The Monothelite Controversies And The Sixth Oecumenical Synod.

CHAPTER -The Occurrences Before The Sixth Oecumenical 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. 3, 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 Agnoetae were therefore excommunicated by their former associates, because the hypothesis of ajgnoe~in 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. f3 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. f4 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 defense 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 mi>a ejne>rgeia 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. 9 S. 19 and 103) have so represented the matter as to make it appear as though the doctrine of the mi>a ejne>rgeia 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 mi>a ejne>rgeia 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 mi>a ejne>rgeia 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 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 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 (kai< eJnomatov ), 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, f6 requesting that he would send him passages in proof of the mi>a ejne>rgeia , that he might thereby reconcile them (the Severians) with the Church?”

This letter was received by Bishop (pa>pav ) 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. f7 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 mi>a ejne>rgeia , 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 mi>a ejne>rgeia 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 Oecumenical 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 mi>a ejne>rgeia 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 mi>an suggenh~ di j ajmfoi~n ejne>rgeian .” 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 fusikh< ejne>rgeia 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 u[lh . 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 oJmoergoFather; but that He also worked them somatically by bodily touch (ajfh~| ), and thus di j ajmfoi~n . 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 ejne>rgeia 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 zwtikh< (i .e . bodily energy worked by the human soul) as united ajsugcu>twv 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. 4, 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), (a) the perfect unaltered human nature of Jesus, and (b) 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 recognized the true human nature in Christ, so in that which immediately follows he passes on to the question respecting the ejne>rgeia . “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 ” (kai< to< loipo>n ouj kata< qeosav, ouj ta< ajnqrw>pina kata< a]nqrwoon, ajlla< ajndrwqe>ntov qeou~ kai< kaihn>h tina thrgeian hJmi~n pepoliteyme>nov ). 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 recognize 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 kainh< qeandrikh< ejne>rgeia as something quantitatively or qualitatively new. Pyrrhus first thought it quantitatively new. Thereupon Maximus said: “Then we must assume a third nature, qeavdrikh< 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 mi>a ejne>rgeia , 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 qeandrikh< ejne>rgeia , 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 qeandrikh< , then Christ, as God, would have a different energy from the Father, for that of the Father cannot possibly be divine-human.” f13 As we have seen, Sergius also appealed, for his formula, mi>a qeandrikh< ejne>rgeia , to a letter of his predecessor Mennas to Pope Vigilius; but the examination of this at the sixth Oecumenical Council (see below, sec. 321) made its spuriousness more than probable (cf. vol. 4, 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. 4, 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 mi>a ejne>rgeia , the precious means of bringing about the longwished- 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 mi>a ejne>rgeia 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 mi>a ejne>rgeia . 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 (page 485) that Heraclius, in the year of the world 6117, corresponding with September 1, 625-626, of our reckoning † (see above, p. 3, note), 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 Oecumenical 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 (ajnepisko>pwn ). 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’) honored letter, which, as was said, and as inspection showed, was a reply (ajnti>grafon ) 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 e[nwsiv of the two natures we should accept only mi>an hJgoumenikhrgeian .” 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 ajnepisko>pwn 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. 4, 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 mi>a ejne>rgeia , 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 ration. Besides, (b) it is possible that the Armenian Patriarch Esra consented to accept the Council of Chalcedon without the bait of the mi>a ejne>rgeia .

Finally, (c) it is clear that the omission to bring forward the formula mi>a ejne>rgeia 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. 4, 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 mi>a ejne>rgeia . 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 mi>a ejne>rgeia .

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 mi>a ejne>rgeia , 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 mi>a ejne>rgeia , 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 mi>a zwopoiorgeia Cristou~ . Mennas, also of Constantinople, addressed a letter to Pope Vigilius of Old Rome, in which he, in the same manner, taught e\n to< tou~ Cristou~ qe>lhma kai< mi>an zwopoiorgeian . I forward to you a copy of this lo>gov 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 defense 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. f24 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. f25 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 favor of the mi>a ejne>rgeia , 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 mi>a ejne>rgeia 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 mi>a ejne>rgeia ; 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. 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 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. f28 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. 3, sec. 208) that both the fqartola>trai (Severians) and the ajfqartodokh~tai (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 mi>a ejne>rgeia . 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 neighborhood, 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.” f31 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 kefa>laia ): — “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. 2, 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, ajtre>ptwv, ajnalloiw>twv , or one united Hypostasis (see vol. 4, 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 e\terov kai< e\terov , 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 (kat j a]llo ), 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 (kai< topina mia~| qeandrikh~| ejne>rgeia| kata< tooiv Doinu>sion ), … — let him be anathema. f33 “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.” f34 We can see what efforts Cyrus made to render this kefa>laion acceptable to those who had previously been Monophysites, in that he anathematized every form of Nestorianism in the sharpest manner; whilst he brought back those expressions so dear to the Monophysites, ejk du>o fu>sewn, e[nwsiv fusikh> , and mi>a fu>siv tou~ Lo>gou sesarkwme>nh , after the example of Justinian (vol. 4, 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 (thboasted 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 Oecumenical 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 kefa>laia . The meaning of the seventh he expressed in the words: Kai< topina mia~| ejnergei>a|, pa~sa gaa te kai< ajnqrwpi>nh ejne>rgeia ejx eJnonou Lo>gou proh>rceto .

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 DEFENSE 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 kefa>laia before their publication. Sophronius disapproved the doctrine of one energy, and thought that it was necessary to hold fast two energies.

Cyrus, however, endeavored 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. 3, 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 mi>a ejnergeia 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 mi>a ejne>rgeia 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 Oecumenical 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 mi>a ejne>rgeia . “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. f42 “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 kefa>laia 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 Thebaid, Lydia, and the other eparchies (provinces) of the Egyptian diocese (see vol. 2, 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 ejne>rgeia 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 mi>a ejnergeia , maintaining that we should teach decidedly two energies of Christ. Cyrus showed utterances of the holy Fathers, in which the mi>a ejne>rgeia is used (yes, but in another sense), and added that often also the holy Fathers had shown a God-pleasing pliancy (oijkonomi>a ) 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 mi>a ejne>rgeia 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 Oecumenical Synods, that one and the same only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, worked (ejnergei~n ) both the divine and the human, and that all Godlike and human energies went forth inseparably (ajdiare>twv ) from one and the same Incarnate Logos and referred back to the same. The expression mi>a ejne>rgeia 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 offense 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 (qelh>mata ) 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 (oJrmh> ), fulfilled its natural movement in opposition to the leading (neu>mati ) 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 qeoki>nhtov 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 mi>a ejne>rgeia , and e\n qe>lhma , 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 (ajmeri>stwv kai< ajdiaire>twv ). 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.” f46 We see that Sergius was willing to give up the open victory of his formula mi>a ejne>rgeia ; 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. f47 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 Oecumenical 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. f50 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 (mi>a ejne>rgeia ), which might give offense 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 (mesiteusa>shv ) 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, ajdiaire>twv, ajtre>ptwv, ajsugcu>twv, telei>wv . And He who shone in the flesh, through His miracles, in perfect Godhead, is the same who worked (ejnegh>sav Lat . patitur) the conditions of the flesh in dishonorable 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 Corinthians 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 (o[qen kai< e\n qe>lhma oJmologou~men tou~ kuri>on j Ihsou~ Cristou~ = 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 ( Genesis 6:3): ‘My Spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh;’ and the apostle says ( 1 Corinthians 15:50): ‘Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.’ And again ( Romans 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 ( Romans 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 (oijkonomi>av , 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 formulae 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 (polutro>pwv ejnergou~nta ). For it is written: ‘If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His’ ( Romans 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 offense 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 dearly 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.” f51 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 e\n qe>lhma , he yet decidedly rejects the mi>a ejne>rgeia . This one Worker, Christ, he says, works in many ways, and therefore we should teach neither mi>an ejne>rgeian nor du>o ejne>rgeiav , but ejnergei~ polutro>pwv . 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, mi>a ejne>rgeia and du>o ejne>rgeiai , 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 ( Romans 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 recognize 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.” f52 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 Papoe , 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 hoeretice non sensisse , at tamen reapse terminum specifice orthodoxum (du>o ejne>rgeiai ) damnasse , et terminum specifice hoereticum (e\n qe>lhma ) 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 defense 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 ajdiaire>twv, ajtre>ptwv, ajsugcu>twv .

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 (o]qen ) 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 contrarioe 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 DUAE 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