instruction on this point, that after the ἕνωσις of the two natures we should accept only μίαν ἡγουμενικὴν ἐνέργειαν.” Sergius repeats the same in his letter in answer to Cyrus, and then refers to Paul as chief of the Acephali, explaining for us more fully the ἀνεπισκόπων in the letter of Cyrus, a matter which Walch (l.c. S. 25 and 105) has quite misunderstood.

From these communications we learn that the Emperor, after that vain attempt in Armenia to win the Monophysite Paul for the Church, issued a decree against him to Archbishop Arcadius of Cyprus; for no one doubts that it was aimed at Paul, since the Severians were only a division of the Acephali (opponents of the Henoticon), so that Paul might be designated sometimes with one and sometimes with the other of those names.

If it is certain that the Emperor had an interview with the Monophysite leader Paul, in the year 622, during his longer stay in Armenia, in order to gain him over to the union, we may with probability suppose that at the same time the union of the Monophysite Armenians at large was attempted, and for this purpose the Synod of Garin or Theodosiopolis was held. We have already spoken of it (vol. iv. sec. 289), and remarked that it has generally been assigned to the year 622, but by Tschamtschean preferably to 627 or 629. Some chronological data are lacking; but we regard it as contemporaneous with the interview between the Emperor and Paul, held for the same purpose and at the same place. It cannot properly be objected that it would, in that case, be strange that nothing should be said at the Synod of Garin of the μία ἐνέργεια, when that was done at the interview with Paul. We reply, (a) our information respecting that Synod is so scanty and imperfect, that we cannot with certainty infer from its silence that the Emperor did not there employ the new formula for the purposes of union. Besides, (b) it is possible that the Armenian Patriarch Esra consented to accept the Council of Chalcedon without the bait of the μία ἐνέργεια. Finally, (c) it is clear that the omission to bring forward the formula μία ἐνέργεια at Garin, in the later years 627, 629, or 632, would be still more strange than in 622, since the Emperor, in the course of time, gained increasing faith in its serviceableness, from the year 626 recommended it with increased energy (as we learn from the case of Cyrus of Phasis), and presented himself more and more decisively as patron of Monothelitism. By removing the Synod of Garin to the year 622 we clear up several difficulties, and it becomes easier in this way to construct the early history of Monothelitism.

We know (vol. iv. sec. 289) that the Emperor also brought Greek bishops with him to the Union-Synod of Garin. But who could have been better suited for the purpose, and whom could the Emperor have thought more of, than the bishop of his principal city, Sergius, who had made a special study of the union, and believed that he had discovered a universal means of securing it. Now, that Sergius was present in Garin, we learn from the disputation of Maximus with Pyrrhus, where it is said: “Where was Sophronius when Sergius, at Theodosiopolis (i.e. Garin), wrote to the Severian Paul, the one-eyed, and also sent to him the letter of Mennas and that of Theodore of Pharan?” (See above, p. 5). If, however, Sergius was at Garin, or in Armenia generally, in the train of the Emperor, it is natural to believe that he took part in the transactions with Paul, and suggested to the Emperor the idea of the μία ἐνέργεια. That, in his letter to Pope Honorius, he said nothing of his participation, and represented the matter as though the Emperor had independently, as a great theologian, invented the formula in question, was dictated by prudence in regard to Rome and also to the Emperor.

That Paul was from Cyprus we infer from the decree of the Emperor to Arcadius. If, however, we assume that the Synod of Garin falls at the same time as the transactions with Paul, this explains his presence in Armenia,—he too was invited to the Synod,—and thus too we can better understand the decree to Archbishop Arcadius of Cyprus. We know that there were Armenian, i.e. Monophysite, congregations in Cyprus. The union of the Armenian patriarch at Garin drew on, as a consequence, the union of the churches affiliated to him. This was opposed by Paul, the head of the Monophysites in Cyprus; hence the imperial decree to Arcadius, and along with this the demand that, in his position as metropolitan, he would forward the union throughout all Cyprus by the application of the formula μία ἐνέργεια.

Whether Paul, the one-eyed, to whom Sergius wrote, is identical with this Paul of Cyprus, may remain undecided; but it is quite possible that, after the Cypriote Paul had departed from the Emperor and left Cyprus without entering the union, Sergius made another attempt to gain him for the μία ἐνέργεια, and so for the union, by sending him the letters of Mennas and of Theodore of Pharan. The imperial decree to Arcadius would in that case have come after the failure and in support of this attempt. Sergius, however, had in the meantime departed from Armenia, and therefore could only in writing further communicate his view to the Emperor on this decree and on the stiff-necked Paul, probably before the actual publication of the decree.

SEC. 292. Synod at Constantinople, A.D. 626, and Transactions at Hierapolis, A.D. 629

After the transactions with Paul, says Sergius in his letter to Pope Honorius, there passed some time before the Emperor met Cyrus of Phasis (A.D. 626) in the province of Lazia, and that took place which we have related above (p. 12). In accordance with his command, Cyrus in a letter asked Sergius, patriarch of Constantinople, for further explanation on the μία ἐνέργεια, and we possess his deliberate answer given at a Synod in Constantinople, among the Acts of the sixth Council. The principal contents are as follows: 1. In the great holy Synods this subject of one or two energies was not at all touched, and we find no decision given on this subject. But several of the principal Fathers, particularly Cyril of Alexandria, have in several writings spoken of a μία ζωοποιὸς ἐνέργεια Χριστοῦ. Mennas, also of Constantinople, addressed a letter to Pope Vigilius of Old

Rome, in which he, in the same manner, taught ἓν τὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ θέλημα καὶ μίαν ζωοποιὸν ἐνέργειαν. I forward to you a copy of this λόγος of Mennas, and append to it several other patristic passages on this subject. As regards, however, the letter of the most holy Leo, and the passage: “Agit utraque forma,” etc., of the many opponents of Severus (the Monophysite), who have appealed to this letter, the common pillar of orthodoxy, not one has found in it the doctrine of two energies. I will mention only one, Eulogius, bishop of Alexandria († 608), who wrote a whole book in defence of this letter (extracts from it are found in Photius, Biblioth. cod. 226). I have also added this to the patristic testimonies mentioned. Generally, no one of the divinely enlightened teachers up to this time has spoken of two energies; and it is quite necessary to follow the doctrines of the Fathers, not only in their meaning, but also to use the very same words as they did and in no way to alter any of them.

Of this, his answer to Cyrus, Sergius also speaks in his letter to Pope Honorius, adding that he had sent to him the letter of Mennas, but had not expressed his own view, and from that time the question in regard to Energy had rested, until Cyrus had become patriarch of Alexandria.

This last assertion is contradicted by the Greek historians Theophanes, Cedrenus, and Zonaras, and also by an old anonymous biography of Abbot Maximus, when they assign to the year 629 (according to the chronology of Theophanes, 621) a transaction which the Emperor Heraclius had at Hierapolis in Syria (Zonaras, by mistake, says Jerusalem) with the Jacobite Patriarch Athanasius, and at which he had held out to him the patriarchal chair of Antioch, if he would accept the Synod of Chalcedon. The sly Syrian had consented, on the condition that he was accustomed to teach only one energy. The Emperor, to whom this expression was new, (?) had thereupon written to Sergius of Constantinople, and had immediately called Cyrus of Phasis to come to him; and as the latter by word of mouth, and the former in writing, declared in favour of the μία ἐνέργεια, Heraclius gave his approval to this formula, and made Pope John of Rome acquainted with this, without, however, requesting his assent. That this narrative contains inaccuracies cannot be doubted. It is impossible that the formula μία ἐνέργεια should have been new to the Emperor in the year 629, and that he should have been under the necessity then, for the first time, of questioning Bishop Sergius on this subject. It is impossible that he should, for the first time, in the year 629, have asked Cyrus of Phasis his judgment on this formula, since three years before he had himself made Cyrus acquainted with it; and it is a gross anachronism to make the Emperor address a question to Pope John in 629, since John did not come to the papal chair until 640. Forbes of Corse, a celebrated professor at the Scotch University of Aberdeen, supposed that the Jacobite Athanasius and the Severian Paul were one and the same person; but how would this agree with Pope John and the year 629, since Paul had already had his interview with the Emperor, A.D. 622? And it was not Paul who made the Emperor, but the latter who made Paul acquainted with the μία ἐνέργεια; whilst, in the case of Athanasius, according to the account of Theophanes, it was the reverse. Pagi declares (ad ann. 629, n. 2–6) the whole account in regard to Athanasius to be erroneous; Walch, on the contrary (l.c. S. 80 and 89 ff.), makes it credible, from Oriental sources, that a Severian Bishop Athanasius certainly met the Emperor Heraclius, along with twelve other bishops, that they presented to him a memorial (confession), and were required under threats to accept the Synod of Chalcedon. This Athanasius, Walch thinks, was the same whom Sophronius, at a later period, excommunicated in his synodal letter. We may add that the year 629 appears quite suitable for a discussion in Hierapolis; for, in fact, after Heraclius had made peace with the Persians, A.D. 628, and had got back the portion of the cross of Christ which had been carried off, as well as the provinces which had been seized by Chosroes, he spent a considerable time in the East, in the years 628 and 629, for the purpose of restoring order in those provinces.

SEC. 293. Cyrus of Alexandria unites the Monophysites

After the death of Joannes Eleemosynarius, the monk John, the author of a still extant biography of S. John Chrysostom, was raised to the chair of Alexandria (A.D. 620), and had to endure much persecution during the Persian rule over Egypt, but survived until the recovery of the country by the Emperor Heraclius, A.D. 628. At his death, some years afterwards (630 or 631), the Emperor raised Cyrus of Phasis, of whom we have already heard, to the patriarchal chair of Alexandria, in order, as the biographer of S. Martin declares, to soil this city with Monothelitism. There were not only very many Monophysites here, but they were split into parties among themselves. We have already seen (vol. iii. sec. 208) that both the φθαρτολάτραι (Severians) and the ἀφθαρτοδοκῆται (Julianists) had their own bishop in Alexandria; the bishop of the former, about the middle of the sixth century, being Theodosius, that of the latter Gaianas. The former got the name of Theodosians from their bishop, and they were united by the new patriarch, Cyrus, on the basis of the μία ἑνέργεια. On this subject he tells Sergius of Constantinople: “I notify you that all the clergy of the Theodosian party of this city, together with all the civil and military persons of distinction, and many thousands of the people, on the 3rd of June, took part with us, in the Holy Catholic Church, in the pure holy mysteries, led thereto chiefly by the grace of God, but also by the doctrine communicated to me by the Emperors, and by your divinely enlightened Holiness, … at which not only in Alexandria, but also in the whole neighbourhood, yea even to the clouds and above the clouds, with the heavenly spirits, there is great joy. How this union was brought about, I have sent full information to the Emperor by the deacon John. I pray your Holiness, however, that, if in this matter I have committed any error, you will correct your humblest servant therein, for it is your own work.”

The information appended respecting the union relates: “As Christ guides all to the true faith, we have, in the month Payni of the sixth Indictim (633), established the following (9 κεφάλαια):—

“1. If anyone does not confess the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, the consubstantial Trinity, the one Godhead in three persons, let him be anathema.

“2. If anyone does not confess the one Logos of the Holy Trinity, eternally begotten by the Father, come down from heaven, made flesh by the Holy Ghost and our Lady, the holy God-bearer and ever Virgin Mary; who was made man, suffered in His own flesh, died, was buried, and rose on the third day,—let him be anathema.

“3. If anyone does not confess that the sufferings as well as the wounds belong to one and the same Jesus Christ, our Lord, let him be anathema.

“4. If anyone does not confess that, in consequence of the most intimate union, God the Logos, in the womb of the holy God-bearer, … has prepared for Himself a flesh consubstantial with ours, and animated by a reasonable soul, and this by physical and hypostatic union (cf. vol. ii. secs. 132, 158); and that from this union He has come forth as one, unmixed and inseparable,—let him be anathema.

“5. If anyone does not confess that the Ever Virgin Mary is in truth the God-bearer, in that she bore the Incarnate God, the Logos, let him be anathema.

“6. If anyone does not confess: From (!) two natures, one Christ, one Son, one incarnate nature of God the Logos, as S. Cyril taught, ἀτρέπτως, ἀναλλοιώτως, or one united Hypostasis (see vol. iv. sec. 270), which our Lord Jesus Christ is, one of the Trinity, let him be anathema.

“7. If anyone, in using the expression, The one Lord is known in two natures, does not confess that He is one of the Holy Trinity, i.e. the Logos eternally begotten by the Father, who was made man in the last times; … but that He was ἕτερος καὶ ἕτερος, and not one and the same, as the wisest Cyril taught, perfect in Godhead and the same perfect in manhood, and therefore known in two natures as one and the same; and (if anyone does not confess) that one and the same, on one side (κατʼ ἄλλο), and suffered, on the other, is incapable of suffering, i.e. suffered as man in the flesh, so far as He was man, but as God remained incapable of suffering in the body of His flesh; and (if anyone does not confess, that this one and the same Christ and Son worked both the divine and the human by ONE divine-human operation, as S. Dionysius teaches (καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν ἕνα Χριστὸν καὶ υἱὸν ἐνεργοῦντα τὰ θεοτρεπὴ καὶ ἀνθρώπινα μιᾷ θεανδρικῇ ἐνέργειᾳ κατὰ τὸν ἐν ἀγίοις Διονύσιον), …—let him be anathema.

“8. If anyone does not anathematise Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches, etc., and all who opposed the twelve chapters of Cyril, and has not amended, let him be anathema.

“9. If anyone does not anathematise the writings of Theodoret, which he composed against the true faith and against Cyril, and also the alleged letter of Ibas, and Theodore of Mopsuestia with his writings, let him be anathema.”

We can see what efforts Cyrus made to render this κεφάλαιον acceptable to those who had previously been Monophysites, in that he anathematised every form of Nestorianism in the sharpest manner; whilst he brought back those expressions so dear to the Monophysites, ἐκ δύο φύσεων, ἕνωσις φυσική, and μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένη, after the example of Justinian (vol. iv. sec. 270), certainly adding those phrases which set aside Monophysitism. Theophanes professes to know that Cyrus, in combination with Theodore of Pharan, brought about that union (τὴν ὑδροβαφῆ ἕνωσιν = watery union), whereby the Synod of Chalcedon was brought into such contempt, that the Theodosians boasted that “the Synod of Chalcedon has come to us, and not we to that.” To the same effect speak Cedrenus and the Vita Maximi. The Synodicon maintains that the union in question was brought about at an Alexandrian Synod, A.D. 633. But Cyrus, Sergius, Maximus, the sixth Œcumenical Synod, and all the ancients who refer to this union, are silent on the subject of a Synod.

As was natural, this intelligence from Alexandria produced great joy with Heraclius and Sergius, and we still possess a letter in reply from the latter to Cyrus, in which he highly commends him, and repeats the principal contents of the κεφάλαια. The meaning of the seventh he expressed in the words: Καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν ἕνα Χριστὸν ἐνεργεῖν τὰ θεοτρεπὴ καὶ ἀνθρώπινα μιᾷ ἐνεργείᾳ, πᾶσα γὰρ θεία τε καὶ ἀνθρωπίνη ἐνέργεια ἐξ ἑνὸς καὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ σεσαρκωμένου Λόγου προήρχετο. This doctrine, Sergius falsely maintains, is contained in the well-known words of Leo: Agit utraque forma (see p. 2).

SEC. 294. Sophronius comes to the defence of Dyothelitism

About the same time when the union was accomplished in Alexandria, the saintly and learned monk Sophronius from Palestine was present there; and Archbishop Cyrus, out of respect for him, permitted him to read the nine κεφάλαια before their publication. Sophronius disapproved the doctrine of one energy, and thought that it was necessary to hold fast two energies. Cyrus, however, endeavoured to sustain his doctrine by patristic passages, and remarked on this, that the old Fathers, in order to win souls, had here and there yielded in the expression of doctrine, and at the present moment it was especially unsuitable to contend about words, since the salvation of the souls of myriads was at stake.

Sergius relates this in his letter to Pope Honorius, which we shall give presently. But Maximus adds that Sophronius fell at the feet of Cyrus, and adjured him with tears not to proclaim that article from the pulpit, since it was plainly Apollinarian (i.e. Monophysite, see vol. iii. sec. 170). That Sophronius immediately wrote on this subject also to Sergius of Constantinople is a mere supposition of Baronius; whilst, on the other hand, it is true that, not suspecting that Sergius was not only entangled in the new heresy, but its actual originator, Sophronius now came to Constantinople in order to find here support against Cyrus. He wanted to gain over Sergius, so that the expression μία ἐνέργεια might be struck out of the instrument of union. As he brought letters with him from Cyrus, it appears as though the latter had made the proposal to Sophronius to appeal to the patriarch of Constantinople as umpire; and there is no reason, that we know of, for finding with Walch (l.c. S. 117) the conduct of Cyrus especially noble, for he imposed upon his opponent, and, instead of directing him to an impartial umpire, sent him to the zealous supporter of his own party. If Cyrus gave Sophronius another letter to Sergius, besides the one mentioned above (p. 18), it has been lost.

SEC. 295. The seeming Juste Milieu of Sergius. He writes to Pope Honorius

Naturally Sophronius did not succeed in gaining over the Patriarch Sergius to himself and the doctrine of two wills, yet he succeeded so far that Sergius would no longer allow the μία ἐνέργεια to be promulgated, so as not to destroy the peace of the Church, and in this direction he gave counsel and instruction to Cyrus of Alexandria, that, after the union had been established, he should no longer give permission to speak either of one or of two energies. At the same time he exacted from Sophronius the promise henceforth to be silent; and they both separated in peace. We learn this more exactly from the letter which Sergius addressed to Pope Honorius soon after this incident, and immediately after the elevation of Sophronius to the see of Jerusalem (A.D. 633 or 634), and which is preserved for us in the Acts of the sixth Œcumenical Council. This letter, from which we have already drawn so many details, after a very polite introduction, relates first what had taken place in Armenia between the Emperor Heraclius and the Severian Paul, and how then the Emperor had made mention of the μία ἐνέργεια. “This conversation with Paul,” he further remarks, “the Emperor referred to later on, in Lazia, in presence of Bishop Cyrus of Phasis, now occupant of the throne of Alexandria, and as the latter did not know whether one or two energies should be maintained, he asked us and requested that we would give him passages from the Fathers on the subject. This we did as well as we could, and sent him the (probably spurious) letter of Mennas to Pope Vigilius, which contains such passages of the Fathers on one energy and one will (see p. 14), without, however, giving any judgment of our own. From this time the matter rested for a while.

“A short time before this, however, Cyrus, now patriarch of Alexandria, sustained by God’s grace and encouraged by the Emperor, summoned the adherents of Eutyches residing in Alexandria, Dioscurus, Severus, and Julian, to join the Catholic Church. After many disputations and troubles, Cyrus, who displayed great prudence in the matter, at last gained his end, and then were dogmatic κεφάλαια agreed upon between the two parties, on which all who called Dioscurus and Severus their ancestors united with the Holy Catholic Church. All Alexandria, almost all Egypt, the Thebaïd, Lydia, and the other eparchies (provinces) of the Egyptian diocese (see vol. ii. sec. 98, c. 2), had now become one flock, and those who were formerly split into a number of heresies were, by God’s grace and the zeal of Cyrus, one, confessing with one voice and in unity of Spirit the true dogmas of the Church. Among the famous Kephalaia was that of the μία ἐνέργεια of Christ. Just at that time the most saintly monk Sophronius, now, as we hear, bishop of Jerusalem (we have not yet received his synodal letter), found himself at Alexandria with Cyrus, conversed with him on this union, and opposed the Kephalaion of the μία ἐνέργεια, maintaining that we should teach decidedly two energies of Christ. Cyrus showed utterances of the holy Fathers, in which the μία ἐνέργεια is used (yes, but in another sense), and added that often also the holy Fathers had shown a God-pleasing pliancy (οἰκονομία) towards certain expressions, without surrendering anything of their orthodoxy; and that now especially, when the salvation of so many myriads was at stake, there should be no contention over that Kephalaion, which could not endanger orthodoxy; but Sophronius altogether disapproved of this pliancy, and on account of this affair came with letters from Cryus to us, conversed with us on the subject, and demanded that, after the union, the proposition respecting the μία ἐνέργεια should be struck from the Kephalaia. This seemed to us hard. For how should it not be hard, very hard indeed, since by that means the union in Alexandria and all those eparchies would be destroyed, among those who hitherto had refused to hear anything either from the most holy Father Leo, or from the Synod of Chalcedon, but now speak of it with clear voice at the divine mysteries!

“After we had long discussed this with Sophronius, we requested him to bring forward passages from the Fathers which quite clearly and literally require the recognition of two energies in Christ. He could not do this. We, however, considering that controversies, and from these heresies might arise, regarded it as necessary to bring this superfluous dispute about words to silence, and wrote to the patriarch of Alexandria, that, after accomplishing the union, he should require no one to confess one or two energies, but that confession should be made, as laid down by the holy and Œcumenical Synods, that one and the same only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, worked (ἐνεργεῖν) both the divine and the human, and that all Godlike and human energies went forth inseparably (ἀδιαρέτως) from one and the same Incarnate Logos and referred back to the same. The expression μία ἐνέργεια should not be employed, since, although it was used by some of the Fathers, it seemed strange to many, and offended their ears, since they entertained the suspicion that it was used in order to do away with the two natures in Christ, a thing to be avoided. In like manner, to speak of two energies gives offence with many, because this expression occurs in none of the holy Fathers, and because there would follow from thence the doctrine of two contradictory wills (θελήματα) in Christ (a false inference!), as though the Logos had been willing to endure the suffering which brings us salvation, but the manhood had opposed it. This is impious, for it is impossible that one and the same subject should have two and, in one point, contradictory wills.

“The Fathers teach that the human nature of Christ has never, separately and of its own impulse (ὁρμή), fulfilled its natural movement in opposition to the leading (νεύματι) of the Logos which is united with it, but only when, and as, and in the measure in which the Logos willed it; and, to put it plainly, as with man the body is guided by the reasonable soul, so in Christ the whole human nature is by the Godhead of the Logos; it was θεοκίνητος, i.e. moved by God. … Finally, we decide that in future Sophronius shall speak neither of one nor of two energies, but shall content himself with the doctrine of the Fathers; and the saintly man was therewith content, promised to keep to this, and only requested us to give him this statement in writing (i.e. the definition of the faith given by Sergius, contained in this letter), so that he might be able to show it to any who might inquire of him respecting the point in dispute. We granted him this willingly, and he departed again from Constantinople by ship. Shortly, however, the Emperor wrote from Edessa, requesting us to extract the patristic utterances contained in the letter of Mennas to Vigilius on the μία ἐνέργεια, and ἓν θέλημα, and send them to him. We did so. Yet, having regard to the alarm which had already been caused by this matter, we represented to the Emperor the difficulty of the subject, and recommended that there should be no more minute discussion of the question, but that we should abide by the known and the universally acknowledged doctrine of the Fathers, and confess that the one and the same only begotten Son of God worked both the divine and the human, and that from the one and the same Incarnate Word all divine and human energy proceeded indivisibly and inseparably (ἀμερίστως καὶ ἀδιαιρέτως). For this was taught by the God-bearing Pope Leo in the words: ‘Agit utraque forma cum alterius communione, quod proprium est.’ … We held it then as suitable and necessary to make your fraternal Holiness acquainted with this matter, enclosing copies of our letters to Cyrus and the Emperor, and we pray you to read all this, and to complete what you find defective, and to communicate to us your view of the subject in writing.”

We see that Sergius was willing to give up the open victory of his formula μία ἐνέργεια; but the error contained in it was not to be suppressed, and thus he managed that the opposite orthodox doctrine of two energies, Dyothelitism, should be set aside.

SEC. 296. First Letter of Pope Honorius in the Monothelite Affair

Honorius, sprung from a distinguished family of Campania, after the death of Boniface V., ascended the Roman throne, October 27, 625. Abbot Jonas of Bobio, his contemporary, describes him as sagax animo, vigens consilio, doctrina clarus, dulcedine et humilitate pollens. He may have had all these fine qualities, and especially may have possessed a good acquaintance with theology, and have fully understood the development of dogma up to this time; but new questions now emerged, which at first, at least, he did not see through quite clearly, and certainly his friendliness and amiability (dulcedo and humilitas) towards others, especially towards the Emperor and the patriarch of Constantinople, contributed to land him in error.

The letter which he wrote in answer to Sergius is no longer extant in the Latin original; but we still possess the Greek translation which was read at the sixth Œcumenical Council, and then compared by a Roman delegate with the Latin original then extant in the patriarchal archives at Constantinople, and found to be correct. From the Greek translation the two old Latin versions were made, which are printed in Mansi and Hardouin, and of which the first must have been prepared by the Roman librarian Anastasius.

The letter of Honorius is as follows: “Your letter, my brother, I have received, and have learnt from it that new controversies have been stirred up by a certain Sophronius, then a monk, now bishop of Jerusalem, against our brother Cyrus of Alexandria, who proclaimed to those returning from heresy one energy of our Lord Jesus Christ. This Sophronius afterwards visited you, brought forward the same complaint, and after much instruction requested that what he had heard from you might be imparted to him in writing. Of this letter of yours to Sophronius we have received from you a copy, and, after having read it, we commend you that your brotherliness has removed the new expression (μία ἐνέργεια), which might give offence to the simple. For we must walk in that which we have learned. By the leading of God we came to the measure of the true faith, which the apostles of the truth have spread abroad by the light (Lat. rule) of the Holy Scriptures, confessing that the Lord Jesus Christ, the Mediator between God and man, worked the divine works by means (μεσιτευσάσης) of the manhood, which was hypostatically united to Him, the Logos, and that the same worked the human works, since the flesh was assumed by the Godhead in an unspeakable, unique manner, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀσυγχύτως, τελείως. And He who shone in the flesh, through His miracles, in perfect Godhead, is the same who worked (ἐνεγήσας, Lat. patitur) the conditions of the flesh in dishonourable suffering, perfect God and man. He is the one Mediator between God and men in two natures. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us. He is the Son of Man, who came down from heaven, and one and the same is the Lord of glory who was crucified, whilst we still confess that the Godhead is in no way subject to human suffering. And the flesh was not from heaven, but was taken from the holy God-bearer, for the Truth says in the Gospel of Himself: ‘No man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man which is in heaven’ (S. John 3:13), teaching us clearly that the flesh which was susceptible of suffering was united with the Godhead in an unspeakable and unique manner; on the one hand distinct and unmingled, on the other unseparated; so that the union must be wonderfully thought of under the continuance of both natures. In agreement with this, says the apostle (1 Cor. 2:8), ‘They crucified the Lord of Glory,’ whilst yet the Godhead could neither be crucified nor suffer; but on account of that unspeakable union we can say both, God has suffered, and the Manhood came down from heaven with the Godhead (S. John 3:13). Whence, also, we confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ (ὅθεν καὶ ἓν θέλημα ὁμολογοῦμεν τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ = unde et unam voluntatem fatemur Domini nostri Jesu Christi), since our (human) nature was plainly assumed by the Godhead, and this being faultless, as it was before the Fall. For Christ, coming in the form of sinful flesh, took away the sin of the world, and assuming the form of a servant, He is habitu inventus ut homo. As He was conceived by the Holy Ghost, so was He also born without sin of the holy and immaculate Virgin, the God-bearer, without experiencing any contamination of the vitiata natura. The expression flesh is used in the Holy Scripture in a double sense, a good and a bad. Thus it is written (Gen. 6:3): ‘My Spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh;’ and the apostle says (1 Cor. 15:50): ‘Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.’ And again (Rom. 7:23): ‘I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.’ Many other passages must also be understood of the flesh in the bad sense. In the good sense, however, the expression is used by Isaiah (66:23): ‘All flesh shall come to Jerusalem to worship before Me.’ So Job (19:26): ‘In my flesh shall I see God;’ and elsewhere (S. Luke 3:6): ‘All flesh shall see the salvation of God.’

“It is this, as we said, not the vitiata natura which was assumed by the Redeemer, which would war against the law of His mind; but He came to seek and to save that which was lost, i.e. the vitiata natura of the human race. In His members there was not another law (Rom. 7:23), or a diversa vel contraria Salvatori voluntas, because He was born supra legem of human condition; and if He says in the Holy Spirit: ‘I came down from heaven not to do Mine own will, but the will of Him that sent Me’ (S. John 6:38), and (S. Mark 14:36): ‘Nevertheless, not what I will, but what Thou wilt,’ and the like, these are not expressions of a voluntas diversa, but of the accommodation (οἰκονομίας, dispensationis) of the assumed manhood. For this is said for our sakes, that we, following His footsteps, should do not our own will, but that of the Father.

“We will now, entering upon the royal way, avoid the snares of the hunters right and left, in order that we dash not our foot against a stone. We will go in the path of our predecessors (i.e. hold fast to the old formulæ and avoid the new). And if some who, so to speak, stammer, think to explain the matter better, and give themselves out as teachers, yet may we not make their statements to be Church dogmas, as, for example, that in Christ there is one energy or two, since neither the Gospels nor the letters of the apostles, nor yet the Synods, have laid this down. That the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son and the Word of God, by whom all things were made, the one and the same, perfectly works divine and human works, is shown quite clearly by the Holy Scriptures; but whether on account of the works of the Godhead and manhood (opera divinitatis et humanitatis) it is suitable to think and to speak of one or two energies (operationes) as present, we cannot tell, we leave that to the grammarians, who sell to boys the expressions invented by them, in order to attract them to themselves. For we have not learnt from the Bible that Christ and His Holy Spirit have one or two energies; but that He works in manifold ways (πολυτρόπως ἐνεργοῦντα). For it is written: ‘If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His’ (Rom. 8:9); and again: ‘No one can say, Lord Jesus, but in the Holy Ghost; the gifts are diverse, but there is one Spirit; and the offices are diverse, but there is one Lord; and the operations are diverse, but it is one God that worketh all in all.’ If, however, there are many diversities of operations, and God works them all in all the members of the great body, how much more does this prevail in the Head (of that mystical Body), Christ the Lord?… If the Spirit of Christ works in His members in many ways, how much more must we confess that, by Himself, the Mediator between God and man, He works most perfectly, and in manifold ways, through the communion of the two natures? We, however, wish to think and to breathe according to the utterances of Holy Scripture, rejecting everything which, as a novelty in words, might cause uneasiness in the Church of God, so that those who are under age may not, taking offence at the expression two energies, hold us for Nestorians, and that (on the other side) we may not seem to simple ears to teach Eutychianism, when we clearly confess only one energy. We must be on our guard lest, after the evil weapons of those enemies are burnt, from their ashes new flames of scorching questions may be kindled. In simplicity and truth we will confess that the Lord Jesus Christ, one and the same, works in the divine and in the human nature. It is much better if the empty, idle, and paganising philosophers, who weigh out the natures, proudly raise their croaking against us, than that the people of Christ, simple and poor in spirit, should remain unsatisfied. No one can deceive the scholars of fishermen by philosophy They follow the doctrine of these (the fishermen). All the arguments of cunning disputation are crushed in their nets. This will you also, my brother, proclaim with us, as we do it with one mind with you; and we exhort you that you, fleeing from the new manner of speech of one energy or two, with us proclaim one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God, true God, in two natures working the divine and human.”

We feel bound clearly to indicate every considerable departure of this second edition of our history from the first in causa Honorii, that everyone may understand how we have previously judged, and what we now think on this subject. For this reason we repeat, first of all, the remarks with which we accompanied this letter of Honorius in the first edition: “We see that Honorius started from the dogma,—The two natures in Christ are hypostatically united in the one Person of the Logos. If, however, there is only one Person, then is there but one Worker present, and the one Christ and Lord works both the human and the divine works, the former by means of the human nature.

“Honorius did not grasp the subject aright at the very beginning. He ought to have put the question thus: From the one personality of Christ there follows necessarily only one energy and one will, or is energy and will more a matter of nature (than of person), and, in that case, has not the duality of natures in Christ also the duality of wills and operations as a consequence? Now, this question he could have solved by a glance at the Trinity. In this there are three Persons, but not three wills, but one nature (essence) and, accordingly, only one will. But not considering this, he argues briefly, but inappropriately, ‘Where there is only one Person there is only one Worker, and therefore only one will.’ But however decidedly Honorius, from this premiss, maintains the ἓν θέλημα he yet decidedly rejects the μία ἐνέργεια. This one Worker, Christ, he says, works in many ways, and therefore we should teach neither μίαν ἐνέργειαν nor δύο ἐνέργειας, but ἐνεργεῖ πολυτρόπως. Honorius has here misunderstood, or wished to misunderstand, the significance of the technical terms. He takes them as identical with the concrete workings, instead of with the ways of working.

“These expressions, μία ἐνέργεια and δύο ἐνέργειαι, he proceeds, are, moreover, approved neither by the Holy Scriptures nor by the Synods; and they should be avoided, because their use produces new controversies. But why was there in Christ only one will? Because, says Honorius, He assumed, not the human nature which was corrupted by the Fall, but the uncorrupted nature, as it was before the Fall. In the ordinary man there are certainly two wills—a will of the mind and a will of the members (Rom. 7:23); but the latter is only a consequence of the Fall, and therefore could not exist in Christ. So far Honorius was quite on the right way; but he did not accurately draw the inferences. He ought now to have said: Hence it follows that in Christ, since He was God and man at the same time, together with His divine will, which is eternally identical with that of the Father, only the incorrupt human will, which never opposes the divine will, could be assumed, and not also the opposing will of the members.

“This would have been the natural and necessary inference; but instead of drawing this, he leaves the incorrupt human will either entirely out of account, or more accurately, he identifies it with the divine will. Because the incorrupt human will of Christ is always subject and conformed to the divine, Honorius exchanged this moral unity of both with unity in general, or physical unity, with the latter of which we have here to do. Even the clear passages of Holy Scripture, in which Christ distinguishes His human will from that of the Father, could not decide him to recognise this human will. Exchanging difference for opposition, he thought it inadmissible to have two distinct wills in Christ, lest he should be forced to admit, in a heretical sense, two opposed and mutually contradictory wills in them.”

To this criticism we will add what we remarked before, in the first edition, on the second letter of Honorius: “He now says quite correctly, the divine nature in Christ works the divine, and the human nature performs that which is of the flesh, and we proclaim the two natures, which work unconfused, in the one Person of the only-begotten Son of God, that which is proper to them. In this Honorius pronounces the orthodox doctrine, and it would be quite incorrect to charge him with heresy.” It is thus clear that we always were of the opinion that Honorius was quite orthodox in thought, but, especially in his first letter, he had unhappily expressed himself in a Monothelite fashion. The same fundamental thought we also placed at the head of our pamphlet composed during the Vatican Council in Rome: Causa Honorii Papæ, the first sentence of which runs thus, Non ea res agitur utrum Honorius Papa in intimo corde suo heterodoxe senserit, nec ne. Still more clearly we explained ourselves there (p. 14): Eum (Honorium) itaque in corde hæretice non sensisse, at tamen reapse terminum specifice orthodoxum (δύο ἐνέργειαι) damnasse, et terminum specifice hæreticum (ἓν θέλημα) sancivisse.

This fundamental position I must still retain, that Honorius at heart thought rightly, but expressed himself unhappily; even if, in what follows, as a result of repeated new investigation of this subject, and having regard to what others have more recently written in defence of Pope Honorius, I now modify or abandon many details of my earlier statements, and, in particular, form a milder judgment of the first letter of Honorius.

That Honorius did in fact think in an orthodox sense is unmistakably plain from the following. In his first letter he placed himself exactly on the standpoint of the Council of Chalcedon and the Epistola dogmatica of Leo the Great, and starts quite correctly with the dogma: In Christ there are two natures, the divine and the human, hypostatically united in the divine Person of the Logos, and this ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀσυγχύτως. Christ is accordingly perfect God and perfect man (plene Deus et homo). This one Person, the Incarnate Logos, works both the divine and the human (there is only one Worker),—the divine by mediation of the manhood, the human … without detracting from the Godhead (plena Deitate), and, on account of this ineffable union of the divine and human nature, we may say (per communionem idiomatum): “God suffered,” and “Man came down from heaven.”

On this Chalcedonian standpoint Honorius wished to remain, and again to cover up in silence the questions which had recently been cast up, and which had disturbed the peace of the Church. Instead of solving these questions, as was possible, by correct inferences from the decisions in regard to the faith laid down at Chalcedon, Honorius wished to stifle them. It might have been well, perhaps, if he had succeeded in this; but he did not succeed, and his attempt to put them down was injurious to him and to the Church. As with the Council of Chalcedon, he confessed so energetically the hypostatic union of the two natures in Christ, and added that each of these had remained in its perfection (plene Deus et homo and plena divinitate, plena carne), also that the differences of the natures had remained, he ought to have inferred from this, that there were only two energies and two wills (the divine and the human) in Christ; for a nature without will and energy is not a perfect one (plena), indeed, scarcely a nature at all. But this inference, which resulted from his premisses, he did not set forth clearly either in regard to the wills or the energies.

In the first respect (in regard to the wills), he seems even to maintain the opposite. Speaking of the ineffabilis conjunctio of the two natures, he proceeds: Unde (ὅθεν) et unam voluntatem fatemur Domini nostri Jesu Christi. It is this very unde which occasioned our saying in the first edition: “Honorius inferred that as there was only one who willed, therefore there was only one will”; and “he laid the will on the side of the person instead of on the side of the nature.” These statements we can no longer fully maintain; on the contrary, even in the first letter of Honorius, the words opera divinitatis et humanitatis show that the humanitas and the divinitas, and thus each nature, works and wills. In the second letter of Honorius, as we shall see, the will is still more clearly placed on the side of the nature.

Let us now consider in what connection the unhappy sentence, Unde et unam voluntatem fatemur Domini nostri Jesu Christi, stands, which literally taken is quite Monothelite. Honorius intended to reply to the remark of Sergius, who had written: “The admission of two energies would also lead to the admission of two wills in Christ, of which the one is opposed to the other, since the Logos is willing to endure suffering, but the manhood opposes. This is, however, quite inaccurate, for in one subject there cannot be two contrariæ voluntates.” Entering upon this, Honorius says: Unam voluntatem fatemur Domini nostri Jesu Christi. This means at the first glance: “You are right, Sergius; we cannot admit two wills in Christ.” As reason, however, why we should admit only unam voluntatem in Christ, Honorius proceeds: “Christ did not assume the natura vitiata with its corrupt will (lex membrorum et carnis), but the uncorrupted human nature, as it was before the Fall.” Quite correct. Hence follows, however, not una voluntas in Christa, but DUÆ voluntates, the divine and the incorrupt human.

Honorius ought, partly agreeing with Sergius and partly correcting him, to have answered: (a) “You are quite right in saying that we must not ascribe two contrarias voluntates to Christ, for He did not assume the natura humana vitiata; (b) but, nevertheless, there are in Christ two wills, the divine and the incorrupt human.” Honorius in his answer neglected the latter side. The former he set forth in the words: “We acknowledge only one will in Christ, because He did not assume the vitiata natura. If he thus, to the ear, uttered the primary Monothelite proposition, yet it is clear from his own words that he in no way regarded the incorrupt will of human nature as lacking in Christ, if he did not expressly assume it. He says, e.g., “Christ did not assume the vitiata natura, quae repugnat legi mentis ejus.” He thus recognises in Christ the lex mentis; and this, according to the Pauline usage (Rom. 7:23), with which Honorius is in accord, is evidently nothing else than the incorrupt human will.

The Monothelites, however, clung simply to the phrase, unam voluntatem fatemur Domini nostri Jesu Christi, and the fact that the Pope gave utterance to this their primary proposition must have given essential assistance to their cause. Professor Pennacchi of Rome has indeed denied (p. 282), in opposition to me, that the Monothelites might have appealed to Honorius for their doctrine of only one will in Christ; but it comes out quite clearly from the disputation of Maximus with Pyrrhus, that the Monothelites adduced that passage in the first letter of Honorius as on their side (see below, sec. 303); and the Jesuit Schneemann says quite accurately, in his Studien über die Honoriusfrage (Herder, Freiburg 1864, S. 16): “It is certain that the conduct of Honorius was at least a mischievous error, and gave the greatest assistance to the Monothelite heresy. Encouraged and supported by his letters, the Greek Emperors put forth the Ecthesis and the milder form of it, the Typus, and endeavoured to give effect to those decrees by force.… Nor can we say that the error of Honorius was quite excusable. If he had gone to work with more consideration and examination, the endeavour of the Monothelite patriarch could not have remained concealed from him; and, in fact, Sophronius had sent envoys to Rome with this very purpose.”

We shall shortly see that the second successor of Honorius, Pope John IV. (see sec. 298), tried to explain and justify this unam voluntatem, by saying that Honorius, in opposition to Sergius, had only to speak of the will of the human nature, and therefore quite correctly said, we recognise only one human will in Christ. As, however, we do not find this kind of defence satisfactory, as will be seen, we believe that we can in another way explain how Honorius was led to this now ominous phrase, unam voluntatem. With perfect right he denied that there could be two CONTRARIÆ voluntates in Christ, and was convinced that the lex mentis in Christ was in constant harmony with his voluntas divina, that it was always morally one with it, and this unitas moralis he wished to bring out clearly. His words, Unde unam voluntatem fatemur Domini Jesu Christi, thus have the meaning: “On account of the ineffabilis conjunctio of the two natures in Christ, there are in Him, not two mutually opposed wills, but only one will, taken morally; i.e. only one will-tendency, one moral unity of will, since in Him the human incorrupt will was always in conformity with the divine, and was always harmonious with it.”

That Honorius meant, in fact, by his unam voluntatem, to express this moral unity of will, is clearly seen from the words which immediately follow, in which he assigns the reason why there is only una voluntas in Christ, namely, that He had assumed only the faultless human nature, as it were, before the Fall. Thus falls away of itself what we thought ourselves justified in saying in the first edition (S. 138): “Honorius interchanged the moral unity of will with the physical.” We added there: “Even the clear passages of Holy Scripture, in which Christ distinguishes His human will from that of the Father, could not decide him (Honorius) to recognise this human will.” These are the passages: “I came down from heaven, not to do Mine own will, but the will of Him that sent Me” (S. John 6:38); and, Non quod Ego volo, sed quod Tu vis, Pater (S. Mark 14:36).

Honorius adduces these passages because an opponent might infer from them, that Christ Himself said that there was in Him a will contrary to the divine, and thus duas contrarias voluntates. In opposition to this, Honorius remarks: Non sunt hæc diversæ (= contrariæ) voluntatis, sed dispensationis humanitatis assumptæ, i.e. “These passages do not refer to a will in Christ which is opposed to the divine, but to an accommodation of the human nature assumed. For our sakes has Christ thus spoken, to give us an example, that we, following in His footsteps, should ever subject our will to the divine.” It is clear, then, that he thus denied in Christ only a human will which was opposed to the divine, but not the human will generally. But, it may be asked, what are we to understand by the words dispensationis (οἰκονομίας) humanitatis assumptæ. In the first edition (S. 135), we translated: “(Christ spoke those words) from economy (accommodation) with respect to mankind, whose nature He assumed.” How this is to be understood we did not explain, but Schneemann contests the accuracy of this translation, since under suscepta humanitas we are plainly to understand the singular human nature which Christ assumed, and, by comparison of patristic passages, arrived at the result: “The meaning of the incriminated words of Honorius is as follows: The passages of Holy Scripture in which the will of Christ is opposed to the will of the Father do not point to a will which is in opposition to the divine will, but to an accommodation of the human nature assumed; i.e. to a quite voluntary condescension to our weakness, in consequence of which the assumed (human) nature of Christ had those volitions of sorrowfulness and fear in presence of the suffering willed by His Heavenly Father” (S. 46). And (S. 47) Honorius says: “Those affections in which Christ recoiled from suffering, and which He described, in the passages quoted, as acts of His will in opposition to the will of the Father, proceeded not from desire, were not in opposition to His divine will, because they were aroused by voluntary permission in His human nature.” No less (S. 50): “The Saviour, according to Honorius, said these things, not on His own account, as if the movements of His will, which received their description and their expression in those words (the unwillingness to suffer, etc.), had followed of necessity from His human nature, but for our sakes, in order to give us an example, He assumed that fear and sorrowfulness, and spoke those words in which He submitted those movements of His will to the divine will.” The accommodation consisted, then, in this, that the opposition of will to the suffering willed by the Father was not a natural necessity in Christ (because He assumed human nature), but that HE voluntarily condescended to our weakness, and allowed His human nature to receive those movements of will. I will not be answerable for this exposition of Schneemann’s, and I find the same thought in the beautiful synodal letter of Sophronius of Jerusalem, which meets us in the following paragraph, and in which it is said, “He suffered, and acted, and worked as man, when HE Himself willed, and when He regarded it as useful for the onlookers, but not when the physical and carnal movements wished to be physically moved to activity,” i.e. non ex diversa voluntate.

Thus we have again the result: Honorius denied only a will in Christ which opposed the divine, and was constrained by His own promises to recognise, along with the divine, the will of the uncorrupted human nature in Christ, which was ever in conformity with the divine. He did not, however, say this plainly, but instead, put forth the unhappy phrase with the Monothelitic sound, unam voluntatem fatemur in Domino.

In regard, then, to the question of the Energies, Honorius, at the beginning of his first letter, commends the Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople for having got rid of the new expression, μία ἐνέργεια, “which might give offence to the simple.” He disapproves, then, the Monothelite μία ἐνέργεια, which of necessity seemed offensive, not merely to the “simple,” but to all the orthodox. But he does not rise to seeing clearly that, from the orthodox point of view, the opposite δύο ἐνέργειαι should be taught; but, on the contrary, towards the end of his first letter, advises them to use this expression just as little as the opposite μία ἐνέργεια. (Hortantes vos, ut unius vel geminæ novæ vocis inductum operationis vocabulum aufugientes, etc.) Here again we see that he had only to draw the proper inferences from his own words in order to discover the truth. From the fact that he held, with the Council of Chalcedon, two perfect natures in Christ, there follows of necessity the admission of two energies or operationes. A nature without energy is a dead one, not a plena. Honorius, moreover, said, at the end of his letter: Christum in duabus naturis operatum (esse) divinitus et humanitus. And similarly, at the beginning of it: Coruscavit miraculis and τῆς σαρκὸς τὰς διαθήσεις τοὶς ὀνειδισμοῖς τοῦ πάθους ἐνεργήσας. The Latin translation is weaker: Passiones et opprobria patitur.

About the middle of the letter, however, we read: Opera divinitatis et humanitatis. What does this mean but that the divine nature in Christ worked, and also the human, i.e. that we are to admit two energies or operationes in Christ? If Honorius, nevertheless, thinks that we should speak neither of one nor of two operations, this shows that, when he wrote the first letter, the expression so often employed afterwards, operatio and ἐνέργεια, was not yet, clear to him. This is evident also from his statement, that Christ works in many ways (πολυτρόπως). By ἐνέργεια and operatio he understands, then, the concrete workings of Christ, instead of the kinds of working. In the second letter, on the contrary; as we have seen (p. 33), he expresses himself quite correctly.

Moreover, when Honorius, in his first letter, wished to know that the phrase “one or two operations or energies” was avoided, he was influenced by his desire for the peace of the Church, and by the fear lest, under the una operatio, Monophysitism might be foisted upon the Church, or, under duæ operationes, Nestorianism. And we must not, in fact, forget that, at the beginning of the Monothelite controversies, men were much less in a position to estimate correctly the range of the terms μία ἐνέργεια and δύο ἐνέργειαι than at a later period.

SEC. 297. Synod at Jerusalem, A.D. 634, and Synodal Letter of the Patriarch Sophronius

Now at last appeared the Epistola Synodica of the new patriarch, Sophronius of Jerusalem, whose long delay had already been blamed by Sergius (p. 24). This is almost the most important document in the whole Monothelite controversy; a great theological treatise, which expatiated on all the chief doctrines, especially the Trinity and the Incarnation, and richly discussed the doctrine of two energies in Christ. It brought out the nature of the subject, and Theophanes, as well as the Vita S. Maximi, testifies that of the portion on the principal subject, similar copies were sent to all the patriarchs. The copy which was sent to Sergius has come down to us among the Acts of the eleventh session of the sixth Œcumenical Council. In agreement with Theophanes and the author of the Vita Maximi (ll.cc.), the Synodicon says, Sophronius, on ascending the throne, held a Synod in Jerusalem (634), and here the rejection of Monothelitism and the solemn proclamation of Dyothelitism were decreed. Walch holds the opinion that, at that time, when Palestine was so grievously oppressed by the Saracens, Sophronius could hardly have held a Synod, and even although his epistle had been named in the sixth Œcumenical Council, this proves nothing, as it had been the fashion to call epistles written on a bishop’s enthronisation (συλλαβαῖ ἐνθρονιστικαί) by the name of συνοδδικά. The learned man did not consider that at the consecration of each new bishop, especially of a patriarch, several bishops had to be present and take part, that on such occasions, and also at the consecration of new churches, it was customary to hold Synods, and an ἐνθρονιστικόν for this very reason was called a συνοδικόν.

The letter of Sophronius begins with the assurance that, in his high position, he longed for his former peace and lowliness, and that he had undertaken the bishopric only when constrained or even tyrannically compelled. Therefore he commends himself to his colleagues, and prays that they will support him like fathers and brothers. It was an old custom that a bishop, at his entrance upon office, should lay his creed before the other bishops. This he also did, and they could examine his confession, and amend it where it was defective.

After this Introduction follows the kernel of the whole letter in the form of a Creed. The first passage treats of the Trinity without touching upon the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son. The second part, which is much more complete, is dedicated to the doctrine of the Incarnation, and speaks, in the spirit of the Council of Chalcedon and of the Edict of Justinian against the Three Chapters (vol. iv. sec. 263), of a μία ὑπόστασις Χριστοῦ σύνθετος, repeats Cyril’s expression, μία φύσις τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένη, and opposes Docetism, Nestorianism, and Monophysitism. After bringing out very clearly the unity of the person and the duality of the natures, Sophronius passes on thus to the new question: “Christ is ἓν καὶ δύο. He is ONE in hypostasis and person, but two in natures and in their natural properties. Of these HE is permanently one, and yet ceases not to be dual in nature. Therefore one and the same Christ and Son and only-begotten is recognised undivided in both natures, and HE worked φυσικῶς the works of each nature (οὐσία), according to the essential quality or natural property belonging to each nature, which would not have been possible if He possessed only one single or composite nature as well as one hypostasis. He who is one and the same could not then have perfectly performed the works of each nature. For when did the Godhead without a body perform the works of the body φυσικῶς? Or when did a body, unconnected with the Godhead, perform works which belong essentially to the Godhead? Emmanuel, however, who is one, and in this unity two, God and man, did in truth perform the works of each of the two natures: one and the same, as God the divine, as man the human. One and the same HE acts and speaks divinely and humanly. It is not one who worked the miracles, another who performed the human works and endured the sufferings, as Nestorius thought, but one and the same Christ and Son performed the divine and the human, but κατʼ ἄλλο καὶ ἄλλο, as S. Cyril taught. In each of the two natures he had the power (ἐξουσίαν, i.e. for natural working) unconfused, but also unseparated. In so far as He is eternal God, He performed the miracles; but in so far as, in the last times, He became man, did He perform the humble and human works. As in Christ each nature possesses its property inviolable, so each form (nature) works, in communion with the other, what is proper to itself. The Logos works what belongs to the Logos, in communion with the body; and the body accomplishes what belongs to the body, in union with the Logos, and yet in one hypostasis, far from any separation; for not as separated did they (the two formæ) work that which was proper to them, so that we cannot think of a separation of them (the formæ). Therefore Nestorius has no Cause for rejoicing; for neither of the two natures worked by itself, and without communion with the other, that which is proper to it, and we do not teach, as he did, two working Christs and Sons, although we recognise two forms working in communion, each of which works according to its own natural property. Moreover, we say, there is one and the same Christ who has physically accomplished the lofty and the lowly according to the physical and essential quality of each of His two natures; for the unchanged and unmingled natures were in no way deprived of those (special qualities and properties). Nor have Eutyches and Dioscurus reason for rejoicing, those teachers of the divine mingling; for each nature has in communion with the other accomplished that which is proper to it, without separation and without interchange, preserving its distinction from the other. Therefore, as on the one side we teach that one and the same Christ and Son works both, so on the other side, by the proposition that each form works in communion with the other what is proper to itself, whilst there are in Christ two forms working naturally what is proper to them, so we, as orthodox Christians, indicate no separation, rejecting both the Eutychians and the Nestorians, who, although opposed to each other, yet take common part in the impious war against us.

“Not regarding these, we recognise the special energy of each nature, and a physical energy which belongs to their essence, and which has communion with the other, which, proceeds unseparated from each essence and nature according to the physical and essential quality which dwells in it, and at the same time takes with it the unseparated and unmingled energy of the other nature (is united with it). This makes, the distinction of energies in Christ, as the existence of the natures makes the distinction of natures. For the Godhead and the manhood are not identical in their natural quality, although they are united in one hypostasis in an ineffable manner, … for God the Logos is the Word of God, and not flesh, although He has also logically (through the reason) assumed living flesh, and united it with Himself by hypostatical and physical ἕνωσις (in the sense of Cyril. Cf. vol. iv. sec. 263); and the flesh is logically made alive, but it is not Logos, although it is the flesh of God the Logos. Therefore they have not, even after the hypostatic union, the same energy undistinguishable the one from the other; and we do not confess one only natural energy, belonging to the essence and quite undistinguished in both, so that we may not press the two natures into one essence (οὐσία) and one nature, as the Acephali do.

“As, then, we ascribe an energy of its own to each of the two natures which are united unmingled in Christ, in order not to mingle the two natures which are united but not mingled, since the natures are known by their energies, and by them alone, and the difference of the natures from the difference of the energies, as those who have understanding in these things declare; so we maintain all the speech and energy (activity, action) of Christ, whether divine and heavenly or human and earthly, proceed from one and the same Christ and Son, from the one compound (σύνθετος) and unique hypostasis which is the Incarnate Logos of God, who brings forth φυσικῶς from Himself both energies unseparated and unmixed according to (κατά) His natures. According to His divine nature, by which HE is ὁμοούσιος with the Father, (He brings forth) the divine and ineffable energy; according to His human nature, by which He became ὁμοούσιος with us man—the human and earthly; and the energy is ever in accordance with the nature to which belongs.… By this, that one and the same Christ and Son works both, HE (Christ) opposes Nestorianism; but by this, that the properties of each nature remained unmingled, and He (Christ) produced the two energies of the two natures equally, … He has set aside Eutychianism. Therefore, born in the same manner as we, He is fed with milk, grows, passes through the bodily changes of age up to manhood, felt hunger and thirst like us, and like us grew weary by walking, for He put forth the same energy in walking as we do, which is an ἀνθρωπίνως ἐνεργουμένη, and, going forth in accordance with human nature, was a proof of His human nature. He went then, like us, from one place to another, as He had truly become man; and as He possessed our nature without diminution, He likewise participated in the outline (form) of the body, and had a form similar to ours. This is the bodily form to which HE was shaped in His mother’s womb, and which He will for ever preserve inviolate. Therefore HE ate when HE was hungry, drank when HE was thirsty, and drank like a man; therefore HE was, when a child, carried in the arms of the Virgin and lay on His mother’s bosom. Therefore He sat down when He was weary, and slept when He had need of sleep; experienced pain when He was struck, suffered from scourging, and endured pains of the body when He was nailed by His hands and feet to the cross; for He gave and granted to the human nature, when HE would, time to work (ἐνεργεῖν) and to suffer, which is proper to it, that His incarnation should not be regarded as mere appearance. Not unwillingly or by constraint did He undertake this, although He let it come to Him physically and humanly, and worked and acted in human movements. Such a shocking opinion be far from us! For HE who endured such sufferings in the flesh was God, who redeemed us by His sufferings, and thereby procured for us deliverance from suffering. And He suffered and acted and worked humanly, when HE Himself willed, and when He regarded it as profitable for the onlookers; and not when the natural and carnal movements willed to be naturally moved to operation; although His impious enemies sought to accomplish their malice—(He suffered only when HE willed). He had assumed a passible and mortal and perishable body, which was subject to natural and sinless feelings, and to this He appointed that, in accordance with its nature, it should suffer and labour until the resurrection from the dead. For then He released our passible and mortal and perishable part, and granted us deliverance from this. So HE voluntarily manifested the humble and human as φυσικῶς, yet remaining God in this. He was for Himself ruler over His human sufferings and actions, and not merely ruler, but also lord over them, although He had become physically flesh in a passible nature. Therefore was His humanity superior to man, not as though His nature was not human, but in so far as He had voluntarily become man, and as man had undertaken sufferings, and not by compulsion and of necessity and against His will, as is the case with us, but when and how far He willed. To those who prepared sufferings for Him He gave permission, and He yielded approval to the physically worked sufferings. His divine acts, however, the glorious and exalted, which far transcend our poverty, namely, the miracles and signs, wonder-rousing works, e.g., the conception without seed, the leaping of John in his mother’s womb, the birth without fraction, the inviolate virginity, the heavenly message to the shepherds, the announcement by the star to the magi, the knowledge without having learnt (S. John 7:15), the change of the water into wine, the strengthening of the lame, the healing of the blind, etc., etc., the sudden feeding of the hungry, the stilling of the wind and the sea, the bodily walking on the waters, the expulsion of unclean spirits, the sudden convulsion of the elements, the self-opening of the graves, the rising from the dead after three days, unhindered going forth from the watched grave in spite of stone and seal, the entering through closed doors, the miraculous and corporeal ascent into heaven, and all of the same character, which is above our understanding and above our words, and transcends all human thought, all these things were recognisable proofs of the divine being and nature of God the Logos, if they were performed by flesh and body, and not without the body quickened by reason.… He who, in hypostasis, is the one and unseparated Son with two natures, by the one worked the divine signs, by the other undertook the lower, and therefore, say those who are taught of God: If you hear opposing expressions on the one Son, distribute them according to the natures; the great and divine ascribe to the divine nature, the low and the human to the human.… Further, they say, in regard to the Son: All energy belongs to the ONE Son; but to which nature that which is wrought is proper must he learnt by the understanding. Very finely do they teach that we must confess one Emmanuel, for so is the Incarnate Logos named; and this one (and not an ἄλλοχ καὶ ἄλλος) works all, the high and the low, without exception, … all words and deeds (energies) belong to one and the same, although the one are Godlike, others manlike; and, again, others have an intermediate character, and have the Godlike and the manlike together. Of this kind is that κοινὴ (καινὴ) καὶ θεανδρικὴ ἐνέργεια of Dionysius the Areopagite, which is not one, but of two kinds, so far as it has at once the Godlike and the human, and, by a compound naming of the one and of the other nature and essence, completely discloses each of the two energies.”

The third division of the letter of Sophronius refers to the creation of the world: “The Father made all things through the Son in the Holy Spirit. The sensuous creatures have an end, the intellectual and supersensuous do not die; yet are they not by nature immortal, but through grace, as the souls of men and the angels.” Then the doctrine of the pre-existence of souls is rejected, and this and other errors of Origen condemned, especially the doctrine of the ἀποκατάστασις, against which Sophronius quotes the doctrine of the Church on the end of the world, on the future life, on hell and heaven. Further, he declares his adhesion to the five Œcumenical Councils and their declarations of faith; also, that he recognises all the writings of Cyril, especially those against Nestorius, his synodal letters with the twelve anathematisms; also, his letter of union (see vol. iii. sec. 157), and the writings of the Orientals agreeing therewith; further, the letter of Leo to Flavian, and all his letters; generally, he says he accepts all that the Church accepts, and rejects all that she rejects. In particular, he pronounces anathema on Simon Magus, etc., etc., mentioning by name a great number of heretics and heresies from the earliest times up to the different Monophysite sects and their latest leaders. At the close, he prays his colleagues again to correct what is defective in this synodal letter of his, which he will very thankfully receive, and commends to their prayers, himself, his Church, and the Emperors, to whom he wishes victory, especially over the Saracens, who at this time so grievously afflict and threaten the Roman Empire.

SEC. 298. Second Letter of Honorius. His Orthodoxy

What results the synodal letter of Sophronius produced is unknown. We only know that Sergius, as one of the speakers at the sixth Œcumenical Council asserts, did not receive it; and if Walch (Ketzerhist. Bd. ix. S. 137), in opposition to Combefis, maintains that none of the ancients knew anything of this, he has overlooked the passage in question in the synodal Acts just mentioned. Moreover, he is wrong in thinking that Sergius made another attempt to avert the threatening storm, and therefore turned to Cyrus and Honorius. In favour of this he appeals to two still extant fragments of a letter from Pope Honorius to Sergius, preserved among the Acts of the thirteenth session of the sixth Œcumenical Council; but these only show that the Pope, and not Sergius, made repeated attempts to secure peace.

The first fragment from the letter of the Pope says: “We have also written to Cyrus of Alexandria, that the newly invented expression may be rejected, one or two energies, … for those who use such expressions, what else do they want than the term: Copying one or two natures, so to introduce one or two energies. In respect to the natures, the doctrine of the Bible is clear; but it is quite idle to ascribe one or two energies to the Mediator between God and man.”

The second fragment, at the close of the letter, runs: “This we wished to bring to the knowledge of your fraternity by this letter. Moreover, with regard to the ecclesiastical dogma, and what we ought to hold and teach, on account of the simplicity of men and to avoid controversies, we must, as I have already said, assert neither one nor two energies in the Mediator between God and men, but must confess that both natures are naturally united in the one Christ, that each in communion with the other worked and acted (operantes atque operatrices; Greek, ἐνεργούσας καὶ πρακτικάς); the divine works the divine, and the human performs that which is of the, flesh (these are the well-known words of Leo I.), without separation and without mixture, and without the nature of God being changed into the manhood, or the human nature into the Godhead. For one and the same is lowly and exalted, equal to the Father and inferior to the Father … Thus keeping away, as I said, from the vexation of new expressions, we must not maintain or proclaim either one or two energies, but, instead of one energy which some maintain, we must confess that the one Christ, the Lord, truly works in both natures; and instead of the two energies they should prefer to proclaim with us the two natures, i.e. the Godhead and the assumed manhood, which work what is proper to them (ἐνεργούσας τὰ ἴδια, propria operantes) in the one Person of the only-begotten Son of God, unmingled and unseparated and unchanged. This we will make known to your brotherly Holiness, that we may harmonise in the one doctrine of the faith. We also wrote to our brethren the Bishops Cyrus and Sophronius, that they may not persist in the new expressions of one or two energies, but proclaim with us the one Christ, the divine and the human by means of both natures (we did this), although we had already emphatically impressed upon the envoys whom Sophronius sent to us, that he should not persist in the expression two energies, and they promised it to us fully on the condition that Cyrus would also desist from proclaiming μία ἐνέργεια.”

On this point we remarked in the first edition (S. 147): “If we compare this second letter with the first, we find (a) before all, the like sharp accentuating of the leading proposition: Notwithstanding the duality of the natures in Christ, there is yet only one Worker, the Lord Jesus Christ, who works the divine and human by means of both natures. There, as here, the willing and working are incorrectly regarded as proceeding from the Person and not from the nature. That we do not now maintain this latter assertion we have already remarked; and even if the first letter does not justify the assumption that Honorius, from the correct premiss, there is only one Worker, drew the false inference, therefore there is only one will, for the will lies on the side of the person, not of the nature; the second letter certainly shows more clearly that Honorius, too, sought the will on the side of the nature. We said, therefore, even in the first edition, (b) “In this second letter, however, Honorius deserts this error (with which we charged him), whether the beautiful and clear explanation of Sophronius helped him to this, or a deeper consideration of the classical words of Leo I., to which he had recourse (agit utraque forma cum alterius communione, quod proprium est), led him to it.

“Setting aside the unsavoury πολυτρόπως ἐνεργεῖ (of the first letter), he now says quite correctly: We confess that the two natures are naturally united in the one Christ, that each works and acts in communion with the other,—the divine nature in Christ works the divine, and the human performs that which is of the flesh; and, “We proclaim the two natures which work unmingled in the one Person of the only-begotten Son of God that which is proper to them (propria operantes). In this Honorius pronounced the orthodox doctrine, and it would be quite wrong to charge him with heresy.”

Thus we wrote even in the first edition. We now add that Honorius in this passage declares for two natures in Christ, and to each of the two natures he ascribes its own ἐνεργεῖν, and therewith also a will. He there speaks of the two natures as ἐνεργούσας καὶ πρακτικάς and propria operantes. But we must with all this repeat what we said in the first edition: In contradiction to these his own utterances, Honorius yet demands again the avoidance of the orthodox phrase, δύο ἐνέργειαι. After himself saying, “Both natures work what is proper to them,” it was inconsistent to disapprove of the phrase, two energies.

The most offensive thing in the first letter of Honorius, the expression ἕν θέλημα, is no longer expected in the fragment of the second letter.

A defence of Honorius was undertaken, A.D. 641, by his second successor, Pope John IV., in a letter to the Emperor Constantine (son of Heraclius), entitled Apologia pro Honorio Papa. When Pope John learnt that the Patriarch Pyrrhus of Constantinople appealed to Honorius in defence of the doctrine of one will, he wrote to the Emperor: “The whole West is scandalised by our brother, the Patriarch Pyrrhus, proclaiming, in his letters which are circulated in all directions, novelties which are contrary to the rule of faith, and referring to our predecessor, Pope Honorius of blessed memory, as of his opinion, which was entirely foreign to the mind of the Catholic Father (quod a mente Catholici patris erat penitus alienum). The Patriarch Sergius communicated to the said Roman bishop that some maintained two contrarias voluntates in Christ. When the Pope learnt this, he answered him: As our Redeemer is monadicus unus, so was HE miraculously conceived and born above all human way and manner. He (Honorius) taught that HE was as well perfect God as perfect man, born without sin, in order to renew the noble origin (originem) which had been lost by sin. As second Adam, there was in Him no sin, either by birth or through intercourse with men. For when the Word was made flesh, and assumed all that was ours, He did not take on the vitium reatus which springs from the propagation of sin. He assumed, from the inviolate Virgin Mary, the likeness of our flesh, but not of sin. Therefore had Christ, as the first Adam, only one natural will of His humanity, not two contrarias voluntates, as we who are born of the sin of Adam, … In such wise our predecessor Honorius answered Sergius, that there were not in the Redeemer two contrariæ voluntates, i.e. also a voluntas in membris, as HE had assumed nothing of the sin of the first man. The Redeemer did indeed assume our nature, but not the culpa criminis. Let, then, no unintelligent critic blame Honorius, that he speaks only of the human and not also of the divine nature, but let him know that he answered that concerning which the patriarch inquired. Where the wound is, there the healing is applied. Even the apostle has sometimes brought forward the divine, and sometimes the human nature of Christ alone.”

As second defender of Honorius, the Roman abbot, Joannes Symponus, is brought forward, and first by S. Maximus in his disputation with the Patriarch Pyrrhus of Constantinople (see below, sec. 303). Honorius had made use of Joannes in the composition of his letter. When Pyrrhus offered the objection: “What have you to answer for Honorius, who quite plainly traced out to my predecessor one will in Christ?” Maximus answered: “Who is the trustworthy interpreter of this letter, he who composed it in the name of Honorius, or those who spoke in Constantinople what was according to their own mind?” To which Pyrrhus replied: “He who composed it.” Then Maximus: “He, then, has expressed himself on the subject, in the letter to the Emperor Constantine, which he prepared by commission of Pope John IV. the reference is to the above letter, the contents of which are repeated here substantially, although not verbally), as follows: We have (in that letter) maintained one will in Christ, not of the Godhead and manhood together, for we spoke of the one will of the manhood alone. Since Sergius had written that some were teaching two contradictory wills in Christ, we answered, that Christ had not two mutually contradictory wills, of the flesh and of the Spirit, like us men after the Fall, but only one will, which φυσικῶς χαρακτηρίζει His manhood. If, however, any one would say: “Why have you, treating of the manhood of Christ, been quite silent respecting His Godhead?” We reply: “In the first place, Honorius answered that about which Sergius inquired; and, in the second place, as in everything so also here, we have kept to the custom of Holy Scripture, which sometimes speaks of the Godhead, and sometimes of the manhood alone.”

We have already pointed out, in passing, that there is here not a second Apologia pro Honorio, but only that of Pope John IV., since the Abbot Joannes Symponus had also composed the letter of John IV. to the Emperor (Apologia pro Honorio), as he was also the composer of the letters of Honorius to Sergius. What Maximus here makes the Abbot Joannes say, is nothing else than what this abbot had conceived by commission of Pope John IV., and what we therefore have adduced as Apologia of John IV. The thoughts are the same, only that Maximus quoted ex memoria, and not with perfect verbal accuracy (this remark is wanting in the first edition).

If we said in the first edition, “This interpretation of the letter of Honorius given by Pope John and Abbot John appears to us suavior quam verior,” we can even now not regard it as quite admissible. We allow that Honorius spoke of the una voluntas in such a manner that he excluded only a corrupt human will in Christ; and it is also correct to say, as does Pope John IV., that the whole West understood the letter of Honorius in an orthodox sense. But that is not correct, which is made so prominent in this apology, that, in answering Sergius, he had only of the manhood of Christ to speak, and had no occasion to speak of anything else than of the human will of Christ. The apology says: “It should be known that he answered that which Sergius asked.” But Sergius did in no way ask whether we should admit in Christ, along with the natural human will, also that of the natura vitiata or the lex membrorum. He asked nothing at all on this subject, but quite definitely maintained “that in Christ there can be only one will”; for two wills Sergius regarded only as contrarias. Nor is it correct to say that Honorius, as the apology declares, wrote: “Christ, as the first Adam, had only ONE natural will of HIS MANHOOD.” The words “of His manhood” are an addition of the apologists. The corresponding words in Maximus, “one will which φυσικῶς χαρακτηρίζει His manhood,” are likewise not found in the letter of Honorius. If Honorius had really, as the apologist says, “applied the healing where the wound was”; if he had answered correctly what Sergius laid before him, he must have said, “There are certainly not in Christ two contrariæ voluntates, because HE did not assume the vitiata natura humana; but also, not merely one will, but along with the divine stands the uncorrupted human will, which is always in conformity with the divine. That would have been the correct reply to the false assertion of Sergius.

The celebrated Abbot Maximus, of whom we shall speak more at large further on, has also defended Honorius in his tome to the Priest Maximus, and, in a manner similar to our own, has drawn from his own words the conclusion, that he had himself recognised two wills in Christ, the divine and the incorrupt human. Maximus, however, added: “The excellent Abbot Anastasius, returning from Rome, related that he had spoken with and inquired of the most distinguished priests of that great Church, in detail, on the ἐξ αὐτῶν γραφεῖσαν ἐπιστολήν to Sergius, Why and in what way one will in Christ had been asserted in that letter. Anastasius found them troubled and apologetic on the subject (ἀσχάλλοντας ἐν τούτῳ καὶ ἀπολογουμένους). Besides, he spoke with the Abbot Joannes Symponus, who had prepared that letter in Latin by command of Honorius. He asserted: ‘Quod nullo modo mentionem in ea per numerum fecerit omnis omnimodæ voluntatis’;” i.e. that there was not a numerical unity of will in Christ asserted in the letter, but this had been done by those who had translated the letter into Greek. It was not the human will generally, but only the corrupt will in Christ that was denied. It is quite possible that the Monothelites, in their translations and copies of the letter of Honorius, introduced slight alterations, so as to give a complete Monothelite significance to the phrase, unam voluntatem, etc. But the Greek text which we have still before us cannot be regarded as falsified; for, when this Greek translation was read aloud in the twelfth session of the sixth Œcumenical Council, it was compared by the Roman deputy, Bishop John of Portus, with the Latin original which lay in the patriarchal archives at Constantinople, and was found correct. Moreover, the successors of Honorius in the Roman see never contested the genuineness of these letters, although they knew that the Monothelites appealed to them, and that the sixth Œcumenical Synod wanted to pronounce, and did pronounce, an anathema upon Honorius on account of these letters.

Thus there remains for us the result: The two letters of Pope Honorius, as we now possess them, are unfalsified, and show that Honorius, of the two Monothelite terms ἕν θέλημα and μία ἐνέργεια, himself used (in his first letter) the former; but the latter, and also the orthodox expression δύο ἐνέργειαι, he did not wish to be used. If, in his second letter, he repeated the latter (the disapproval of the expression δύο ἐνέργειαι), yet here he himself recognised two natural energies in Christ, and in both letters he so expresesd himself, that it must be admitted that he did not deny the human will generally, but only the corrupt human will in Christ; but although orthodox in his thought, he did not sufficiently see through the Monothelite tendency of Sergius, and expressed himself in such a way as to be misunderstood, so that his letters, especially the first, seemed to confirm Monothelitism, and thereby practically helped onward the heresy.

In this manner is settled the question respecting the orthodoxy of Pope Honorius; and we hold, therefore, the middle path between those who place him on the same grade with Sergius of Constantinople and Cyrus of Alexandria, and number him with the Monothelites, and those who, allowing no spot in him, have fallen into the misfortune of nimium probantes, so that they would prefer to deny the genuineness of the Acts of the sixth Œcumenical Council and of several other documents, or even to ascribe to the sixth Council an error in facto dogmatico. In opposition to the latter, the appellants (Jansenists) came forward with the argument: If you maintain that the sixth Œcumenical Council fell into an error facti, we may maintain the same also in regard to Pope Clement XI. and his Constitution Unigenitus. But there is a great difference between the appellants and those apologists of Honorius. The latter proposed (a) their view out of reverence of the holy see, and (b) from this proceeded to the view that the letters of Honorius, or even the letter of Sergius, which Honorius answered, were afterwards falsified, and in false copies were laid before the sixth Œcumenical Synod, so that this formed a quite correct judgment in rejecting the (certainly pseudo-) Honorius. Or (c) they contested, like Pennacchi, the Œcumenical character of the sentence of the sixth Council against Honorius. See below, sec. 324.

The middle path, which we hold to be the right one, and have explained above, is, however, essentially different from that which Garnier supposed he had discovered, and on which so many distinguished theologians and scholars followed him. According to this, it is conceded that the sixth Œcumenical Synod did really and properly anathematise the letters of Honorius, but not as containing anything heretical, for they were entirely free from this, but only ob imprudentem silentii œconomiam, because Honorius, by requiring this silence, had given powerful assistance to the heresy. In opposition to this we maintain, (a) Honorius gave assistance to the heresy, not merely by requiring silence, but much more by the unhappy expression, unde unam voluntatem fatemur Domini nostri Jesu Christi, as well as by his disapproval of the orthodox term δύο ἐνέργειαι. The Monothelites rested upon this, and not upon the silence enjoined. (b) At the same time, the letters of Honorius, especially the first, are not so entirely without fault as this hypothesis assumes; they contain, at least in their literal meaning, erroneous teaching, (c) Finally, we shall see (sec. 324) that the sixth Œcumenical Synod pronounced anathema on Honorius by no means merely on account of an imprudens silentii œconomia.

Gfrörer (Kirchengeschichte, Bd. iii. pt. i. S. 54) supposed that the letters of Honorius were the stipulated return for the great complacency shown to him not long before by the Emperor Heraclius. None of the previous Popes, not even Gregory the Great, had succeeded, in spite of repeated efforts, in uniting again with Rome the metropolitan see of Aquileia-Grado, with its ecclesiastical province, which had been in a state of schism since the controversy of the Three Chapters. But Honorius, more fortunate than his predecessors, had carried through the great work, had expelled Fortunatus, the schismatical archbishop of Grado, and had placed Primogenius, “a partisan of Rome,” on the metropolitan chair of Istria—by means of armed assistance from the Greek exarch. “Can it be doubted for a moment,” exclaims Gfrörer, “that the subjection of the Istrian Church under the see of Peter was the price for which Honorius entered the Monothelite league? One hand washes the other.”

I cannot bestow upon this hypothesis the commendation which it has received from Kurtz in his Manual of Church History (1853, Bd. i. S. 181). Apart from the fact that Primogenius is very inaptly named a partisan of Rome (he was a subdeacon of the Roman Church), the substructure of Gfrörer’s edifice is untenable; for it is not correct to say that none of the Popes before Honorius had succeeded in uniting the see of Grado. Such a union, in fact, took place in the year 607. The see of Aquileia-Grado received in Candidian an orthodox metropolitan; and all the bishops of this ecclesiastical province, whose sees lay in the imperial territory, forsook the schism. What, then, happened under Pope Honorius? The schismatic Fortunatus had, with the help of the Longobardi, possessed himself of the see of Grado, and endeavoured to renew the schism. His suffragans were indignant at this, and the imperial governor (exarch) at Ravenna also threatened him, so that Fortunatus found it well to flee into the country of the Longobardi, first stealing the treasure of the Church (629 or 630). Pope Honorius now placed the Roman subdeacon Primogenius in the see of Grado, and demanded of the Longobardi, vainly, indeed, the surrender of those valuables of the Church of Grado. We still possess his letter on this subject to the bishops of Istria, at the close of which the passage occurs which Baronius misunderstood: “In similar cases the fathers of the Christianissima respublica would do the like,” i.e. give up stolen goods that had been brought into their country. Baronius thought that by Christianissima respublica Venice was to be understood; but Muratori, long ago, correctly remarked (History of Italy, vol. iv.) that quite commonly this expression is used to designate the Roman Empire. From what has been said, however, it is clear that the union of the see of Grado and its suffragans was earlier than the time of Pope Honorius, and that under him only a temporary disturbance of the union was ended. This disturbance, in itself untenable through the opposition of the suffragans, did not need to be bribed with the blood-money of the consent to heresy.

We have already seen, to some extent, from the apology of John IV., what judgment was formed of Honorius at Rome. In agreement with this, Martin I. and his Lateran Synod, A.D. 649, and so Pope Agatho and his Synod in 680, did not reckon Honorius among the Monothelites, but rather held his memory in honour, and expressed themselves as though all previous Popes had been opponents of the heresy. We shall see more fully (sec. 324) how they spoke of Honorius in Rome after the sixth Œcumenical Council.

On the question: Whether the two letters of Honorius were put forth ex cathedrâ, as it is called, or not, the views among his defenders are very different. Pennacchi maintains that they were put forth auctoritate apostolica (l.c. p. 169 sqq.), whilst Schneemann (l.c. S. 63) holds the opposite opinion. For my own part, I confess myself here on the side of Pennacchi, since Honorius intended to give first to the Church af Constantinople, and implicite to the whole Church, an instruction on doctrine and faith; and in his second letter he even uses the expression: Ceterum, quantum ad DOGMA ECCLESIASTICUM pertinet, … non unam vel duas operationes in mediatore Dei et hominum definire debemus.

SEC. 299. The Ecthesis of the Emperor Heraclius, A.D. 638

The answer of Constantinople to the synodal letter of Sophronius was the Ecthesis (setting forth of the faith) of the Emperor Heraclius. The successor of Sergius, Pyrrhus, patriarch of Constantinople, says on this subject in his disputation with Maximus: “The unseasonable letter of Sophronius has rendered it necessary for us (in Constantinople), against our will, so to act,” i.e. to put forth the Ecthesis. That Sergius was its composer is uncontested, and is by the Emperor Heraclius himself declared. In order to separate the discontent of the Westerns, on account of the Ecthesis, from his person, he wrote in the beginning of the year 641 to Pope John IV.: “The Ecthesis is not mine, and I have not recommended its promulgation, but the Patriarch Sergius drew it up five years ago, and on my return from the East petitioned me to publish it with my subscription.”

For the authorship of Sergius, moreover, there is the testimony of the great inner relationship between the Ecthesis and his letter to Pope Honorius (see above, p. 22). Maximus professes to know that Sergius and his friends had obtained the publication of the Ecthesis by means of presents to the Emperor; and the biographer of S. Maximus appears to indicate that the consent to the marriage of the Emperor with his niece Martina was the price at which the patriarch bought the Ecthesis. But this uncanonical marriage was concluded in the year 616. When Walch adds (Ketzerhist. Bd. ix. S. 142), it was designated by Sergius as incest, it is certainly true that the patriarch disapproved of it; but it is still undeniable that he showed himself weak, and crowned Martina.

That the Ecthesis was drawn up in the course of the twelfth year of indietion was declared by Pope Martin I. at the Lateran Synod of the year 649. That twelfth year of indiction began with September 1, 638; and as Sergius died in the December of the same year, the Ecthesis must necessarily be placed between September and December 638, and not in the year 639. Pagi showed this (ad ann. 639, n. 2 and 8) in opposition to Baronius. It is preserved for us in the third secretarius (session) of the Lateran Synod already mentioned, bears the form of a creed, explains first the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, then passes on to the Incarnation, treats this in the sense of Chalcedon, and then proceeds to the principal subject, namely, (α) the prohibition of the expressions μία and δύο ἐνέργειαι, because both were explained in a heretical sense, and (β) asserting one single will (θέλημα) in Christ. The principal passages run: “In regard to the mystery of the Person of Christ is the ἕνωσις κατὰ σύνθεσιν (see vol. iv. sec. 263) to be confessed without σύγχυσις and διαίρεσις. It preserves the property of each of the two natures, but shows one hypostasis and one person of God the Logos with (united with) the reasonably quickened flesh; whereby not a Quaternity is introduced instead of a Trinity, since there is not a fourth Person added to the Trinity, but the eternal Logos thereof has become flesh. And not another was HE who worked miracles, and another who endured sufferings, but we acknowledge one and the same Son, who is at the same time God and man, one hypostasis, one person, suffering in the flesh, impassible in the Godhead; to Him and the same belong the miracles and the sufferings, which HE voluntarily endured in the flesh.…

“All divine and human energy we ascribe to one and the same Incarnate Logos, and render one worship to Him, who, for our sake, was voluntarily and truly crucified in the flesh, and rose from the dead, etc.; and we do not at all allow that any one should maintain or teach one or two energies of the Incarnate Lord, but demand that there should be confessed, as the holy and Œcumenical Synods have handed it down, that one and the same only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, works both the divine and the human, and that all Godlike and manlike energy proceeds from one and the same Incarnate God the Logos without mixture and without separation, and refers back to one and the same. Because the expression, one energy, although some of the Fathers use it, yet sounds strange to the ears of some, and disquiets them, since they are made suspicious lest it should be used in order to set aside the two natures which are hypostatically united in Christ; and (since) in the same way many take offence at the expression, two energies, since it is not used by any of the holy Fathers, and then we should be obliged, as a consequence, to teach two mutually contradictory wills, as if God the Logos, aiming at our salvation, was willing to endure suffering, but His manhood had opposed itself to this His will, which is impious and foreign to the Christian dogma—when even the wicked Nestorius, although he, dividing the Incarnation, introduced two Sons, did not venture to maintain two wills of the same, but, on the contrary, taught the like willing of the two persons assumed by him; how can, then, the orthodox, who worship only one Son and Lord, admit in Him two, and those mutually opposed wills?—therefore must we, following the Fathers in everything and so also in this, confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ, the true God, so that at no time His rationally quickened flesh was separated, and, of its own impulse (ὁρμή), in opposition to the suggestion of God the Logos, hypostatically united with it, fulfilled its natural motion (that of the flesh), but only at the time and in the manner and in the measure in which the Word willed. These dogmas of piety have been handed down to us by those who from the beginning have themselves seen the Word, and have been with Him, serving Him; and also by their disciples and successors and all later God-enlightened teachers of the Church, or, which is the same, the five holy and Œcumenical Synods, etc. And we ordain that all Christians shall thus think and teach, without adding or taking away anything.”

We see that the Ecthesis, in its contents, agrees with the letter of Sergius to Honorius; and the patriarch of Constantinople did not, therefore, first come to these views in opposition to the Synodica of Sophronius, but had done so a considerable time before its appearance. On the contrary, the agreement of the Ecthesis with the two letters of Honorius is only apparent. The latter certainly also disapproves of the expressions μία and δύο ἐνέργειαι; but he stumbles only at the word, not at the thing; for in his second letter he says himself: “The divine nature works in Christ the divine, and the human accomplishes the human.” He thus teaches, in fact, two energies, although he objects to the employment of the term. And so his phrase, Unam voluntatem fatemur is, in its meaning, essentially different from the like-sounding thesis of the Ecthesis (see above, p. 35).

SEC. 300. Two Synods at Constantinople, A.D. 638 and 639. Adoption of the Ecthesis

It was naturally the wish of the Emperor that the Ecthesis should be universally received, and there was a prospect of this, especially as Sophronius, the chief representative of Dyothelitism, was prevented from taking part in the controversy on account of the siege and capture of Jerusalem by the Arabs, A.D. 637, and died before the appearance of the Ecthesis, and his chair had come into the hands of the Monothelite Bishop Sergius of Joppa. It was also hoped that the other patriarchs would assent. Macedonius of Antioch, whom we have not hitherto met, was uncanonically appointed and consecrated by Sergius. His episcopal city, threatened, and in the year 638 actually taken by the Arabs, he had not entered, but had remained in Constantinople, and had here taken his stand on the Monothelite side. Sergius, however, held, in the last months of A.D. 638, a Synod at Constantinople (perhaps ἐνδημοῦσα), which approved the Ecthesis, as harmonising with the apostolic doctrine, and ordered its universal acceptance, threatening that, if any one should, in future, teach one or two energies, if he were a bishop or cleric, he should be deposed; if a monk or a layman, he should be excluded from the holy communion, until he amended. Soon afterwards Sergius died, in the December of the same year. His successor, Pyrrhus, who ascended the throne in January 639, was a Monothelite, and held also a Synod at Constantinople in the year 639, which not only confirmed the Ecthesis anew, but provided that even the absent bishops should be required to accept it.

In Alexandria, Cyrus with great joy read the Ecthesis which the patriarch of Constantinople had sent to him accompanied by a letter, and had hymns sung, because God had sent His people so wise an Emperor, as he relates in his still extant answer to Sergius.

SEC. 301. Death of Pope Honorius. The Ecthesis is rejected at Rome

When the copy of the Ecthesis sent to Italy arrived there, Pope Honorius had already died, in October 638. We must even conclude, from the letter of Cyrus to Sergius just referred to, that the intelligence of the death of Honorius and the election of Severinus had come to Constantinople before the sending out of the Ecthesis. The election of Severinus took place soon after the death of Honorius, and the representative of the imperial exarch Isaac seized the opportunity of taking possession of the papal Lateran palace, in order to plunder it. The newly elected Pope and others in vain offered opposition; Isaac now himself came to Rome, had all the gold and valuables removed from the palace, and shared them with the Emperor. In order to obtain the imperial confirmation of the election which had been made, the Roman clergy sent several representatives to Constantinople. They were detained there for a considerable time, and at last received the declaration that the confirmation of the new Pope was not to be obtained, unless they promised to persuade him to the acceptance of the dogmatic document (the Ecthesis), which was handed to them. In order to draw themselves out of the snare, they pretended to agree, and promised to inform the Pope of this demand, and to bring him that document. The imperial confirmation of the election was now drawn up, and an order given for the consecration of Severinus. It took place May 28, 640; but the Pope died two months and four days afterwards, after he had rejected Monothelitism, and had, as is supposed, held a Roman Synod for this purpose, A.D. 640. What is certain is, that his successor, John IV., who was consecrated December 24, 640, soon after his elevation, and even before the death of the Emperor Heraclius (†February 11, 641), at a Roman Synod, pronounced anathema on Monothelitism. The Acts of this Synod have not come down to us, but Theophanes and the Synodicon speak of it. The latter professes to know that their anathema was pronounced upon Sergius, Cyrus, and Pyrrhus, at Rome. As, however, Pope John IV., in a somewhat more recent letter to the Emperor, refers to the departed Sergius with the words venerandæ memoriæ episcopus, and in the same way the succeeding Pope, Theodore, calls Pyrrhus sanctissimus, we must assume that the Synod pronounced anathema on the heresy, and not on certain persons.

Pope John IV. is said (by the Synodicon) to have acquainted the two sons of the Emperor, David and Heraclius, with the decision of this Roman Synod, and sent them a statement (τύπος) of the orthodox doctrine. It seems to me that this must mean the letter to be next described, which the Pope, after the death of the Emperor Heraclius, addressed to his sons. The Synodicon also says that “he sent this later.” On the other hand, he gave the Patriarch Pyrrhus of Constantinople immediate notice of his sentence against the Ecthesis, and thereby occasioned the Emperor Heraclius to shift the fault of its composition from himself on to the departed Sergius, in that letter to which we referred above (p. 61). Soon afterwards the Emperor Heraclius died of dropsy, February 11, 641 (Pagi, ad ann. 641, 2), and there succeeded him, in accordance with his arrangement, his two eldest sons, Heraclius Constantinus (from his first marriage), and Heraclius the younger, or Heracleonas (from his second marriage). Both were required to do honour to Martina, the mother of the latter, as mother of both.

When Pope John IV. received intelligence of this change in the throne, he sent a letter of some length, which is still extant, to the two young Emperors, in order to explain to them the true doctrine on the energies and wills in Christ, and, at the same time, to vindicate the orthodoxy of his predecessor, Honorius. Pyrrhus of Constantinople, he says in this letter, circulated, as he heard, in the whole of the East, a letter in which new doctrine was taught and maintained. Pope Honorius had also been said to be of the same view. After John IV. had opposed this, and had sought to vindicate Honorius in the manner explained above (p. 52), he proceeds: “The doctrine of one will is heretical. Ask only the defenders of this doctrine, which this one will is, whether the human or the divine?” If they say the divine, they are contradicted by the true manhood of Christ, and they fall into Manichæism. If, however, they maintain that the one will of Christ is human, they will be condemned with Photinus and the Ebionites as deniers of the Godhead of Christ; if, again, they adopt a mingled will, they at the same time mingle the natures, and with the expression una operatio they, like Eutyches and the Severians, say, unam naturam Christi operari. I have learned, he says in conclusion, that the bishops have been required to subscribe a document with new doctrines (certainly the Ecthesis), to the prejudice of the Epistola of Leo and the Synod of Chalcedon; but the Emperors will certainly have this foisted-in document torn away, and restrain the innovators, for the report of this has troubled the West and the faithful of the chief city.

What impression this letter made we know not, but Zonaras rightly maintains that the Emperor Heraclius Constantinus was orthodox, and had not inherited his father’s error, and this must have had important consequences, if he had not died seven months afterwards. It was believed that his stepmother Martina had him poisoned, in order to obtain the empire exclusively for her own son, Heracleonas. The Patriarch Pyrrhus is also said to have been implicated in this crime. But Heracleonas was himself, after six months, overthrown by a revolution, his nose and his mother Martina’s tongue being cut off, and both exiled. The Patriarch Pyrrhus fled to Africa, and the throne was taken by Constans II., named also Constantinus, the son of Heraclius Constantinus, a grandson of the elder Heraclius, who soon gave a friendly answer to the letter of the Pope to his father, mentioned above, with the assurance that he was orthodox, and that he had ordered the condemned document to be removed.

SEC. 302. The Synods of Orleans and Cyprus. Pope Theodore

Pope John IV. had rightly asserted that the West rejected the Monothelite view. Outside Italy this was now shown already in France and Africa, whilst other provinces of the West, e.g. Spain, took notice later of the new heresy. In France it was rejected by a Synod at Orleans even before the year 640. A foreigner, pulsus a partibus transmarinis, had come to the city of Autun, and had endeavoured to disseminate the Monothelite doctrine. When this came to the ears of S. Eligius, then master of the mint at the Frankish Court at Paris, he discussed the subject with his friend S. Audœnus and other orthodox men, and procured the summoning of a Synod at Orleans by King Chlodwig II. Like a serpent, the heretic, for a considerable time, was able to escape from the arguments of the orthodox, until, to the general joy, Bishop Salvius overcame him and convicted him. Upon this the sentence of the bishops against him was published in all the cities, and he was banished from Gaul. Thus relates S. Audœnus (Ouen), in the biography of his friend Eligius (in Surius, ad December 1); and as, according to his account, all this happened before Eligius became bishop of Noyon, and Audœnus archbishop of Rouen (both were consecrated May 21, 640), the Synod, with respect to the date of which so many mistakes have been made, must be placed before the year 640, probably in 638 or 639.

John IV. died in Rome, October 11, 642, and his successor, Theodore I., like him, opposed decidedly the heresy, without allowing himself to be imposed upon by Greek cunning. The new Patriarch, Paul of Constantinople, raised to the throne after the banishment of Pyrrhus, had recourse to Rome in order to obtain recognition of his election. His letter is lost, but we still possess the answer of Pope Theodore, and see from this that Paul wished the Romans to believe that he was different and better and more orthodox than the banished Pyrrhus, whilst practically the Ecthesis remained in force in the East, and the promise given by the Emperor, to have it everywhere suppressed, had not been fulfilled. The Pope writes: “We inform you that we have received the synodal letter of your fraternity. It appears from this that you have entered upon the episcopal office with a mingled feeling of fear and hope, and rightly, for that is a great burden.… That which Pyrrhus undertook against the true faith is deprived of power, as well by the declaration of the apostolic see under our predecessor as by command of the Emperor (in having the Ecthesis suppressed). Why, then, has not your fraternity removed that document which was posted up at public places, since it is now quashed? If you say yourself that the undertaking of Pyrrhus is to be rejected, why, then, have you not removed this paper from the wall? No one ever honours that which he abhors. But if you, which God forbid, receive this document, why have you been silent on this subject in your synodal letter?… Moreover, we wondered that the bishops who consecrated your fraternity called Pyrrhus sanctissimus, and remarked that he had resigned the Church of Constantinople because the people hated him and rose up against him. We thought, therefore, that we should postpone the granting of your request (the confirmation) until Pyrrhus has been formally deposed. For hatred and a riot of the populace cannot deprive one of his bishopric. He ought to have been punished canonically, if your consecration was to be faultless and valid.… You must, therefore, hold an assembly of bishops, in order to examine his affair, and our archdeacon Sericus, as well as our deputy and deacon Martin, will be our representatives there. Pyrrhus need not himself be personally present, as his fault and his heretical writings are universally known; and for these he may certainly be condemned. For he heaped praise upon Heraclius, who anathematised the orthodox doctrine, subscribed his sophistical edict (the Ecthesis), seduced other bishops to the same, and allowed that document to be posted up to the disparagement of the Council of Chalcedon.… In case, however, your fraternity should apprehend that the adherents of Pyrrhus might hinder such a judgment in Constantinople, we have petitioned the Emperor by letter to send Pyrrhus to Rome, that he may be judged here by a Synod. A number of contentions may spring up on account of your elevation, unless they are cut at the roots by the canonical sickle.… That document, however (the Ecthesis), we declare, with all our powers, as invalid and anathematised, and we abide by the old doctrine.… Your fraternity, in agreement with us, will teach and proclaim the same by word and deed.”

A second letter which Pope Theodore sent at the same time to Constantinople bears, in Anastasius, the superscription Exemplar propositionis, and it is nowhere said or indicated for whom it was destined. But from the expression Fraternitatis vestræ, which is in the context, we must conclude that it had been addressed to bishops, or at least to clergy,—perhaps to the clergy of Constantinople, or to the bishops present there. Possibly it was an Encyclical to all the bishops of the East, and it contains the demand, that what Pyrrhus had done in opposition to the Chalcedonian Council should be rejected, even as the Pope abhorred his rash innovation, and anathematised the document which was posted up in public places.

Finally, the Pope wrote also to the bishops who had consecrated Paul. He rejoices that he has come in the place of Pyrrhus, but he cannot conceal that the latter ought to have been deposed in a canonical manner, so that objections should not afterwards arise, and divisions be occasioned. And, in fact, good grounds would be alleged for his canonical deposition, inasmuch as he commended Heraclius, who yet anathematised the Catholic faith, confirmed the sophistical heterodox document, led astray other bishops to subscribe it, and posted it up in public. What should now be done was contained in the letter to Paul.

As a consequence of this energetic action, the metropolitan Sergius of Cyprus, in his own name and in that of his brethren, as it appears, despatched to the Pope a letter resolved upon at a Cyprian Synod (of May 29, 643), to the effect that his, the Pope’s, orthodox ordinance left nothing to desire; that the Cyprian bishops acknowledge with Leo: Agit utraque forma cum alterius communione, quod proprium est, and that they, supported by the Pope, were ready to endure martyrdom in behalf of the orthodox faith. On the other hand, all that had been written in opposition to the Council of Chalcedon, to the letter of Leo, and to the wisdom of the present Pope, should be annulled. Hitherto they had been silent, as their former metropolitan, Arcadius of blessed memory, who was quite orthodox (see p. 12 f.), was in hope that those who had erred would still come to a better mind; but now they must no longer look on while tares were being sown. “This,” says the metropolitan at the close, “is the mind of the holy Synod assembled around me (τῆς καθʼ ἡμᾶς ἱερᾶς συνόδου.… I and all who are with me greet you in the Lord.”

SEC. 303. Abbot Maximus and his Disputation with Pyrrhus

In the meantime the Abbot Maximus, who was henceforth to be the most valorous champion, and even a martyr for the cause of Dyothelitism, indignant at the progress of the heresy in the East, had left Constantinople in order to go to Rome. Although the name of this remarkable man has already been frequently mentioned, still it is yet in place to recall the earlier events of his life. Born about the year 580 of an old and distinguished family of Constantinople, he had by his remarkable talents and bearing attracted the attention of the Emperor Heraclius, and became his chief secretary, a man of influence and consideration. But in the year 630 he forsook the path of worldly honours, and became a monk in the convent at Chrysopolis (now Scutari), on the opposite shore from Constantinople, as it is thought, both from love of solitude and from dissatisfaction with the position which his master took in the Monothelite controversy. When Sophronius first came forward (A.D. 633) against the new heresy in Alexandria, Maximus was in his company, as he says himself in his letter to Peter. The incompleteness of the Vita Maximi, written by one of his admirers, leaves it doubtful whether he was abbot at that time. It does not mention this first journey to Africa, and speaks only of the second, which drew after it the disputation with Pyrrhus, A.D. 645, and the holding of several African Synods, A.D. 646. On the authority of the Chronicle of Nicephorus (Pagi, ad ann. 642, 1), it is believed that the Patriarch Pyrrhus was formerly abbot of Chrysopolis, and so the predecessor of Maximus, so that when Pyrrhus in the year 639 ascended the patriarchal throne, Maximus became his successor as abbot. But apart from the fact that the Vita Maximi (c. 5) speaks of his predecesor in such a manner that we can see he has died, and refers to him in the most respectful manner, which it would not have done in reference to Pyrrhus,—apart from this, Pyrrhus says expressly, at the beginning of his disputation with Maximus, that “previously he had not known him by sight.” Pyrrhus, then, could not have been the abbot of Maximus nor his predecessor in the rule of the convent.

When the Monothelite heresy spread more and more in Constantinople, Maximus resolved to betake himself to Rome, and on the way thither came for the second time to Africa. During a protracted residence there he had much intercourse with the bishops of those parts, and also found a patron in the imperial viceroy, Gregory, and gave general warnings against the Monothelite heresy. To this time also belongs the remarkable disputation between Maximus and the deposed and banished Patriarch Pyrrhus of Constantinople, which, according to the superscription, took place somewhere in Africa, in July 645, in presence of the imperial viceroy and many bishops. The complete Acts have come down to us, and contain a very complete discussion both of the orthodox Dyothelite doctrine and of the objections from the other side. Maximus showed in this much dialectical ability and great superiority to Pyrrhus, whom at times he treated with scant courtesy.

Pyrrhus opened the discussion with the words: “What have I, or what has my predecessor (the Patriarch Sergius), done to you that you everywhere decry us as heretics? Who has honoured you more than we, although we did not know you by sight?” Maximus replied: “The latter is correct; but since you have violated the Christian dogma, I was forced to place your favour behind the truth.… The doctrine of one will is contrary to Christianity; for what is more impious than to maintain that the same will by which all things were created, after the Incarnation, longed for food and drink?” Pyrrhus: “If Christ is only one person, this one so willed; thus there is only one will.” M. “That is confusion. In truth, the one Christ is God and man at the same time. If, however, He is both, then HE willed as God and as man, and, particularly, that which was suitable to the particular nature; no nature dispensed with its will and its energy. If the duality of the natures does not divide the one Christ, no more is this done by the duality of wills and operations.” P. “But two wills presuppose two willers.” M. “That you have certainly maintained in your writings; but it is absurd. Assuming that it were so, that two wills presuppose two willers, then it must be, vice versâ, that two willers should have two wills. If you apply this to the Trinity, you must either say with Sabellius, that because in God there is only one will, there is therefore only one Person (one Wilier) in the Godhead; or you must say with Arius, because there are three willing (persons), there must therefore be in God three wills, and so three natures,—for the difference of wills, according to the teaching of the Fathers, comes from the difference of natures.” P. “But it is not possible that there should be in one person two wills that do not contradict each other.” M. “By this you will allow that there may be two wills in one person, only it is necessary that they should contradict each other. But whence comes then the contradiction? If from the natural will (in itself), then it would come from God, and God would be the Author of the conflict. But if it comes from sin, then this contradiction could not be in Christ, because He was free from all sin.” P. “The willing is then a matter of nature.” M. “Certainly the simple willing.” P. “But the Fathers say the saints had one will with God; are they, then, of the same nature as God?” M. “Here is a lack of distinction, and you interchange the object of the will (the thing willed) with the will in itself. The Fathers, by that expression, had only the object of willing in view, and used the expression will, not in the proper sense of the word.” P. “If the will is a matter of nature, then we must often change our nature, for our will changes often, and we must be of a different nature from other men; for they often will differently from ourselves.” M. “We must distinguish the will (as such) from the concrete willing of a definite thing, as we must distinguish sight from the seeing of a definite thing, e.g., whether right or left, upwards or downwards, etc., etc., they are modi of the use of the will or of sight, and by these modi one is distinguished from another.” P. “If you confess two natural wills in Christ, you take away His freedom; for what is natural is necessary.” M. “Neither the divine nor the human rational nature of Christ is other than free; for the nature which is endowed with reason has the natural power of rational desire, i.e. the θέλησις (the willing of the rational soul). But from the proposition, “the natural is necessary,” there follows an absurdity. God is natura good, natura Creator, then was it of necessity that HE should be Creator and good. And were he not free who has a natural will, then, conversely, he must be free who has no natural will, therefore that which is lifeless.” P. “I concede that there are in Christ natural wills; but, as of two natures ἕν τι σύνθετον is acknowledged by us, so must we also of two wills admit ἕν τι σύνθετον; and therefore they who acknowledge two wills, because of the duality of nature, should not contend with those who assume only one will because of the closest union,—it is only a strife of words.” M. “You are mistaken, because you do not perceive that unions (syntheses) take place only in things which are immediately in the hypostasis (as the natures), but not in things which are in another (as the wills in the natures). If, however, we assume a union of the wills, we should also be forced to assume a union of all the other properties of the natures, thus, e.g., a union of the created with the uncreated, of the limited with the illimitable, of the mortal with the immortal, and so come to absurd assertions.” … P. “Have not, then, the properties of the natures something in common, like the natures themselves?” M. “No, they have nothing in common (i.e. the properties of the one nature have nothing in common with those of the other), but the one hypostasis.” P. “But do not the Fathers speak of a communion of glory and a communion of humiliation when they say, the communion of the glory has one source, and another that of the ignominy?” (Thus said Leo the Great, see vol. iii. sec. 176, c. 4, where he speaks of this, that the common honour of the Godhead and manhood in Christ has a different source from the common ignominy of both.) M. “The Fathers speak here after the manner of ἀντίδοσις (of the communicatio idiomatum). This, however, presupposes two dissimilar things, since that which naturally belongs to the one part of Christ (e.g., to Him as God) is ascribed to the other part (the Son of man). And if, after the manner of the ἀντίδοσις, you call the θέλημα of Christ a κοινόν, you confess thereby not one but two wills.” P. “How? Was not the flesh of Christ moved by the suggestion of the Logos united with it?” M. “If you say this, you divide Christ; for by His suggestion also Moses was moved, and David, etc. But we say with the Fathers that the same highest God who unchanged became man, not only as God willed that which was suitable to His Godhead, but the same also as man willed that which was suitable to His manhood. As all things have the δύναμις of the existent, and this naturally is the ὁρμὴ (the inclination) to the profitable, and the ἀφορμὴ (drawing back, escaping) from the destructive, so also the Incarnate Logos had this δύμαμις of self-preservation, and showed His ὁρμὴ and ἀφορμὴ through His energy: the ὀρμὴ in the use of physical things (yet without sin), and the ἀφορμὴ when He shrunk from voluntary death. Does the Church, then, do something unsuitable when it holds fast in the human nature also the properties innate in it, without which the nature cannot be?” P. “But if there is fear in the nature, then there is something evil in it, and the human nature (of Christ) is yet free from all evil.” M. “You deceive yourself by similarity of sound. There are two kinds of fear, one according to nature and one not according to nature. The former serves for the preservation of nature, the other is irrational. Christ showed only the former; I say showed, because with Him all that was physical was voluntary. He hungered and thirsted and feared in truth, but yet not as we do, but voluntarily.” P. “We should avoid all subtleties, and simply say, Christ is true God and true man, and abstain from everything else (i.e. the properties and wills of the natures.)” M. “That would be a rejection of the Synods and Fathers, who have made declarations respecting not only the natures, but also their properties, teaching that one and the same is visible and invisible, mortal and immortal, tangible and intangible, created and uncreated. They also taught two wills, not merely by use of the number two, but also by the opposition of ἄλλο καὶ ἄλλο and by the relation of divine and human.” P. “We should speak neither of one nor of two wills, since the Synods have not done so, and the heretics misuse these expressions.” M. “If only the expressions of the Synods were to be used, then they would not say, μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη. Moreover, even if they would only hold by the Synods, they would be compelled from the two natures and their properties (which the Synod of Chalcedon taught) to infer two wills, and to recognise them. Among the properties of a nature we understand that which physically belongs to it, and to each nature of Christ there is a will akin to the nature (φυσικῶς ἐμπέφυκεν). And if the Synods anathematised Apollinaris and Arius, each of whom taught only one will, the former, because he declared that the σάρξ of Christ was of like substance with the Godhead, and Arius, because he, lowering the Son, ascribed to Him no truly divine will; how, then, can we hesitate to teach two wills? Further, the fifth Synod declared: ‘We recognise all the writings of Athanasius, Basil, Gregory,’ etc. Now, in these, two wills are clearly taught.” P. “Does not, then, the expression natural will seem objectionable to you?” M. “There are three kinds of life in creatures,—the life of the plant, the life of feeling, and the life of thought. It is the proper nature of the plant, to grow, etc.; of the creatures that feel, to desire; of the creatures that think, to will. All that is rational, then, must by nature be voluntary. Now, the Logos has assumed a rationally quickened humanity, therefore must He also, so far as He is man, be voluntary.” P. “I am convinced that the wills in Christ belong to the natures, the creaturely will to His created nature, etc., and that the two wills cannot combine into one. But those in Byzantium who oppose the natural wills maintain that the Fathers had said that the Lord had a human will κατʼ οἰκειωσιν (appropriation).” M. “There are two kinds of appropriation, namely, the essential, by which everyone has what belongs to his nature, and the relative, when we in a friendly manner appropriate something foreign to ourselves. Which appropriation is here meant?” P. “The relative.” M. “How unsuitable this is will soon appear. The natural is not acquired; so, too, will is not acquired, consequently man has by nature the power of willing.… If, now, those persons maintain that Christ has assumed the human will only as something foreign, they must in consistency say that He also appropriated the other properties of human nature merely as something foreign, by which the whole Incarnation becomes an appearance. Further, Sergius anathematised everyone who admits two wills. Now, even the teachers of that οἰκείωσις assume two wills, even if one of them is only the appropriated one, thus anathematising the friends of Sergius themselves. And when they, falsely indeed, maintain that two wills render two persons necessary, then the teachers of that οἰκείωσις themselves bring two persons into Christ.” P. “Did not, then, the Fathers teach that Christ had formed our will in Himself, ἐν ἑαυτῷ ἐτύωσε?” M. “Yes, they also taught that He had assumed our nature, but by that they did not mean κατʼ πὀκείωσιν.” P. “But when they say, Christ formed our will in Himself, can a natural will be meant by this?” M. “Certainly; since Christ is also true man, He has in Himself and by Himself subjected the human to God, set up for us a pattern to will nothing but what God, wills.” P. “But those who admit only one will mean it not ill.” M. “Even the Severians say, they mean it not ill, when they admit only one nature. But which, then, should this one will be?” P. “They call it the gnomish, and γνώμη is, as Cyril says, the τρόπος ζωῆς, that we live virtuously or sinfully.” M. “The manner of life is matter of choice; but by choice we will, therefore γνώμη is the willing of a real or supposed good. How can we now say, the will is gnomish, i.e. of a γνώμη? That means nothing else than that the will goes out from a will, which is not possible. Moreover, if one ascribes to Christ a γνώμη (a choice), He is thus made a mere man, as though HE, like us, had not known what to do, had hesitated and deliberated.… Should we not rather say, as His personality was divine, He possessed, in His very being, the natural good?” P. “Are, then, the virtues something natural?” M. “Certainly.” P. “But why, then, are not all men equally virtuous, since all are of one nature?” M. “Because we do not develop the natural in like measure, nor in like measure strive after that for which we are born.” P. “But yet we acquire the virtues by discipline?” M. “Discipline and the efforts following upon it only serve to drive away the deceptions of sin. When these disappear, the natural virtues come of themselves.” P. “It is, then, blasphemy to assert one γνώμη in Christ.” M. “The Fathers use γνώμη in a different sense, e.g., as counsel, as Paul, when he says: ‘Concerning virgins, I have no commandment of the Lord, yet I give my judgment (γνώμην),’ or as advice, or as sentence, as opinion, view. I have found, in the Bible and in the Fathers, twenty-eight meanings of γνώμη.… Those, then, who maintain a gnomish, or choosing will, etc., must give it out for either a divine or angelic or human will. If they explained it as divine, they assume only a divine nature of Christ; if angelic, only an angelic nature; if human, then only a human nature.” P. “In order to escape all this, they say the will is neither matter of nature nor of gnome, but it is in us matter of dexterity (ἐπιτηδειότης, habilitas).” M. “This dexterity is either κατὰ φύσιν, and then that expression only leads back by a roundabout way to the natural will, or the dexterity is a matter of acquisition. In the latter case, they must maintain, in opposition to the Scriptures, that Christ did not know until He learnt, and so fall into Nestorianism, which admits only one will in the two persons invented by it. If, however, they call that one will of Christ the hypostatic, then it belongs only to the person of the Son, and they maintain thereby that the Son has another will than the Father. If they call it παρὰ φύσιν, they thereby destroy the natures in Christ. I should like to ask them: Does God the Father will as God or as Father? If He wills as Father, then His will is different from that of the Son, which is heretical. But if He wills as God, then it follows that the will is a matter of nature. Further, as the Fathers teach: Two, who have only one will, have also only one substance, so that the Monothelites are forced to maintain that the Godhead and the manhood in Christ are one and the same substance. Further, as the Fathers teach: Two kinds of substances (οὐσίαι) have not a common will, yet may they necessarily not maintain that the two natures of Christ had a common will; or if they do maintain it, they contradict the Fathers.” P. “But they appeal to the Fathers.” M. “Only the Nestorians and Monophysites, although opposites, teach one will, but not the recognised Fathers.” P. “But Gregory the theologian (Orat. 2, De Filio) says: His will was in nothing contradictory to God, quite deified. Does not this speak against two wills?” M. “On the contrary, as the kindled presupposes a kindler, so the deified a deifier. Moreover, the same Gregory similarly speaks of the human nature of Christ as deified. Must we therefore deny the two natures?” P. “You are right, but they also adduce Gregory of Nyssa (Orat. 1, De Resur.), who says of Christ: The soul of Christ wills, the body (of the sick man) is touched, and through both the sickness is driven away (S. Matt. 8:3). Here, they maintain, Gregory teaches that the human soul of Christ willed through the divine will of the Godhead hypostatically united with it.” M. “If one should say that the willing of the ψυχή comes from the Godhead, then we might also say with equal right, that even the bodily touch comes from the Godhead, which is absurd.” P. “You are right. But they appeal also to Athanasius, who (Orat. major, De Fide) says, the (human) νοῦς of the Lord is not the Lord Himself, but His will, or His βούλησις or His energy upon anything.” M. “This passage is evidence against them. For if the νοῦς of Christ is not the Lord Himself, then it is evidently not divine φύσει, but hypostatically united with the Lord, and therefore His θέλησις, βούλησις, or ἐνέργεια. Athanasius speaks here according to the usage of Clement of Alexandria (Stromat. lib. vi.), according to which θέλησις = νοῦς ὀρεκτικός (desiring spirit), βούλησις = rational desire; the expression ἐνέργεια πρός τι, however, was used by S. Athanasius because the Lord, in all His godlike acts (acts belonging to His divine nature), made use of the reasonable human soul hypostatically united with Him.” P. “You are right; but Athanasius says further: The Lord was born of woman, but without carnal θελήματα and λογισμοὶ ἀνθρώπινοι; the θέλησις was only that of the Godhead.” M. “Athanasius does not here at all speak of the will of Christ, but of this, that the Incarnation resulted purely from the divine will, without the will of the flesh, without the action of a man. Generally, the Fathers teach, like the Holy Scriptures, that the Lord willed and effected our salvation in His two natures.” P. “Have the great kindness to show this.” M. “According to S. John 1:43, Jesus purposed to go to Galilee. He purposed to go where He was not yet. He was, however, only in His manhood, not in Galilee; for as God He is everywhere. He purposed, therefore, to go to Galilee as man, not as God, and consequently had a will as man. So in S. John 17:24, HE willed as man that where HE was His disciples should also be; for only as man is He in a certain place. In S. John 19:28 and S. Matt. 27:34, Jesus said: ‘I thirst,’ and would not drink the wine mingled with gall; but evidently it is only the manhood that can thirst, and therefore it was only this that willed not to take the unsuitable draught. Also in S. John 7:1; S. John 19:29; 7:24; 2 Cor. 13:4; S. Mark 6:48; S. Matt. 26:17; and Phil. (not Hebrews, as Maximus says) 2:8, is the human will of Christ referred to. In Psalm 39[40]:7, 8, it is said: ‘Sacrifice and meat-offering Thou wouldest not; but mine ears hast Thou opened [in the text, as in Hebrews 10:5, a body hast Thou prepared me].… Lo, I come; in the volume of the book it is written of me, that I should fulfil Thy will, O my God., I am content to do it.’ That this refers to Christ as man no one denies; and accordingly this passage ascribes a will to Him also as man. According to Gen. 1:26, man is made in the image of God; and therefore human nature must have the power of freedom, like the divine. And if Christ did not assume a human will, as they maintain, then did He not save it, and we are not partakers of a complete salvation. But that the Lord had also a divine will is clear from S. Luke 13:34 and S. John 5:21.” P. “This certainly proves two natural wills. But why did Pope Vigilius accept the letter of Mennas, which teaches only one will, after it had been shown to him in the cabinet of the Emperor (Justinian), and in the senate?” M. “I am surprised that you and your predecessors, being patriarchs, should venture to lie. Sergius said in his letter to Honorius, that Vigilius had received information respecting that letter, but not that it was shown him or delivered to him; but you say, in your letter to Pope John, that it had been shown and delivered to him. Which of you is one to believe?” P. “But Pope Honorius, in his letter to Sergius, maintained only one will.” M. “The drawer-up of that letter of Honorius, “who was afterwards commissioned by John IV. to write to the Emperor Constantine, gives the assurance that he only said in the letter, that as man Jesus had only one will (the law of the Spirit), and not at the same time also the will of the members.” P. “My predecessor understood it differently.” M. “Nothing placed me at such a distance from your predecessor as his inconstancy. At one time he approved the expression, one divine will of Christ; at another, one βουλευτικὸν θέλημα; at another, one ὑποστατικός; at another, ἐξουσιατικόν: again, προσιρετικόν; again, γυωμικόν; again, οἰκονομικόν. Moreover, by those documents (the Ecthesis) he has caused division.” (In that which follows, Maximus opposes the statement of Pyrrhus, that Sophronius of Jerusalem had begun the controversy.) M. “We will now, after ending the inquiry into the two wills, pass on to the two energies.” P. “As the will is a matter of nature, so must also, per synecdochen, the operation be a matter of nature, and I recall my previous assertions in opposition.” … M. “In your writings I have found that you ascribe to Christ, as whole, only one energy. Now, as His whole being is His hypostasis, then this, His one energy, must also be hypostatic. But then, would it be different from the energy of His Father and His mother, as He is hypostatically different from both?” P. “If you maintain two energies on account of the difference of natures in Christ, and not one only on account of the unity of His person, then you must assume two energies in man on account of the substantial difference of body and soul, and consequently there would be in Christ three energies.” M. “What you here allege against the properties of the natures (in Christ), the Monophysites turn against the natures themselves, and that which the Fathers have opposed to them we bring against you. You admit with us two natures in Christ, and not merely one on account of the unity of His person. If, however, you maintain two energies in man, because of the substantial difference of body and soul, you must also assume two natures in man, and accordingly three in Christ. But if you do not admit three natures in Christ, you have likewise no right to reproach us for not maintaining three energies. Moreover, that which is one in respect to the species (εἶδο) of man, is not also one by substantial unity of body and soul. Human nature is one because it is common to the whole species, and not because body and soul were one. So it is in regard to the energy. When we ascribe to Christ one human energy as such, we oppose the alternative of either ascribing the energy to the personality (hypostasis), or of recognising three energies in Christ, because the energy works according, to the nature.” P. “Nestorius says that the persons correspond with the energies; therefore, by the doctrine of two energies, you fall into Nestorianism.” M. “Above all, Nestorius taught, along with two persons, only one will. But even if what you say were true, that the persons correspond with the energies, then conversely, the energies would have to correspond with the persons, and you would then, on account of the three Persons, have to recognise three energies in the Trinity, or, on account of the one energy, only one Person.… So, too, we should have to say, because there are several Persons in the Trinity, there are also several human energies, whilst there is, in fact, only one human energy (κατʼ εἶδος), and the Fathers (Gregory of Nyssa) say: That which has the same substance (οὐσία) has also the same energy. Further, if they maintain that persons correspond with energies, and if they themselves (elsewhere) say, Christ has many energies (the words of Honorius), it would follow that they would be forced to ascribe many persons to the one Christ. Further, if persons correspond with energies, then the latter cease when the former is removed. The Monothelites, however, now wish to remove the expression one or two energies, and therewith would, if they could, remove Christ Himself. If we consider ourselves, we find that each of us can walk and think at the same time without, for this reason, becoming two men, and without mingling the energies corresponding to his two natures (body and soul). In the same way, a sword which is made red hot preserves its two natures (iron and fire), and their natural operations,—it cuts and it burns at the same time; but it is yet only one sword, without its natures being mixed.” P. “But there is (in Christ) only one Worker, and therefore only one operation, energy.” M. “This one in person is twofold in natures, and therefore worked in a twofold manner as one, so that with the multiplicity of energies there was not also a multiplicity of persons brought in. If, however, we ascribed the energy, not to the natures but to the person, we should arrive at follies which have already been rejected. What would you say if another maintained: Because Christ is one person, He had only one nature? Yet, if you admit only one energy, which shall this one be?—the divine or the human, or neither? If the divine, then was Christ pure God; if the human, then only man: if neither, then He was neither God nor man.” P. “If we speak of one energy of the Godhead and the manhood, we do not mean that it is present in Him λόγῳ φύσεως but τρόπῳ ἑνώσεως (by the union of the Godhead and manhood).” M. “If He has the energy, as you say, through ἕνωσις, then was HE before this ἕνωσις without energy, and thus created the world without energy and with constraint. Further: As the Father and the Holy Spirit are not also hypostatically united with the flesh, then would they, in consequence, have no energy, and would not also be Creator of the world? Further, you must call the energy either created or uncreated, for there is no third kind. If created, then it points to only one created nature in Christ; in the other case, only to one uncreated: and how could the energy of a created nature be an uncreated, and conversely?” P. “Do you agree, then, with those who understand the ἀποτέλεσμα (effect) of the actions accomplished by Christ under μία ἐνέργεια?” M. “Different actions have different effects, and not one. Although, in the red-hot sword, the energy of fire and that of iron are united, yet the effect of fire is burning, that of iron cutting, even if they do not appear separated from each other in the burning cut or in the cutting burn. We cannot speak of one effect unless where there is one action. As, then, there are many actions of Christ, so you must admit countless effects; or if you will hold fast one effect, then must you also assume one action of Christ. But we have not to speak of the actions of Christ, nor of that which is ἔξω Χριστοῦ, but of that which is ἐν Χριστῷ, of the physical relation of the substances (οὐσίαι) of Christ, whether it was encroached upon by the union of the Godhead and manhood or not.… Moreover, you have not (as you would make believe) spoken with respect to the action (τὸ ἔργον, ἀποτέλεσμα), but with respect to the physical relation of the united natures of one energy, and so have produced the fabulous animal, the goat-stag. This is shown clearly by the capitula of Cyrus, which you have received, in which it is taught that Christ worked the divine and the human by the same energy. This contradicts Scripture and the holy Fathers, and even the nature of the thing; for no thing can have, along with its natural working, another opposed to it,—fire cannot make warm and cold at the same time. So one nature cannot work miracles and endure suffering.” P. “Yet Cyril says, Christ revealed μίαν συγγενῆ διʼ ἀμφο͂ιν ἐνέργειαν.” M. “Cyril was far from ascribing to the Godhead and the manhood only one φυσικὴ ἐνέργεια, for he teaches elsewhere: ‘No rational person will assert that the Creator and the creature have one and the same energy.’ On the contrary, he wished to show that the divine energy is one and the same, both apart from union with the manhood and in union therewith, just as the energy of fire is one and the same, whether with or without union with a ὕλη. The Father Cyril has not thus spoken of one energy of the two natures in Christ, but said that the divine energy was one and the same,—the same in the Incarnate Son as in the Father; and that Christ worked His miracles, not by an almighty command (= divine energy), but asomatically,—even after the Incarnation He is ὁμοεργὸς with the asomatically working Father,—but He also worked them somatically by bodily contact, ἀφῇ, and thus διʼ ἀμφοῖν. The reviving of the maiden, accomplished by the word and the almighty will, and the healing of the blind, was connected with the healing which was accomplished somatically by contact. The divine energy did not dispense with the human, but made use of it for its own manifestation. The stretching out of the hand (at the healing of the blind), the mixture of spittle and earth, etc., belonged to the energy of the human nature of Christ, and God as well as man was acting in the miracle. Cyril, then, did not make a mistake about the property of each nature, but saw the creative divine energy and the ζωτικὴ (i.e. the bodily energy worked by the human soul), as ἀσυγχύτως united in the Incarnate Logos.” P. “You have well shown that S. Cyril did not contradict the doctrine of two energies, but, on the contrary, harmonised with it; but S. Dionysius the Areopagite speaks of a καινὴ θεανδρικὴ ἐνέργεια.” M. “Do you hold this καινὴ θεανδρικὴ ἐνέργεια as something quantitatively or qualitatively new?” P. “As quantitatively new.” M. “Then there must have been assumed in Christ a third nature, θεανδρικὴ; for a third energy (and it was that, if it was quantitatively new) presupposes a third nature, since the element of proper essential energy belongs to the idea of nature. If, however, the new is qualitatively new, this does not express a single energy, but the new mysterious way and manner of the human activities (energies) of Christ, which is a consequence of the mysterious union and perichoresis (= mutual interchange of movement) of the two natures in Christ. Even in the expression, θεανδρικὴ ἐνέργεια, the duality of the energies is also taught periphrastically (mediately), because it specifies the natures numerically. For if we remove the two opposites (divine and human in Christ), there remains nothing intermediate. And provided there were only a single energy in Christ, the θεανδρικὴ, then Christ, as God, would have a different energy from the Father, for that of the Father could not possibly be divine and human.” P. “The proposition, ‘That which is of like nature has also the like energy (as the three Persons of the Trinity), and that which is distinguished in the energy is also distinguished in the nature,’—this proposition has been adopted by the Fathers only in respect to the theology (nature of God), and not in respect to the economy (Incarnation).” M. “Thus, then, according to you, the Son, after His Incarnation, would not be of the same theology with the Father; He could then be no longer invoked with the Father, He would not be of one substance with the Father, and the passages of the Bible would be untrue which ascribe to Him the same energy as to the Father (S. John 5:17, 19, 21; 10:25, 38). Further, the continuous government of the world is the business of God, not only of the Father and of the Spirit, but also of the Son. Consequently, the Son, even after the Incarnation, has the same energy as the Father.” … P. “When we speak of one energy, we do not mean to take away the human will of Christ, but in distinction from the divine energy it is called suffering.” M. “Things are not known from their opposite by mere negation, otherwise we should have to call, e.g., human nature evil because the divine is good. And in like manner, we may not say that because the divine movement is energy (working), therefore the human is a suffering [active and passive]. The Fathers do not call human action mere suffering (passion), but also δύναμις, ἐνέργεια, κίνησις, etc., etc., not in opposition to the divine activity, but after its own way and manner which it has received from the Creator. So far as, e.g., it works holding, it is called δύναμις; so far as it is the same in all beings of the same species (ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ὁμοειδέσιν), it is called ἐνέργεια, etc., etc. And also, when the Fathers called the human action a passion, they did this, not in opposition to the divine action, but in respect to the way and manner of human working, itself implanted by the Creator. And when (Pope) Leo says, ‘Agit utraque forma,’ etc., this is nothing else than if it was said: ‘After HE had fasted forty days, He was an hungered.’ He granted, in short, to nature, when He would, that it should work that which was proper to it.” P. “You have shown that it is improper to speak of one energy in whatever way that may be done. But forgive me and my predecessors. We have failed only from want of insight. Spare the memory of my predecessors.” M. “We must anathematise the heresy, but be silent about persons.” P. “But in that case I should have to reject Sergius and my own patriarchal Synod” (see sec. 300). M. “It was not a regular Synod.” P. “If it must be, I will do it (anathematise the heresy), but I should like first to visit the graves of the apostles and the Pope, and transmit to the latter a statement on my error.” Thus ended this disputation, and the information is added, that Maximus and the Governor Gregory agreed to this, and Pyrrhus with Maximus soon afterwards went to Rome, where Pyrrhus cast off his error, and by an orthodox confession united himself again with the Church.

SEC. 304. African and Roman Synods for the condemnation of Monothelitism

The biographer of S. Maximus relates (c. 14) that, on his admonition and counsel, the bishops of Africa and the neighbouring islands held Synods for the rejection of Monothelitism. He evidently thinks that this took place at the same time with the Roman Council held by the Pope. As, however, the African Synods took place in the fourth indiction, so in the year 646, a Roman Synod at that time is not known. Of the African assemblies in question, we have three synodal letters, and a fourth by Archbishop Victor of Carthage, among the Acts of the Lateran Synod of 649. The first of these is a united memorial from the three ecclesiastical provinces of Numidia, Byzacene, and Mauritania, to Pope Theodore, resolved upon at a general assembly of the deputies of those provinces, and drawn up in the name of all by the three metropolitans (primarum sedium episcopi), Columbus of Numidia, Stephen of the Byzacene province, and Reparatus of Mauritania. The provincia proconsularis, with the supreme metropolitan see of Carthage, is not named in it, because Fortunatus of Carthage, himself a Monothelite, was not yet deposed; or at least his successor Victor was not yet elected. This Fortunatus we shall meet again in the history of the sixth Œcumenical Council.

After a very express recognition of the Roman primate, the African bishops go on: “The innovation which has arisen in Constantinople has become known to us also. We have hitherto kept silence, because we believed that the tares had already been plucked up by the apostolic see. When, however, we understood that it was obstinately spreading, and had read of the recantation of Pyrrhus, the former bishop of Constantinople, which he handed to you, we held it for necessary to write to Paul, the present bishop of Constantinople, beseeching him with tears to remove from his Church and himself the new heresy which one of its originators, Pyrrhus, had himself rejected, and to cause to be taken away the documents (copies of the Ecthesis) which had been publicly posted to the distress of the people.… Because, however, Africa had been brought into a certain suspicion at Constantinople by malevolent people (see below, in this section), we have sent to you first the letter to Paul already mentioned, and pray you to have it delivered in Constantinople by your representatives (responsales). If Paul perseveres in his error, the holy see will cut off the unsound member from the sound body. As we held special Synods in each province, we should have liked to despatch a plena legatio. Because, however, circumstances occurred to hinder us, deputies of the different provinces of Africa have taken the resolution to make you acquainted with the present state of things.”

The second African synodal letter, by Stephen, bishop of the prima sedes in the Byzacene province, and his forty-two suffragans, addressed to the Emperor Constantine (Constans II., see sec. 301 ad fin.), first commends the care of the Emperor for the Church, and his orthodox zeal, and then prays, in the name of all the bishops of Africa, that he would extinguish the scandal of the new heresy, and admonish Bishop Paul of Constantinople to fidelity towards the orthodox doctrine. They said they had written to him, and had asked the bearer to deliver to the Emperor a copy of their letter to the Bishop.

It may seem surprising that this letter is subscribed only by the bishops of the Byzacene provinces, and yet is addressed to the Emperor in the name of the cuncti Africæ sacerdotes. Perhaps it was drawn up at the provincial Synod of the Byzacenes, and afterwards approved by the rest of the African bishops. Such, too, might be the case with the third document still extant, the letter to Paul of Constantinople, which, although subscribed only by the sixty-eight bishops of the proconsular province (at the time of the vacancy of the see of Carthage), was, like this, regarded as a general letter from the whole of Africa.

In the synodal letter to Paul of Constantinople, it is said that the apostles had proclaimed only one, the true doctrine of Christ, but that the wicked enemy had sown tares, i.e. heresies. Even in Constantinople there had been published a poisonous document contrary to the doctrine of the Fathers and Councils, and they wonder that Bishop Paul has not immediately annulled it. They entirely reject the new doctrines proclaimed since Sergius, and give the assurance that, by God’s grace, they will preserve inviolate what the holy Fathers had proclaimed, and the universal Church confesses, namely, that the one Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, took true human flesh with the rational soul, without loss or diminution of the Godhead, that He is God and man together, and as God has the divine nature, divine will, and divine operatio, and so also as man, the nature, will, and full operatio of man, but without sin and concupiscence, i.e. that in Christ there are two natures and two natural wills, as the Catholic Church has always taught. In proof of this, they adduce passages from Ambrose and Augustine.

The fourth African letter, finally, somewhat later than the three mentioned, is that of Victor, the new bishop of Carthage, to Pope Theodore. It informs him that he had been raised to the see of Carthage on the 16th of July (646), then passes on to the Monothelite affair, explains his faith in two wills and operations, petitions the Pope for the suppression of the new heresy, and closes with the remark that he has not written to Paul of Constantinople, because Africa had been, by means of slanderers at Constantinople, brought into evil and false suspicion, as though this land had been guilty of some wrong (see below). But the Pope might have the synodal letter (mentioned above) presented to Paul by his responsarii.

African Synods are also mentioned by the Libellus Synodicus, which enumerates a Byzacene, Numidian, Mauritanian, and a Carthaginian synod. But it not merely interchanges the names of the metropolitans, but also makes the mistake of stating that, along with Sergius, Pyrrhus was anathematised here, whilst the genuine synodal letters show that Pyrrhus was commended, and the African bishops had as yet no information of his relapse into heresy. This took place some time afterwards at Ravenna, upon which Pope Theodore assembled the bishops and clergy in a kind of Synod in S. Peter’s Church, at the grave of S. Peter, took some drops of the holy blood from the chalice, mixed it with ink, and subscribed with it the condemnation of Pyrrhus.

Both in the letter of Victor and in the united African memorial, mention is made of a wicked suspicion to which Africa is exposed. This evidently refers to the rebellion of the imperial viceroy, Gregory, who came out, A.D. 646, as a usurper and Emperor of Africa, but was beaten by the Saracens in the very next year. Victor and the other African bishops meant to say, either that they and the clergy generally had taken no part in the insurrection of Gregory, or that their assemblies and letters had preceded the formal outbreak of the insurrection, so that the evil rumours which had penetrated to Constantinople, respecting a revolt which had taken place in Africa, were untrue.

SEC. 305. Paul of Constantinople writes to Pope Theodore

In accordance with the wish of the Africans, Pope Theodore addressed a letter of counsel to Paul of Constantinople, but only the answer of the latter is still extant. He boasts of his humility, will not answer hard words with hard words, and then says: “Your representatives have had long contentions with us, and have demanded that we should explain the notion of one will of Christ, and send this explanation to your reverence.… We present our view in the present letter.… We, i.e. the δικαιοδοσία (tribunal), and the Synod of our Church, confess one Son and Lord, … perfect in the Godhead, and perfect in the manhood, one person, one compound hypostasis, in two natures after the union, recognising the difference of the natures in their properties. In the one Christ are preserved the two natures, and they remain within the proper bounds of the substances, also in the ineffable connection of the hypostatic union. The Logos remained what HE was, and became what He was not. Therefore we say that all godlike and all manlike energy proceeds from one and the same Incarnate God, and refers back to one and the same. Thus no separation is introduced, and the mixture is avoided.… We confess that one and the same Incarnate God, the Logos, worked miracles and endured suffering in the flesh voluntarily for our sakes; so that we can say: God suffered, and the Son of man came down from heaven, on account of the inseparable union in the hypostasis. Therefore we also recognise also only ONE will of our Lord, in order not to ascribe to the ONE Person a contradiction or a difference of wills, or think of that Person as conflicting with Himself, and so as not to be forced to admit two willers. We do not this in order to mingle the two natures, or in order to remove one of them, but in order to show that the rationally quickened σάρξ of Christ is enriched through closest union with the divine, has acquired (ἐκέκτητο) the divine will of the Logos inseparably united with it, and is in all ways led and moved by it, so that it is at no time separated, or of its own impulse fulfils its natural movement in opposition to the spirit of the Logos hypostatically united with it, but at the time and in the manner and in the degree in which the Logos willed. Far be it from us to bring in a movement of the manhood in Christ constrained by physical necessity, such as is indicated by the words of Christ to Peter in S. John 21:18 (far be it from us to admit such a thing); although, literally taken, He referred to suffering in a similar manner as Peter.” At the close, Paul seeks to explain in a different sense the passage: “I came not to do MY own will, but the will of Him who sent Me,” and appeals to Gregory of Nyssa, Athanasius, Cyril, and Honorius.

Upon this, Pope Theodore pronounced the deposition of Paul, and at the same time nominated as apostolic vicar over Palestine, Bishop Stephen of Dor (in Palestine), whom Sophronius, years before, had sent as his envoy to Rome, in order to depose the Monothelite bishops who had been appointed by the intruded Patriarch Sergius (see above, sec. 300, and below, sec. 307), if they did not amend. Maximus, too, proceeded to oppose Monothelitism; whilst, on the other hand, Paul took vengeance on the papal representatives in Constantinople (sec. 215), and brought it about that the Emperor Constans II. put forth the unhappy Typus, A.D. 648.

SEC. 306. The Typus

As this imperial decree of the faith has come to us among the Acts of the Lateran Synod of A.D. 649, it lacks the title and superscription, but it is called unanimously τύπος, and also τύπος περὶ πίστεως by the ancients and by the Lateran Synod, and was undoubtedly published under that title. It runs: “As we are accustomed to do everything and to have regard to everything which can serve to the welfare of our Christian State, and especially whatever concerns the unfalsified doctrine upon which all our happiness depends, we perceived that our orthodox people had been greatly agitated because some, in regard to the economy (Incarnation) of God, recognised and maintained only one will, namely, that one and the same works the divine and the human, whilst others admit two wills and two energies. The former defend their view by this, that the Lord Jesus Christ is only one person in two natures (and therefore) willing and working, without mixture or separation, both the divine and the human. The others (say): While in one and the same person two natures are united without separation, yet their difference from each other remains, and in accordance with the quality of the nature (προσφυῶς), the one and the same Christ works both the divine and the human.… We believed that, under God’s guidance, we were bound to extinguish the flame of discord which had been kindled, and not allow it further to destroy souls. We declare, therefore, to our orthodox subjects that, from the present moment, they no longer have permission in any way to contend and to quarrel with one another over one will and one energy, or two energies and two wills. This we ordain, not to take away anything from the pious doctrines of the holy recognised Fathers in regard to the Incarnation of God the Word, but with the view that all further strife in regard to these questions should cease, and that we should follow only the Holy Scriptures and the five deliverances of the five holy Œcumenical Synods and the simple utterances and confessions of the approved Fathers, … without adding or taking away anything, and without explaining them in a manner opposed to their proper meaning. Moreover, there should everywhere be observed the form of doctrine (σχῆμα) existing before the controversies referred to, as it was when no such controversy had come into existence. But none of those who hitherto have taught one will and one energy, or two wills and two energies, shall for this reason be exposed to blame or accusation.… But in order to the complete union and communion of the churches, and that no further occasion may remain for the litigious, we ordain that the documents (the Ecthesis) posted up in the narthex [vestibule] of the great church of our residence city for some time, in regard to the controversies in question, be taken away. Whoever ventures to transgress the command now given is subject, above all, to the judgment of God, but he will also be liable to the punishment of the despisers of the imperial commands. If he is a bishop or cleric, he shall be deposed; if a monk, excommunicated, and banished from his place of abode (monastery); if he is a civil or military official, he shall lose his office and dignity; if he is a private person, he shall, if of the upper class, be punished in his property; if lowly, be chastised with corporal correction and permanent exile.”

As Sergius drew up the Ecthesis, so did his second successor, Paul, draw up the Typus; but whilst the former gave to his work, not the form of an imperial edict, but the theological form of a creed, Paul showed himself more adroit, and gave to the Typus the external appearance of an imperial decree. That Constans hoped by this new edict to restore the peace of the Church, he tells us himself, and there is no reason to doubt it, for by withdrawal of the Ecthesis he visibly wanted to quiet the Westerns and those who held their opinions. It is also clear that, whilst the Ecthesis forbade the controversy on one or two energies, it yet proclaimed, inconsistently, the one will, and so Monothelitism, the Typus now consistently rejected the ἕν θέλημα along with the μία ἐνέργεια, and therewith wanted to be more impartial. This supposed impartiality is also the principal difference between the Typus and the Ecthesis, for in the fundamental thought, that the dogmatic development shall stop where it has been brought by the five Œcumenical Councils, and that further questions shall not be brought up, they are like each other. Moreover, that impartiality is only a false juste milieu which places orthodox Dyothelitism on one and the same line with the heresy, and prohibits the one as well as the other. Another difference between the Ecthesis and the Typus is shown in this, that the former required obedience only in general, whilst Constans threatened every transgression of his Typus with the severest civil penalties. That he also actually carried them out with all harshness the sequel will show.

SEC. 307. Pope Martin I. and the Lateran Synod of A.D. 649

Soon after the promulgation of the Typus, and perhaps without having seen it, Pope Theodore died, May 13, 649; and on July 5, Martin I. was elected. He had been formerly a Roman priest, before that legate of the holy see at Constantinople, a man distinguished for beauty, virtue, and knowledge, destined by providence as martyr for the Dyothelite faith. The Acta S. Audoëni declare that the Emperor in a friendly manner requested the new Pope to agree to the Typus, but that he had rejected this request with all decision, and petitioned the King of the Franks to send wise and able bishops to Rome, so that the Pope, with them and the bishops out of all Italy, might prepare an antidote for the heresy. They relate that the King agreed to this, and assembled the bishops of his kingdom, in order to select deputies who should be sent to Rome. The election had fallen unanimously upon Audoënus of Rouen and Eligius of Noyon, but an accident hindered their journey.

According to this, we should be forced to believe that Pope Martin had been required to receive the Typus immediately after he had taken possession of the see, and that, in order to be able to take more decisive steps, he had summoned a great Synod. But the Acta S. Audoëni are a very dubious source, and in one of the points adduced are corrected by S. Audoënus himself, since he relates that it was after the Synod that the Pope made that request to the King of the Franks. Bower and others maintain that the Emperor Constans II. immediately confirmed the new Pope, in order the more easily to gain him over to himself and the Typus. Muratori, on the contrary, supposes that, this time in Rome, they did not await the imperial confirmation, and consecrated Pope Martin without such approval. This comes out clearly, that the Greeks maintained subsequently that he irregulariter et sine lege episcopatum subripuisse.

The first great act of the new Pope was the holding of that famous Synod, in importance almost œcumenical, which was opened on the 5th of October 649, in the Basilica of Constantine (Ecclesia Salvatoris) in the Lateran. It lasted until October 31, fell into five sessions, here called secretarii, numbered 105 bishops, chiefly from Italy, Sicily, and Sardinia, with some Africans and other foreigners. There was no one present from Longobardian Italy, for Maximus of Aquileia, who was there, had his see at Grado, which belonged to the Byzantines (vol. iv. p. 364, note
The Pope presided, and had the Acts immediately translated into Greek, that he might be able to send them to the Emperor and the Oriental bishops. They have come to us in all completeness and in both languages, and it hardly needs to be said that, of the Greek documents received there and read at the Synod, e.g. the Ecthesis and Typus, the Greek text here presented to us is not a translation back from the Latin, but the original.

First of all, the first notary of the Roman see, Theophylact, as master of the ceremonies, spoke and invited the Pope to deliver an address. He spoke as follows:—“Christ has commanded the shepherds to be watchful. This applies also to us; and especially must we watch over the purity of the faith, as some bishops, who do not deserve this name, have sought of late to corrupt the Confession by newly invented expressions. All the world knows them, for they have come publicly forward to injure the Church, namely, Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius of Constantinople, and his successors, Pyrrhus and Paul. Cyrus, eighteen years ago, taught in Alexandria one operation of Christ and proclaimed nine capitula from the pulpit. Sergius approved of this, somewhat later sent out the Ecthesis under the name of the Emperor Heraclius, and taught one will and one operation, which leads to one nature of Christ. By the Fathers it is quite clearly taught (passages in proof from Basil and Cyril) that the operatio corresponds with the nature, and he who has like operatio must also be of like nature. As now the Fathers teach two natures in Christ, it follows hence that in one and the same Incarnate Logos two wills and operations are united without mixture or separation. That both are naturaliter one is not possible. Pope Leo, too, taught two wills (proof passages), and the Holy Scriptures (proofs) point to the same. He worked thus the divine corporeally, for He manifested it by His rationally quickened flesh: the human He worked divinely, because, for our sakes, He voluntarily took upon Him human weaknesses, but without sin.

“These men contradicted the doctrine of Leo and of the Council of Chalcedon, since Cyrus set forth the nine capitula, and Sergius the Ecthesis. Pyrrhus and Paul have spread the heresy more widely. Pyrrhus, in particular, by threats and flattery misled many bishops to subscribe that impiety. Later, to his shame, he came here and presented a letter to our holy see, in which he anathematised his earlier error. But he is like a dog returned to his vomit, and therefore is properly deposed. Paul, however, has outbid his predecessor, confirmed the Ecthesis, and opposed the true dogma. Therefore he has also been deposed by the holy see. In particular, imitating Sergius in order to hide his error, he gave the Emperor the counsel to send out the Typus, which annuls the catholic dogma, denies to Christ properly all will and all operation, and therewith also each nature, for the nature shows itself through its activity. He has done what no heretic has previously dared—destroyed the altar of our holy see in the palace, Placidia, and forbidden our envoys to celebrate there. He has persecuted these envoys, with other orthodox men, because they exhorted him to abandon his error, assigning to some imprisonment, to others exile, to others flogging. As these men (Sergius, etc.) have disquieted almost the whole world, there have come to us from different sides complaints in writing and by word of mouth, with the request to destroy the falsehood by the apostolic authority. Our predecessors exhorted these men to amendment, in writing and by their representatives, but without result. Therefore we have thought it necessary to call you together, in order, in consultation with you, to consider their case and the new doctrine.”

At the request of the two representatives of Archbishop Maurus of Ravenna, his letter to the Pope was now read, as follows: “He had been requested by the Pope to appear at the Synod, but the garrison and the residents of Ravenna and the neighbourhood (Pentapolis) had earnestly entreated him not to leave them, on account of the invasions of the barbarians, and as no imperial exarch was present. He would therefore ask to be excused, and to be considered as present. He thought in no way differently from the apostolic see and the orthodox Church, condemned and anathematised the Ecthesis, and that which had been recently put forth in its favour (the Typus), acknowledged two operations and two wills, since one and the same, God and man, in one person worked both, the godlike and the human; he honoured the five holy Synods, and had sent deputies whose subscription against the Ecthesis, etc., he would recognise as valid.”

After this letter had been embodied in the Acts, Archbishop Maximus of Aquileia-Grado (see vol. iv. secs. 267 and 283) showed that the denial of two wills and operations necessarily led to the denial of the difference of the two natures in Christ, and thus to the rejection of the Council of Chalcedon, and proposed to have the heretical writings of Cyrus, Sergius, Pyrrhus, and Paul read aloud, and to set up one or two public accusers against them. Bishop Deusdedit of Calaris supported this proposal; and the Synod, in the interest of thoroughness, agreed to it, although it was clear that any one who maintained only one will and one operation violated the doctrine of the Fathers and Synods. With this closed the first session.

In the second, on October 8, 649, Bishop Stephen of Dor (see above, sec. 305), at his own request, was introduced to the Synod, and his memorial addressed to it read. He says herein: “Theodore of Pharan, Cyrus, Sergius and his successors, have put forth false doctrines, and have distracted the Church. On account of the primacy of the Roman Church, Archbishop Sophronius of Jerusalem sent me to Rome, in order to give information respecting the erroneous doctrines of those men, and to obtain their condemnation. On Mount Calvary he bound me to this by a solemn oath, and I have fulfilled this commission immediately and faithfully. To-day I appear for the third time before the apostolic see, in order to pray for the condemnation of those heresies. On this account I have drawn the hatred of the opponents upon me, so that the (imperial) command has gone into all the provinces, to arrest me and to send me in chains (to Constantinople). Yet God protected me and awoke the apostolic bishops, so that they admonished those men (Sergius, etc.), although in vain. God awoke anew Pope Martin, who summoned this Synod for the preservation of the doctrines. I adjure you to bring the work to an end. The holy faith endures no defilement by innovation. If Christ is perfect God and perfect man, HE must also have a divine and a human will, otherwise His Godhead and manhood were imperfect, and He would be neither true God nor true man. If we admit two natures, then we must, in consistency, teach also two wills and operations, and whoever denies this assails the Council of Chalcedon. Quite recently the opponents have invented something new, and Paul of Constantinople has persuaded the pious Emperor to publish the Typus, which prohibits the doctrine of the Fathers (of two wills) equally with that of the heretics (of one will). The same people who formerly taught one will now demand that we should not confess one, and declare Christ neither for God nor for man, as they would bring about the denial both of the human and the divine will. In the East, the heresy has carried destruction round it. Bishop Sergius of Joppa, after the departure of the Persians, has uncanonically, by secular power, taken possession of the see of Jerusalem, has ordained other bishops, and these, to maintain themselves, have acceded to the innovation. I acquainted the late Pope Theodore with these things, and was by him named as his representative in Palestine, with the commission to depose the bishops who would not amend. At my request, some of them gave a written declaration that they would adhere to the orthodox faith. I conveyed their documents to Pope Martin, and he confirmed several of them. I and the Orientals repeat now the petition of S. Sophronius, that you will condemn and root out the errors of Apollinaris and Severus, which have been renewed by the men whom I have named, and rejoice the world by a declaration of the genuine faith.”

Thereupon thirty-seven Greek abbots, priests, and monks, who had resided for several years in Rome (probably driven into exile by the Saracens), were, at their request, brought before the Synod. At their head stood John, abbot of the Laura of S. Sabas at Jerusalem; Theodore, abbot of a (Greek) Laura (of S. Sabas) in Africa; Thalassius, abbot of the Armenian monastery of S. Renatus in Rome; and George, abbot of the Cilician monastery Ad aquas Salvias at Rome. They handed in a Greek memorial, which, read aloud in a Latin translation, requested the assembled bishops to condemn Monothelitism, and to pronounce anathema on Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, and their adherents, and also on the Typus, and to confirm synodally the true doctrine of the duality of the wills. With this was connected the petition that the Pope would immediately cause the Acts of this Synod to be accurately translated into Greek.

It was naturally of interest for the Lateran Synod to collect these and all other writings of complaint against Monothelitism which were presented to them, and to use them as material for their own decision. Therefore the letter of Archbishop Sergius of Cyprus to Pope Theodore (sec. 302), and the four African letters mentioned above were read.

The third session, on October 17, had to bring up from the writings of the Monothelite leaders passages in proof of their heresy; and they began with Theodore of Pharan, because that doctrine had been first uttered in his writings. There were read eleven passages, which had already been noted from two letters of his (to Bishop Sergius of Arsinoe, and on the explanation of patristic utterances), each of which contains the thought: “The Godhead and the manhood in Christ had only one, and this the divine energy.” Some of these fragments bring out this thought more fully, thus: “All that Christ did and spoke, that He hungered and thirsted, etc., proceeded from the Godhead, and happened under mediation of the rational, human soul, through the services of the body. The Logos is opifex of the operatio; the human nature is only the organ.” Theodore started from the correct thought, “that Christ had voluntarily allowed hunger and thirst, and human πάθη in general” (which is quite correct, see secs. 296, 297, 303), but it was an erroneous saltus when from that he inferred the μία ἐνέργεια. Christ certainly did not hunger or thirst involuntarily, as we do, nor through the constraint of nature, but only when and as the Logos allowed it; but the hunger or the thirst was yet not an ἐνεργεῖν of the divine, but of the human nature.

In the discourse which the Pope delivered after this reading, he endeavoured to point out the heresy of Theodore, and reproached him first with Arianism, arguing thus: “Theodore says, the Godhead and manhood of Christ have only one operation; in another place he calls it condita, created (in the words: The Logos is its opifex); thus the divine in Christ, to him as to Arius, is something created, conditum.” Then he convicts him of Docetism, Manichæism, and Apollinarism, because, in support of the μία ἐνέργεια, he says in the tenth fragment: “In man the soul is certainly not master of the grossly material body; but with the divine and quickening body of Christ this was different, since it came forth, not in a grossly material manner (ἀόγκως), but, so to speak, ἀσωμάτως, from His mother’s womb, and subsequently out of the grave and through closed doors.” From the ἀσωμάτως the Pope infers that Theodore had denied the true Incarnation of the Logos, and adduces a series of patristic passages to show that the orthodox Fathers had maintained a true, humanity of Christ, with a material body subject to gravity. What he evidently wanted to do with him, as later with Bishop Maximus of Aquileia (below, in this sec.), was to show that Bishop Theodore of Pharan was already anathematised by the anathema on Arius, the Docetæ, etc., to the proof, however, that Dyothelitism is the true doctrine, and the necessary consequence of the Chalcedonian dogma, he does not here proceed. Then were read:

(1) The seventh capitulum of Cyrus of Alexandria (sec. 293);

(2) The letter of Sergius of Constantinople to Cyrus (sec. 293); and

(3) The passage from Dionysius Areop. Ad Caium, to which the seventh capitulum of Cyrus appealed. Pope Martin remarked on this, that the heretics were ready to creep under patristic passages, and that Cyrus on this point had falsified the passage of Dionysius the Areopagite, and made him assert a una operatio deivirilis instead of a nova. Sergius, in his answer to Cyrus, had carried the falsification further, since he, repeating the words of Cyrus (sec. 293), said not only, like him, una instead of nova, but also omitted the word deivirilis (θεαδρική), as if Dionysius had taught merely the μία ἐνέργεια. Then were read:

(4) Several passages from writings of the Monothelite leader Themistius, founder of the sect of Agnoetæ (see vol. iii. sec. 208), in proof that more than a hundred years ago the Monothelites, particularly Themistius and Severus, maintained the μία ἐνέργεια θεανδρική, and the former opposed Colluthus (also a Monophysite, but an opponent of the Agnoetæ), because the latter rejected the θεανδρική on the supposition that this expression involved the recognition of two energies. The Pope showed what absurdity resulted from understanding only one ἐνέργεια under θεανδρική, and (as we saw above, sec. 128) showed very well what Dionysius the Areopagite meant to say in the passage in question: “Nec enim nuda Deitate (Christus) divina, neque pura humanitate humana, sed per carnem quidem intellectualiter animatam … operabatur sublimiter miracula, et iterum per potestatem validissimam … passionum sponte pro nobis experimentum suscipiebat.” He added that Leo the Great also fully agreed with this doctrine (of two operations), and that Sergius and Cyrus had grossly misinterpreted his words.

Bishop Deusdedit of Calaris is of the same view, and declares that, along with Cyrus and Sergius, Pyrrhus must also be condemned. He had thoroughly approved of their heresy, and had excused Cyrus for the falsification of the passage of the Areopagite, by saying that καινὴν must necessarily be taken in the sense of μίαν.

Finally, the Pope caused to be read:

(5) The Ecthesis (see sec. 299);

(6) The fragments of the Synods of Constantinople of 638 and 639 under Sergius and Pyrrhus (sec. 300); and

(7) The letter of Cyrus to Sergius containing the approval of the Ecthesis (sec. 301), when the Pope remarked that now the heresy of these men was as clear as day.

In the fourth session, October 19 (or 17), the Pope resumed the proofs for the heterodoxy of Cyrus, Sergius, Pyrrhus, and the Ecthesis, and pointed to the changeableness of the Monothelites, who at first had taught the μία ἐνέργεια so zealously, and yet in the Ecthesis had forbidden its being asserted. They had anathematised themselves, and their threats to anathematise others (the Dyothelites) were wrong and powerless. In order, however, to show most clearly that they were heretical, before the Synod should give their sentence, the declarations of faith of the holy Fathers and of the five Œcumenical Synods, bearing on the subjects, should be read aloud and compared with the Monothelite doctrine. As, however, Bishop Benedict of Ajaccio made the proposal that the Patriarch Paul of Constantinople should be associated with the heretics named, and that judgment should also be pronounced upon him, they read next the proofs against him, namely, his letter to the departed Pope, Theodore (sec. 305), and the Typus of the Emperor, composed by him, and afterwards the documents which had first been used as witnesses against the Monothelites generally, the creeds of the old Synods of Nicæa, Constantinople, and Chalcedon, together with the twelve anathematisms of Cyril (under the title of Symbol of Ephesus) and the fourteen anathematisms of the fifth Synod.

At the close of the session, Bishop Maximus of Aquileia delivered an address, in which he commended the zeal of the Pope, and showed that Sergius and Pyrrhus, etc., could in no way appeal to the five Œcumenical Synods, that, on the contrary, their teaching was implicitly anathematised by these in the anathematisms against Arius, Apollinaris, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Nestorius, who had also taught only one will and one operation. Also that Monothelitism led to the denial of the full Godhead and manhood of Christ, thus to the rejection of the Council of Chalcedon. Sophronius had already, in opposition to Sergius, collected testimonies of the Fathers for the two wills, and the doctrine of the Monothelites was only a renewing of the Severian heresy, in the foundation of which they had misinterpreted the words of Leo: Agit enim utraque forma, etc.

In the fifth session, October 31, there was first read a passage from the Confession of Faith of the fifth Œcumenical Synod (sess. 3; see vol. iv. sec. 268 ad fin.), in which every one who opposed the doctrines of the earlier Synods is smitten with anathema, and then a previously prepared rich collection of patristic testimonies in favour of Dyothelitism was read. The first division of these, taken from Ambrose, Augustine, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, Cyril, and Amphilochius, treats of this, that where there is una essentia or natura, there also there is una operatio and una voluntas, and conversely, and that the will lies on the side of the nature, is σύνδρομος with the nature. Father, Son, and Spirit therefore, as they had only one nature, so had only one will. The second series, from Hippolytus (sanctus episcopus et martyr), Ambrose, Augustine, Leo, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, Chrysostom and his two opponents, Sanctus Theophilus and Beatus Severianus of Gabala, gives testimony, that these Fathers ascribe to the divine nature of Christ a divine will, to the human nature a human will and human passiones, which, however, Christ had assumed voluntarily. The third section shows the same in reference to the two natural operations of Christ, by passages from Hilary, Leo, Dionysius the Areopagite, Justin, Athanasius, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, Amphilochius, Epiphanius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Cyril of Alexandria, Chrysostom, etc. The Synod remarked: From this it is clear that Cyrus and Sergius contradicted the holy Fathers, since these most decidedly taught not only two natures, but also two natural wills and operations. It now remains only to show that the innovators agreed with heretics already condemned; and this was shown by forty-one utterances from the Arian Lucius, from Apollinaris, Severus, Themistius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Nestorius, Colluthus, Julian of Halicarnassus, etc., who all acknowledged only one energy and one divine will in Christ. Immediately afterwards the Pope interposed, in order to draw the conclusion that the new doctrine of Sergius and Cyrus was identical with the heresies read out, which he showed still more clearly and forcibly by comparing the leading propositions on both sides. He closed with the words: “The innovators therefore deserve the same anathema as the old heretics, since they not only have not been alarmed by the anathema pronounced on the others, but, going still further, have maintained, to the deceiving of the people, that the Council of Chalcedon and the holy Fathers were upon their side.” After that, Maximus of Aquileia and Deusdedit of Calaris delivered addresses to show that the doctrine of two wills and energies was the only true one; and after the Pope had, in a short address, finally done the same, the Synod put forth a Symbolum and twenty anathematisms or canons.

The Lateran symbol is, in the first place, a repetition and translation of the Chalcedonian, from ἓνα καὶ τὸν αὐτόν (vol. iii. sec. 193, p. 350) down to Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν. To this is added that which, for the present, is the most important, the new passage: “Et duas ejusdem sicuti naturas unitas inconfuse, ita et duas naturales voluntates (sc. credimus), divinam et humanam, in approbatione perfecta et indiminuta eundem veraciter esse perfectum Deum, et hominem perfectum (the Greek text has the addition, μόνης δίχα τῆς ἁμαρτίας), eundem atque unum Dominum nostrum et Deum J. Chr., utpote volentem et operantem divine et humane nostram salutem.

The same doctrine is developed more explicitly in the twenty canons; but they are not confined to this point alone, but extend, in precise and clear exposition, over the whole christological question, and anathematise the opposed heresy with its adherents, and with the Ecthesis and the Typus.

Can. 1. Si quis secundum sanctos patres non confitetur proprie et veraciter Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum, Trinitatem in unitate, et unitatem in Trinitate, h.e. unum Deum in tribus subsistentiis consubstantialibus et æqualis gloriæ, unam eamdemque trium deitatem, naturam, substantiam, virtutem, potentiam, regnum, imperium, voluntatem, operationem inconditam, sine initio, incomprehensibilem, immutabilem, creatricem omnium et protectricem, condemnatus sit.

2. Si quis secundum S. patres non confitetur proprie et secundum veritatem ipsum unum sanctæ et consubstantialis et venerandæ Trinitatis Deum Verbum e cœlo descendisse, et incarnatum ex Spiritu Sancto et Maria semper Virgine, et hominem factum, crucifixum came, propter nos sponte passum, sepultumque, et resurrexisse tertia die, et ascendisse in cœlos, atque sedentem in dextera Patris, et venturum iterum cum gloria paterna, cum assumpta ab eo atque animate intellectualiter carne ejus, judicare vivos et mortuos, condemnatus sit.

3. Si quis secundum sanctos patres non confitetur proprie et secundum veritatem Dei genitricem sanctam semperque Virginem et immaculatam Mariam, utpote ipsum Deum Verbum specialiter et veraciter, qui a Deo Patre ante omnia sæcula natus est, in ultimis sæculorum absque semine concepisse ex Spiritu Sancto, et incorruptibiliter eam genuisse, indissolubili permanente et post partum ejusdem virginitate, condemnatus sit.

4. Si quis secundum sanctos patres non confitetur proprie et secundum veritatem ipsius et unius Domini nostri et Dei Jesu Christi duas nativitates, tam ante sæcula ex Deo et Patre incorporaliter et sempiternaliter, quamque de sancta Virgine semper Dei genitrice Maria corporaliter in ultimis sæculorum; atque unum eumdemque Dominum nostrum et Deum Jesum Christum consubstantialem Deo et Patri secundum Deitatem, et consubstantialem homini et matri secundum humanitatem; atque eumdem passibilem carne, et impassibilem Deitate, circumscriptum corpore, incircumscriptum Deitate, eundem inconditum et conditum, terrenum et cœlestem, visibilem et intelligibilem, capabilem et incapabilem; ut toto homine eodemque et Deo totus homo reformaretur qui sub peccato cecidit, condemnatus sit.

5. Si quis secundum sanctos patres non confitetur proprie et secundum veritatem unam naturam Dei Verbi incarnatam, per hoc quod incarnata dicitur nostra substantiæ perfecte in Christo Deo et indiminute, absque tantummodo peccato significata, condemnatus sit.

6. Si quis secundum sanctos patres non confitetur proprie et secundum veritatem ex duabus et in duabus naturis substantialiter unitis inconfuse et indivise unum eumdemque esse Dominum et Deum Jesum Christum, condemnatus sit.

7. Si quis secundum sanctos patres non confitetur proprie et secundum veritatem substantialem differentiam naturarum inconfuse et indivise in eo salvatam, condemnatus sit.

8. Si quis secundum sanctos patres non confitetur proprie et secundum veritatem naturarum substantialem unitionem indivise et inconfuse in eo cognitam, condemnatus sit.

9. Si quis secundum sanctos patres non confitetur proprie et secundum veritatem naturales proprietates Deitatis ejus et humanitatis indiminute in eo et sine deminoratione salvatas, condemnatus sit.

10. Si quis secundum sanctos patres non confitetur proprie et secundum veritatem duas unius ejusdemque Christi Dei nostri voluntates cohærenter unitas, divinam et humanam, ex hoc quod per utramque ejus naturam voluntarius naturaliter idem consistit nostræ salutis, condemnatus sit.

11. Si quis secundum sanctos patres non confitetur proprie et secundum veritatem duas unius ejusdemque Christi Dei nostri operationes cohærenter unitas, divinam et humanam, ab eo quod per utramque ejus naturam operator naturaliter idem exsistit nostræ salutis, condemnatus sit.

12. Si quis secundum scelerosos hæreticos unam Christi Dei nostri voluntatem confitetur et unam operationem, in peremptionem sanctorum patrum confessionis, et abnegationem ejusdem Salvatoris nostri dispensationis, condemnatus sit.

13. Si quis secundum scelerosos hæreticos in Christo Deo in unitate substantialiter salvatis et sanctis patribus nostris pie prædicatis duabus voluntatibus et duabus operationibus, divina et humana, contra doctrinam patrum, et unam voluntatem atque unam operationem confitetur, condemnatus sit.

14. Si quis secundum scelerosos hæreticos cum una voluntate et una operatione, quæ ab hæreticis impie confitetur, et duas voluntates pariterque et operationes, hoc est, divinam et humanam, quæ in ipso Christo Deo in unitate salvantur, et a sanctis patribus orthodoxe in ipso prædicantur, denegat et respuit, condemnatus sit.

15. Si quis secundum scelerosos hæreticos deivirilem operationem, quod Græci dicunt θεανδρικήν, unam operationem insipienter suscipit, non autem duplicem esse confitetur secundum sanctos patres, hoc est divinam et humanam, aut ipsam deivirilis, quæ posita est, novam vocabuli dictionem unius esse designativam, sed non utriusque mirificæ et gloriosæ unitionis demonstrativam, condemnatus sit.

16. Si quis secundum scelerosos hæreticos in peremptione salvatis in Christo Deo essentialiter in unitione, et sanctis patribus pie prædicatis duabus voluntatibus et duabus operationibus, hoc est, divina et humana, dissensiones et divisiones insipienter mysterio dispensationis ejus innectit, et propterea evangelicas et apostolicas de eodem Salvatore voces non uni eidemque personæ et essentialiter tribuit eidem ipsi Domino et Deo nostro Jesu Christo secundum beatum Cyrillum, ut ostendatur Deus esse et homo idem naturaliter, condemnatus sit.

17. Si quis secundum sanctos patres non confitetur proprie et secundum veritatem omnia, quæ tradita sunt et prædicata sanctæ catholicæ et apostolicæ Dei ecclesiæ, perindeque a sanctis patribus et venerandis universalibus quinque conciliis usque ad unum apicem, verbo et mente, condemnatus sit.

18. Si quis secundum sanctos patres consonanter nobis pariterque fide non respuit et anathematizat anima et ore omnes, quos respuit et anathematizat nefandissimos hæreticos cum omnibus impiis eorum conscriptis usque ad unum apicem sancta Dei ecclesia catholica et apostolica, hoc est, sanctæ et universales quinque synodi, et consonanter omnes probabiles ecclesiæ patres: id est, Sabellium, Arium, Eunomium, Macedonium, Apollinarem, Polemonem, Eutychem, Dioscorum, Timotheum Ælurum, Severum, Theodosium, Colluthum, Themistium, Paulum Samosatenum, Diodorum, Theodorum, Nestorium, Theodulum Persam, Originem, Didymum, Evagrium, et compendiose omnes reliquos hæreticos, qui a catholica ecclesia reprobati et abjecti sunt, quorum dogmata diabolicæ operationis sunt genimina; et eos qui similia cum his usque ad finem obstinate sapuerunt et sapiunt, vel sapere sperantur; cum quibus merito, utpote similes eis parique errore præditos, ex quibus dogmatizare noscuntur, proprieque errori vitam suam determinantes, hoc est, Theodorum quondam episcopum Pharanitanum, Cyrum Alexandrinum, Sergium Constantinopolitanum, vel ejus successores Pyrrhum et Paulum, in sua perfidia permanentes, et omnia illorum conscripta, et eos qui similia cum illis usque in finem obstinate sapuerunt, aut sapiunt, vel sapere sperantur, hoc est, unam voluntatem et unam operationem Deitatis et humanitatis Christi; et super hæc impiissimam Ecthesim, quæ persuasione ejusdem Sergii facta est ab Heraclio quondam imperatore adversus orthodoxam fidem, unam Christi Dei voluntatem, et unam ex concinnatione definientem operationem venerari; sed et omnia, quæ pro ea impie ab eis scripta vel acta sunt; et illos qui eam suscipiunt, vel aliquid de his, quæ pro ea scripta vel acta sunt; et cum illis denuo scelerosum Typum, qui ex suasione prædicti Pauli nuper factus est a serenissimo principe Constantino Imperatore contra catholicam ecclesiam, utpote duas naturales voluntates et operationes, divinam et humanam, quæ a sanctis patribus in ipso Christo vero et Salvatore nostro pie prædicantur, cum una voluntate et operatione, quæ ab hereticis impie in eo veneratur, pariter denegare et taciturnitate constringi promulgantem, et propterea cum sanctis patribus et scelerosos hæreticos, ab omni reprehensione et condemnatione injuste liberari definientem, in amputationem catholicæ ecclesiæ definitionum seu regulæ. Si quis igitur, juxta quod dictum est, consonanter nobis omnia hæc impiissima hæreseos illorum dogmata, et ea quæ pro illis aut in definitione eorum a quolibet impie conscripta sunt, et denominatos hæreticos, Theodorum dicimus, Cyrum et Sergium, Pyrrhum et Paulum non respuit et anathematizat, utpote catholicæ ecclesiæ rebelles exsistentes; aut si quis aliquem de his, qui ab illis vel similibus eorum in scripto vel sine scripto, quocumque modo vel loco aut tempore temere depositi sunt aut condemnati, utpote similia eis minime credentem, sed sanctorum patrum nobiscum confitentem doctrinam, uti condemnatum habet aut omnino depositum; sed non arbitrantur hujusmodi, quicumque fuerit, hoc est, sive episcopus, aut presbyter, vel diaconus, sive alterius cujuscumque ecclesiastici ordinis, aut monachus, vel laicus, pium et orthodoxum, et catholicæ ecclesiae propugnatorem, atque in ipso firmius consolidatum, in quo vocatus est a Domino ordine, illos autem impios atque detestabilia eorum pro hoc judicia vel sententias vacuas et invalidas atque infirmas, magis autem profanas et exsecrabiles vel reprobabiles arbitratur, hujusmodi condemnatus sit.

19. Si quis ea quæ scelerosi hæretici sapiunt, indubitanter professus atque intelligens, per inanem proterviam dicit hæc pietatis esse dogmata, quæ tradiderunt ab initio speculators et ministri verbi, hoc est dicere, sanctæ et universales quinque synodi, calumnians utique ipsos sanctos patres, et memoratas sanctas quinque synodos, in deceptione simplicium, vel susceptione suæ profanæ perfidiæ, hujusmodi condemnatus sit.

20. Si quis secundum scelerosos hæreticos quocumque modo, aut verbo, aut tempore, aut loco terminos removens illicite, quos posuerunt firmius sancti catholicæ ecclesiæ patres, id est sanctæ et universales quinque synodi, novitates temere exquirere, et fidei alterius expositiones, aut libellos, aut epistolas, aut conscripta, aut subscriptiones, aut testimonia falsa, aut synodos, aut gesta monumentorum, aut ordinationes vacuas et ecclesiasticæ regulæ incognitas, aut loci servatores, i.e. vicarios incongruous et irrationabiles; et compendiose, si quid aliud impiissimis hæreticis consuetum est agere, per, diabolicam operationem tortuose et callide agit contra pias orthodoxorum catholicæ ecclesiæ, hoc est dicere, paternas ejus et synodales prædicationes, ad eversionem sincerrimæ in Dominum Deum nostrum confessionis; et usque in finem sine pœnitentia permanet hæc impie agens, hujusmodi in sæcula sæculorum condemnatus sit, et dicat omnis populas, fiat, fiat.

The whole was subscribed, first by the Pope, by all the members, and somewhat later also by three other bishops who had not been present: John of Milan, Malliodorus of Dortona, and John of Calaris (Cagliari) in Sardinia, probably the successor of Deusdedit, whom we have seen active at our Synod.

The Acts of the Lateran Synod were now sent into all the countries of Christendom, and an Encyclical from the Pope and Council in common was sent to all bishops, priests, deacons, abbots, monks, ascetes, and to the whole Church, in which, after a complete relation of the whole process of events, the readers are requested, like the Lateran Council, to confirm in a written document the doctrine of the Fathers, and to pronounce anathema upon the new heretics, with their propositions, and with the Ecthesis and the Typus and their adherents. It closes with an exhortation, accompanied with many Scripture passages, on no account to accede to the heresy and the Typus and the Ecthesis.

The second letter issued by the Pope and the Synod in common is that addressed to the Emperor Constantine (Constans II.), in which he is very politely informed that the Synod has confirmed the true doctrine, and has condemned the new heresy, which ascribes no will to the human nature of Christ. Theodore of Pharan, Cyrus, Sergius, Pyrrhus, and Paul had attacked the perfect humanity of Christ, and for the confirmation of the heresy had surreptitiously put forth the Ecthesis and the Typus, and deceived the Emperor. Requested on all sides no longer to tolerate this, the apostolic see had summoned the Synod, and there was now sent to the Emperor a Greek translation of its Acts, so that he also might condemn the heretics and the heresy, for along with the orthodox faith the empire would also flourish, and God would then grant it victory over the barbarians.

To the copy of the Encyclical and the synodal Acts intended for Tungern, the Pope added a special letter to Amandus, the bishop of that place, asking him to bring it about that Synods should be held in the kingdom of Austrasia for the condemnation of the new heresy, and that some Frankish bishops should be sent to Rome by King Sigebert, in order to go with the papal embassy to Constantinople, and deliver the decrees of the Frankish Synod, together with those of the Lateran Council, to the Emperor. The same request was made by the Pope to the bishops of Neustria and King Chlodwig II.; and Archbishop Audoenus of Rouen and Bishop Eligius of Noyon were chosen to be sent to Rome for this purpose; but their departure was hindered, as Eligius relates in his biography of Audoenus.

SEC. 308. Letters of Pope Martin I

How greatly Pope Martin endeavoured to obtain the universal rejection of the new heresy, is shown by several letters written by him soon after the end of the Lateran Synod, particularly that addressed to the Church of Carthage, and the bishops, clergy, and laity subject to that Church, that is, to the Christendom of Latin Africa. In this he commends the synodal letters which the Africans had sent to the holy see on the subject of Monothelitism (see sec. 304); they had there shown themselves to be a lamp of orthodoxy, and the Holy Spirit had made them this by the glorious orator of their Church, Augustine. The Pope now sent to them the synodal Acts and the Encyclica; they would there recognise their own doctrine. Finally, he exhorts them to steadfastness in orthodoxy, and foresees conflicts for them.

In another letter, the Pope named as his vicar in the East, Bishop John of Philadelphia, who had been strongly recommended to him by Stephen of Dor and the Oriental monks, commissioning him to put an end to disorders, and to appoint bishops, priests, and deacons in all the cities of the patriarchates of Antioch and Jerusalem. He was to carry through that which had been previously committed to Bishop Stephen of Dor, which, however, he had been unable to accomplish on account of hindrances from others.

He was to advance worthy men in ecclesiastical positions, and bring back, by constant admonition, the deposed to the right way. If this succeeded, he might then, if they were otherwise upright, reinstate them in their offices, and require of them a written confession of the orthodox faith. Those bishops who, during the patriarchate of Sophronius, had been appointed without his knowledge or will, must be deposed; those, on the contrary, should be confirmed who, either before the entrance of Sophronius on office or after his death, through force of circumstances, had been appointed uncanonically. Macedonius of Antioch, however, and Peter of Alexandria, had been intruded quite irregularly, and at the same time were heretics. That Bishop John might understand the right faith and promulgate it elsewhere, the Pope sent him the synodal Acts and the Encyclica. Moreover, he would be supported in his new office by Bishop Theodore of Esbus and others, to whom the Pope had written, to this end. These letters, addressed to the distinguished layman Peter, to the Archimandrite George in the monastery of S. Theodosius, and to the bishops Theodore of Esbus and Anthony of Bacatha (in Arabia, but belonging to the ecclesiastical province of Palæstina III.), are also still extant. We learn from these that the two bishops had been on the side of the heresy, but had sent to the Pope an orthodox declaration of faith, and thereby had obtained his confirmation.

To the same class belongs also the papal letter to Pantaleon (more about this is not known), who had unjustly accused Bishop Stephen of Dor with the Pope. Martin regrets that the documents had been withheld from Stephen, whereby he had been empowered to appoint bishops and clergy, whilst he had obtained authority to depose others. By this means there had come about a lack of clergy in those parts. The Pope had now appointed a new vicar, and had prescribed to him whom he was to confirm and whom not. He closes with an exhortation to hold fast the orthodox doctrine.

Pope Martin, further, sent forth an encyclical letter to all the faithful of the patriarchates of Jerusalem and Antioch, in which he acquaints them with the decrees of the Lateran Synod, warns them against Macedonius and Peter, the unsanctioned bishops of Antioch and Alexandria, who had accepted the Ecthesis and the Typus; and requires adhesion to the orthodox doctrine and to the new papal vicar.

Immediately after the close of the Lateran Synod, finally were despatched the two papal letters to Archbishop Paul of Thessalonica and his Church. Even before the opening of the Lateran Council, Paul of Thessalonica had expressed himself in a heterodox manner in his Synodica, which he sent to Rome. As, however, his deputies gave the assurance that he had certainly no heretical meaning, and would immediately correct himself on the Pope’s admonition, the latter sent him a formulary of faith for his acceptance. Paul, however, put this aside, and by an artifice induced the papal representatives to accept from him a different declaration of faith, also in the form of a synodal letter, in which the expressions will and energy were entirely avoided, and much else was added in the interest of Monothelitism. This new document arrived at Rome November 1, 649, just as the Lateran Council was closed, and Martin I. immediately anathematised and pronounced the deposition of Paul, and informed him of this in writing, remarking that he could avoid this judgment only through acceptance of the Lateran decrees. In a second letter, he informed the clergy and laity of Thessalonica of this, so that the faithful might abstain from all intercourse with the deposed bishop until he amended. If he did not so, then another bishop must be elected.

SEC. 309. Pope Martin I. becomes a Martyr for Dyothelitism

Whilst the Lateran Synod was still assembled, the Emperor sent his chamberlain, Olympius, as exarch to Italy, with the commission that he should obtain the subscription of the Typus by prudence and force, and should overthrow the Pope. In case, however, he should find that the multitude were not favourably inclined in this matter, he should say nothing of his commission, and first seek to gain the attachment of the troops, and especially of those in Rome and Ravenna. When Olympius came to Rome, he found the Church there united with the Italian bishops, i.e. assembled in Synod. He had a mind to have the Pope murdered by his sword-bearer, whilst he was administering the communion to him; but by a miracle his esquire could not see the Pope, either at the communion or at the kiss of peace, and this made such an impression upon Olympius, that he came to an understanding with the Pope, and disclosed to him the intentions of the Court of Constantinople. He afterwards went with his troops to Sicily, in order to oppose the Saracens who had settled there, and found death there in consequence of a plague which had broken out in his army. Thus relates Anastasius. From another side we learn that Olympius was accused of rebellion, and the Greeks reproached the Pope for not having restrained him from his crime.

Hard times for Pope Martin began with the arrival of the new exarch, Theodore Calliopa, who entered Rome with an army, June 15, 653, commissioned by the Emperor to cast the Pope into prison. What took place in consequence we learn chiefly from Pope Martin himself, who through all his misfortunes preserved a lofty mind, so that he wrote to a friend, exsultem potius quam fleam, and hoped at least this gain from his sufferings, that his oppressors would thereby be brought to repentance. After Martin’s letter, the second source for us is the treatise written by an admirer of the Pope,—Commemoratio eorum quæ sæviter et sine Dei respectu acta sunt … in sanctum, et apostolicum novum revera confessorem et martyrem Martinum Papam, etc., and here, as elsewhere, it is a relation of shocking occurrences given with a bleeding heart, yet with such objective treatment that the fidelity of these documents has never been doubted.

The Pope saw beforehand what was about to happen, and therefore, on the arrival of Calliopa, on Saturday, June 15, 653, he betook himself with his clergy into the Church of the Saviour, or Basilica Constantini (Lateran), which lay in the neighbourhood of the Episcopium, or bishop’s residence. Politeness required that he should send a deputation of the clergy to convey a greeting to the exarch; but he was himself unable to meet him, as he had been sick for eight months. The exarch pretended friendship, and declared, when he did not see the Pope amongst those who had arrived, that he would himself go to him on the morrow and pay his respects. On the following day, however, he put off his visit, excusing himself on the plea of great fatigue, but really for the reason that many of the faithful had on this Sunday gathered round the Pope for divine service, and therefore an act of violence did not seem advisable. On the following Monday the exarch sent his secretary, Theodore, with a retinue to the Pope, to ask him why he had collected weapons and stones in his dwelling. To deprive this false accusation of force, the Pope allowed the envoys to go round the whole episcopium, and as they nowhere discovered weapons, etc., he made the complaint that false charges were allowed to be made against him, as, e.g., that he had offered armed opposition to the infamis Olympius.

The Pope had caused his bed to be placed in front of the altar in the Lateran church; and at midnight the military forced their way into the church with lances and swords, bow and shield. Lamps and tapers were overturned, and a noise like thunder arose through the clash of weapons. Calliopa immediately communicated to the priests and deacons a decree to the effect that Martin had acquired the bishopric irregulariter et sine lege (see above, sec. 307), and was not worthy of confirmation in the apostolic see; but he must be conveyed to Constantinople, and another must be elected in his stead. Pope Martin further relates that he was then accused, with respect to the faith, as though he had not taught correctly in regard to the Holy Virgin, and had, together with many, sent a tomus to the Saracens, as to what they should believe, all of which was untrue, and he had only given alms to some Christians who came from a Saracen country. The Pope would make no opposition to violence, was not subjected to constraint, and voluntarily surrendered himself. He was unwilling that blood should be shed on his account. At his request he obtained the assurance that he might take with him the clergy whom he wished, and he was led into the palace, whilst the populace cried: “Anathema to every one who maintains that Martin has violated the faith, and anathema to him who does not continue in the true faith.” In order to appease them, the exarch declared that there was no question of the faith, and in this respect there was no difference between Greeks and Romans.

On Tuesday, the Pope was visited by the assembled clergy, and they almost all wanted to accompany him to Constantinople. But in the night between Tuesday and Wednesday he was violently separated from all his friends, conveyed out of the city, and brought to the harbour. Only six servants and a cauculus were left to him. Moreover, the gates of the city of Rome were closed, so that no one could follow him. Immediately afterwards they set sail, and after three months reached the island of Naxos, where the Pope had to remain a whole year as a prisoner. The only recreation was that he bathed two or three times, and was permitted to lodge in a hospitium in the city; but the presents which the faithful brought him were taken by his warders. They sent the news of his arrest to Constantinople beforehand, and described him as a heretic and rebel. On September 17, 654, they landed at last at Constantinople, and from morning to evening, the Pope, lying in bed on the ship, was mocked, insulted, and persecuted. Towards sundown there came at last a writer, Sagoleva by name, with a guard, and had him conveyed to the prison Prandearia. He was very carefully locked up, and the warders were forbidden to say who was there hidden. He had to remain there ninety-three days. In this time falls the composition of his second letter to Theodore, in which he complains that for forty-seven days he has not been allowed to use either a cold or a warm bath, that he was entirely deprived of bodily strength, that he has suffered long from diarrhœa, and been without ordinary food. What was allowed him of this kind he had left off eating from nausea.

After ninety-three days he was placed before the tribunal; or, to be more exact, he was, on account of his sickness, carried on a chair, and the fiscal (Sacellarius) had the cruelty to order that he should stand, which he was able to do only by supporting himself on two beadles, and with much pain. He now asked the Pope insolently: “Say, unhappy man, what harm has the Emperor done you?” The Pope was silent, and the witnesses against him were now called, partly former subordinates of Olympius and soldiers. They had been told beforehand what they were to say, and several were browbeaten. The first accuser was Dorotheus, a patrician of Cilicia (or Sicily), who asserted that Martin had made common cause with Olympius against the Emperor, and had distracted the West, that he was an enemy and conspirator against the Emperor. Another declared: “He took part in the insurrection of Olympius, and induced the soldiers to conspire.” When asked to explain, Martin was about to tell how the matter was, but as he spoke the first words, “When the Typus was put forth and sent to Rome,” the Prefect Troilus interrupted him, and cried: “You are not here to speak of the faith, you are examined respecting rebellion. … You saw what Olympius undertook against the Emperor, and did not hinder him, but agreed with him.” Martin replied: “And you did not hinder when George and Valentinus made insurrection against the Emperor, and that which happened you and your companions allowed to happen. And how could I have gone against a man who had the whole military power of Italy under him? Further, I adjure you by the Lord, finish quickly what you intend with me. Any kind of death will be a benefit to me.”

There were several witnesses present, but they were not heard, and the interpreter was reviled because he had translated the striking words of the Pope so accurately into Greek. Upon this the president of the tribunal rose up, and informed the Emperor of what had happened. The Pope had been taken out into the public court as a spectacle to the people, and then exposed on a platform, that the Emperor might see from his chamber what further happened. Many people stood in the neighbourhood. The fiscal then came from the Emperor’s chamber, stepped before the Pope, and taunted him with the words: “You have contended against the Emperor; what have you now to hope for? You have forsaken God, and God has forsaken you;” then ordered his patriarchal garments to be torn off, and transferred him to the prefect of the city, with the words: “Have him immediately hewn in pieces, limb from limb”; and required all present to anathematise him, which, however, was done only by a few. The executioners deprived him of his upper garments, and even tore his undermost tunic from top to bottom into two pieces, so that the naked body came through at many places. Around his neck they hung iron chains, and thus dragged him, bearing a sword before him, through the city to the prætorium. Here he was first imprisoned in company with murderers, after an hour cast into another prison, that of Diomede, and with such violence that his legs and knees were wounded, and his blood stuck to the steps of the prison. Martin suffered unspeakably from the cold, for it was the depth of winter; and all day he was at the point of death. Only a young cleric was allowed to remain with him as attendant. On the other hand, he was attached to the executioner’s servant, as was generally done with those who were to be put to death. Two women, mother and daughter, who belonged to the establishment of the warders, had compassion upon him, and wanted to cover the half-naked and half-frozen man; but did not venture to do so at once, on account of the governor of the prison, and accomplished their wish only when, some hours after, he was called away. Until towards evening the Pope uttered not a syllable. The Prefect Gregory now sent him some victuals, adding, “We hope to God that you are not dying.” He sighed, and now his iron chains were taken off. Next day the Emperor visited the Patriarch Paul of Constantinople, now sick unto death, and told him what had taken place. The latter cried out, “Woe’s me! must this also come before God for me to answer for?” and adjured the Emperor to let this suffice, and no further to punish the Pope. When Martin heard this, he was sorry, for he hoped for death. Soon afterwards the Patriarch Paul died, and Pyrrhus forced himself in again. As many were discontented with this, the Emperor sent an officer of the palace, by name Demosthenes, into the prison to the Pope, to ask what had taken place in Rome with regard to Pyrrhus. The Pope informed him that Pyrrhus had, of his own accord, and under no constraint, come to Rome, and had voluntarily presented his declaration of faith; that Pope Theodore received him as bishop, because, before his arrival, Paul, who had been intruded into his see, had not been recognised, and that Pyrrhus received his maintenance from the Roman patriarcheion. Demosthenes professed to know that Pyrrhus had not acted freely, and had suffered imprisonment in Rome. The Pope appealed to witnesses, who were then in Rome and now in Constantinople, and added, “Do with me what you will, let me be hewn in pieces, as you commanded. With the Church of Constantinople I will not come into communion.”

Martin remained in the prison of Diomede for eighty-five days, and during that time took a dignified and touching farewell of the friends who visited him, was imprisoned two days longer in the house of the secretary, Sagoleba (above, Sagoleva), and then was privately conveyed (March 26, 655) on a ship to Cherson. Here also he endured much hardship, even to want of bread, and died, September 16 of the same year, with the glory of a martyr, and was interred in the neighbourhood of the city of Cherson, in the church of the Holy Virgin of Blachernæ. We still possess two of his letters which he wrote from Cherson shortly before his death, and in which he describes the great need in which he finds himself. He complains also that his friends, and especially the Roman clergy, have quite forgotten him, and had sent no provision for his maintenance, not even in corn and wine, which the Roman Church possessed in abundance. Finally, at the close of his last letter, he earnestly commends the Roman Church, and especially its present pastor (pastorem qui eis nunc præesse monstratur), to the divine protection. Along with this he gave, in addition, his approval to what had taken place in Rome. When Martin was removed, the imperial exarch demanded that another Pope should be elected, but the Roman clergy opposed this request; and Martin wrote from Constantinople towards the end of the year 654, that he hoped this would never be done, as, in the absence of the Pope, the archdeacon, archpresbyter, and primicerius were his legal representatives. At the time when he wrote this, however, the Roman clergy had already (September 8, 654) elected Eugenius I., an able and orthodox man of a distinguished Roman family; and this step they took, after more than a year’s resistance, from the fear that the Emperor would otherwise place a Monothelite on the see. Baronius (ad ann. 652, n. 11, and 654, n. 6) thought that, until the death of Martin, Eugenius had only acted as his vicar. This assumption was opposed by Pagi (ad ann. 654, n. 4), who shows that even in the Roman archives the years of Eugenius are numbered from September 8, 654, and not from the death of Martin. Even if this is correct, yet only from the death of Martin can Eugenius be regarded as fully legitimate Pope.

SEC. 310. Abbot Maximus and his Disciples become Martyrs. The Doctrine of Three Wills

Besides Pope Martin, there were other bishops of the West, who had taken part in the Lateran Synod, who were severely punished; but Abbot Maximus and his disciples were the objects of special cruelty (see above, sec. 303). On this subject we possess copious sources of information in the Acts on the trial of Maximus in his own letters, and in those of his disciples, and in the minutes of disputation between him and Bishop Theodosius of Cæsarea. We also hear of it from the old historians and the Vita S. Maximi. We learn from hence that Abbot Maximus, with two disciples, who both bore the name of Anastasius, and of whom the one was a monk, the other a representative of the Roman Church, was brought from Rome to Constantinople at the imperial command at the same time as Pope Martin, i.e. A.D. 653. J. C. Assemani professes to show that he had arrived there in 653, and thus before Pope Martin, but it is certain only that the examination with respect to Maximus and his friends did not begin until the year 655, after the judgment on Pope Martin had already been given. The imperial Sacellarius (fiscal) reproached him with hatred against the Emperor, adding, it was his fault that Egypt, Alexandria, Pentapolis, and Africa had been seized by the Saracens. The witness John said also that, twenty years ago, when the Emperor Heraclius had recommended the Prefect Peter of Numidia to march against the Saracens with the army in Egypt, Maximus had counselled the prefect not to do so, because God did not support the government of Heraclius (on account of his Monothelitism). Maximus declared this to be a falsehood; and so also the assertion of the second witness, Sergius Maguda, that Pope Theodore, nine years ago, had conveyed to the patrician Gregory that he should venture upon the insurrection courageously, for Maximus had seen in a dream angels who cried: “Emperor Gregory, thou conquerest.” Another witness, Gregory, the son of Photinus, distorted an expression which Maximus, during his residence in Rome, had uttered in opposition to him, namely, that the Emperor was not also a priest. Maximus was then taken out, and one of his disciples was asked whether Maximus had treated Pyrrhus badly (sec. 303). As he did not speak against his master, he was beaten and taken away with the other scholar. The Abbot Mennas then, in presence of the Senate, brought against Maximus (Maximus must now have been brought back to the hall of judgment) the further accusation, that he had misled the people into Origenism. Maximus rejected this with an anathema on Origen, and thereupon was sent back to prison. On the same day, towards evening, the patrician Troilus and the imperial table-officer Sergius Eucratas came to Maximus, in order to interrogate him respecting the doctrinal discussions which he had in Africa and in Rome with Pyrrhus. Maximus gave them complete information, and concluded with the words: “I have no doctrine of my own, but am in agreement with the Catholic Church.” On being further interrogated, he added: “With the Church of Constantinople, however, I cannot agree, because it has infringed on the four Œumenical Synods by the Ecthesis and the Typus.” They answered him: “But the Romans now agree with Constantinople. The Roman deputies came here yesterday, and to-morrow they will communicate with the Patriarch.” As a matter of fact, the deputies whom Pope Eugenius I. had sent to the Court of Constantinople had shown themselves disposed to enter into communion with the Patriarch there, on condition that in Christ a hypostatic and two natural wills should be recognised, i.e., considering Him as a person, we should speak of only one will, but if we have the two natures in view, we should ascribe a proper will to each of them. This middle way had been invented by Peter, a clergyman of Constantinople, and recommended for acceptance to the Patriarch Pyrrhus, but also the Roman deputies agreed to this. When, however, Abbot Maximus heard of this, he refused to believe in it, and remarked: “Even if the Roman envoys do so, they yet do not prejudice the Roman see, because they have brought with them no letter from the Pope to the Patriarch (but only to the Emperor).” The reproach that he was insulting the Emperor, because he spoke against the Typus, etc., Maximus put away from him with great testimony of humility, saying that, above all things, he could not insult God, and he answered the question, Whether the anathema on the Typus was not an anathema on the Emperor himself? by the remark that the Emperor was merely misguided by the rulers of the Church of Constantinople, and he might now do as Heraclius did, who, in a letter to Pope John, declared that not he, but Sergius, was the author of the Ecthesis, and renounced it (sec. 299). Thus ended the first examination.

Some days afterwards occurred something not mentioned in the Acts of the trial, but by Maximus himself in the letter to his disciple, the monk Anastasius, namely, on the 18th, the Feast of the Media Pentacostes, the Patriarch caused it to be said to him: “The churches of Constantinople, Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem are now united; if you wish, then, to be a Catholic, you must unite with them.” On nearer interrogation, the deputies of the Patriarch remarked that all the united churches now confessed two operations on account of the difference (of the natures), and one operation on account of the unity (of the Person). When Maximus. refused to accede to this doctrine, the deputies replied: “The Emperor and the Patriarch have resolved, in accordance with the papal decision (per præceptum Papæ), to punish you with anathema and with death if you do not obey.” Maximus still remained steadfast. Pagi (ad ann. 657, n. 6, 7) showed that by media Pentacostes was meant the middle day between Easter and Pentecost, which in the year 655 fell on the 22nd of April. Therefore, in the letter of Maximus, instead of 18, we must read the 22nd day of the month. This transaction was also placed by Pagi after the first examination. This was contested by Assemani, who thought that it went before it, because, on the 22nd of April 655, Pyrrhus still occupied the see of Constantinople (he died in June or July 655); but in the Acts of the Examination he is spoken of as dead in the words of a cleric to Maximus: Tibi reddidit Deus quæcunque fecisti BEATO Pyrrho. Assemani here overlooks the fact that at the time of the transaction on April 22, the union of the Roman deputies with the Church of Constantinople must have been already concluded; for it was often appealed to. It is also incorrect to say that μακάριος (beatus) is used only of the dead. Living bishops were also thus entitled (cf. below, sec. 314). But even if we were willing to grant that the τῷ μακαρίῳ Πύῤῥῳ referred to his death as having taken place, yet it is not necessary that we should agree with Assemani and place the transaction on April 22 before the first examination of S. Maximus, for the Acts of Examination plainly fall into two parts. The first part, from which we have already made extracts, in no way speaks of Pyrrhus as of one who is dead, but refers to him repeatedly with the addition of beatus, naturally because Pyrrhus had then, after the death of Paul, been again restored to the patriarchal see. Only in the second part of the minutes of the trial can the μακάριος refer to Pyrrhus as already dead, and this second part begins with the words: Et rursus alio sabbato. Between this aliud sabbatum and that which had gone before several months may have elapsed, just as between the arrival of Maximus in Constantinople and his first examination, whilst the Acts, as we have already remarked, give all these events in near connection.

After the Roman deputies had been fooled by Byzantine cunning, they were sent back to their home, with a letter to the Pope, in order to gain him also for the doctrine of the three wills. So we are informed by the monk Athanasius in his letter to the monks of Cagliari in Sardinia, in which he requests them to go immediately to Rome and encourage the good and steadfast Christians there to oppose the new heresy. The letters which had been communicated to the papal deputies had not been drawn up by the Patriarch Pyrrhus, but by his successor, Peter. That the latter addressed a letter to Pope Eugenius is stated by the Vitæ Pontificum of Anastasius, with the remark, that he expressed himself very obscurely, and that on the operations and energies in Christ he gave no explanation. We are told that the people and clergy of Rome were greatly provoked by this, and the people would not allow divine service to be held in the chief church of S. Mary, at the manger, nor suffer the Pope to leave the church until he promised to condemn that letter. The same fate may have befallen also the letters given to the deputies; indeed, it is probable that the incident just mentioned had reference to them as well as to the letter of the Patriarch Peter. That Pope Eugenius defended himself well, a passage (p. 134) from the transactions of Bishop Theodosius with Maximus will show.

In the meantime another examination had been held in Constantinople with Maximus and his scholars (alio sabbato), in the summer of the year 655, after the death of Pyrrhus. First, one of the scholars was led into the palace of judgment, where also the two Patriarchs, Peter of Constantinople and Macedonius of Antioch (see sec. 308), were present. Constantine and Abbot Mennas appeared again as accusers; but the disciple of Maximus objected to the former, because he was neither monk nor cleric, but an actor and the keeper of a brothel. At the same time he confessed publicly that he anathematised the Typus, and had even written a book against it. Maximus himself was now brought in, and Troilus spoke to him thus: “Speak the truth, and the Emperor will have compassion upon you. If, however, it comes to a judicial examination, and only one accusation is proved to be well grounded, the law condemns you to death.” Maximus declared most decidedly that all the other accusations were lies, only one was well founded, that he had anathematised the Typus, and indeed often. Troilus remarked: “If you have spoken anathemas on the Typus, then you have done so on the Emperor.” Maximus replied: “No, not on the Emperor; but only on a document which did not proceed from him.” After some other questions had been proposed to him, why he loved the Latins and hated the Greeks, etc., a cleric shouted to him the words already mentioned: Retribuit tibi Deus, quæcunque fecisti beato Pyrrho. When the discussion on the Lateran Synod came up, it was asserted that it had no authority, because one who was deposed (Pope Martin) had assembled it; this was contested by Maximus, and he was thereupon sent back to prison. The two Patriarchs had not spoken a word during the whole transaction.

On the following day, which was Sunday, they held a Synod (σύνοδος ἐνδημοῦσα), and gave the Emperor (as decree of the Synod) the advice, that he should send Maximus and his disciples into a severe exile, each one to a different place. Maximus was banished to Byzia in Thrace. Of his disciples, the one was banished to Perberis, the other to Mesembria, in great misery, almost without clothing or food.

On August 24, 656, Bishop Theodosius of Cæsarea came into Bithynia as envoy of the patriarch of Constantinople, with two plenipotentiaries of the Emperor, to Byzia, in order to confer anew with Abbot Maximus. We still possess the Acts of this conference. The way and manner in which Bishop Theodosius made inquiries for the discovery of Maximus gave occasion for the latter first to speak of divine prescience and predestination: that the former had relation to our free acts of virtues and vices; predestination to these things quæ non sunt in nobis, to our destinies (!). After he had ended, Theodosius asked him, by commission from the Emperor and the Patriarch, why he would hold no Church communion with the see of Constantinople. Maximus pointed out that what had happened since the chapters of Cyrus of Alexandria, particularly the Ecthesis and the Typus, had made such communion impossible to him, since the assertion of one energy and one will was in opposition to the genuine doctrine of Theology and Economy (Trinity and Incarnation), and the Typus forbade what the Apostles and Fathers had taught. Theodosius gave the assurance that the Emperor would withdraw the Typus if Maximus would come into union with the Church of Constantinople; but the latter demanded still further the acceptance of the decrees of the Lateran Council, and would not allow the objection that this Synod was not valid because it was held without the assent of the Emperor.

To the question, why he did not recognise the letter of Mennas (see sec. 303, and vol. iv. p. 290), Maximus alleged only its heretical character, without asserting its spuriousness; but the other patristic testimonies, which Theodosius brought forward on behalf of Monothelitism, he declared to be spurious, saying that these were passages from Apollinaris, Nestorius, etc., and had been falsely ascribed to Athanasius and Chrysostom. At another passage, supposed to be taken from Cyril (see sec. 291), Theodosius would not allow Maximus to interpret it, and maintained that one hypostatic energy in Christ must be recognised. Maximus pointed out to what errors this would lead, and that, along with two natures, it was necessary also to teach two natural wills and energies. The objection, that by this means a conflict was made in Christ, he refuted, and proved from the Acts of the Lateran Synod, that even the ancient Fathers had spoken of two wills and operations in Christ. Theodosius proposed: If that were so, he would draw up a written acknowledgment of the two natures, wills, and energies, if in that case Maximus would come into church communion (with him and the see of Constantinople). The latter replied: It was not his place, as a mere abbot, to receive such a written acknowledgment; the ecclesiastical rule required that the Emperor and the Patriarch, with his Synod, should apply with this to the Roman Bishop. Theodosius then went in and requested Maximus that, in case he were sent as envoy of Constantinople to Rome, Maximus would accompany him there. Maximus promised this, and all present wept for joy, and thanked God on their knees for the hope of peace. Immediately afterwards Theodosius asked whether Maximus would accept, in no manner whatever, the expression “one will and one energy;” and Maximus explained to him in six points the entire inadmissibleness of the expression. As, however, Theodosius had thought that the union of the two natures had necessarily, as a consequence, the unity of the will, Maximus also unfolded the doctrine of the Communicatio idiomatum, and showed that will and energy belong to the nature and not to the person. Thereupon the deputies of the Emperor departed, with the hope that they would be able to determine their master to arrange for an embassy to Rome, and left behind them some money and clothes for Maximus.

On September 8, 656, by command of the Emperor, he was conveyed to the monastery of S. Theodore at Rhegium, and by the commission of the Emperor there came again to him the patricians Epiphanius and Troilus, together with the Bishop Theodosius, to notify him that the Emperor offered him a most solemn reception in Constantinople if he would unite with him on the Typus, and would receive with him the sacred Synaxis (communion). Maximus reproached Bishop Theodosius, that the assurances given to him in Byzia had not been fulfilled, and answered naturally declining the imperial suggestion. For this those present struck him, illtreated him and reviled him, only Bishop Theodosius offered him protection. The renewed attempt to bring forward the Typus as a means of peace was rejected by Maximus, with the remark that silence with regard to the truth was not the restoration of true peace. Threats could not intimidate him. Next day, on the Feast of the Elevation of the Cross (September 14, 656), he was conveyed to Salembria, and told that, if they had some repose from the barbarians, they would deal with the Pope, who now also showed himself obstinate, and with all the spokesmen of the West, as well as with the disciples of Maximus, just as they had dealt with Pope Martin. We see from this that Pope Eugenius had rejected the union of his envoys. During his residence in Salembria, Maximus defended himself, in controversy with the military there, against the false accusation that he denied the θεοτόκος, and won over many minds by his devout and powerful discourse. His wardens therefore removed him again as soon as possible, and brought him to Perberis, where one of his disciples was already in exile. How long Maximus remained here is unknown. The ancients reckoned his residence there as a second exile.

With these statements the text ends, as it is found in the Collectanea of Anastasius. Combefis, however, discovered the appendix already mentioned (p. 131, n. which relates that Maximus and his disciples were subsequently brought to Constantinople, and anathematised, along with Pope Martin, Sophronius, and all the orthodox, by a new Synod held there. Maximus and his two disciples were then handed over to the prefect, with the instruction to flog them, to cut out their blasphemous tongues from the roots, and to chop off their right hands. Thus mutilated, they were to be taken round through all the twelve parts of the city, and then they were to be banished and imprisoned for life. The prefect accomplished this, and they were banished for the third time to Lazica (in Colchis on the Pontus Euxinus). A letter which one of them, the Deputy Anastasius, addressed from Lazica to the priest Theodosius, gives the information that they had arrived there on June 8 of the fifth Indiction (i.e. A.D. 662); had been immediately separated from one another, robbed of their property, and disgracefully treated. Maximus was first imprisoned in the fort Schemarum, and the two disciples in the forts Scotonum and Buculus. After a few days, these, although half dead, were dragged farther, and one of them, the monk Anastasius, died on the 24th of July 662, either on the way to the fort Sunias or immediately after his arrival there. His companion, the deputy Anastasius, could not accurately learn, for they had been separated from one another on the 18th of July 662. Maximus died at Schemarum, as he had foretold, August 13, 662. Much longer did the sufferings of the deputy Anastasius last. He describes them himself in the letter referred to. He also died in exile, October 11, 666.

SEC. 311. Pope Vitalian

In the meantime Pope Eugenius I. died in Rome, and Vitalian succeeded him, A.D 657. He immediately sent delegates with a synodal letter to Constantinople, in order to give information of his elevation. It was received in a friendly manner, the privileges of the Roman Church were renewed, and the Emperor sent to S. Peter’s golden books of the Gospels, which had been set round with precious stones of marvellous size. So it is related by the Vitæ Pontificum of Anastasius. From the Acts of the sixth Œcumenical Synod, it appears that Vitalian then also addressed a letter to the Patriarch Peter of Constantinople, and that the latter had inferrrd from it their unanimity. We see that Vitalian was on his guard, in his synodal letter, against expressly rejecting the Typus of the Emperor. The Emperor Constans, however, put on the appearance as if he himself were quite orthodox, and at the same time those presents were likely to propitiate the Roman people, who had been disaffected to the Emperor since the times of Martin I. The mutual dissimulation produced, as a fact, the restoration of Church communion between Rome and Constantinople. Vitalian’s name was inscribed on the diptychs of Constantinople, which, until now, had happened to none of the Popes since Honorius; and when the Emperor Constans came to Rome in July 663, he was not only received in the most ceremonious manner, but also the presents which he made to several churches, were accepted without hesitation, and himself treated completely as a member of the orthodox Church. The Pope was so friendly that he said nothing even when the Emperor took away many Church treasures, among them the brazen roof of the Church of S. Maria ad martyres, i.e. Maria Rotunda (the Pantheon) From thence the Emperor proceeded to Syracuse, where he resided, because Constantinople was hostile to him, until, in the year 668, hated for his numerous extortions, he was treacherously murdered in his bath. To him succeeded, after the overthrow of the usurper Mesecius, his son Constantine Pogonatus, so called because he had left Constantinople with his father unbearded, and now returned thither as Emperor with a strong beard.