will from which it is distinguished, is the will of his heavenly Father, to which he was obedient unto death. The orthodox dogma implies the identity of the divine will of Christ with the will of God the Father, and assumes that there is but one will in the divine tripersonality. It teaches two natures and one person in Christ, but three persons and one nature in God. Here we meet the metaphysical and psychological difficulty of conceiving of a personality without a distinct will. But the term personality is applied to the Deity in a unique and not easily definable sense. The three Divine persons are not conIceived as three individuals.

The weight of argument and the logical consistency on the basis of the Chalcedonian Dyophysitism, which was acknowledged by both parties, decided in favor of the two-will doctrine. The Catholic church East and West condemned Monotheletism as a heresy akin to Monophysitism. The sixth oecumenical Council in 680 gave the final decision by adopting the following addition to the Chalcedonian Christology :1

"And we likewise preach two natural wills in him [Jesus Christ], and two natural operations undivided, inconvertible, inseparable, unmixed, according to the doctrine of the holy fathers; and the two natural wills [are] not contrary (as the impious heretics assert), far from it! but his human will follows the divine will, and is not resisting or reluctant, but rather subject to his divine and omnipotent will. For it was proper that the will of the flesh should be moved, but be subjected to the divine will, according to the wise Athanasius. For as his flesh is called and is the flesh of the God Logos, so is also the natural will of his flesh the proper will of the Logos, as he says himself: 'I came from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the Father who sent me' (John 6: 38). .... Therefore we confess two natural wills and operations, harmoniously united for the salvation of the human race.'

1 Actio XVIII., in Mansi, XI. 637; Gieseler, I. 540 note 15; Hefele, III. 284 sq.

2 δύο φυσικὰς θελήσεις ήτοι θελήματα ἐν αὐτῷ, καὶ δύο φυσικὰς ἐνεργείας ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀμερίστως, ἀσυγχύτως .... κηρύττομεν (duas naturales voluntates et duas naturales operationes indivise, inconvertibiliter, inseparabiliter, inconfuse.. praedicamus).

Comp. the following passage from the letter of Pope Agatho to the emperor who called the Council, which evidently suggested the framing of the

The theological contest was carried on chiefly in the Eastern church which had the necessary learning and speculative talent; but the final decision was brought about by the weight of Roman authority, and Pope Agatho exerted by his dogmatic epistle the same controlling influence over the sixth œcumenical Council, as Pope Leo I. had exercised over the fourth. In this as well as the older theological controversies the Roman popes-with the significant exception of Honorius-stood firmly on the side of orthodoxy, while the patriarchal sees of the East were alternately occupied by heretics as well as orthodox.

The Dyotheletic decision completes the Christology of the Greek and Roman churches, and passed from them into the Protestant churches; but while the former have made no further progress in this dogma, the latter allows a revision and reconstruction, and opened new avenues of thought in the contemplation of the central fact and truth of the divine-human personality of Christ.

§ 111. History of Monotheletism and Dyotheletism.

The triumph of Dyotheletism was the outcome of a bitter conflict of nearly fifty years (633 to 680). The first act reaches to the issue of the Ekthesis (638), the second to the issue of the Type (648), the third and last to the sixth oecumenical Council (680). The theological leaders of Monophysitism were Theodore, bishop of Pharan in Arabia (known to us only from a few fragments of his writings), Sergius and his successors decision (Mansi, XI. 239; Gieseler, I. 540; Hefele, III. 255): "Cum duas autem naturas duasque naturales voluntates, et duas naturales operationes confitemur in uno Domino nostro J. Ch., non contrarias eas, nec adversas ad alterutrum dicimus (sicut a via veritatis errantes apostolicam traditionem accusant, absit hæc impietas a fidelium cordibus), nec tanquam separatas in duabus personis vel subsistentiis, sed duas dicimus unum eundemque Dominum nostrum J. Ch., sicut naturas, ita et naturales in se voluntates et operationes habere, divinam scilicet et humanam: divinam quidem voluntatem et operationem habere ex æterno cum coëssentiali Patre communem; humanam temporaliter ex nobis cum nostra natura susceptam." Agatho quotes Scripture passages and testimonies of the fathers, but does not define the mode in which the two wills co-operate.

Pyrrhus and Paul in the patriarchal see of Constantinople, and Cyrus, patriarch of Alexandria; the political leaders were the Emperors Heraclius and Constans II.

The champions of the Dyotheletic doctrine were Sophronius of Palestine, Maximus of Constantinople, and the popes Martin and Agatho of Rome; the political supporter, the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus (668–685).

1. The strife began in a political motive, but soon assumed a theological and religious aspect. The safety of the Byzantine empire was seriously threatened, first by the Persians, and then by the Arabs, and the danger was increased by the division among Christians. The Emperor Heraclius (610-640) after his return from the Persian campaign desired to conciliate the Monophysites, who were more numerous than the orthodox in Armenia, Syria, and Egypt. He hoped, by a union of the parties, to protect these countries more effectually against the Mohammedan invaders. The Monophysites took offence at the catholic inference of two energies (êvépretat) in the person of Christ. The emperor consulted Sergius, the patriarch of Constantinople (since 610), who was of Syrian (perhaps Jacobite) descent. They agreed upon the compromise-formula of "one divine-human energy" (uia deavopix évépreca). Sergius (μία θεανδρική ενέργεια). secured the consent of Pope Honorius (625-638), who was afterwards condemned for heresy. Cyrus, the orthodox patriarch of Alexandria, published the formula (633), and converted thousands of Monophysites.3

But Sophronius, a learned and venerable monk in Palestine,

1 In Egypt the Monophysitic or national Coptic church numbered between five and six millions, the orthodox and imperial party only three hundred thousand heads. Renaudot, Hist. Patriarch. Alexandr. Iacob. (Par., 1713), p. 163 sq., as quoted by Hefele, III. 130.

2 The phrase was borrowed from the mystic writings of Dionysius Areopagita (Epist. IV. ad Cajum). Maximus, who was an admirer of Pseudo-Dionysius, gave this passage and a similar one from Cyril of Alexandria a different meaning. See Hefele, III. 129.

* See the nine chapters of Cyrus in Mansi, XI. 563, and Hefele, III. 138.

who happened to be in Alexandria at that time, protested against the compromise-formula as a cunning device of the Monophysites. When he became patriarch of Jerusalem (in 633 or 634), he openly confessed, in a synodical letter to the patriarchs, the doctrine of Dyotheletism as a necessary part of the Chalcedonian Christology. It is one of the most important documents in this controversy.

A few years afterwards, the Saracens besieged and conquered Jerusalem (637); Sophronius died and was succeeded by a Monotheletic bishop.

In the year 638 the Emperor issued, as an answer to the manifesto of Sophronius, an edict drawn up by Sergius, under the title Exposition of the Faith (ëndeσng tỷc złotewę), which commanded silence on the subject in dispute, but pretty clearly decided in favor of Monotheletism. It first professes the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity and incarnation in the Chalcedonian sense, and then forbids the use of the terms "one" or "two energies” (μία or δύο ἐνέργειαι), since both are heretically interpreted, and asserts one will (dénua) in Christ.2

2. Two synods of Constantinople (638 and 639) adopted the Ekthesis. But in the remote provinces it met with powerful resistance. Maximus Confessor became the champion of Dyotheletism in the Orient and North Africa, and Pope Martinus I. in the West. They thoroughly understood the controversy, and had the courage of martyrs for their conviction.

Maximus was born about 580 of a distinguished family in Constantinople, and was for some time private secretary of the Emperor Heraclius, but left this post of honor and influence in 630, and entered a convent in Chrysopolis (now Scutari). He was a profound thinker and able debater. When the Monotheletic heresy spread, he concluded to proceed to Rome, and passing through Africa he held there, in the presence of the imperial

1 It is preserved in the acts of the sixth œcumenical council. See Mansi, XV. 461-508; and Hefele, III. 159–166.

2 Mansi, X. 991 sq.; Hefele, III. 179 sq.

governor and many bishops, a remarkable disputation with Pyrrhus, who had succeeded Sergius in the see of Constantinople, but was deposed and expelled for political reasons. This disputation took place in July, 645, but we do not know in what city of Africa. It sounded all the depths of the controversy, and ended with the temporary conversion of Pyrrhus to Dyotheletism.1

About the same time, several North-African synods declared in favor of the Dyotheletic doctrine.

In the year 648 the Emperor Constans II. (642–668) tried in vain to restore peace by means of a new edict called Typos or Type, which commanded silence on the subject under dispute without giving the preference to either view. It set aside the Ekthesis, and declared in favor of neutrality. The aim of both edicts was to arrest the controversy and to prevent a christological development beyond the fourth and fifth oecumenical councils. But the Type was more consistent in forbidding all controversy not only about one energy (uía èvépreca), but also about one will (ế véλqua). Transgressors of the Type were threatened with deposition; if clergymen, with excommunication; if monks, with the loss of dignity and place, of military or civil officers.

3. An irrepressible conflict cannot be silenced by imperial decrees. Pope Martin I., formerly Apocrisiarios of the papal see at Constantinople, and distinguished for virtue, knowledge and personal beauty, soon after his election (July 5th, 649),

1 The disputation is printed in the Opera of Maximus, ed. Combefis, II. 159 sqq., and Migne, I. 287 sqq. Compare Walch, IX. 203 sqq., and Hefele, III. 190-204. The report in Mansi, X. 709–760, is full of typographical errors (as Hefele says). Maximus dealt in nice metaphysical distinctions, as déλnoiç, βούλησις, ἐνέργεια, βουλευτικὸν θέλημα, ὑποστατικόν, ἐξουσιαστικόν, προαιρετικόν, γνωμικόν, οἰκονομικόν. Pyrrhus returned afterwards to the see of Constantinople and adopted the absurd theory of three wills in Christ, one personal and two natural.

* Also called Tuяоç пɛρì ríoтews. In Mansi, X. 1029; Walch, IX. 167; Hefele, III. 210; also Gieseler, I. 539, note 9. The Typos was composed by Paul, the second successor of Sergius, who had written the Ekthesis.