§ 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 Agnoëtae were therefore excommunicated by their former associates, because the hypothesis of ἀγνοεῖν 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.¹

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.²

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.³ 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 Combesis, 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 ἐνὸς 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,⁴ 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 Egypt.⁵

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.⁶ The sixth Œcumenical Synod said, on the contrary: "Sergius was the first to write of this (the Monothelite) doctrine";⁷ 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.⁸ 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. iv. In Joannem): "Christ set forth μίαν συγγενῆ δι' ἀμφοῖν ἐνέργειαν."⁹ 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 (ἁφῆ), and thus δι' 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. iv. 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 θεῖα δράσας, οὐ τὰ ἀνθρώπινα κατὰ ἄνθρωπον, ἀλλὰ ἀνδρωθέντος θεοῦ καὶ καινὴν 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.¹⁰ 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."¹¹

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 Ecumenical 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.¹² 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,¹³ 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.¹⁴ 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, 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 Œcumenical Council, where it is said that Cyrus had written to Sergius fifty-six years before.¹⁵ 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.¹⁶ 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 ἔνωσις of the two natures we should accept only μίαν ἡγουμενικὴν ἐνέργειαν."¹⁷ Sergius repeats the same in his letter in answer to Cyrus, and then refers to Paul as chief of the Acephali,¹⁸ 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.¹⁹ 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.²⁰ 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.

§ 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,²¹ 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 ἐν 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.²²

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.²³

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.²⁴ 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;²⁵ 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.²⁶

§ 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.²⁷ 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 ἐνέργεια. 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,"²⁸ 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.”²⁹

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):³⁰—

“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 (κατ’ 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.³¹

“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.”³²

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, ἔνωσις φυσικὴ, 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 ἔνωσιν = 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."³³ To the same effect speak Cedrenus and the Vita Maximi.³⁴ The Synodicon maintains that the union in question was brought about at an Alexandrian Synod, A.D. 633.³⁵ But Cyrus, Sergius, Maximus, the sixth Ecumenical 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 θεοτρεπῆ 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 forma³⁶ (see p. 2).

§ 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).³⁷ That Sophronius immediately wrote on this subject also to Sergius of Constantinople is a mere supposition of Baronius;³⁸ 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.

§ 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 Ecumenical Council.³⁹ 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.⁴⁰

“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.⁴¹ 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 Cyrus 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 Kephalalaia. 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.⁴² 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.⁴³ . . . 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 ἐν 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.”⁴⁴

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.⁴⁵

§ 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.⁴⁶ 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 Ecumenical 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,⁴⁷ and of which the first must have been prepared by the Roman librarian Anastasius.⁴⁸

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 iii. 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. ii. 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 iii. 13). Whence, also, we confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ (ὅθεν καὶ ἐν 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. vi. 3): 'My Spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh;' and the apostle says (1 Cor. xv. 50): 'Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.' And again (Rom. vii. 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 (lxvi. 23): 'All flesh shall come to Jerusalem to worship before Me.' So Job (xix. 26): 'In my flesh shall I see God;' and elsewhere (S. Luke iii. 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. vii. 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 vi. 38), and (S. Mark xiv. 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 (oikonomías, 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 (πολυτρόπως ἐνεργοῦντα). For it is written: 'If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His' (Rom. viii. 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.”⁴⁹

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 ἕν 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. vii. 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.”⁵⁰

To this criticism we will add what we remarked before, in the first edition, on the second letter of Honorius :⁵¹ “ 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 Papae, 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 haeretice non sensisse, at tamen reapse terminum specificae orthodoxum (δύο ἐνέργειαι) damnasse, et terminum specificae haereticum (ἐν 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, ἀσυνχύτως. 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 contrariae 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 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. vii. 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 Rome⁵² 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.⁵³ 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 CONTRARIAE 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 vi. 38); and, Non quod Ego volo, sed quod Tu vis, Pater (S. Mark xiv. 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 haec diversae (= contrariae) voluntatis, sed dispensationis humanitatis assumptae, 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 assumptae. 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,⁵⁴ 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 geminae novae vocis inductum operationis vocabulum aufugientes, etc.⁵⁵) 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 τοὺς 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 duae 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.

§ 297. Synod at Jerusalem, A.D. 634, and Synodal Letter of the Patriarch Sophronius.⁵⁶

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, testifies⁵⁷ 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 Ecumenical Council.⁵⁸ 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.⁵⁹ Walch⁶⁰ 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 Ecumenical Council,⁶¹ this proves nothing, as it had been the fashion to call epistles written on a bishop's enthronisation (συλλαβαῖ ἐνθρονιστικαί) by the name of συνοδικά.⁶² 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 ἐν 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,⁶³ 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 κατ' 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.⁶⁴ The Logos works what belongs to the Logos, in communion with the body; and the body accomplishes what belongs to the body,⁶⁵ in union with the Logos, and yet in one hypostasis, far from any separation; for not as separated did they (the two formae) work that which was proper to them, so that we cannot think of a separation of them (the formae). 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 ἔνωσις (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 it 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 vii. 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 be 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 ἄλλος 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.⁶⁶

§ 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 Ecumenical Council asserts, did not receive it; and if Walch (Ketzerhist. Bd. ix. S. 137),⁶⁷ 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 Ecumenical Council;⁶⁸ 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 πρακτικὰς); 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.⁶⁹

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 con- trarias 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 contrariae 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.”⁷⁰

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.”⁷¹

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 vitata 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 contrariae 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."⁷²

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 γραφείσαν ἐπιστολήν to Sergius,⁷³ 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 omnimodae 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.⁷⁴ 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 Ecumenical 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.⁷⁵ 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 Ecumenical Synod wanted to pronounce, and did pronounce, an anathema upon Honorius on account of these letters.⁷⁶

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 ὁ θελήμα 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 expressed 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.⁷⁷

In this manner is settled the question respecting the orthodoxy of Pope Honorius;⁷⁸ 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,⁷⁹ 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,⁸⁰ or even to ascribe to the sixth Council an error in facto dogmatico.⁸¹ In opposition to the latter, the appellants (Jansenists) came forward with the argument: If you maintain that the sixth Ecumenical 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 Ecumenical Synod, so that this formed a quite correct judgment in rejecting the (certainly pseudo-) Honorius.⁸² Or (c) they contested, like Pennacchi, the Ecumenical 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,⁸³ and on which so many distinguished theologians and scholars followed him. According to this, it is conceded that the sixth Ecumenical 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 oeconomiam, because Honorius, by requiring this silence, had given powerful assistance to the heresy.⁸⁴ 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 Ecumenical Synod pronounced anathema on Honorius by no means merely on account of an imprudens silentii aeconomia.

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.⁸⁵ 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 possess⁸⁶ 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 Ecumenical Council.

On the question: Whether the two letters of Honorius were put forth ex cathedrá, 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 of 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.⁸⁷

§ 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.⁸⁸ 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."⁸⁹

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;⁹⁰ 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.⁹¹ 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.⁹²

That the Ecthesis was drawn up in the course of the twelfth year of indiction was declared by Pope Martin I. at the Lateran Synod of the year 649.⁹³ 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,⁹⁴ 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, (a) 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 ἔνωσις 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 ;⁹⁵ 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).

§ 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.⁹⁶ 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.⁹⁷ 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.⁹⁸ 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.⁹⁹

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.¹⁰⁰

§ 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.¹⁰¹ 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.¹⁰² 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. 640.¹⁰³ 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.¹⁰⁴ 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 venerandae memoriae 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.¹⁰⁵

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 Manichaeism. 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.¹⁰⁶

What impression this letter made we know not, but Zonaras rightly maintains¹⁰⁷ 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.¹⁰⁸ 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.¹⁰⁹

§ 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,¹¹⁰ 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. Audoenus 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. Audoenus (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 Audoenus 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 639.¹¹¹

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.”¹¹²

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 vestrae, 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.¹¹³

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.¹¹⁴

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 καθ' ἡμᾶς ἱερᾶς συνόδου. . . . I and all who are with me greet you in the Lord."¹¹⁵

§ 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.¹¹⁶ The incompleteness of the Vita Maximi, written by one of his admirers,¹¹⁷ 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.¹¹⁸ But apart from the fact that the Vita Maximi (c. 5) speaks of his predecessor 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,¹¹⁹ 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,¹²⁰ 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 Willer) 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."¹²¹ 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."¹²² 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 ὁρμή (the inclination) to the profitable, and the ἀφορμή (drawing back, escaping) from the destructive, so also the Incarnate Logos had this δύναμις of self-preservation, and showed His ὁρμή and ἀφορμή through His energy: the ὁρμή in the use of physical things (yet without sin), and the ἀφορμή 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.)”¹²³ 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 κατ' οἰκείωσιν (appropriation).”¹²⁴ 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 ἐτύπωσε?” M. “Yes, they also taught that HE had assumed our nature, but by that they did not mean κατ' οἰκείωσιν.” 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.”¹²⁵ 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 ?”¹²⁶ 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.”¹²⁷ 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."¹²⁸ 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. viii. 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 πρὸς 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."¹²⁹ M. "According to S. John i. 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 xvii. 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 xix. 28 and S. Matt. xxvii. 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 vii. 1 ; S. Mark ix. 29 ; vii. 24 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 4 ; S. Mark vi. 48 ; S. Matt. xxvi. 17 ; and Phil. (not Hebrews, as Maximus says) ii. 8, is the human will of Christ referred to. In Psalm xxxix. [xl.] 7, 8, it is said : 'Sacrifice and meat-offering Thou wouldest not ; but mine ears hast Thou opened [in the text, as in Hebrews x. 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. i. 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 xiii. 34 and S. John v. 21.”¹³⁰ 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 ὑποστατικὸν; at another, ἐξουσιατικὸν: again, προαιρετικὸν; again, γνωμικὸν; again, οἰκονομικὸν. 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.”¹³¹ 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?"¹³² 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 (εἶδος) 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."¹³³ 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 (κατ' 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.¹³⁴ 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 ἐνώσεως (by the union of the Godhead and manhood)." M. "If He has the energy, as you say, through ἔνωσις, then was HE before this ἔνωσις 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?"¹³⁵ 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."¹³⁶ P. "Yet Cyril says, Christ revealed μίαν συγγενῆ δι' ἀμφῶν ἐνέργειαν."¹³⁷ 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, ἀφῆ, and thus δι' 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."¹³⁸ 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 v. 17, 19, 21; x. 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.¹³⁹

§ 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.¹⁴⁰ 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 646,¹⁴¹ 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 Ecumenical Council.¹⁴²

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.”¹⁴³

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.¹⁴⁴

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 Africae 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.¹⁴⁵

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.¹⁴⁶

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.¹⁴⁷

African Synods are also mentioned by the Libellus Synodicus, which enumerates a Byzacene, Numidian, Mauritanian, and a Carthaginian synod.¹⁴⁸ 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.¹⁴⁹

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.¹⁵⁰ 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.

§ 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 xxi. 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.¹⁵¹

Upon this, Pope Theodore pronounced the deposition of Paul,¹⁵² 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.¹⁵³ Maximus, too, proceeded to oppose Monothelitism;¹⁵⁴ 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. 648.¹⁵⁵

§ 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,¹⁵⁶ 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 (προσφύως), 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.”¹⁵⁷

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.

§ 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.¹⁵⁸

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.¹⁵⁹ 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.¹⁶⁰ Muratori,¹⁶¹ 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.¹⁶²

The first great act of the new Pope was the holding of that famous Synod, in importance almost oecumenical, 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,¹⁶³ 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 2). 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,¹⁶⁴ 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.”¹⁶⁵

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.¹⁶⁶ 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.”¹⁶⁷

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.¹⁶⁸

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.¹⁶⁹

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 ἐνέργειν 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, Manichaeism, 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 Docetae, etc., to the proof, however, that Dyothelitism is the true doctrine, and the necessary consequence of the Chalcedonian dogma, he does not here proceed.¹⁷⁰ 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 (θεανδρική), as if Dionysius had taught merely the μία ἐνέργεια.¹⁷¹ Then were read:

(4) Several passages from writings of the Monothelite leader Themistius, founder of the sect of Agnoetae (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 Agnoetae), because the latter rejected the θεανδρική on the supposition that this expression involved the recognition of two energies.¹⁷² 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."¹⁷³ 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.¹⁷⁴

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.¹⁷⁵

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 Nicaea, 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.¹⁷⁶ 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.¹⁷⁷

In the fifth session, October 31, there was first read a passage from the Confession of Faith of the fifth Ecumenical 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,¹⁷⁸ Justin,¹⁷⁹ Athanasius,¹⁸⁰ 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;¹⁸¹ and this was shown by forty-one utterances from the Arian Lucius, from Apollinaris, Severus, Themistius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Nestorius,¹⁸² Colluthus, Julian of Halicarnassus, etc., who all acknowledged only one energy and one divine will in Christ.¹⁸³ 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,¹⁸⁴ 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 ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτόν (vol. iii. sec. 193, p. 350) down to Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν.¹⁸⁵ 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 indimuta eundem veraciter esse perfectum Deum, et hominem perfectum (the Greek text has the addition, μόνης δίχα τῆς ἀμαρτίας), eundem atque unum Dominum nostrum et Deum J. Chr., utpote volentem et operantem divine et humane nostram salutem."¹⁸⁶

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 aequalis gloriae, unam eandemque 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 sanctae et consubstantialis et venerandae Trinitatis Deum Verbum e coelo descendisse, et incarnatum ex Spiritu Sancto et Maria semper Virgine, et hominem factum, crucifixum carne, propter nos sponte passum, sepultumque, et resurrexisse tertia die, et ascendisse in coelos, atque sedentem in dextera Patris, et venturum iterum cum gloria paterna, cum assumpta ab eo atque animata 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 saecula natus est, in ultimis saeculorum 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 saecula ex Deo et Patre incorporaliter et sempiternaliter, quamque de sancta Virgine semper Dei genitrice Maria corporaliter in ultimis saeculorum; atque unum eundemque Dominum nostrum et Deum Jesum Christum consubstantialem Deo et Patri secundum Deitatem, et consubstantialem homini et matri secundum humanitatem; atque eundem passibilem carne, et impassibilem Deitate, circumscriptum corpore, incircumscriptum Deitate, eundem inconditum et conditum, terrenum et coelestem, 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 substantiae perfecte in Christo Deo et indiminate, 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 eundemque 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 unionem 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 indiminate 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 cohaerenter unitas, divinam et humanam, ex hoc quod per utramque ejus naturam voluntarius naturaliter idem consistit nostrae salutis, condemnatus sit.

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

12. Si quis secundum scelerosos haereticos 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 haereticos in Christo Deo in unitate substantialiter salvatis et sanctis patribus nostris pie praedicatis 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 haereticos cum una voluntate et una operatione, quae ab haereticis impie confitetur, et duas voluntates pariterque et operationes, hoc est, divinam et humanam, quae in ipso Christo Deo in unitate salvantur, et a sanctis patribus orthodoxe in ipso praedicantur, denegat et respuit, condemnatus sit.

15. Si quis secundum scelerosos haereticos deivirilem operationem, quod Graeci dicunt θεανδρικὴν, unam operationem insipienter suscipit, non autem duplicem esse confitetur secundum sanctos patres, hoc est divinam et humanam, aut ipsam deivirilis, quae posita est, novam vocabuli dictionem unius esse designativam, sed non utriusque mirificae et gloriosae unionis demonstrativam, condemnatus sit.

16. Si quis secundum scelerosos haereticos in peremptione salvatis in Christo Deo essentialiter in unitione, et sanctis patribus pie praedicatis 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 personae 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, quae tradita sunt et praedicata sanctae catholicae et apostolicae Dei ecclesiae, 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 haereticos cum omnibus impiis eorum conscriptis usque ad unum apicem sancta Dei ecclesia catholica et apostolica, hoc est, sanctae et universales quinque synodi, et consonanter omnes probabiles ecclesiae patres: id est, Sabellium, Arium, Eunomium, Macedonium, Apollinarem, Polemonem, Eutychem, Dioscorum, Timotheum AElurum, Severum, Theodosium, Colluthum, Themistium, Paulum Samosatenum, Diodorum, Theodorum, Nestorium, Theodulum Persam, Originem, Didymum, Evagrium, et compendiose omnes reliquos haereticos, qui a catholica ecclesia reprobati et abjecti sunt, quorum dogmata diabolicae 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 praeditos, 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 haec impiissimam Ecthesim, quae 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, quae pro ea impie ab eis scripta vel acta sunt; et illos qui eam suscipiunt, vel aliquid de his, quae pro ea scripta vel acta sunt; et cum illis denuo scelerosum Typum, qui ex suasione praedicti Pauli nuper factus est a serenissimo principe Constantino Imperatore contra catholicam ecclesiam, utpote duas naturales voluntates et operationes, divinam et humanam, quae a sanctis patribus in ipso Christo vero et Salvatore nostro pie praedicantur, cum una voluntate et operatione, quae ab hereticis impie in eo veneratur, pariter denegare et taciturnitate constringi promulgantem, et propterea cum sanctis patribus et scelerosos haereticos, ab omni reprehensione et condemnatione injuste liberari definientem, in amputationem catholicae ecclesiae definitionum seu regulae. Si quis igitur, juxta quod dictum est, consonanter nobis omnia haec impiissima haereseos illorum dogmata, et ea quae pro illis aut in definitione eorum a quolibet impie conscripta sunt, et denominatos haereticos, Theodorum dicimus, Cyrum et Sergium, Pyrrhum et Paulum non respuit et anathematizat, utpote catholicae ecclesiae 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 catholicae 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 quae scelerosi haeretici sapiunt, indubitante professus atque intelligens, per inanem proterviam dicit haec pietatis esse dogmata, quae tradiderunt ab initio speculatores et ministri verbi, hoc est dicere, sanctae et universales quinque synodi, calumniants utique ipsos sanctos patres, et memoratas sanctas quinque synodos, in deceptione simplicium, vel susceptione suae profanae perfidiae, hujusmodi condemnatus sit.

20. Si quis secundum scelerosos haereticos quocumque modo, aut verbo, aut tempore, aut loco terminos removens illicite, quos posuerunt firmius sancti catholicae ecclesiae patres, id est sanctae 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 ecclesiasticae regulae incognitas, aut loci servatores, i.e. vicarios incongruos¹⁸⁷ et irrationabiles; et compendiose, si quid aliud impiissimis haereticis consuetum est agere, per diabolicam operationem tortuose et callide agit contra pias orthodoxorum catholicae ecclesiae, hoc est dicere, paternas ejus et synodales praedicationes, ad eversionem sincerrimae in Dominum Deum nostrum confessionis; et usque in finem sine poenitentia permanet haec impie agens, hujusmodi in saecula saeculorum condemnatus sit, et dicat omnis populus, fiat, fiat.¹⁸⁸

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.¹⁸⁹

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.¹⁹⁰

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.¹⁹¹ 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.¹⁹²

§ 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.¹⁹³

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.¹⁹⁴

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.¹⁹⁵ 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 Palaestina III.), are also still extant.¹⁹⁶ 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.¹⁹⁷

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.¹⁹⁸

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.¹⁹⁹

§ 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.²⁰⁰ 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.²⁰¹

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.²⁰² After Martin's letter, the second source for us is the treatise written by an admirer of the Pope,—Commemoratio eorum quae saeviter et sine Dei respectu acta sunt . . . in sanctum et apostolicum novum revera confessorem et martyrem Martinum Papam, etc.,²⁰³ 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.²⁰⁴ 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 Christians²⁰⁵ 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.²⁰⁶

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 cauculus²⁰⁷ 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.²⁰⁸ 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.²⁰⁹ 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 diarrhoea, and been without ordinary food. What was allowed him of this kind he had left off eating from nausea.²¹⁰

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.²¹¹ . . . 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,²¹² 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,²¹³ 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 praetorium. 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.²¹⁴ 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,²¹⁵ and was interred in the neighbourhood of the city of Cherson, in the church of the Holy Virgin of Blachernae.²¹⁶ We still possess two of his letters which he wrote from Cherson shortly before his death,²¹⁷ 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 praeesse 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 primicerius²¹⁸ 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.

§ 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;²¹⁹ 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 Caesarea.²²⁰ 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 show²²¹ 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.²²² 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 Ecumenical 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 praeceptum Papae), to punish you with anathema and with death if you do not obey." Maximus still remained steadfast.²²³ 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 quaecunque fecisti BEATO Pyrrho.²²⁴ 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 Πύρρῳ 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.²²⁵ 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 Vitae Pontificum of Anastasius,²²⁶ with the remark, that he expressed himself very obscurely, and that on the operations and energies in Christ he gave no explanation.²²⁷ 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, quaecunque 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.²²⁸ 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.²²⁹

On August 24, 656,²³⁰ Bishop Theodosius of Caesarea 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.²³¹ 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 quae 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, 656,²³² 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, ill-treated 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. 1), 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).²³³ 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, 662.²³⁴ 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, 666.²³⁵

§ 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 Vitae Pontificum of Anastasius.²³⁶ From the Acts of the sixth Œcumenical Synod, it appears²³⁷ that Vitalian then also addressed a letter to the Patriarch Peter of Constantinople, and that the latter had inferred 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.²³⁸ 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,²³⁹ 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.²⁴⁰ 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.

§ 312. The Emperor Constantine Pogonatus wishes for a Great Conference of Easterns and Westerns.

WITH the beginning of the reign of the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus there commences a turning-point in the history of Monothelitism. The new Emperor had no intention of sustaining the Typus of his father by force, and this encouraged Pope Vitalian to break his previous silence and publicly to make a stand for orthodoxy. That he did so we see from this, that the Monothelites at Constantinople, after his death, took the trouble to remove his name again from the diptychs.¹ Vitalian died in January 672, and after Adeodatus had reigned, without any remarkable incidents, for four years,² under his successor, Donus or Domnus (676–678), the Emperor came forward with the plan of restoring again the broken peace of the Church by an assembly of the East and the West. Leisure for this work of union was given to him by the advantageous peace which, in the year 678, he had concluded with the Calif Muavia, and immediately afterwards with the King of the Avari (in Hungary). That he at that time regarded himself as completely orthodox and a decided friend of Dyothelitism, cannot be proved. On the contrary, at that time he professed to belong to neither of the parties, and even allowed himself to be misguided to several false steps by the Monothelites.

In Constantinople, Bishop Peter, whose acquaintance we have already made, was followed by the Patriarchs Thomas, John, and Constantine, in respect to whom the thirteenth session of the sixth Œcumenical Synod decreed that their names should be left in the diptychs, because their synodal letters contained nothing heterodox.³ The succeeding Patriarch, Theodore (since 678), showed that he was so, by the fact that he wished to strike the name of Pope Vitalian entirely from the diptychs (see below, p. 139), as a friend of heresy. He also hesitated to send his Synodicon or Enthronisticon to the Pope, fearing that, like those of his predecessors, it might not be received, and preferred to despatch to Rome a προτρεπτικὴ ἐπιστολή, i.e. an exhortation to the restoration of ecclesiastical communion.

Immediately afterwards the Emperor himself addressed Pope Donus in a very courteous letter, of August 12, 678, in the introduction of which he entitled him οἰκουμενικὸς πάπας. He tells him in this letter how, from the beginning of his reign, he would have gladly brought about the union between Rome and Constantinople by means of a universal conference (καθολικὴ συνάθροισις) of both thrones, but had been hindered in this by passing events, and then relates what we have already brought forward on the letter of the Patriarch Theodore to the Pope. After the despatch of this patriarchal letter, he (the Emperor) had questioned Theodore and Macarius, Patriarch of Antioch, as to the foundation of the disunion between Rome and the East, and had learnt that some expressions which had not formerly been customary were to blame for all. . . . There should be no perpetual disunion on account of such lamentable disputes, so that the heathen and heretics might not exult. Because, however, no time could be found for the holding of an Œcumenical Synod, the Pope should send deputies, well instructed and armed with all authority, to Constantinople, that they might have a peaceful examination in communion with Macarius of Antioch and Theodore of Constantinople, and, under the protection of the Holy Spirit, discover and accept the truth. As security, this imperial Sacra should avail. He himself, the Emperor, was thoroughly impartial, and would compel the papal plenipotentiaries to nothing ; but, on the contrary, would receive them with all distinction, and in case no union should come to pass, would let them depart in peace. In respect to the deputies to be sent, he proposed, if the Pope so pleased, to select three or more clerics from the Roman Church (in specie), from the rest of his patriarchal diocese some twelve archbishops and bishops, and add to them four monks from each of the four Greek monasteries (in Rome).⁴ Thus, he hoped, would truth come to light, and he should have held it a great sin to be silent when he considered the disunion among the bishops. Macarius of Antioch and Theodore of Constantinople had pressed him earnestly to have the name of Pope Vitalian struck from the diptychs, that Honorius should remain there in honour of the Roman see, but that his successors should not be mentioned until both thrones had come to an understanding with respect to the contested expressions. He, however, the Emperor, had not consented, because he regarded both parties as orthodox, and because Vitalian had supported him greatly in his victory over the usurper. Finally, he had given orders to his exarch in Italy to support the deputies of the Pope in question in every way, with ships, money, and all that they wanted, and, if necessary, to let them have fortified (armed) ships καστελλάτους καράβους for security.⁵

When this imperial letter was despatched, Pope Donus was no longer alive (†April 11, 678), and Agatho was already elected (June 27, 678). He without delay fell into the plan of the Emperor, and made the preparations necessary for carrying it out. He wished the whole of the West to express itself on the controversy, and that this should be done especially by the bishops in the districts of the barbarians,—Lombardi, Sclaves, Franks, Goths, and Britons,—that they might not afterwards bring reproaches, and that controversies might not break out in the West itself.⁶ The delay rendered necessary for the sending of the papal deputies was made use of by Theodore of Constantinople and Macarius, and finally they requested the Emperor to give his assent to the blotting of Vitalian out of the diptychs.⁷ Probably they represented the matter as if Rome wanted no arrangement and would send no deputies.

§ 313. Western preparatory Synods, especially at Rome, A.D. 680.

The Pope, in order to draw in the whole of the West to this affair, summoned bishops from all countries to Rome. This we learn from his letter to the Emperor, and from the Synod which he himself held at Rome. Similar assemblies were also to take place in the provinces, so that the episcopate everywhere might speak its mind. From such a Synod at Milan, under Archbishop Mausuetus, we still possess a letter to the Emperor, in which Constantine the Great and Theodosius the Great are presented to him as models; at the same time, adhesion to the five Œcumenical Councils is declared, and the orthodox doctrine is set forth in a new creed, at the close of which they speak of the two natural wills and operations of Christ.⁸ Paul the deacon mentions the priest Damian, afterwards Bishop of Pavia, as having composed this creed.⁹

Another Synod of the same kind was held, A.D. 680, by the celebrated Theodore of Canterbury with the English bishops at Heathfield. The orthodox faith, with adhesion to the five Œcumenical Councils, as well as the Lateran Synod under Pope Martin, was pronounced, and Monothelitism condemned. At the same time the Synod expressly confessed the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Ghost also from the Son.¹⁰ That a Gallican Synod also took place at the same time, many inferred from the words with which the Gallican deputies accompanied their subscription at the Roman Synod held by Agatho, e.g. Felix humilis episcopus Arelatensis, legatus venerabilis synodi per Galliarum provincias constitutae.¹¹ But under synodus per Galliarum provincias constituta is here meant, as Hardouin rightly perceived, the collective Gallican episcopate, and not a Gallican Synod. It is the same with the subscription of Archbishop Wilfrid of York, who was also present at the Roman Synod, and designated himself as legatus venerabilis synodi per Britanniam constitutae. The only difference is that Felix of Arles was really a deputy of the French [Frankish] episcopate, whilst Wilfrid was at Rome on his own business (see vol. iv. p. 492), and was qualified to testify to the faith of England, but not as deputy of the English episcopate.¹²

Following the lead of Pagi (ad ann. 679, 15), many transfer to the year 679 the Roman Council of 125 bishops, which Pope Agatho held, in accordance with the wish of the Emperor, in order that they might send fully instructed deputies to Constantinople. Pagi saw rightly that this Council was different from the one which restored S. Wilfrid of York (see vol. iv. p. 492), and followed soon after this. He also rightly showed that it took place at Easter, but his reason for preferring the year 679 is no other than this, that an old document says¹³ that the Synod at Heathfield was held in the year 680 after the return of Wilfrid (from Rome), and he had been present at the Roman Synod of the 125 bishops. But this document, containing the Privilegium Petriburgense, is of very doubtful authority, and in any case considerably interpolated. Its statement respecting Wilfrid, therefore, cannot be accepted as historically true. According to this, Wilfrid was present at the Synod of Heathfield as restored Bishop of York, whilst, as a matter of fact, he was put in prison after his return, and subsequently was banished, and did not return to his diocese until the year 686.¹⁴ Our reason for placing the Roman Synod of Agatho, this precursor of the sixth Ecumenical Council, rather at Easter 680 than in 679 is the following: (a) The Pope and the bishops assembled around him say themselves that at the opening of the Synod they waited for a long time in the hope that more bishops would arrive; (b) the deputies whom this Synod sent to Constantinople arrived there on September 10, 680,¹⁵ so that we naturally refer the Synod that sent them to the same year.

§ 314. The Deputies from Rome and the Letters with which they were furnished.

The deputies were furnished with two letters. The one, very comprehensive, was from Pope Agatho alone,¹⁶ was addressed to the Emperor and his two brothers whom he had raised to be his co-regents, and was intended to form a counterpart to the celebrated Epistola of Leo I. to Flavian. The Pope in his letter above all commends the zeal of the Emperors for the true faith, and that they wished to secure its universal acceptance not by violence and by terrorism. Christ did not use violence, but demands voluntary confession of the true faith from His people. He, the Pope, soon after the reception of the imperial letter addressed to his predecessor Donus, had begun to look round for suitable men, in order that he might be able to respond to the command of the Emperor. But the wide extent of his diocese (concilium) had caused delay, and a considerable time had elapsed before the bishops had come from the different provinces to a Synod at Rome, and he had selected the proper persons partly from the city of Rome subject to the Emperors, and partly from the neighbourhood; moreover, he had waited for the arrival of others from distant provinces to which his predecessors had sent missionaries. He had now selected three bishops, Abundantius of Paterno, John of Reggio, and John of Portus,¹⁷ also the priests Theodore and George, the deacon John, and the sub-deacon Constantine from Rome, also the priest Theodore as deputy of the Church of Ravenna, as envoys,¹⁸ more in order to fulfil the will of the Emperors than from any special confidence in their learning. With people who live among the barbarians (nationes), and have to earn their maintenance by bodily work, and this in great uncertainty, comprehensive learning cannot possibly be expected. But that which former Popes and the five holy Synods had expressed is held fast by them in simplicity. He had communicated to them also the testimonies of the Fathers, together with their writings, so that, with the Emperor's permission, they might be able from these to prove what the Roman Church believes. Moreover, they had the necessary authority, but they must not presume to increase or diminish or alter anything (in the faith), but must simply explain the tradition of the apostolic see, which came down from the predecessors of the Pope (ut nihil profecto praesumant augere, minuere, vel mutare, sed traditionem hujus apostolicae sedis, ut a praedecessoribus apostolicis pontificibus instituta est, sinceriter enarrare). The Emperors would be pleased to receive them graciously. That, however, the Emperors might know what the faith of the Roman Church is, he will explain it as he has received it through the tradition of his predecessors (Honorus also?), and he does it in the form of a symbol, at the end of which the doctrine of two natural wills and operations is asserted.¹⁹ This is the apostolic and evangelical tradition, which the apostolic (Roman) Church holds fast, this the Holy Ghost taught by the prince-apostles, this S. Peter handed down under whose protection this apostolic (Roman) Church never swerved from the way of truth (nunquam a via veritatis in qualibet erroris parte deflexa est). This is the true rule of faith which the apostolic Church, the mother of the empire, in good and bad fortune has always held fast, which by the grace of God has never erred from the way of the apostolic tradition, now submitted to heretical innovations. As she received from the beginning the pure doctrine from the apostles, so it remains until the end unfalsified, according to the promise of the Lord: "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan asked to have you, that he might sift you as wheat: but I made supplication for thee, that thy faith fail not; and do thou, when once thou art turned again, stablish thy brethren" (S. Luke xxii. 31, 32). This the predecessors of the Pope, as every one knew, had always done, and so will he also do. Since the Bishops of Constantinople had endeavoured to introduce the heretical innovation, the predecessors of the Pope had never failed to exhort them, and to adjure them to keep away from the heretical dogma, or at least to keep silence, so that there should be no assertion of one will and one operation of the two natures in Christ, by which discussion should arise in the Church. In that which follows, the Pope explains the orthodox doctrine of two wills and two operations in Christ in detail, and adduces in support many Scripture passages with their exposition by the Fathers of the Church. He shows also that the will is a matter of nature, and that one who denies the human will of Christ must also deny His human soul; he further shows that Dyothelitism is contained already in the decrees of the faith of Chalcedon and of the fifth Ecumenical Council, that the Monothelite doctrine offended against these decrees, and took away the diversity of natures in Christ. To this Pope Agatho adds many patristic testimonies for Dyothelitism, partly the same which had already been adduced by the Lateran Synod (sec. 307), and, again imitating the Lateran Council, selects several passages from the books of older heretics in order to prove that Monothelitism has a relationship with these. He also gives a short history of the new controversies, and shows how the innovators, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter of Constantinople, had often contradicted themselves, sometimes maintaining one will and one energy, and sometimes forbidding to speak of one or two energies and wills. From the error of these teachers the Church must be delivered, and all bishops, clerics, and laymen must accept the orthodox doctrine which is founded on the firm rock of this Church of S. Peter quae ejus gratia atque praesidio ab omni errore illibata permanet. For this Emperors should be active and drive away the heretical teachers. If they were, God would bless their government. If the Bishop of Constantinople received this doctrine, then there would be one heart and one mind; but if he preferred to hold by the innovation against which the previous Popes had given warning indesinenter, he would take upon himself a huge responsibility before God. At the close, the Pope again entreats and adjures the Emperors to bring the matter to a good end.²⁰

In this letter there are three points quite specially worthy of consideration: (1) The certainty and clearness with which Agatho sets forth the orthodox Dyothelitic doctrine; (2) the zeal with which he repeatedly declares the infallibility of the Roman Church; and (3) the strong assurance, many times repeated, that all his predecessors had stood fast in the right doctrine, and had given exhortation to the Patriarchs of Constantinople in the correct sense. Agatho was then far removed from accusing his predecessor Honorius of heresy, and the supposition that he had beforehand consented to his condemnation entirely contradicts this letter.²¹

The second document which the deputies at Constantinople had to present was the synodal letter of the Roman Council. It is also addressed to the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus and his two brothers and co-regents, sent by Pope Agatho cum universis synodis (= provinces) subjacentibus concilio apostolicae sedis, and subscribed by all present, the Pope and one hundred and twenty-five bishops. At the beginning these speak as though they were all subjects of the Empire; but the subscriptions show that there were present also a good many bishops from Lombardy, two bishops and a deacon as plenipotentiaries of the Gallican episcopate, and Wilfrid of York from England. By far the majority came from Italy and Sicily, and they subscribed, as it seemed, without any definite order. In their synodal letter they thank the Emperors for the trouble they take to help the true faith to full splendour, and hope that the rare fortune may be allotted to the government of the Emperors, that through them the light of "our Catholic and apostolic true faith (the Roman) might shine in the whole world, which light, rising from the source of all light, was preserved by the prince-apostles Peter and Paul, and their disciples and apostolic successors up to the present Pope, nulla haeretici erroris tetra caligine tenebratum, nec falsitatis nebulis confoedatum, nec intermissis haereticis pravitatibus velut caliginosis nebulis perumbratum," etc. They then speak of the difficulty of the present times of confusion and war, when the provinces were everywhere attacked by the barbarians, and the impossibility, when the Church had lost her property and the clergy had to earn a living by manual labour, of finding among the clergy men of learning, eloquence, etc. But they were strong in the faith, and that was their best possession. This faith they now declare in a formal creed, in which also the doctrine of two natural wills and operations is received. This creed, they proceed to say, the Lateran Synod under Pope Martin

Added in the second edition [a paragraph which gives rise to many reflections].

proclaimed. The Emperors should make this creed prevail everywhere, and take care that the tares were rooted out. The originators of the tares were Theodore of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter of Constantinople, and all who had remained likeminded with them to the end (of their life). They had not only swerved from the truth, but had also spoken against it. The Synod further excused itself for sending the deputies so late. In the first place, the sees of many members of the Synod were far removed, by the ocean, and therefore the journey to Rome had required much time. Moreover, they had hoped that Theodore of Canterbury, the archbishop and philosopher of the great island of Britain, and other bishops of that region, would arrive and join the Synod. So also they had been forced to wait for many members from different districts of the Lombards, Sclaves, Franks, Gauls, Goths, and Britons, that their declaration might go forth from them collectively, and not merely from one part of them and remain unknown to the other, especially as many bishops, whose sees were among the barbarians, were much interested in this matter. It would be a great gain if they were to agree. On the other hand, it would be very bad if they, taking offence at a point of faith, should assume a hostile attitude towards the others. The Synod wished and strove that the Empire in which the see of S. Peter, which all Christians venerate, is set up, should, for Peter's sake, have a rank above all other nations. The Emperors would please to receive the deputies graciously, and, when the business was completed, let them return again peacefully to their home. Thus would they reap glory, like Constantine the Great, Theodosius the Great, Marcian, and Justinian. They should labour for this, that the true faith, which the Roman Church had preserved, should prevail universally. Whoever of the bishops should acknowledge this faith was to be regarded as a brother; whoever should refuse it should be condemned as an enemy of the Catholic faith. The adoption of this faith would bring a great blessing.²²

When the Western deputies arrived in Constantinople, they were received by the Emperor with great honour, and exhorted to settle the controversy in a peaceful manner, without dialectic, purely according to the utterances of Holy Scripture. Their maintenance they received from the Emperor, and the Placidia Palace was assigned to them as a residence. On a Sunday they took part in a very solemn procession to S. Mary's Church in the Blachernae suburb.²³

If the chronological statement in the imperial edict now to be described is correct, Constantine Pogonatus, on the same day on which the deputies landed at Constantinople, published a Sacra to the Patriarch George (μακαριωτάτῳ ἀρχιεπισκόπῳ καὶ οἰκουμενικῷ πατριάρχῃ), who in the meantime had succeeded the banished Theodore,²⁴ to the effect that he meant to summon all the metropolitans and bishops belonging to his jurisdiction to Constantinople, that, under God's assistance, the dogma on the will and the energy of Christ might be carefully examined. He would also make Archbishop Macarius of Antioch acquainted with it, that he too might send metropolitans and bishops from his diocese to Constantinople. For the same purpose the Emperor himself had, a considerable time ago, applied to the most holy Pope Donus of Old Rome,²⁵ and his successor, the holy Agatho, had sent as his representatives the priests Theodore and George, together with the deacon John. On the part of the Roman Council, there were three bishops with other clerics and monks appointed. They had arrived in Constantinople, and had delivered to the Emperor the letters which they had brought with them. The Patriarch George should now make haste to summon his bishops.²⁶

In the old Latin translation, but not in the Greek original, this decree bears the date: iv. Idus Sept. imperante piissimo perpetuo Augusto Constantino imperatore anno xxxviii., et post consulatum ejus anno xii. But Pagi showed that, instead of xxviii. we must read xxvii. (ad ann. 680, 4). Constantine became co-regent with his father before the 26th of April 654, so that his twenty-seventh year began in April 680, and in fact the Acts of the sixth Œcumenical Council also give the number xxvii. The imperial edict was accordingly published on September 10, 680.²⁷ This also agrees with ann. xii. post consulatum, for Constantine became consul perpetuus towards the end of the year 668, so that the 10th of September 680 falls into the twelfth year of his consulate.

§ 315. First Session of the Sixth Œcumenical Synod.²⁸

As we saw, the Emperor, at first, having regard to the circumstances of the time, had intended no Œcumenical Synod; but that which actually took place, at its first session and with his consent, called itself an οἰκουμενικὴ. How this alteration took place is unknown. Perhaps it arose from the fact that, contrary to expectation, the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Jerusalem also sent their representatives, and thus had given the possibility of an Œcumenical Council. The Acts are still preserved for us in the Greek original, and in two old Latin translations, printed in Mansi, t. xi. pp. 195–736, and pp. 738–922. Hardouin, t. iii. pp. 1043–1479 and 1479–1644.²⁹ The question, whether these Acts were falsified, we shall discuss later on. The collective meetings of the Synod were held, as the Acts state, ἐν τῷ σεκρέτῳ τοῦ θείου παλατίου, τῷ οὕτω λεγομένῳ Τρούλλῳ. Pagi (ad ann. 680, n. 8) knew that the splendid cupola which covers the church of S. Sophia at Constantinople, a work of the Emperor Justinian, was called sometimes τρούλλιον, sometimes trullum or trulla. He concluded from this that the sixth Council had been held in eo aedificio. But trulla or trullum (= mason's trowel, scoop) was terminus technicus for all cupolas or domes,³⁰ and the words of the Acts point to a hall (or chapel), with a vault like a cupola, in the imperial palace. With this also Anastasius agrees in the Vitae Pontificum, when he says that the Synod had been held in basilica quae Trullus appellatur, intra palatium.³¹ The transactions lasted from November 7, 680, to September 16, 681, and the sessions are said to have been eighteen. The number of persons present during this long period differed; at the beginning it was smaller, subsequently larger. The minutes of the last session were signed by 174 members, and first by the three papal legates, the Roman priests Theodore and George, with the deacon John. After them came the Patriarch George of Constantinople, and the other Patriarchs or their representatives, then the metropolitans and the rest of the bishops. The bishops representing the Roman Council were placed among the metropolitans and after the Patriarchs.³² The minutes of the other sessions enumerate considerably fewer numbers, so that at the first session there were only 43 bishops or episcopal representatives and a few abbots. Theophanes, however, speaks of 289 bishops being present.³³ Besides the Roman clergy, the legates of the Pope in specie, and the three Italian bishops, there appeared also several Greek bishops as legati of the Roman Synod. John, Archbishop of Thessalonica, subscribed as βικάριος τοῦ ἀποστολικού θρονοῦ Ῥώμης καὶ ληγατάριος, Stephen of Corinth as ληγάτος τοῦ ἀποστολικού θρονοῦ Ῥώμης, Basil of Cortina in Crete as ληγάτος τῆς ἀγίας συνόδου τοῦ ἀποστολικού θρονοῦ τῆς πρεσβυτέρας Ῥώμης. These three bishops belonged to Illyricum Orientale, and so, until the year 730, to the Roman patriarchate and the Synodus Romana;³⁴ and even if they did not personally appear at the Roman Synod of the year 680, yet they could have obtained full authority from this Synod. Moreover, the Archbishop of Thessalonica had been for a considerable time vicar of the Pope for Illyricum, and when the Emperor Justinian I. separated the provinces of Achaia and Hellas from Illyricum, they received a Roman vicar of their own in the Archbishop of Corinth.³⁵

The place of president was occupied by the Emperor in proper person, surrounded by a number of high officials (patricians and ex-consuls). On his left the deputies of the Pope had their place,³⁶ then the priest and legate Theodore of Ravenna, Bishop Basil of Gortyna, the representative of the patriarchal administrator of Jerusalem, the monk and priest George, and the bishops sent by the Roman Council. To the right of the Emperor sat the Patriarchs George of Constantinople and Macarius of Antioch, next the representative of the Patriarch of Alexandria, the monk and priest Peter, with all the bishops subject to Constantinople and Antioch. The Holy Gospels were placed in the midst. At the end of the eleventh session, the Emperor declared that business of the Empire would prevent his being henceforth personally present, but that he would send representatives. He was again personally present only at the last session.

As to the presidency of the Emperor and his representatives, the case is the same as at the fourth Œcumenical Synod (see vol. iii. sec. 188). Their conduct of the business had to do only with the external, with, so to speak, the economy and business of the Synod. With the inner affairs they did not mix, but left the decision of these to the Synod alone, and distinguished steadfastly and expressly between themselves and the Synod. In the minutes of each session the Emperor and his attendants or representatives are first mentioned, and then they go on with the words: Conveniente QUOQUE sancta et universali synodo, etc. At the head of the latter, the Synod proper, stood the papal legates; therefore they subscribed before all the bishops, but the Emperor after all the bishops; and the Emperor, not with the formula employed by all the members of the Synod, ὁπίσας ὑπέγραψα, but with the words, ἀνέγνωμεν καὶ συνηνέσαμεν (legimus et consensimus), clearly showing that he did not regard himself as a member, much less as the proper president of the Synod.³⁷ His attendants, and his representatives who presided at sessions 12 to 17, did not subscribe at all.

After all the members had taken their places at the first session, November 7, 680, the papal legates opened the transactions with the request: As the new doctrine of one energy and one will in the incarnate Lord Jesus Christ, one of the Holy Trinity, had been introduced for about forty-six years by the Bishops Sergius, Paul, Pyrrhus, and Peter of Constantinople, in union with Cyrus of Alexandria and Theodore of Pharan, and all the attempts of the apostolic see to remove the error had hitherto proved ineffectual, it should now be shown, from the side of the Constantinopolitans, whence this innovation came. They clothed this demand in the form of an address to the Emperor, and all the speakers proceeded in the same manner, just as in many parliaments the speakers address their words to the president. The Emperor, as director of the business, then invited the Patriarchs George of Constantinople and Macarius of Antioch to answer the papal legates; and Macarius, the monk Stephen, and the Bishops Peter of Nicomedia and Solomon of Claneus (in Galatia), declared in the name of the two patriarchates: "We have not invented these new expressions, but have only taught what we have received by tradition from the holy Œcumenical Synods, the holy Fathers, from Sergius and his successors, and from Pope Honorius and from Cyrus of Alexandria, in regard to the will and the energy, and we are ready to prove this." At their request the Emperor had the Acts of the older Synods brought from the patriarcheion, and the monk and priest Stephen, a disciple of Macarius of Antioch, read aloud the minutes of the third Œcumenical Synod at Ephesus. When he came to the passage in the letter of Cyril to the Emperor Theodosius II.,³⁸ in which it is said of Christ, "His will is almighty," Macarius endeavoured to discover a testimony for Monothelitism there; but the Roman deputies, and with them some bishops of the patriarchate of Constantinople, and also the imperial commissioners (judices, cf. vol. iii. sec. 188), replied promptly, that Cyril was speaking here only of the will of the divine nature of Christ, and in no way of the one will of the two natures. The other Acts of the third Synod were read by deacon Solomon without any remark being made.³⁹

§ 316. From the Second to the Seventh Session.

At the second session, November 10, the Acts of the fourth Œcumenical Council were read, and among them the celebrated Epistola dogmatica of Pope Leo. When they came, in the letter, to the well-known words, Agit enim utraque forma cum alterius communione, quod proprium habuit: Verbo quidem operante quod Verbi est, carne autem exsequente quod carnis est, et horum unum coruscat miraculis, aliud vero succumbit injuriis (see vol. iii. sec. 176), the papal legates remarked, "Leo here teaches clearly two naturales operationes inconfuse et indivise in Christ, and this letter of his was declared by the fourth Œcumenical Synod for the firmamentum orthodoxae fidei. Macarius of Antioch, and those who held his opinions, should express themselves on this subject." Macarius replied: "I do not speak of two energies, and even Leo has not used this expression." The remark of the Emperor, "Do you mean then that Leo in those words asserted only one energy?" brought him into a corner. He slipped out, however, with the words: "I use no word of number (one or two) in regard to the energy, but teach, with Dionysius the Areopagite θεανδρικὴν ἐνέργειαν" (without a word of number). In the same way he evaded the second question of the Emperor, "How do you understand the θεανδρικὴ ἐνέργεια?" by saying, "I form no judgment on the subject," i.e. I do not endeavour to define this notion more closely.

After this digression, the reading of the Chalcedonian Acts was again continued, and brought to an end at this session.⁴⁰ In the third, November 13, the Acts of the fifth Ecumenical Council came in their turn. At the head of the first book of these there was found the often-repeated λόγος of Mennas, then Patriarch of Constantinople, to Pope Vigilius, in regard to the ἐν θέλημα in Christ (see vol. iv. sec. 267). The papal legates immediately protested against the reading of this document, remarking, "This first book of the Acts is falsified: the λόγος of Mennas was in no way entered upon their Acts by the fifth Synod: this was done at a later period, at the beginning of the present controversy." A more careful examination of the Acts, accomplished by the Emperor, his officials, and some bishops, showed, in fact, that there had been introduced, before the first book of those Acts, three unnumbered quaternions (parts of four sheets), and that the fourth (originally the first) quaternion was still marked No. 1, and the fifth, No. 2, etc. Moreover, the handwriting of those quaternions inserted at the beginning was quite different from that of the rest. The Emperor therefore ordered this document to be left out, and the rest of the Acts of the fifth Council to be read. No further opposition was made to any part of the first book. When, however, in the second book, two pretended letters of Pope Vigilius to the Emperor and Empress were brought forward, which were said to belong to the minutes of the seventh session of the fifth Ecumenical Council, and contained the doctrine of una operatio (see vol. iv. sec. 267), the papal legates exclaimed: "Vigilius did not teach that, and this second book of the Acts has been falsified like the first; those are not letters of Vigilius. As the fifth Synod recognised him, then that must have taught, as he is supposed to have done, unam operationem. But read only its Acts further, and nothing of the kind will be found." So it was also in fact, and the Emperor ordered a search to be made for the pretended letters of Vigilius.

He also proposed to the Synod and the Judices the question: Whether anywhere in the Acts of the Synod, which were read, the doctrine of one will and one energy was found, as Macarius and his friends had asserted. The Synod and the Judices answered in the negative, and demanded of Macarius and his companions to bring forward, at a later session, the second part promised of their patristic proofs for Monothelitism, from the writings of the Fathers. At the close, the Patriarch George of Constantinople and his suffragans petitioned that they should have read the letters sent forth by Pope Agatho and his Synod, and the Emperor promised that this should be done at the next session.⁴¹

The reading of these two extensive documents, which we already know (see above, sec. 314), occupied the whole of the fourth session, November 15.⁴² At the fifth, December 7, Macarius and his friends presented two volumes of patristic testimonies for the Monothelite doctrine.⁴³ In accordance with their request, the Emperor allowed these to be read, and sanctioned their being permitted subsequently to bring forward further proofs from the Fathers if they wished. Accordingly, at the sixth session, February 12, 681, they presented a third volume, and after it had been read aloud, and they, on being interrogated, declared that there was nothing more that they wished to add, the Emperor had all the three volumes sealed up by the Judices and by a deputation of the Council and the papal legates. The latter hereupon declared: Macarius of Antioch, his disciple Stephen, Bishop Peter of Nicomedia, and Solomon of Claneus, have in no way, by the patristic passages collected by them, proved anything in regard to the one will or the one energy. On the contrary, they have mutilated these passages, and that which was said of the unity of the will in the Trinity they have referred to the incarnate Christ. We pray, therefore, to be allowed to bring from the patriarcheion of this residence city genuine copies of the Fathers in question, so that we may be able to prove the deception. Moreover, we have prepared a collection both of passages from the Fathers who speak of two wills, and of passages of heretics who, agreeing with Macarius, teach one will and one operation. We pray your Piety (the Emperor) that these also may be read.⁴⁴

On the following day, at the seventh session, the Roman deputies presented their collection with the title: Testimonia sanctorum ac probabilium patrum demonstrantia duas voluntates et duas operationes in Domino Deo et salvatore nostro J. Ch.; and those patristic passages, together with the heretical passages opposed to them, were read aloud by the priest and monk Stephen (from the monastery domus Arsicia), who belonged to the suite of the legates.⁴⁵ George of Constantinople and Macarius of Antioch received transcripts of this collection, in order that they might be able to examine the testimonies adduced in it more thoroughly. The original presented by the papal delegates was sealed up in a similar manner with the three volumes of Macarius.⁴⁶

§ 317. The Eighth Session.

At the eighth session, March 7, 681, the Emperor requested the two Patriarchs, George of Constantinople and Macarius of Antioch, to express themselves on the two letters of Agatho and the Roman Synod. The Patriarch George declared that he had compared the patristic passages therein adduced with the copies of his own patriarchal archives, and found them fully in agreement; and therefore he came over to them and to the doctrine (Dyothelitism) pronounced in them.⁴⁷ The same thing was asserted by all the bishops subject to him, one after another. An interruption of the vote was occasioned only by Bishop Theodore of Melitene (on the borders of Cappadocia and Armenia), who, declaring himself to be a χωρικός (= a rustic, not scientifically educated), presented a writing, and requested that it should be read. It contained this thought: Since both parties brought forward patristic passages on their side, and since by the five Œcumenical Synods, in the doctrine of the Incarnation, no number was determined except the duality of natures and the unity of the person, they ought to stand fast here, and neither side make the other heretical, whether they teach two energies and wills or only one.⁴⁸ To a question of the Emperor, Bishop Theodore declared that the Abbot Stephen of Antioch, the disciple and most zealous friend of Macarius, had delivered this writing to him, and that, besides, the Bishops Peter of Nicomedia, Solomon of Claneus, and Anthony of Hypaepa (in Asia), with five clerics of Constantinople, had taken part in the composition of it. After the disavowal and acclamation was over, these three bishops and five clerics declared the statement of Theodore in respect to them to be an untruth, since the writing in question had been prepared without their knowledge; and the Emperor required them, as they had come under suspicion, to present a written declaration of faith at the next session.

The Patriarch George of Constantinople then prayed the Emperor to be allowed to restore the name of the former Pope Vitalian to the diptychs, from which he had been recently struck out, on account of the late arrival of the Roman legate, on the proposal of Theodore of Constantinople and Macarius of Antioch (see sec. 312). When the Emperor immediately gave his assent, the Synod exclaimed: "Long live (many years to) the preserver of the orthodox faith, to the new Constantine the Great, to the new Theodosius the Great, to the new Marcian, to the new Justinian many years. We are δούλοι of the Emperor. To the orthodox Pope Agatho of Rome many years, to the orthodox Patriarch George many years, to the holy Senate (the imperial Council) many years!" At the wish of the Synod, the Emperor requested the Patriarch Macarius of Antioch to give a more definite explanation of his faith; and, whilst several bishops of the Antiochene patriarchate publicly declared for Dyothelitism, Macarius renewed his opposition to the doctrine of two wills in Christ. The Emperor now caused to be brought forward the three collections of patristic testimonies presented by Macarius, which had been sealed up, and Macarius acknowledged that they had remained without falsification. Before, however, they were read and examined, Macarius put forth his view in a short formula of confession, in which he repeated the doctrine of Chalcedon with the addition of one will, because there could be in Christ no sin and no sinful (= human) will. As he at the same time referred to a lengthy confession, already drawn up by him in writing, that had also to be read.⁴⁹

This confession bears, in the Acts of the Synod, the superscription: "Ecthesis or Confession of Faith of the Heresiarch Macarius," and it unfolds with considerable fulness the orthodox doctrines of the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Eucharist. In connection with the doctrine of the Incarnation, in particular, those points are also brought forward of which Dyothelitism is the consequence, namely, that the Logos took from Mary a flesh quickened by the ψυχὴ λογικὴ and νοερά; that the difference of the natures (ἡ διαφορά τῶν φύσεων) was not taken away by their ἔνωσις in Christ, but, on the contrary, that the peculiarity (ἰδιότης) of each nature was preserved in the unity of the person. That which prevented Macarius from advancing from these propositions to the orthodox doctrine was the spectre of Nestorianism. The admission of two wills and energies, he thought, would have for its inevitable consequence the rending of the one Christ in two. He is right when, in opposition to all Nestorianism, he holds fast to the proposition: "All godlike and all manlike actions went forth from one and the same Christ"; but he concludes from this erroneously and inconsequently the μία ἐνέργεια θεανδρική. He is right when he denies the possibility of admitting two self-contradictory wills in Christ, but he then wrongly rejects the duality of the wills generally. We can see that all the explanations which Sophronius had long ago given on the subject were by him not known or ignored. The principal proposition in his confession runs: "Christ has worked οὐ κατὰ θεὸν τὰ θεῖα, οὐδ' αὖ κατὰ ἄνθρωπον τὰ ἀνθρώπινα, but the Incarnate God the Logos showed καινήν τινα τὴν θεανδρικὴν ἐνέργειαν (the words of the Areopagite), and this is ὅλη ζωοποιός (the words of Cyril of Alexandria: see above, sec. 292). . . . One and the same has worked our salvation, and one and the same has suffered in the flesh, and one and the same has worked miracles. Suffering is a matter of the flesh, but this was not thereby separated from the Godhead, although suffering is not a matter of the Godhead" (quite correct, but here follows the false conclusion): "the energy of God has, although through the medium of our manhood, accomplished all this through the one and only divine will, since in Him (Christ) there was no other will striving against and opposing His divine and powerful will. For it is impossible that there should be in the one and the same Christ our God at the same time two mutually contending or even similar wills (ἐναντία ἢ καὶ ὅμοια ὑφεστάναι θέληματα). For the saving doctrine of the holy Fathers teaches us that the flesh of the Lord, quickened by a rational soul, never fulfilled its φυσικὴ κίνησις for itself alone and from its own impulse (κεχωρισμένως καὶ ἐξ οἰκείας ὁρμῆς), in opposition to the Logos which was hypostatically united with it, but only at the time and in the manner and strength in which He as God willed." This is, he says, the doctrine of the holy Fathers, and of the five Œcumenical Councils; this he accepted. On the other hand, he rejected all the heresies from Simon Magus up to the present time, particularly those of Arius, . . . Nestorius, Eutyches, . . . Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius, and those also whom the fifth Œcumenical Synod anathematised, namely, Theodore of Mopsuestia, the accursed teacher of the heresy of Maximus (he thus sees in the father of Nestorianism at the same time the father of Dyothelitism, for he means here our holy Abbot Maximus), certain writings of Theodoret, and the letter to Maris; finally, also the accursed Maximus, with his impious disciples and his impious doctrine of the separation. "This doctrine," he proceeds, "our holiest Fathers have already rejected before us: Honorius, Sergius, Cyrus, and their successors." The Emperor Heraclius also condemned the heresy of the Maximians, and the same was done, by command of the previous Emperor, by the Synod under Peter of Constantinople, Macedonius of Antioch, and Theodore the administrator of Alexandria (sec. 310), since they anathematised Maximus and banished him with his impious disciples.⁵⁰

When Macarius, in answer to repeated questions from the Emperor, rejected most decidedly the doctrine of two natural wills and energies, adding that he would rather be torn in pieces and cast into the sea than admit such a doctrine, the Emperor ordered the collections of the patristic passages presented by him to be read and examined. The first passage was taken from Athanasius (Contra Apollinar. lib. ii. cc. 1, 2), proved not the least against Dyothelitism, and could only be so far used by Macarius when, along with the duality of wills and energies, there seemed to him to be introduced a dividing of Christ. The passage says, "Christ is at the same time God and man, but not by the division of the Person, but in indissoluble union."⁵¹ Without discussing minutely the meaning of this passage, the Synod explained that it was torn from its connection, and set another passage from c. 6 of the same book over against it, in which it is said: The sinful thoughts (i.e. the evil will which opposes the divine) of man are only a consequence of original sin, but Christ assumed incorrupt human nature as it was before original sin, therefore His manhood was without evil thoughts (i.e. without a human will opposing the divine).⁵² This declared plainly against Macarius, and when the Emperor asked him why he had not brought this forward, he replied that he had naturally collected only the passages which suited him.

The second passage was taken from cc. 9 and 10 of the same treatise of S. Athanasius, and runs: "God, who originally created man, has assumed humanity, as it was originally, Flesh without carnal desires and without human thoughts, for His will was only that of the Godhead (ἡ γὰρ θέλησις θεότητος μόνης)." This appeared to testify on the side of Macarius. But the Synod placed the words of the saint immediately following over against them, in which it is said: "The new Adam possessed all that the old possessed (therefore also a human will), but from all that was sinful HE had been free, and therefore there could be manifested in Him the καθαρὰ δικαιοσύνη τῆς θεότητος." Athanasius by this intended only to say: "In the God-man ruled only the divine will, and not also the sinful will of the flesh"; but he does not deny the natural human will of Christ, rather his words involve it: "that which was in the old Adam was also in the new." Macarius and his pupil Stephen then had their attention drawn to this, but they would, even in the case of Adam, admit of no natural will, but maintained that, before the Fall, man had been συνθελητής (of like will) with God. Several bishops and also the papal legates declared this to be blasphemy, adding: "The divine will was creative: if then Adam was συνθελητής with God, he also created the world with Him." We see that Macarius interchanged the moral unity of the will of Adam with the divine for a natural unity; and inasmuch as he would not acknowledge a natural will in Adam, he gave his opponents a right and reason to reproach him with the folly named. They could also show from patristic passages that will is a matter of nature, and that Adam had a natural will.

Two other passages in the collection of Macarius and Stephen, taken from Ambrose (Ad Gratianum), certainly spoke of one will in Christ, but it meant the identity of His divine will with that of His Father. The Synod showed this from other words of Ambrose, in which also it was said that Christ had assumed a human will, and a reference was made to this in the words: "Not what I will, but what Thou wilt."

One passage which Macarius had taken from Dionysius the Areopagite (De div. nom. c. 2, sec. 6; see above, sec. 291) spoke of the "human God-working" (ἀνθρωπίνῃ θεουργία) of Christ, and thus seemed to point to a mixture of the divine and human energy; but the Synod directly ordered the words of the Areopagite immediately following to be read, and these showed that he quite distinguished the operation of the Logos from this ἀνθρωπίνῃ θεουργία, and thus made two kinds of operations in Christ, and that by the latter, the ἀνθρωπίνῃ θεουργία, he understood the human operation of Christ which allows the divine to shine through (see sec. 291). The eighth session was closed by the reading of a passage from the discourse of S. Chrysostom on "Father, if it be possible," etc., in which he certainly speaks of one will, but, as above with S. Ambrose, of the unity of will of the Son with the Father. The Synod sets forth another fragment from the same sermon, in which the discourse is of the human affections of Christ, of His hungering, eating, sleeping, and of His (human) wish not to die (transeat calix iste).⁵³

§ 318. Ninth and Tenth Sessions.

In the ninth session, on March 8, the reading was continued; and then came, in the series, a passage from the treatise of S. Athanasius, περὶ τριάδος καὶ σαρκώσεως Λόγου. We know this treatise under the title, De Incarnatione contra Arianos; and it may surprise us that Macarius should borrow a passage from it (c. 21) which, in plain words, speaks of two wills, which came out distinctly in the cry: "Not My will be done, but Thine." But Macarius must have transformed this as if, in the opinion of Athanasius, Christ had spoken here, not in propria persona, but ex mente of His adherents. But the Synod had the following sentence read, which, in opposition to this assumption, ascribes the recusare of the cup to the proper human will of Christ; and Bishop Basil of Cortina remarked that the passage of S. Athanasius adduced by Macarius spoke clearly against him and of two wills.

Before they went on to further reading, Abbot Stephen, the disciple of Macarius, appealed to Gregory of Nazianzus, who spoke of a "quite deified" will of Christ. But Bishop Basil, just mentioned, replied rightly that the predicate "deified" could only refer to the human will of Christ, and not to His will which was already in itself divine, and therefore it was a testimony in favour of Dyothelitism.

An earlier fellow-disciple of Stephen, the monk George, now expressed his conviction, in answer to the Emperor, as follows: "The assertions of Stephen (and Macarius) are in conflict with the Fathers." Then a passage from Cyril, in the collection of Macarius, was read, in which he seemed to teach a transformation of the human will of Christ into a πνευματικὴ εὐτολμία.

An expression of Cyril's, which was presented to the Synod, testified, however, to the two wills, and the Synod now gave the sentence: "You two, you Stephen and your master Macarius, have, by your collection, not proved Monothelitism, but have brought forward passages which speak plainly of two wills, although you have mutilated them. Because you are proved to have falsified the dogma and the teaching of the Fathers, and also to have adhered to the statements of heretics, we depose you from all priestly dignity and function. Those, on the contrary, who amend their previous error, and agree with us in the faith, shall remain in their offices, and shall present the promised written confessions at the next session." By this were meant Theodore of Melitene and the bishops and clerics denounced by him, whose case was considered before (p. 157), and who, at the beginning of this session, had asked and obtained permission to appear again. The session closed with acclamations in honour of the Emperor, and to the execration of Stephen and Macarius.⁵⁴

At the tenth session, March 18, 681, the rich collection of patristic and heretical passages for and against Dyothelitism presented by the Roman envoys was unsealed, read, compared with the copies of the works quoted which were found in the patriarchal archives at Constantinople, and discovered to be correct and unfalsified. These were, in the first series, extracts from Leo the Great, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, Epiphanius, Gregory of Nazianzus, pseudo-Justin (see p. 107), the Emperor Justinian, Archbishop Ephraem of Antioch, Anastasius of Antioch, and John of Scythopolis.

The second shorter division contained extracts from writings of heretics : Themistius, Anthimus, Severus, Theodosius, etc., in order to show that Monothelitism had been already held by these false teachers, and had already been condemned in them. We recall only that the Lateran Synod of A.D. 649 made a similar collection in two parts, and embodied it in their Acts (see p. 107 f.). The present naturally has much in common with the earlier collection, but is more extensive, and gives the particular passages in proof with less abruptness, but more in connection with what went before and followed.

At the conclusion, the Roman legates wished that an expression of the heretic Apollinaris from a manuscript in the patriarchal library, which was lacking in their collection, should be read. It was done, and the passage showed that Apollinaris had taught only one energy in Christ.

After this was finished, Bishop Theodore of Melitene and his associates presented the confession of faith required of them, which declared Dyothelitism decisively, and their agreement with the doctrinal epistle sent by Pope Agatho.⁵⁵

§ 319. Eleventh and Twelfth Sessions.

At the request of the monk Gregory, who was representative of the patriarchal administrator of Jerusalem, there was read, at the eleventh session, March 20, 681, the celebrated synodal letter of S. Sophronius of Jerusalem to Sergius of Constantinople, to which we referred above in sec. 297.⁵⁶ The Emperor then asked the papal legates what further had now to be done, and they wished that some of the writings composed by Macarius and his disciple Stephen, which were in the patriarchal archives of Constantinople, should be communicated. The Emperor ordered them to be brought by the deacon George, the keeper of the archives (χαρτοφύλαξ); and they were:

(a) A letter of Macarius to the Emperor, which was already known to the Synod from the previous transactions (a copy of the confession of Macarius addressed to the Emperor; see p. 158);

(b) A λόγος προσφωνητικὸς of the same to the Emperor, which, however, he had not received;

(c) A letter of Macarius to the priest and monk Luke in Africa, in which the Dyothelites are described as new Manichaeans;

(d) A further treatment of the same subject.

Some pieces were, at the request of the Synod, read entire, others only partially, the objectionable passages brought out of them, and compared with utterances of acknowledged heretics. In one of these passages, Macarius reckoned the departed Pope Honorius as decidedly belonging to the Monothelites. At the close the Emperor communicated to the Synod that business prevented his personally taking part at the further sessions; but the two Patriarchs, Constantine and Anastasius, as well as the two ex-consuls, Polyeuctus and Peter, should be present, in his stead, at the transactions of the Ecumenical Council. The principal matter was, however, transacted.⁵⁷

Immediately after the opening of the twelfth Synod, March 22, 681, an imperial court official, the patrician John, by commission of his master, brought over several further documents which Macarius had presented to the Emperor, but which he had not read. The first of these was only another copy of the λόγος προσφωνητικὸς read in the previous session. In the appendix to this there was found the relation of several Isaurian bishops which Macarius had sent to the Patriarch of Constantinople.⁵⁸ Being unimportant, they were not read in full. The manuscripts of Macarius contained a series of other pieces known to us:

(1) The letter of the Patriarch Sergius to Bishop Cyrus of Phasis in Colchis;⁵⁹

(2) The alleged letter of Mennas to Pope Vigilius, found to be spurious at the third session, which, on the repeated protests of the papal legates, was not read ;

(3) The Acts of the seventh and eighth session of the Ecumenical Council, at which the imperial representatives (Judices, see p. 153) and the Synod remarked that the two letters contained therein of Pope Vigilius to the Emperor Justinian and the Empress Theodora were later insertions (see pp. 154 and 170). Next followed :

(4) The letter of Sergius to Pope Honorius (p. 22) ; and

(5) The first letter of Honorius to Sergius (p. 27).

In order to thoroughly understand the case, these documents presented by Macarius were, as far as possible, compared with the originals, which were found in the patriarchal archives, and Macarius himself was asked whether the letters of his which were found there really proceeded from him. The deputies of the Synod met him in a chamber of the Patriarch's abode, and he acknowledged the genuineness of all the documents. Moreover, the comparison of some of them with the originals in the patriarchal archives led only to favourable results. Finally, the imperial representatives asked whether Macarius, if he repented, could again be restored to his dignity ; and after the Synod had answered this in the negative, the bishops of the Antiochene patriarchate petitioned that the plenipotentiaries of the Emperor would prevail with their master, so that another bishop might be appointed for Antioch. They promised this, and requested the Synod to give its judgment, at the next session, on Sergius, Honorius, and Sophronius.⁶⁰

§ 320. Thirteenth Session.

This was done in the thirteenth session, March 28, 681, and the Synod declared : " After we had read the doctrinal letters of Sergius of Constantinople to Cyrus of Phasis and to Pope Honorius, as well as the letter of the latter to Sergius, we find that these documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, also to the declarations of the holy Councils, and all the Fathers of repute, and follow the false teachings of the heretics ; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul (hasque invenientes omnino alienas existere ab apostolicis dogmatibus et a definitionibus sanctorum conciliorum et cunctorum probabilium Patrum, sequi vero falsas doctrinas haereticorum, eas omnimodo abjicimus, et tamquam animae noxias exsecramur). But the names of these men must also be thrust forth from the Church, namely, that of Sergius, who first wrote on this impious doctrine ; further, that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter of Constantinople, and of Theodore of Pharan, all of whom Pope Agatho rejected in his letter to the Emperor. We anathematise them all. And along with them, it is our unanimous decree that there shall be expelled from the Church and anathematised, Honorius, formerly Pope of Old Rome, because we found in his letter to Sergius that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines (Cum his vero simul projici a sancta Dei catholica ecclesia simulque anathematizari praevidimus et Honorium, qui fuerat Papa antiquae Romae, eo quod invenimus per scripta, quae ab eo facta sunt ad Sergium, quia in omnibus ejus mentem secutus est, impia dogmata confirmavit). We have also examined the synodal letter of Sophronius, and have found it in accordance with the true faith and the apostolic and patristic doctrines. Therefore we received it as useful to the Catholic and apostolic Church, and decreed that his name should be put upon the diptychs of the holy Church."

If we examine this decree more closely, it is clear that the Synod could appeal to Agatho only for the anathema on Sergius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter, and Theodore of Pharan, for only of these had he spoken with condemnation (p. 144). The anathema on Honorius was the exclusive act of the Council, and at this place, at least, was not influenced by an appeal to Agatho. Certainly the Council expressed itself differently, as if Pope Agatho had taken the lead in the condemnation of Honorius ; so particularly in the letter of the Council to Agatho, in which it is said that, in accordance with the sentence previously given by the Pope, they had anathematised Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Honorius, etc., etc. (see p. 188). As Pope Agatho had condemned the Mono thelites in general, the Council assumed that Honorius was also among them, although Agatho had not at all mentioned his name.⁶¹

The imperial Judices (representatives) hereupon declared: "The Council has responded to our request (at the twelfth session), that they would give judgment on Sergius, Honorius, and Sophronius; but there is also a question about Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter of Constantinople, as well as about Cyrus of Alexandria and Theodore of Pharan, therefore let the deacon George bring the writings of these men from the patriarchal archives, so that we may be able to gain an insight into them. With regard, however, to the petition (also presented at the twelfth session) for the filling again of the see of Antioch, the Emperor has commanded that a ψήφισμα (a motion carried by a majority of votes) be taken." The bishops replied that the presentation of the writings of Pyrrhus, etc., was superfluous, because their doctrine of one will was universally known, and Pope Agatho had already exposed their error, had shown their agreement in opinion with Sergius, and had condemned them in his letter.⁶² There were now read aloud:

(1) The first letter of Cyrus of Phasis to Sergius (see above, p. 12);

(2) The much more important second letter of Cyrus to Sergius, after his elevation to the see of Alexandria, in reference to the union brought about by him there, communicating the nine Kephalaia of union (see above, p. 18 ff.);

(3) Passages from the Logos of Theodore of Pharan to the former Bishop Sergius, of Arsinoe, in Egypt, containing the doctrine of one energy and one will;

(4) The dogmatic tome of Pyrrhus against Sophronius, asserting that Cyrus (in κεφάλαιον 7), in the passage of the Areopagite, καινὴ θεανδρικὴ ἐνέργεια, had not deceitfully, but merely as explaining the sense, put μία instead of καινὴ;

(5) A letter of Paul of Constantinople to the former Pope, Theodore, from which a passage with a Monothelite sound is made prominent;⁶³

(6) A letter of the Patriarch Peter of Constantinople to Pope Vitalian (see p. 135), in which different patristic passages were brought forward. As the papal legates declared these to be mutilated, the reading of the letter was not further continued. The Judices were satisfied with the proof alleged, and drew attention to the successors of Peter, the Patriarch of Constantinople, Thomas, John, and Constantine. Of these, too, letters and synodal epistles were presented (they are not received into the Acts), but the Synod found in them nothing contradictory to the orthodox doctrine, and George, the keeper of the archives at Constantinople, finally declared that he had discovered in the archives no document which could make the bishops named suspected of Monothelitism. It was therefore resolved to retain their names in the diptychs. Finally, the keeper George made over all further documents found in the patriarchal archives, letters and confessions of several, among them the Latin original of the second letter of Honorius, from which some fragments were now communicated (see above, p. 49). Further, there was a fragment from a letter of the Patriarch Pyrrhus to Pope John, and something else read, and the Synod caused all these documents, even the letters of Pope Honorius, to be burnt, as hurtful to the soul.⁶⁴

§ 321. From the Fourteenth to the Seventeenth Session.

At the fourteenth session, May 5, 681, the new Patriarch, Theophanes of Antioch, assisted, and the examination of the genuineness of the Acts of the fifth Ecumenical Council, begun at the twelfth session, was now resumed, in order to discuss the matter thoroughly. Hitherto the Synod had used only two copies of the Acts, taken from the patriarchal archives, namely: (1) a parchment MS. in two books; and (2) a paper MS., which contained only the seventh session of that Synod. The keeper of the archives, George of Constantinople, now presented a third codex, which in the meantime he had found also in the patriarchal archives, and swore upon the Holy Gospels that neither himself nor any other, with his knowledge, had made any alteration in these three MSS. The bishops then compared these three MSS. with one another, and with others at their disposal, and it was found :

(a) That the two first agreed with one another, and uniformly contained the pretended letter of Mennas to Vigilius, and the two books of the latter to Justinian and Theodora ;

(b) That, on the other hand, in the newly discovered third MS. these documents were lacking.

The Synod now gave the sentence : " These additions, as the papal legates correctly remarked before, were not written at the time of the fifth Ecumenical Council, but were inserted by a later hand, and in the first book of the parchment MS. three quaternions, in which was the letter of Mennas ; and in the second book, between the fifteenth and sixteenth quaternions, four unpaged leaves, containing the two pretended letters of Vigilius. In the same manner, the second codex had been falsified in the heretical interest. These additions must be quashed in both MSS., and marked with an obelus, and the falsifiers smitten with anathema " (cf. vol. iv. sec. 267).

In order to indicate the persons and the party who had dared to falsify the documents, Bishop Macrobius of Seleucia in Isauria related : " The Magister Militum Philip made over to me a MS. of the Acts of the fifth Ecumenical Council. I found that it was falsified in regard to the seventh session, and I learnt from Philip that he had lent it to the Abbot Stephen, the friend of the Patriarch Macarius, and that the forged passages were from the hand of the monk George, another scholar of Macarius. Upon this I visited my Patriarch Macarius himself, found the monk George with him writing, and satisfied myself by multiplied comparison that he had also written that." The monk George, who was already at the Synod, and now was asked for an explanation, told them : " When Macarius and Theodore of Constantinople had negotiations together respecting the faith, there were MSS. which contained the letters of Vigilius, brought from the patriarchal archives of Constantinople, copied by us, and sent by Macarius and Stephen to the Emperor. Soon after wards the Magister Militum Philip, already mentioned, showed to Abbot Stephen a MS. belonging to him of the fifth Œcumenical Council, and asked whether it was good. Stephen replied, there was something lacking in it; and, at the request of Philip and at the command of Stephen, I was required to insert the letters in question of Vigilius. The like happened with all the other copies which Macarius and Stephen could bring forward. But what was the case with respect to a Latin MS. which they bought, the priest and Latin grammarian Constantine would know better.” At the request of the Synod, the latter asserted: “At the time of the Patriarch Paul, Bishop Fortunius (Fortunatus) came from Carthage (a Monothelite; see p. 90) hither to Constantinople, and the question arose whether he should have his seat before or after the other metropolitans present. As then the Patriarch Paul sought in the library for the Acts of the fifth Council, in order to learn from them the order of sitting, he found, among other things, a Latin translation of the synodal Acts, and commissioned me to compare this MS. in regard to the seventh session with the authentic copy and to supply what was lacking, in union with the deacon Sergius, who was a good writer. What we then added were the two letters of Pope Vigilius translated from the Greek into the Latin.”⁶⁵

This statement was confirmed by the deacon Sergius mentioned, who was also present, and the bishops exclaimed: “Anathema to the pretended letters of Mennas and Vigilius; anathema to the forger of Acts; anathema to all who teach one will and one energy in the Incarnation of Christ, who is One of the Trinity! Eternal honour to the four holy Councils; eternal honour to the holy fifth Council; many years to the Emperor Constantine!”

Finally was read a discourse of S. Athanasius in a MS. brought by the Cypriote bishops as proof for Dyothelitism, and information was given by Bishop Domitius of Prusias, that the priest and monk Polychronius, an adherent of Macarius of Antioch, had seduced many of the people to heresy.⁶⁶ The examination of his affair was put off to the next session ; before, however, this took place, the honour was done to the papal legates, that one of them, Bishop John of Portus, was allowed to celebrate divine service in a solemn manner, according to the Latin rite, in the Church of S. Sophia at Constantinople, in presence of the Emperor and the Patriarch, at the Easter Festival, (April 14) 681. At the same time, the Emperor reduced the tax which the Popes had to discharge at their ordination, did away with the practice according to which the imperial exarchs of Ravenna claimed to confirm the papal election, and required that the petitions in reference to this should henceforth be laid before the Emperor himself.⁶⁷

After the close of the festal days of Easter, the Polychronius mentioned above was, at the fifteenth session, on April 26, 681, placed before the Synod. He engaged to prove the truth of his teaching in this way, he would lay his written confession of faith on a dead person, and would thereby call him back to life. If this did not succeed, then the Council and the Emperor might deal with him at their pleasure. His confession of faith, drawn up in the form of a letter to the Emperor, declared that the doctrine of one will and of one divine-human energy had been revealed to him twice in a vision. The Judices as well as the Synod gave permission that he should make the proposed trial outside the palace in the open air, and in the presence of them and of the people. A corpse was brought on a bier. Polychronius laid his confession upon it, and for two whole hours whispered all kinds of things into its ears without producing the least effect. The people present exclaimed : " Anathema to the new Simon (Magus) ; anathema to the seducer of the people ! " The Judices and bishops returned into the hall of session ; and, after the Synod had again exhorted Polychronius in vain to the acceptance of the orthodox doctrine, he was deposed from his dignity and his office as priest, and along with Macarius and Stephen smitten with anathema.⁶⁸

In the sixteenth session, on August 9, the priest Constantine of Apamea in Syria prayed for admission, and laid before the Council with great personal feeling a mediation doctrine invented by himself, to the effect: "That there were two energies, since these belonged to the properties of the two natures of Christ; but there was in Christ only one personal will, that of the Logos, and with this a natural will, the human; and the latter the Lord had drawn out, when HE drew out flesh and blood on the cross" (an entirely new heresy, which denies the perpetuity of the God-man). He thought that this was also the doctrine of Macarius; but the Synod exclaimed: "That is Manichaean and Apollinarian: Anathema to the new Manichaean; anathema to the new Apollinarian!" He was expelled.

As they were about to proceed to the customary acclamations and anathemas, the Patriarch George of Constantine wished that, in the latter, they would pass over the names of his predecessors, Sergius, Pyrrhus, and Paul; but he was outvoted, and the Synod exclaimed: "Many years to the Emperor, . . . many years to the Roman Pope Agatho, many years to the Patriarch George of Constantinople, many years to the Patriarch Theophanes of Antioch, many years to the orthodox Council and Senate; anathema to the heretic Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius, to the heretics Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter, Macarius, Stephen, Polychronius, Apergius of Perge, and to all heretics and their friends!" The drawing up of a declaration of faith was to be reserved for the next, the seventeenth session.⁶⁹

This did not take place until September 11, and the short minutes of the session are extant only in Latin. The decree of faith, which had in the meantime been drawn up, was read, and was adopted in the following and last session.⁷⁰

§ 322. The Eighteenth Session.

At the eighteenth session, on September 16, 681, the Emperor was again personally present, and, at his command, a notary read the full decree of faith, which was subscribed by the papal legates, by all the bishops and episcopal representatives, 174 in number, and, last of all, also by the Emperor (see p. 151). The Synod declares in this, before all, its adhesion to the five earlier Synods,⁷¹ repeats the symbols of Nicaea and Constantinople, and proceeds thus: "These creeds would have sufficed for the knowledge and confirmation of the orthodox faith. As, however, the originator of all evil always finds a helping serpent, by means of which he can diffuse his poison, and therewith finds suitable instruments for his will, we mean Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter, the former Bishops of Constantinople, also Honorius, Pope of Old Rome, Cyrus of Alexandria, Macarius of Antioch and his disciple Stephen, he did not delay, through the trouble in the Church, by the dissemination of the heretical doctrine of one will and one energy of the two natures of the one Christ, who is one of the Holy Trinity, to assert that which agrees with the heresy of Apollinaris, Severus, and Themistius, and thus serves to take away the full Incarnation of Christ, and to represent His rationally quickened flesh as without will or energy. But Christ our God awoke the faithful Emperor, the new David, . . . who did not rest until this assembly found the perfect proclamation of orthodoxy. This holy and Œcumenical Synod has received πιστῶς, and with uplifted hands has greeted the letter of the most holy Pope Agatho to the Emperor, in which are particularly brought forward and condemned, those who taught one will and one energy. So also they accepted the synodal letter of the 125 bishops assembled under the Pope (see p. 145), since the two letters agree with the holy Synod of Chalcedon, the tome of the holy Leo to Flavian, and with the synodal letters of Cyril against Nestorius and the bishops of the East. Following the five holy and Œcumenical Synods and the Fathers of repute, and confessing that our Lord Jesus Christ, one of the Holy Trinity, is perfect in the Godhead and perfect in the manhood, etc. (Repetition of the creed of Chalcedon; see vol. iii. p. 346 ff.). We also declare that there are two natural θελήσεις or θελήματα and two natural energies, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀμερίστως, ἀσυγχύτως, in Christ, according to the teaching of the holy Fathers. And the two natural wills are not opposed to each other,—God forbid,—as the impious heretics said, but His human will followed, and it does not resist and oppose, but rather is subject to the divine and almighty will. The will of the human nature (σάρξ) necessarily moved, but also subjected itself to the divine, as the most wise Athanasius says: As the flesh (manhood) of God the Logos is called flesh, and is, so also is the natural will of His flesh the proper will of the Logos, as He Himself said: "I came down from heaven, not to do Mine own will, but the will of the Father who sent Me." He calls here the will of His σάρξ His own, since the σάρξ was also His own. Just as His all holy and blameless (sinless) σάρξ (humanity) was not taken away by the deifying, but remained in its limitation and fashion, so also His human will is not taken away but divinised, it rather remains, as Gregory the theologian says: His will, namely that of the Saviour, is not opposed to God, but quite divinised. We teach further, that there are two natural energies, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀμερίστως, and ἀσυγχύτως, in our Lord Jesus Christ, namely the divine and the human energy, as Leo says: Agit enim utraque forma, etc. (vol. iii. p. 230). We do not allow that God and His creature (the humanity of Christ) had one and the same energy, so as not to introduce the creature into the divine substance (ουσία), and press down the transcendent to the creaturely. As well the miracles as the sufferings we ascribe to one and the same, each according to the difference of His natures; and we assert two natures in one hypostasis, of which each in communion with the other wills and works what is proper to itself. Therefore we confess also two natural wills and operations (energies) going together harmoniously for the salvation of the human race. A different faith no one may proclaim or hold; and those who venture to do so, . . . or will introduce a new formula for the destruction of our definition of the faith, shall, if bishops or clerics, be deposed from their clerical office, but if monks or laymen, shall be anathematised⁷².

The question of the Emperor, whether this decree had received the assent of all the bishops, was answered with loud acclamations; so also his declaration that, in the summoning of the Synod, he had had in view only the purity of the faith and the restoration of unity. Then the λόγος προσφωνητικὸς of the Synod, drawn up in the usual manner, was read to the Emperor. It contains, first, the praise of the Emperor, especially for the calling of this Synod. The Pope of Rome and the other bishops had followed his command, and had appeared, some personally and some by representatives, in Constantinople. As the earlier five Œcumenical Synods had become necessary on account of heresy, so also the present; and in agreement with the letters of Pope Agatho and his Roman Synod of 125 bishops, the Synod taught, that one of the Trinity, our Lord Jesus Christ, was made man, and is to be worshipped in two perfect natures undividedly. "If, however, we assume," it goes on, "two natures, we must also recognise two natural wills and two natural energies of the same; for we do not venture to declare one of the two natures in Christ to be without will and without energy, lest in taking away the properties we take away the natures themselves. We do not deny the natural will of His humanity or the energy which corresponds with this will, while at the same time we also do not deny τὸ τῆς σωτηρίας ἡμῶν οἰκονομικὸν κεφάλαιον, or ascribe the sufferings to the Godhead, as was attempted by those who confessed only one will and one energy, in unholy innovation, renewing the heresies of Arius, Apollinaris, Eutyches, and Severus. If we were to assume the human nature of our Lord as without will and without energy, where would then be His perfect humanity? For nothing else makes the human substance (ουσία) perfect, but τὸ οὐσιῶδες θέλημα, whereby the power of liberty is stamped upon us. So it is with regard to energy. How can we ascribe to Him (Christ) perfect humanity, if He did not work and suffer in a human way? . . . Therefore we punish with excommunication and anathema Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Paul, Pyrrhus, and Peter, also Cyrus, and with them Honorius, formerly Pope of Rome, as he followed them (ὡς ἐκείνοις ἐν τούτοις ἀκολουθήσαντα), but especially Macarius and Stephen, . . . also Polychronius, the childish old man, who wanted to awaken one who was dead, and because he could not, was derided; and all who asserted or assert one will and one operation (energy) in the Incarnate Christ. And no one must blame the zeal of the Pope and of this Synod, for we did not begin the conflict, but, on the contrary, have only offered opposition to the aggressors. . . . On our side fought the Prince of the Apostles, for his imitator and successor is our patron, and declared to us in his letter the secret of theology.” The close is composed of commendations of the Emperor, and good wishes for him.⁷³

This λόγος προσφωνητικός was also subscribed by the members of the Synod, the papal legates at the head; and they requested the Emperor to give his subscription and his confirmation of the decrees. He immediately consented, and wished that Archbishop Citonius of Sardinia, who had come into suspicion of high treason, but had been acquitted, should now also be received by the Synod, and allowed to subscribe its decree. After this was done, the Synod requested that the Emperor would be pleased to send five attested copies of the decree of the faith, signed by himself, to the five patriarchal sees, which also was immediately accomplished.⁷⁴

Finally, the Synod addressed another letter to Pope Agatho, “the physician for the present sickness of the Church,” leaving to him as the πρωτόθρονος what was to be done—to him who stood upon the firm rock of the faith. The Synod, they said, had destroyed the tower of the heretics, and killed them by anathemas, in accordance with the sentence given before by the Pope (κατὰ τὴν τοῖς ἱεροῖς ὑμῶν γράμμασιν ἐπ' αὐτοῖς προψηφισθεῖσαν ἀπόφασιν), namely, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, Paul, Pyrrhus, and Peter. Besides these, also Macarius and Stephen. Enlightened by the Holy Ghost, instructed by the Pope, and protected by the Emperor, they had rejected the impious doctrines, and pronounced the dogma of two wills and energies. The Pope would be pleased to confirm their decrees in writing.⁷⁵

§ 323. The Pope and the Emperor confirm the sixth Ecumenical Synod.

Immediately after the end of the Synod, the Emperor caused to be posted in the third atrium⁷⁶ of the great church in the neighbourhood of Dicymbalon the following edict: "The heresy of Apollinaris, etc., has been renewed by Theodore of Pharan and confirmed by Honorius, who contradicted himself (ὁ τῆς αἱρέσεως βεβαιότης καὶ αὐτὸς ἐαυτῷ προσμαχόμενος). Also Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter; more recently, Macarius, Stephen, and Polychronius had diffused Monothelitism. He, the Emperor, had therefore convoked this holy and Ecumenical Synod, and published the present edict with the confession of faith, in order to confirm and establish its decrees. (There follows here an extended confession of faith, with proofs for the doctrine of two wills and operations.) As he recognised the five earlier Ecumenical Synods, so he anathematised all heretics from Simon Magus, but especially the originators and patrons of the new heresy, Theodore and Sergius; also Pope Honorius, who was their adherent and patron in everything, and confirmed the heresy (τὸν κατὰ πάντα τούτοις συναιρέτην καὶ σύνδρομον καὶ βεβαιωτὴν τῆς αἱρέσεως); further, Cyrus, etc., and ordained that no one henceforth should hold a different faith, or venture to teach one will and one energy. In no other than the orthodox faith could men be saved. Whoever did not obey the imperial edict should, if he were bishop or cleric, be deposed; if official, punished with confiscation of property and loss of girdle (ζώνη); if private person, banished from the residence and all other cities.⁷⁷

Pope Agatho had survived until the end of the sixth Œcumenical Council, but the news of his death (†January 10, 682) reached Constantinople before his legates had left the city, and the Emperor therefore gave them, at their departure, a letter to the new Pope, Leo II., who was elected soon after the death of his predecessor, but was not ordained until August 17, 682.⁷⁸ The Emperor relates in this letter the whole progress of the affair, how all the members of the Synod had assented to the doctrinal letter of Pope Agatho, with the exception of Macarius of Antioch and his adherents. These had been deposed by the Synod, but had requested in writing that they should be sent to the Pope, which the Emperor now did, and left the decision of their affair to his Holiness. The Pope would now take the sword of the Word, and with it beat down all heresy, etc. Finally, he was requested to send the representative already promised to Constantinople.⁷⁹

A second imperial letter was addressed to all the ecclesiastical provinces (Concilia) of the Roman patriarchate, and similarly related how all the bishops, Macarius excepted, had assented to the orthodox doctrine of Pope Agatho.⁸⁰ The persons anathematised by the sixth Council are not named in either of these letters of the Emperor, and thus not Honorius.

Pope Leo II. responded to the wish of the Emperor in a letter addressed to him, which at the same time contains the papal confirmation of the sixth Ecumenical Synod. The Pope in this letter first commends the Emperor as indeed worthy of commendation, and then remarks that the legates who had been sent by Agatho to the Synod had arrived in Rome in the July of the past 10th Indiction, i.e. in the July of 682. From this it is clear that the concluding note of this letter, as found in one of the two old Latin translations, representing it as written Nonis Maii Indict. x., i.e. on the 7th of May 682, cannot possibly be genuine; for the Pope wrote after the return of his legates.

Further, Leo II. says that the legates had brought the letter of the Emperor and the Acts of the Council with them. He had carefully examined the latter, and found them quite in agreement with the declarations of faith of his predecessor Agatho and the Roman Synod. He confirmed and recognised, therefore, the sixth Ecumenical Council in the same way as the five preceding, and anathematised all heretics, Arius, etc.; also the originators of the new heresy, Theodore of Pharan, Cyrus, etc.; also Honorius, qui hanc apostolicam sedem non apostolicae traditionis doctrina lustravit, sed profana proditione immaculatam fidem subvertere conatus est (according to the Greek, παρεχώρησε = subverti permisit), et omnes, qui in suo errore defuncti sunt. Finally, of Macarius and his adherents it is said, that the Pope has given himself much trouble to lead them again into the right way, but hitherto they have remained stiff-necked.⁸¹ The close of the letter is composed of laudations of the Emperor.⁸²

As Pope Leo II. in this document confirmed the sixth Ecumenical Council, so did he zealously endeavour to bring about its recognition throughout the entire West. We see this from his letters to the Spanish bishops still extant, to Bishop Quiricius in particular,⁸³ to the Spanish King Ervig,⁸⁴ and to Count Simplicius.⁸⁵ As the whole Acts of the Council had not yet been translated into Latin, the Pope could send to the Spaniards only some principal parts of them, with the request that the decrees of this Synod should be received and subscribed by them all. The Roman notary Peter was commissioned to deliver these letters, and to urge on the affair; that he accomplished his end we shall learn later on, when we consider the thirteenth and fourteenth Synods of Toledo.

§ 324. The Anathema on Pope Honorius, and the genuineness of the Acts of the sixth Ecumenical Council.⁸⁶

If we have so far given extracts from the Acts of the sixth Ecumenical Council, we are now required to examine more closely the question respecting the anathematising of Pope Honorius. It is in the highest degree startling, even scarcely credible, that an Ecumenical Council should punish with anathema a Pope as a heretic! In order to get rid of all the difficulties resulting from such a fact, Baronius and his followers have maintained that the Acts of the Council which speak of the anathema on Honorius are forged, whilst others have thought that the Acts indeed are genuine, but that the Council condemned Honorius, not for heresy, but for negligence (because he was silent at the wrong time). Both of these attempts at explanation have recently been quite decidedly opposed by Professor Pennacchi in Rome, the most distinguished of the later defenders of Pope Honorius.

He has most distinctly maintained that the Acts of the sixth Œcumenical Council are genuine, and that in them Pope Honorius was anathematised as a real heretic (formalis).⁸⁷

That, however, the sixth Œcumenical Synod actually condemned Honorius on account of heresy, is clear beyond all doubt, when we consider the following collection of the sentences of the Synod against him.

(1) At the entrance of the thirteenth session, on March 28, 681, the Synod says: "After reading the doctrinal letter of Sergius of Constantinople to Cyrus of Phasis (afterwards of Alexandria) and to Pope Honorius, and also the letter of the latter to Sergius, we found that these documents were quite foreign (omnino alienas) to the apostolic doctrines, and to the declarations of the holy Councils and all the Fathers of note, and follow the false doctrines of heretics. Therefore we reject them completely, and abhor (βδελλυπτόμεθα) them as hurtful to the soul. But also the names of these men must be thrust out of the Church, namely, that of Sergius, the first who wrote on this impious doctrine. Further, that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter of Constantinople, and of Theodore of Pharan, all of whom also Pope Agatho rejected in his letter to the Emperor. We punish them all with anathema. But along with them, it is our universal decision that there shall also be shut out from the Church and anathematised the former Pope Honorius of Old Rome, because we found in his letter to Sergius, that in everything he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines (κατὰ πάντα τῇ ἐκείνου [of Sergius] γνώμῃ ἐξακολουθήσαντα καὶ τὰ αὐτοῦ ἀσεβῆ κυρώσαντα δόγματα)."⁸⁸

(2) Towards the end of the same session the second letter of Pope Honorius to Sergius was presented for examination, and it was ordered that all the documents brought by George, the keeper of the archives in Constantinople, and among them the two letters of Honorius, should immediately be burnt, as hurtful to the soul (see p. 169).

(3) Again, the sixth Ecumenical Council referred to Honorius in the sixteenth session, on August 9, 681, at the acclamations and exclamations with which the transactions of this day were closed. The bishops exclaimed: "Many years to the Emperor, many years to the Roman Pope Agatho, many years to the Patriarch George of Constantinople, etc. Anathema to the heretic Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius, to the heretic Pyrrhus," etc., etc. (see p. 173).

(4) Still more important is that which took place at the eighteenth and last session, on September 16, 681. In the decree of the faith which was now published, and forms the principal document of the Synod, we read: "The creeds (of the earlier Ecumenical Synods) would have sufficed for knowledge and confirmation of the orthodox faith. Because, however, the originator of all evil still always finds a helping serpent, by which he may diffuse his poison, and therewith finds fit tools for his will, we mean Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter, former bishops of Constantinople, also Honorius, Pope of Old Rome, Cyrus of Alexandria, etc., so he failed not, by them, to cause trouble in the Church by the scattering of the heretical doctrine of one will and one energy of the two natures of the one Christ" (see p. 173 f.).

(5) After the papal legates, all the bishops, and the Emperor had received and subscribed this decree of the faith, the Synod published the usual λόγος προσφωνητικός, which, addressed to the Emperor, says, among other things: "Therefore we punish with exclusion and anathema, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Paul, Pyrrhus, and Peter; also Cyrus, and with them Honorius, formerly bishop of Rome, as he followed them" (see p. 176 f.).

(6) In the same session the Synod also put forth a letter to Pope Agatho, and says therein: "We have destroyed the fort of the heretics, and slain them with anathema, in accordance with the sentence spoken before in your holy letter, namely, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus," etc. (see p. 178).

(7) In closest connection with the Acts of the sixth Œcumenical Synod stands the imperial decree confirming their resolutions. The Emperor writes: "With this sickness (as it came out from Apollinaris, Eutyches, Themistius, etc.) did those unholy priests afterwards again infect the Church, who before our times falsely governed several churches. These are Theodore of Pharan, Sergius the former bishop of this chief city; also Honorius, the Pope of Old Rome (ἐπὶ δὲ καὶ Ὁνώριος ὁ τῆς πρεσβυτέρας Ρώμης πάπας γενόμενος), the strengthener (confirmer) of heresy who contradicted himself (ὁ τῆς αἱρέσεως βεβαιωτὴς, καὶ αὐτὸς ἑαυτῷ προσμαχόμενος).⁸⁹

"We anathematise all heresy from Simon (Magus) to this present, . . . besides, we anathematise and reject the originators and patrons of the false and new doctrines, namely, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, . . . also Honorius, who was Pope of Old Rome, who in everything agreed with them, went with them, and strengthened the heresy (ἐπὶ δὲ καὶ Ὁνώριον τὸν τῆς πρεσβυτέρας Ῥώμης πάπαν γενόμενον, τὸν κατὰ πάντα τούτοις συναιρέτην καὶ σύνδρομον καὶ βεβαιωτὴν τῆς αἱρέσεως)" (see p. 178 f.).

From all this it cannot be doubtful in what sense Pope Honorius was anathematised by the sixth Œcumenical Council, and it is equally beyond doubt that the Council judged much more severely respecting him than we have done above. We were obliged to allow that Honorius disapproved of the Monothelite term ἕν θέλημα, uttered literally nude crude, and the orthodox term δύο ἐνέργειαι; but we also proved and showed from his own words that it was only in the expression that he erred, whilst in truth his opinions were orthodox. The Council, on the contrary, simply gave attention to the incriminated, unlucky expressions, which were misused by the Monothelites, and pronounced its sentence on these, on their sound, on the mere fact that Honorius had so written.

With greater precision than the Synod, however, Pope Leo II. pointed out the fault of Honorius, when, in his letter to the Emperor, confirming the decrees of the sixth Ecumenical Council, he says: "Pariter anathematizamus novi erroris inventores, id est Theodorum Pharanitanum episcopum, Cyrum Alexandrinum, Sergium, Pyrrhum, Paulum, Petrum Constantinopolitanae Ecclesiae subsessores magis quam praesules, necnon et Honorium, qui hanc apostolicam ecclesiam non apostolicae traditionis doctrina lustravit, sed profunda proditione immaculatam fidem subvertere conatus est (in the Greek, subverti permisit, παρεχώρησε), et omnes qui in suo errore defuncti sunt" (see p. 180). From this it is clear that Pope Leo II. also anathematised Honorius, because he did not bring the apostolic doctrine to light, i.e., did not speak out as a teacher, and so, by the violation of his sacred duties, allowed the falsification of the faith (the Greek, τῇ βεβήλῳ προδοσίᾳ μινανθῆναι παρεχώρησε, etc., is not only milder, but also more accurate, and consistent with the expression of Leo in his letter to King Ervig, whilst the Latin text (a mere translation from the Greek) plainly does wrong to Pope Honorius).

In like sense, Pope Leo II. expressed himself in his letter to the Spanish bishops: "Qui vero adversum apostolicae traditionis puritatem perduelliones exstiterant . . . aeterna condemnatione mulctati sunt, i.e. Theodorus Pharanitanus, Cyrus Alexandrinus, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paulus, Petrus Constantinopolitani, cum Honorio qui flammam haeretici dogmatis non, ut decuit apostolicam auctoritatem, incipientem extinxit, sed negligendo confovit." (See p. 182.) And so, in fact, it was. Honorius ought to have suppressed the heresy at its beginning by a clear exhibition of the orthodox doctrine, but he fostered it by his negligence, by his unhappy words to Sergius (in his first letter especially).

Once more Leo II. speaks of the anathematising of Honorius, in his letter to the Spanish King Ervig, thus: "Omnesque haereticae assertionis auctores venerando censente concilio condemnati, de catholicae ecclesiae adunatione projecti sunt, i.e. Theodorus Pharanitanus episcopus, Cyrus Alexandrinus, Sergius, Paulus, Pyrrhus, et Petrus, quondam Constantinopolitani praesules; et una cum eis Honorius Romanus, qui immaculatam apostolicae traditionis regulam, quam a praedecessoribus suis accepit, maculari consensit" (i.e. he allowed the maculari, (a) from negligence, since he did not come forward against it, and (b) since he used an expression which the heresy turned to its own use). Whether this letter proceeded from Pope Leo himself, or from his successor Benedict II., is here indifferent.

Of the fact that Pope Honorius had been anathematised by the sixth Ecumenical Synod, mention is made by the Quinisext or the Trullan Synod, which was held only twelve years after. The Synod says in its first canon: "Further, we confess the faith which the sixth Synod proclaimed. That taught that we must accept two natural wills and operations in Christ, and condemned (καταδικάσασα) all who taught only one will, namely, Theodore of Pharan, Cyril of Alexandria, Honorius of Rome, Sergius, etc., etc."⁹⁰

Like testimony is also given repeatedly by the seventh Ecumenical Synod; especially does it declare, in its principal document, the decree of the faith: "We declare at once two wills and energies according to the property of the natures in Christ, just as the sixth Synod in Constantinople taught, condemning (ἀποκηρύξασα) Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, etc., etc."⁹¹ The like is asserted by the Synod or its members in several other places.⁹²

To the same effect the eighth Ecumenical Synod expresses itself: "Sanctam et universalem sextam synodum suscipientes . . . anathematizamus autem Theodorum, qui fuit episcopus Pharan, et Sergium, et Pyrrhum, . . . atque cum eis Honorium Romae, una cum Cyro Alexandrino."⁹³

That the name of Honorius was found among those anathematised in the Roman copy of the Acts of the sixth Ecumenical Council, is also quite clear from Anastasii Vita Leonis II., in which he says: "Hic suscepit sanctam sextam synodum . . . in qua et condemnati sunt Cyrus, Sergius, Honorius, et Pyrrhus, Paulus et Petrus, nec non et Macarius cum discipulo suo Stephano.”⁹⁴

In the Liber Diurnus, i.e. the Formulary of the Roman Chancery (from the fifth to the eleventh century), there is found the old formula for the papal oath, probably prescribed by Gregory II. (at the beginning of the eighth century), according to which every new Pope, on entering upon his office, had to swear that “he recognised the sixth Ecumenical Council, which smote with eternal anathema the originators of the new heresy (Monothelitism), Sergius, Pyrrhus, etc., together with Honorius, quia pravis haereticorum assertionibus fomentum impendit.”⁹⁵

Finally, not to mention still later witnesses, e.g. Bede, Pope Hadrian II. (867–872) writes: “Licet enim Honorio ab orientalibus post mortem anathema sit dictum, sciendum tamen est, quia fuerat super haeresi accusatus, propter quam solam licitum est minoribus, majorum suorum motibus resistendi, vel pravos sensus libere respuendi, quamvis et ibi nec Patriarcharum nec ceterorum antistitum cuipiam de eo fas fuerit proferendi sententiam, nisi ejusdem primae sedis Pontificis consensus praecessisset auctoritas.”

This utterance of Hadrian was read and approved at the seventh session of the eighth Ecumenical Council;⁹⁶ but Pope Hadrian started with the opinion that the anathematising of Honorius by the sixth Ecumenical Council had been preceded by his condemnation by Pope Agatho. Hadrian was here misled by some turns of speech of the sixth Ecumenical Council, where it is said: “The Synod has destroyed the fortress of the heretics, and slain them by anathemas, in accordance with the sentence previously given by the Pope, namely, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Honorius, etc., etc.” (p. 178). Here it was quite natural to infer that Agatho had condemned Honorius as well as Sergius. Similarly in the thirteenth session (see above, p. 167). In fact, however, so little had Pope Agatho condemned Honorius as a heretic, that he, on the other hand, maintained, as we have seen (p. 167), that all his predecessors had held fast the true doctrine in opposition to the Constantinopolitans.

We have explained above (p. 185) the startling phenomenon, that a Pope (Honorius) was anathematised by an Œcumenical Council for heresy, in this way, that the Synod attended to the incriminated passages in the letters of Honorius, which certainly had a heterodox sound (particularly in the first), and to the fact that Honorius had thus written and given great help to the heresy, and for these reasons pronounced their sentence.

Another solution of the difficulty was attempted by Pennacchi in his often quoted work, De Honorii I. Romani Pontificis causa in Concilio VI. (see p. 37 and 181).⁹⁷

(1) He maintains, first of all, that the letters of Pope Honorius were put forth auctoritate apostolica, or, as we say, ex cathedra (Pennacchi, l.c. pp. 169–177); and have come down to us unfalsified (ibid. p. 75 sqq.), that they are thoroughly orthodox, and that when Honorius said unam voluntatem fatemur Domini nostri Jesu Christi (see above, p. 27), he meant only the will of the uncorrupted human nature of Christ (as Pope John IV. asserted, p. 52), and that he dissuaded from the use of the orthodox term δύο ἐνέργειαι only because it became a stumbling-block to many, and might be misunderstood in a Nestorian sense (ibid. pp. 112–169).

(2) He maintains, further, that Honorius was anathematised at the sixth Œcumenical Synod in the proper sense as haereticus formalis (ibid. p. 177 sqq.), and that the Acts of the Council, as they lie before us, are unfalsified (ibid. p. 193).

(3) But that sentence pronounced against Honorius rested upon an error in facto dogmatico (ibid. p. 204 sqq.), since the Fathers of the Council had erroneously regarded the letters of Honorius as heretical; and therefore that

(4) This sentence was not that of an Œcumenical infallible Council, but that of a number of Orientals, prejudiced beforehand, on the character of the letters of Honorius. That this sentence stands (a) in contradiction with the decree of the contemporaneous Pope Agatho and his Western Synod, who maintained of all previous Popes, that they had not erred in fide (see above, pp. 143 and 146). Thus only the Orientals, and not the Pope and the Westerns, had declared Honorius to be heterodox. (b) The papal legates had certainly subscribed the decree of the Synod against Honorius, but they had no authority to do so (ibid. p. 220 sqq.), and it was (c) their own step, so far that the sentence of the Synod was not confirmed by the Pope, not by Pope Agatho, who died before receiving the Acts of the Synod, nor yet by his successor, Pope Leo II. On the contrary, the latter abrogated the sentence of the Synod, and replaced it by another, in which Honorius is condemned, not for heresy, but on account of negligentia (ibid. pp. 235–252. (d) If Pope Hadrian II., in the passage quoted above (p. 187), maintained that Honorius had been censured by the Orientals for heresy, after the auctoritas primae sedis Pontificis had preceded, this rests simply upon an historical error, and Hadrian was misled by the Acts of the Council.

The last point we have ourselves often maintained (p. 187), and will not now discuss whether the papal legates had authority to subscribe the sentence of Honorius. We cannot, however, agree with the principal points in Pennacchi's argument. As is clear from all that has been said, we find the letters of Honorius by no means so correct as he represents them,⁹⁸ and just as little do we hold ourselves justified in denying to the sixth Council, in its sentence on Honorius, the character of an Ecumenical Council. The opposition which, according to Pennacchi, Pope Leo. II. is supposed to have made against the Synod, is not confirmed by this Pope's own letters, but contradicted. In the letter to the Emperor, in which Leo II. confirmed the doctrine of the sixth Synod, he calls it repeatedly, "sancta et universalis et magna sexta synodus, sancta et magna synodus, sanctum sextum concilium." He then says of Honorius: "Pariterque anathematizamus novi erroris inventores, i.e. Theodorum Pharanitanum, etc., necnon et Honorium, qui hanc apostolicam ecclesiam non apostolicae traditionis doctrina lustravit, sed profana proditione immaculatam fidem maculari permisit, et omnes qui in suo errore defuncti sunt. Similiter anathematizamus et abominamur imitatores eorum et complices, . . . i.e. Macarium, etc., quos et sancta universalis supra memorata sexta synodus abdicavit.”⁹⁹ Thus, with direct reference to the sentence against Honorius, etc., he calls the Synod Œcumenical.

So also Pope Leo II., in his letter to the Spanish bishops, entitles the Council the universale itaque sanctum sextum, and informs them that the Council had condemned Theodore of Pharan, etc., cum Honorio, qui flammam haeretici dogmatis non, ut decuit apostolicam dignitatem, incipientem extinxit, sed negligendo conforit, and requests of the Spanish bishops that they will subscribe, in a translation, the definitio venerandi concilii (i.e. the decree of the faith of the eighteenth session, in which the anathema on Honorius is contained).¹⁰⁰ The same is further contained in Leo's letter to the Spanish King Ervig (see above, p. 185). He transmits therewith to the Spaniards the definitio of the Council and the λόγος προσφωνητικὸς, both of which contain the anathema on Honorius, and requires the subscription of the definitio sacrae synodi.¹⁰¹ How any one can say, on the ground of these documents, that Pope Leo II. did not (in all respects) confirm the sixth Œcumenical Synod, but, on the contrary, abrogated its sentence on Honorius, is to me not intelligible; on the contrary, it is true that Pope Leo II. estimated with greater precision the fault of Honorius, and thus gave the sense in which the sentence of the Council published against him is to be understood.¹⁰²

But is it then correct to say that the sixth Œcumenical Synod pronounced anathema on Honorius? Following Pighius and others, Baronius negatived this question with a great expenditure of words, and some have followed him.¹⁰³

The passages in which the sixth Œcumenical Synod pronounces anathema on Honorius, are partly such as consist of only a few words, partly longer and made up in part from several propositions. To get rid of the first of these, Baronius assumed that some words had been erased from the genuine minutes, and others introduced in their place. In order, however, to set aside the longer passages, he united with the first hypothesis a second, that several forged leaves had been inserted in the genuine minutes. Erasure and interpolation were assumed, and Archbishop Theodore of Constantinople was declared to be the author of this great falsification.

If we put the scattered fragments of Baronius closely and clearly together, we get the following result: Shortly before the beginning of the sixth Œcumenical Council, Theodore of Constantinople, on account of his leaning to Monothelitism, was cast from the patriarchal chair, and George was raised to it (see p. 148). But after George's death, soon after the end of the sixth Council, Theodore succeeded in getting reinstated, after he had set forth a confession which — in appearance — was orthodox. Certainly this Theodore was not passed over in silence by our Synod, but, like his predecessors, Sergius, Pyrrhus, etc., he was smitten with anathema. Only three among the later patriarchs of Constantinople, Thomas, John, and Constantine, were exempted from anathema in the thirteenth session; from which it follows that they pronounced the same upon Theodore, whom they did not exempt. But after Theodore had again become Patriarch, he naturally planned to remove his name from the Acts of the Synod, and as he had control of the original of the Acts,¹⁰⁴ he was in a position to carry out his plan. He found, then, his own name anathematised along with that of Sergius in four places: in the minutes of the sixteenth and eighteenth sessions, in the λόγος προσφωνητικὸς, and in the letter of the Synod to Agatho (see above, p. 183, Nos. 3–6). As there were only a few words which testified against him, he erased these from the original, and instead of his own name inserted the name of Honorius, which was about the same size, and in the uncial writing looked very much the same, ΟΝΩΡΙΟΝ instead of ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΝ. He could at the same time, by this means, give satisfaction to his hatred against Rome. But the anathema on Honorius must not be allowed to fall into the Acts like a Deus ex machina. On the contrary, as foundation and introduction, a kind of examination must be inserted before it, and with this end in view Theodore invented the fiction, that, in the twelfth session, the letters of Honorius were presented for examination (read), and then the condemnation followed at the thirteenth. This fiction could best be introduced into the minutes of the eleventh session, for towards the end of this session a passage was read from a writing of Macarius, the Monothelite patriarch of Antioch, in which he declared that the departed Pope Honorius held his opinions. Against this assertion the papal legates certainly protested immediately; but Theodore struck out this protest, re-wrote the Acts of the twelfth and thirteenth sessions, added his fiction to the genuine part thus treated, and then inserted the new leaves or sheets in the synodal Acts, instead of the genuine ones which he cut out.

Thus Baronius. But, apart from the synodal Acts, as we know, many other ancient documents testify of the anathema on Honorius. And these, too, must be set aside. First of all, among these are found the two edicts of confirmation, the imperial and the papal (see pp. 184 and 185). Of the former, that of the Emperor, Baronius says not a syllable; he seems not to have known it. That of Pope Leo, on the other hand, he declares spurious, and in the same way all the other letters of Leo that refer to this matter (see above, p. 185).

But the Quinisextum also, of A.D. 692, the seventh and the eighth Œcumenical Councils, and different Popes and other authorities, speak of the anathema on Honorius (see p. 186). Certainly, says Baronius; but Theodore practised his deception so early, that even the first copies of the synodal Acts which were sent out from Constantinople were falsified, particularly the copy which the papal legates took back to Rome. Thus those later Synods and Popes had merely falsified Acts before them, and, not suspecting the deception, they drew from these the information respecting the anathema on Honorius.

I admit that one might believe that not Baronius, but a great master of the new critica mordax, must have invented this highly complicated and more than bold hypothesis, this great and heavy structure standing upon such weak feet. A series of learned men of name have already exposed its groundlessness, particularly Combefis,¹⁰⁵ Pagi,¹⁰⁶ Garnier,¹⁰⁷ Natalis Alexander,¹⁰⁸ Mamachi,¹⁰⁹ the Ballerini,¹¹⁰ Joseph Simon Assemani,¹¹¹ Palma,¹¹² Chmel,¹¹³ and others. On account of the importance of the subject, however, the following new examination may not be superfluous, which will make use of the material brought together by previous scholars, bring out that which is important and striking in a condensed form, point out the objections with greater exactness, and add some useful new contributions.

(1) To begin, it is suspicious that Baronius is unable to bring forward a single witness from antiquity on his side. In no single Greek MS. of the Acts of the sixth Council, in no single ancient version, are the passages relating to Honorius lacking, and not one scholar, not one critic, not one prince of the Church, not one defender and commender of the Roman see, before Baronius and Pighius, has even dreamt that the Acts of the sixth Synod and the letters of Leo II. have all, conjointly and severally, been shamefully falsified.

(2) The foundation-stone on which Baronius builds is not merely rotten, it is only apparent; for the assertion that "the letters of Honorius are thoroughly orthodox, and therefore an anathema upon them would not be possible,"—this fundamental assumption is inadmissible, and we have already pointed out the truth of this matter (see above, p. 55).

(3) Apart from this, Baronius opines that, on the old principle, Prima sedes non judicatur a quoquam,¹¹⁴ such a condemnation, especially of a Pope who was dead, could only be the result of an extended and thorough examination. Even in the case of Theodore of Mopsuestia, it was thought necessary to hold an Ecumenical Synod (the fifth), and to have very full discussion at this, before they pronounced anathema upon him after his death. As, however, the matter is represented in the Acts of the sixth Ecumenical Synod, Honorius appears to have been condemned almost en passant, after his letters had been read, and without careful examination of their contents. Indeed, the first anathema on him was pronounced in the thirteenth session, even before his second letter had been presented. Besides, it was not credible that the Roman legates should have concurred in the condemnation of a Pope without protest. That would certainly have rendered necessary lengthy negotiations, at least between them and the holy see, of which there is nowhere any trace. Besides this, the Synod, in the thirteenth session and in the letter to Pope Agatho, as well as the Emperor in his letter to Leo II., represented the matter as though, with the exception of Macarius, only those men had been anathematised whom Pope Agatho had designated in his letter as deserving condemnation, and among those the name of Honorius was certainly not found. On the contrary, Agatho said that his predecessors had semper strengthened their brethren in the faith, and when some bishops of Constantinople had introduced the innovation, they had never failed (nunquam neglexerunt) to admonish them.¹¹⁵

To this we answer—

(a) That the proposition Prima sedes, etc., which occurs in a forged synodal Act of A.D. 303, had universal prevalence in antiquity, is a statement which is greatly in need of proof. Pope Hadrian II. himself allows that in the matter of heresy the higher may be judged by the lower (see p. 187); and there has actually happened, in the course of centuries, much which does not agree with that principle. How they thought and acted in this respect at Pisa and Constance, it is not necessary to discuss.

(b) When Baronius speaks of a condemnation of Honorius en passant, he forgets that the public sessions, whose Acts we possess, were preceded by many preliminary discussions. The result of these appeared in the public sessions. Thus there was certainly much debate held on the subject of the decree of the faith, which seems to have been accepted at the eighteenth session without any consultation, and in consequence of this the formula, on which they agreed, was presented in the public session. This was the practice at many Synods, and, as is well known, at Trent.

(c) Baronius maintains that the papal legates at the sixth Synod could not possibly, without permission from Rome, have consented to the condemnation of Honorius; but it does not follow, because the synodal Acts give us no information on the point, that the legates had no authority. In fact, several scholars are of opinion that Pope Agatho had, in his private instructions to the legates, imparted to them this authority.¹¹⁶ Moreover, as is well known, it has often happened that papal legates overstepped their authority, thus, e.g., in a very remarkable manner in the negotiations with Photius, A.D. 861, and in the case of the marriage of King Lothar of Lotharingia, A.D. 863, nay, only a few years before the sixth Ecumenical Council, Roman legates twice overstepped their powers, A.D. 649 and 655 (see pp. 118 and 128 f.). If, however, the legates made no attempt to ward off the anathema from Honorius, that probably was because the Greeks had also wanted to free from anathema their departed patriarchs, who were more guilty than Honorius. They certainly attempted this at the sixteenth session.

(d) Moreover, it is by no means surprising, as Baronius thinks, that the name of the deposed patriarch, Theodore of Constantinople, is not found among those anathematised by the Synod. This anathema extended nominatim only to the dead, and to those among the living who now still decidedly opposed the orthodox doctrine. Who can, however, assert this of Theodore, of whom we know that soon after this he was restored to the patriarchal chair, and gave in an orthodox confession of faith? The Emperor declares, in his letter to Leo II.: "Solus cum iis, quibuscum abreptus est, defecit Macarius";¹¹⁷ thus only Macarius of Antioch and his associates fell decidedly away. The names of the latter are repeatedly specified, also by Anastasius, in his Vita Agathonis (Mansi, t. xi. p. 168), to which Baronius willingly appeals. But Theodore's name is not found there. They were sent to Rome, and delivered to the Pope for their improvement, as the same Anastasius tells us; and again, Theodore is not there. We may surely assume that the former patriarch of Constantinople, being higher in rank, would hardly have been included among the mere adherents of one lower in rank, the (former) patriarch of Antioch, without special mention of his name.

(4) The assumption that several leaves or sheets were inserted between the minutes of the eleventh and fourteenth sessions is thoroughly arbitrary, a mere imitation of that which happened with the Acts of the fifth Ecumenical Synod. Into these, two entirely or partially forged letters of Pope Vigilius, representing them as favourable to the Monothelites, had been inserted by later hands.¹¹⁸ Although so long a period as one hundred and thirty years had elapsed since Vigilius, the papal legates protested directly at the sixth Council quite energetically against these two letters, and obtained their rejection. The same would certainly have happened at the seventh Ecumenical Synod in regard to the documents regarded by Baronius as spurious; for

(a) The honour of Pope Honorius was thereby much more assailed than the memory of Vigilius by those two letters; and nevertheless the papal legates at the seventh Ecumenical Council did not raise the slightest scruple against them when the anathema on Honorius was renewed. If they had not been convinced of the historical fact, they would certainly have contested, they would have been obliged to contest, the statement, that a hundred years ago even a Pope was anathematised.

(b) In the case of Vigilius, the question was concerned with two brief letters, each with one false word, unam operationem, with letters written far away (at Constantinople), and yet they knew at Rome, after one hundred and thirty years, so many had elapsed between the fifth and sixth Ecumenical Synods, that these had been falsified. Now, however, the question had regard to a quite different and more significant fact, whether the Pope had been anathematised; and, in connection with this, is it possible that so soon they should have been without accurate information at Rome? Baronius supposes that the falsification of the Acts took place soon after the close of the sixth Ecumenical Council, and that falsified Acts were even given to the Roman legates to take home with them. Certainly the oral testimony of the returned legates would immediately have brought the forgery to light; but no! the Romans believed the falsified Acts and not the legates, and good-naturedly accepted the hoax, that last year the Pope had been anathematised! What would Baronius have said if anyone had in the same way expected him to believe that Pope Leo x. was anathematised at the Council of Trent?

(5) As it is with the insertion of Acts, so also is it with the pretended erasures. The one is as pure an invention as the other, and nowhere is there even the slightest trace of a proof or testimony for it. Here, too, the oral information of the legates must have discovered the deceit.

Besides, the erasure would not have extended merely to a single word, as Baronius represents the matter, but to sentences. In the eighteenth session we have it once, ἐπὶ καὶ τὸν Ὀνώριον τὸν γενόμενον Πάπαν τῆς πρεσβυτέρας Ῥώμης; in the other passage, καὶ σὺν αὐτοῖς Ὀνώριον τὸν τῆς Ῥώμης γενόμενον πρόεδρον, ὡς ἐκείνοις ἐν τούτοις ἀκολουθήσαντα; and in the edict of confirmation of the Emperor, "he anathematised the originators and patrons of the new heresy, . . . ἐπὶ δὲ καὶ Ὀνώριον τὸν τῆς πρεσβυτέρας Ῥώμης πάπαν γενόμενον, τὸν κατὰ πάντα τούτοις συναιρέτην καὶ σύνδρομον καὶ βεβαιωτὴν τῆς αἱρέσεως." Almost the same words are found in this letter of confirmation once more (see p. 177). Here an alteration from ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΝ to ΟΝΩΡΙΟΝ was by no means sufficient.

(6) In the interest of his hypothesis, Baronius makes the falsifier Theodore to be restored to the chair of Constantinople about a year earlier than this actually took place (682 instead of 683),¹¹⁹ so that he may have time to exercise his act of erasure and interpolation before the departure of the papal legates. If this chronology is incorrect, and it is so according to the testimony of the Chronography of Theophanes (ad ann. 676, secundum Alexandrinos), which relates that the Patriarch George lived after the sixth Ecumenical Synod, even into the third year, and so into the year 683, then the hypothesis of Baronius falls of itself. The papal legates returned to Rome with the Acts of the Council in the year 682, before the restoration of Theodore. But even if the chronology of Baronius were true, the oral testimony of the legates would have brought the falsification to light.

Yes, even if the legates had all been faithless, and had helped the deception, information as to the truth would have found its way into the world by the many other members of the Synod, Greeks and Latins. Or if they all, about two hundred, and also the excellent Emperor, had unanimously agreed to the deception, that would not have availed them! Even if the truth had found nothing but enemies, and the falsifier nothing but friends and helpers of helpers, not only in all Asiatics, Egyptians, Greeks, etc., but even in the Latins present! Combesis, moreover (l.c. p. 145), attaches importance to this, that even before the multiplication of the whole contents of the Acts of the sixth Synod, five copies of its decree of the faith were signed in the presence of the bishops by the Emperor, and were sent to the five patriarchs (see above, p. 177). These copies, however, were older than the restoration of Theodore, and yet there is found in them the anathema on Honorius.¹²⁰

(7) Baronius was not acquainted with the ἐπίλογος of the Constantinopolitan notary and deacon Agatho, first published by Combesis (see p. 177, note 2). This official declares that, about thirty-two years before, he had served the sixth Ecumenical Synod as secretary, and had written the minutes and the five copies of the decree of the faith intended for the five patriarchs. He is now urged to draw up this paper by the rage with which the new Emperor, Philippicus Bardanes, persecuted orthodoxy and the sixth Ecumenical Synod. He had also ordered that the names of Sergius and Honorius, and the others anathematised by the sixth Ecumenical Synod (καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν σὺν αὐτοῖς ὑπὸ τῆς αὐτῆς ἀγίας καὶ οἰκου-μενικῆς συνόδου ἐκβληθέντων καὶ ἀναθεματισθέντων), should be restored to the diptychs.¹²¹ This notary who drew up the minutes of the sixth Ecumenical Synod must have known whether the Synod anathematised Honorius or not. His book was composed long after the death of Theodore, and so was certainly not falsified by him.

(8) A principal evidence against the theory of Baronius is given by the letters of Leo II. He was obliged, therefore, to declare them to be falsified, piling up chance upon chance, castle in the air upon castle in the air. Why he also objected to the letter of the Emperor against Leo¹²² is not quite clear. There is nothing said there of Honorius, and it could embarrass him only so far as the letter of Leo to the Emperor, which he was positively obliged to set aside, is an answer to it. Against the letter of Leo to the Emperor, however, the passage in which testifying against Honorius we gave above (p. 179), Baronius (683, 13–17) brings two objections :

(a) In a Latin translation from the Greek text of the letter there is added at the end the chronological note: Datum Nonis Maii indictione x. (= May 7, 682). In the letter itself, however, it is said that the papal legates who were at the Synod had come back in July 682 to Rome. This is a plain contradiction, and therefore the letter is spurious. But it is more probable that there is a slip of the pen in that chronological note, and that Indict. xi. should be read instead of x.; indeed, it were better to pay no attention to it, as it stands only in one translation.

(b) In the same letter it is twice said: "We anathematise Honorius, etc., and all who died in their error." This, exclaims Baronius, is clearly a mark of falsification, for that Honorius did not die in heresy is proved by the solemn celebration of his funeral in Rome. But Honorius died before the final decision on the theological controversy was arrived at: he died as legitimate Pope, accused of heresy by no one; on the contrary, justified and commended by his contemporaries, especially in Rome (see pp. 52–60).

(9) Against the Epistola Leonis II. ad Hispanos (see p. 185), Baronius remarks (638, 18): The Pope says therein: "Archiepiscopi sunt a nobis destinati," in order to be present at the sixth Ecumenical Synod. As a matter of fact, however, it was Agatho, and not Leo, who sent the legates, and among these there was no archbishop. We answer: (a) Nobis is not to be translated, "I in my person," but, We = the Roman see. Quite in this manner does Gregory II. write to the Emperor Leo the Isaurian: "The Emperor Constantine Pogonatus wrote to us on the holding of the sixth Synod."¹²³ (b) It is incorrect to say that no archbishop was present as deputy of the Pope and of the West at the sixth Synod. Among the legates proper there was certainly none such, but besides them Archbishop John of Thessalonica and Stephen of Corinth subscribed the Acts, the former as βικάριος and ληγατάριος, the latter as ληγάτος τοῦ ἀποστολικοῦ θρόνου Ῥώμης; and Archbishop Basil of Gortyna in Crete subscribed as ληγάτος τῆς ἀγίας συνόδου τοῦ ἀποστολικοῦ θρόνου τῆς πρεσβυτέρας Ῥώμης.¹²⁴ All these three bishops belonged to Illyricum Orientale, thus to the patriarchate of Rome, and therefore to the Roman Synod (until Leo the Isaurian), and if they did not personally appear at the Roman Synod of 680, which preceded the sixth Ecumenical Council and appointed legates for it, yet they might have received authority either from this Synod or from the Pope in specie. In the case of Basil of Gortyna, the former seems to have been the case, hence his subscription, ληγάτος τῆς συνόδου, the latter with the two others, particularly as, without this, they were permanent vicars of the Pope, the archbishop of Thessalonica a long time back for Illyricum, the archbishop of Corinth for Hellas and Achaia, since the Emperor Justinian I. had separated those provinces from Illyricum.¹²⁵ The statement objected to is now freed from all fault, if we will only read: "Archiepiscopi et episcopi." If we do not, we may either hold that archi is an addition of the librarius, or assume that the title of archbishop is not used here in the sense of metropolitan, but in the wider meaning, and one which at an early period was very common, of a specially venerable bishop. To this day there is a clear distinction in the Greek Church between archbishop and metropolitan. The former is only a title of honour. Baronius further (693, 22) throws suspicion upon the letter of Leo ad Hispanos, for this reason, that in it is said that the Pope temporarily sent to the Spaniards only some passages of the Acts of the sixth Council, the decree of the faith, the λόγος προσφωνητικός, and the Emperor's edict of confirmation. The rest was not yet translated into Latin. The fourteenth Synod of Toledo, however, says distinctly: The Pope sent a transcript of the gesta synodalia.—But might not the three principal documents of the sixth Ecumenical Council be named the gesta synodalia? There is nothing said of "integra gesta," although Baronius represents the matter as though the Synod of Toledo had used that expression.¹²⁶

(10) Finally, the letter of Leo II. to the Spanish Ervig is declared to be spurious by Baronius (ad ann. 683, 20, 21), because it asserts that the Emperor wrote in Indiction ix. to Pope Agatho respecting the summoning of the sixth Ecumenical Synod. It was not to Agatho, but to his predecessor Donus that the imperial letter was addressed, and it belonged, not to the 9th, but to the 6th Indiction.—This objection has already been answered by Combesis and Pagi: (a) The chronological error is easily explained by a slip of the pen; (b) the naming of Agatho, however, instead of Donus is only a so-called compendium historicum, since Donus was no longer alive when the imperial letter was despatched, so that it was delivered to Agatho, and by him answered.¹²⁷

(11) Assemani is surprised¹²⁸ that Baronius has not brought in a striking utterance of Pope Nicolas I. in defence of his hypothesis. Nicolas writes, in his eighth letter to the Emperor Michael III. of Constantinople: "His (the Emperor's) predecessors had for a long time been sick with the poison of different heresies, and in regard to those who wanted to bring them deliverance, they had either made them participators in their error, as at the time of Pope Conon, or had persecuted them."¹²⁹

The allusion here made by Pope Nicolas, Assemani supposes, must have been to the Synod of Constantinople held by Justinian II., in the year 686, at which Justinian, in the presence of the papal representative and many patriarchs and archbishops, etc., had the original minutes of the sixth Ecumenical Synod read, and sealed by them.¹³⁰ On this occasion, Assemani supposes, a deception might well have been practised, as Baronius assumes.—But Baronius saw quite correctly, when he did not use this as favouring his hypothesis; for a falsification of the Acts in the year 686 was for him about four years too late. He would then have had to allow that the genuine Acts had come to Rome before, even four years before,—that is, he would have annihilated his own hypothesis.

(12) What has so far been said in opposition to Baronius is also partially valid against Boucaut,¹³¹ who felt compelled to introduce a modification into the hypothesis of Baronius. After the eleventh session, he supposes, the Synod ceased to be a legitima, and therefore the condemnation of Honorius did not result from the sentence of a valid Ecumenical Synod. In proof he adduces these facts: (a) After the eleventh session the papal legates left; and (b) after the end of the eleventh session, one of the papal legates, Bishop John of Portus, in the presence of the Emperor, etc., celebrated in the Church of S. Sophia a solemn Mass, according to the Latin rite, in thanksgiving for the happy ending of the Synod.

Both assertions are entirely groundless; for (a) it is a fact, and a glance at the synodal Acts show, that the papal legates were also present at the twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, in short, at all the eighteen sessions until the close of the Synod, and at the last subscribed the Acts; (b) what Boucaut says of the high celebration of the papal legate John, he borrowed from the Vitae Pontificum of Anastasius;¹³² but here it is expressly said that the solemn service was celebrated at the Easter festival, and thus, not after the eleventh, but after the fourteenth session.¹³³ That it was supposed to be a service of thanksgiving for the happy ending of the Synod—of this Anastasius knows not a syllable; but he certainly says: In order to do honour to the Roman legates, one of them was permitted to celebrate the Easter festival divine service.

(13) More recently, Damberger has suggested a way of his own, yet one which in its chief principle is akin to that of Baronius, in his synchronistic history of the Middle Ages (Bd. ii. S. 119 ff.). The first half of the synodal Acts, he says, which are fairly (!) beyond suspicion, extends only to the ninth session inclusive. The Acts of the later sessions have been falsified. The Greeks could not bear that a number of patriarchs of proud Constantinople should be anathematised, and therefore in order, so to speak, to restore the equilibrium, plainly without the knowledge of the papal legates (!), inserted the name of Honorius into the anathematisms of the Acts. As the Acts now lie before us, they show, onwards from the tenth session, everywhere "the cunning of the Byzantine spirit of falsehood," and Damberger "is astonished that Western Church writers, and not mere compilers of compendia but genuine investigators, accepted the Acts in question as genuine." Only Gallicans, he thinks, have contended for the genuineness of this "Greek chaos of Acts," because they could nowhere else find proof for the superiority of an Œcumenical Council over the Pope.¹³⁴ In the further development of his view, Damberger departs very widely from Baronius, maintaining that (a) the genuine Acts of the sixth Synod were certainly sent to Rome, but the present Acts are a falsified extract from the genuine; (b) the seventh and eighth Synods, and the Popes Leo II. and Hadrian II., had certainly lauded the Acts of the sixth Œcumenical Council, i.e. the genuine Acts which lay before them; of this, however, that the sixth Œcumenical Synod had pronounced anathema on Honorius, nothing was known to them; (c) indeed, this was never mentioned until Michael Cerularius renewed the schism in the eleventh century; (d) the genuine Acts have been lost in Rome; but Leo II. and Hadrian II. still possessed them.

We have now a series of surprises.—The seventh and eighth Œcumenical Synods knew nothing of the anathema on Honorius! But in the decree of the faith of the seventh Synod, it is said: "We therefore declare two wills and energies according with the properties of the natures in Christ, as also the sixth Synod in Constantinople taught, anathematising Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, etc." (ἀποκηρύξασα Σέργιον, Ὁνώριον, Κύρον, κ.τ.λ.).¹³⁵ And the eighth Œcumenical Synod says: "Sanctam et universalem sextam synodum suscipientes . . . anathematizamus . . . Theodorum, qui fuit episcopus Pharan, et Pyrrhum, et Sergium, . . . atque cum eis Honorium Romae, una cum Cyro Alexandrino, etc."¹³⁶

Whether Pope Leo II. and Hadrian II. knew anything or nothing of the anathema on Honorius, everyone can answer who has read their utterances (pp. 180–185). They speak in the most forcible manner of the anathematising of Honorius, and lived several hundred years before Michael Cerularius. If Damberger finally asserts that Leo II. and Hadrian II. had before their eyes the genuine Acts of the sixth Council, Baronius will never forgive him, for everything in the past has taught us that, if Leo II. and Hadrian II. possessed the genuine Acts of the sixth Synod, then not the slightest doubt can be raised as to the anathema on Honorius.

§ 332. Origin of the Controversy about Images.¹

THE Old Testament forbade images (Ex. xx. 4), because through the weakness of the Jewish people, and their strong inclination to imitate the idolatrous worships of the neighbouring peoples, they had brought the spiritual and Monotheistic worship of God into danger. This prohibition was, like all ritual ordinances, no longer binding, in itself, in the New Testament. On the contrary, it was the business of Christianity to lay hold of and ennoble the whole man in all his higher powers; and thus not only all the other noble arts e.g. music and poetry, but also to draw painting and sculpture into the service of the most holy. It was, however, natural that believers who came out of Judaism, who hitherto had cherished so well-founded a dislike for images, should bring over with them into the new dispensation the same, and that they should maintain this feeling so long—and properly—as they saw themselves surrounded and threatened by heathens who worshipped images. But the teacher's consideration for the newly converted heathen forbade also the early Church to set up religious pictures, in order to remove possible temptations to fall back into paganism. Moreover, the old Church, for the sake of its own honour, had to refrain from pictures, especially from representations of our Lord, so that it might not be regarded by those who were without as only a new kind of heathenism ; and, besides, the old believers found, in their opinion of the bodily form of Christ, no inducement to the making of images of Christ. The oppressed Church represented to herself her Master only in the form of a servant, despised and having no comeliness, as Isaiah (liii. 2, 3) describes the Servant of God.² But the natural impulse to fix and support the memory of the Lord, and the thankful remembrance of the salvation procured by Him by means of pictorial forms, called out substitutes and symbols instead of actual pictures, especially as those were partially allowed in the Old Testament. Thus arose the use of the symbolical pictures of the Dove, the Fish, the Lyre, the Anchor [the Lamb]; specially frequent and favourite was the Cross, on account of which Christians were often called cross-worshippers (religiosi crucis, Tertull. Apolog. c. 16). A decided step forwards to greater liberty is shown in the human symbolical figure of the Good Shepherd, which, according to Tertullian (De Pudicit. c. 7), was often found in the second century upon the chalices. Such representations, however, were mostly found in private use, and their use in ecclesiastical places was greatly disapproved and forbidden. With the orthodox, pictures as objects of veneration³ were not found so early as with heretics, particularly with the Carpocratians and with eclectic heathens, like the Emperor Alexander Severus. The celebrated Synod of Elvira, A.D. 306, spoke out strongly and severely against the use of pictures in the churches.⁴ But held at the entrance of the time of Constantine, it stands at the boundary of two periods. In the new time we find, as in other things, so also an important change in regard to Christian art. Jewish Christianity had come to an end, and its speciality and narrowness were extinguished. On the other side, even with heathens, any great relapse was no longer seriously to be feared ; and thus the two principal reasons, which previously spoke against pictures, no longer existed. Thus there could no longer arise an evil report against the Church if she made use of pictures for the embellishment of her worship, for her Monotheistic character and her spiritual worship were now placed beyond all doubt. Thus it happened that in the victorious Church there came naturally another representation of the bodily form of the Lord than that which was found in the oppressed Church. Christ was from this time regarded as the ideal of human beauty, e.g., by Chrysostom (Opp. t. v. p. 162, ed. Montf.) and Jerome (Opp. t. ii. p. 684, ed. BB.), and this representation attached itself to Psalm xlv. 3 [xlv. 2]. From this time very numerous representations of Christ, and also of the apostles and martyrs, in the form of pictures, mosaics, and statues, were fashioned, and, partly by Constantine himself, were put up in churches and in public places.

Where the ancient Fathers speak of the aim of these pictures, they find it in the instruction and edification of the faithful, and in the appropriate decoration of churches. Thus writes Pope Gregory the Great to Bishop Serenus of Marseilles, who, in imprudent zeal, cast the pictures out of the Church : " You ought not to have broken what was put up in the churches, not for adoration, but merely for the promotion of reverence. It is one thing to worship an image, and another to learn from the history represented in the image what we ought to worship. For that which the Scripture is for those who can read, that a picture is for those who are incapable of reading ; for in this also the uneducated see in what way they have to walk. In it they read who are not acquainted with the Scriptures" (lib. ix. Ep. 9). Still earlier, S. Basil, in his eulogy of the martyr Barlaam, called, in oratorical strains, upon the Christian painters to represent the glory of this great saint, as they could show this better in colours than he could in words. He would rejoice if he were surpassed by them, and if painting here triumphed over eloquence.⁵

The customary use of pictures, since Constantine the Great, in the whole Church, with the Greeks even more than with the Latins, Leo the Isaurian, in the eighth century, determined again to root out. His early history and his career are very differently related by the ancients. According to some, he was a poor workman from Isauria in Lesser Asia, who carried his few wares with him on an ass, and subsequently entered the imperial army as a common soldier, and rose in it, on account of his bodily strength and dexterity, from step to step. According to Theophanes,⁶ on the other hand, he sprang from Germanicia, on the border of Isauria, was forced, in the reign of Justinian II., to remove to Mesembria in Thrace (why, is not known), once made this Emperor a present of 500 sheep, when he and his army were in some need, and was for that reason made imperial Spatharius;⁷ and afterwards, under Anastasius II., became general of the army in Asia Minor. When the latter Emperor, in consequence of a mutiny, A.D. 716, resigned and retired into a convent, in order to give place to the kindly but weak Theodosius, whom the insurgents had proclaimed Emperor, Leo refused obedience to the latter, beat him, and compelled him also to retire into a convent, and now ascended the throne as the founder of a new dynasty.⁸

Absolutely without education, rough in manner, a military upstart, he found in himself no understanding of art, and no aesthetic feeling that could have restrained him from Vandalism. Undoubtedly he was in all seriousness of the opinion that the veneration of images was a relapse into heathenism, and that the Old Testament prohibition of them was still in full force. How he came to this view, however, whether it arose in himself or was infused into him from without, must remain undecided, on account of the partly incomplete, partly improbable statements of the authorities. It is quite certain, however, that the forcible carrying through of his plans, even in religious matters, without regard to the liberty of conscience, lay quite as much in the character of Leo as in the practice of the Byzantine Emperors. This he showed as early as the sixth year of his reign, when he compelled the Jews and Montanists to receive baptism. The former submitted in appearance, but the Montanists themselves set fire to the house in which they were assembled, and rather died in the flames than comply with the command. Thus relates the chronographer Theophanes († 818), who from here forms one of our chief sources, and, in the later phase of iconoclasm, was a confessor and almost a martyr for images.⁹ All the others who have left us information respecting the controversy about images drew from Theophanes: Cedrenus (cent. xi.), Zonares (cent. xii.), Constantine Manasses (cent. xii.), and Michael Glycas (cent. xv.);¹⁰ also the Latins. Anastasius (cent. ix.), in his Historia Ecclesiastica, and the unknown author of the Historia Miscella commonly ascribed to Paul the deacon, for the most part only translated faithfully the words of Theophanes.¹¹ On the other hand, Paul the deacon, in his treatise, De Gestis Lombardorum, and Anastasius, in his biographies of the Popes,¹² have given some important information of their own. To authorities of the first rank John Damascene would belong, who at the very beginning undertook the defence of the veneration of images against the assailants; but his writings unfortunately contain extremely little that is historical. Somewhat more of this we find in the biography of the Abbot S. Stephen, of the ninth century, who was martyred under Leo's son, Constantine Copronymus, on account of the images,¹³ as well as the Patriarch Nicephorus, who, like his contemporary Theophanes, in the second half of the storm about images, was compelled to go into exile in consequence of his resisting the storm.¹⁴ Some other less important authorities we shall mention as occasion offers; but it is superfluous to mention that the letters of Popes and other authorities which belong to this period, and the Acts of the various Synods, are of highest importance for the history of the controversy about images. The later literature on the subject is uncommonly drawn out, and from the confessional point of view a good deal coloured. The relationship of the reformers to the old iconoclasts lay so near as to change the historical theme into a polemical one, and to lead to attacks against the Catholic Church. The subject has been handled, among Protestants, especially by Goldart, in his collection of Imperialia decreta de cultu imaginum, 1608; Dallaeus [Daillé], De imaginibus, 1612; Friedrich Spanheim junior, in his Restituta Historia imaginum, 1686; Bower, in History of the Popes, 1757, vol. iv.; Walch, in his Ketzerhistorie, 1782, Bd. x.; and Friedrich Christoph Schlosser (of Heidelberg), in his history of iconoclastic Emperors, Frankfort 1812.¹⁵ On the Catholic side we name, besides Baronius, Pagi, Natalis Alexander, specially Maimbourg, S. J., Histoire de l'heresie des iconoclastes, Paris 1683, 2 vols. (not quite trustworthy); Assemani, Historia Italicorum Scriptorum, t. iii.; and Marr, Der Bilderstreit der byzantinischen Kaiser, Trier 1839. Almost every one of the scholars named has formed a theory of his own on the chronology of the first lustrum of the controversies on images. This was occasioned by the uncertainty and indefiniteness in the information given by the authorities. A fresh examination of these led us to several new results, which we will communicate in the proper place.

As the attack of the Emperor Leo on the images was preceded by one quite similar, which the Caliph Jezid II., only three years before, attempted to make in the Christian provinces ruled by him, it was quite natural that the Emperor's contemporaries should charge him with having imitated the Mahometan, and accuse him of Saracen leanings. So particularly, Theophanes (l.c. pp. 618, 623), who mentions the renegade Beser and Bishop Constantine of Nacolia (in Phrygia) as the principal assistants of the Emperor in this affair.¹⁶ This Constantine, in particular, he calls an ignorant man, full of all uncleanness; of Beser, however, he relates that he, from birth a Christian, had denied Christ among the Arabs,¹⁷ and had come into great favour with the Emperor Leo. He had probably returned to Christianity.

Further information respecting Constantine of Nacolia we receive from two letters of Germanus, then patriarch of Constantinople.¹⁸ One of them is addressed to Bishop Constantine himself, the other to his metropolitan, John of Synnada. From the latter it appears that Constantine had personally come to Constantinople, and this gave occasion for his metropolitan himself to write to the patriarch, and to make him acquainted with his views in opposition to images. In consequence of this, Germanus had a conversation with Bishop Constantine on the subject. The latter appealed to the Old Testament, which forbade the images; but the patriarch explained the true state of the matter, and Constantine at last fell in with his view, with the assurance that henceforth he would confess the like, and give offence to no one. We learn this distinctly from the letter already mentioned of the patriarch to the archbishop of Synnada,¹⁹ which he put into the hands of Bishop Constantine to take care of, when he returned to his home. Constantine, however, disappointed this confidence, detained the letter, and kept at a distance from his metropolitan, pretending fear of being persecuted by him. The patriarch therefore issued a powerful letter to Constantine himself, and pronounced him excommunicated until he should deliver that letter.²⁰

We do not doubt that the presence of Constantine in Constantinople belongs to the preliminary history of the image trouble. Bishop Constantine had, as we learn from these letters, first begun, in his own country, the battle against the images, and was thereupon driven into opposition on the part of the metropolitan and the comprovincial bishops. He went then to Constantinople, and sought the protection of his higher ecclesiastical superior, the patriarch, whilst in appearance he agreed with the explanation which he had given. That he was not serious in this we may infer from his subsequent behaviour. The Patriarch Germanus, however, does not in the least indicate that the Emperor had then already taken steps against the pictures, whether it was that nothing had yet actually taken place on the part of the Emperor in this direction, or that the patriarch ignored it from prudence. I should prefer the previous supposition; for the ignoring of it could have been possible only if at least so far nothing that was important or that excited notice had been undertaken by the Emperor.

Besides Beser and Constantine of Nacolia, Bishop Thomas of Claudiopolis²¹ and Archbishop Theodosius of Ephesus, the son of the former Emperor Apsimar or Tiberius II., also belonged to those who shared the opinion of the Emperor. We hear of the first of these from the letter of the Patriarch Germanus, who explained to him at great length the Church view in regard to the veneration of images, and complained that he had been compelled to hear much that was so unfavourable, or even incredible, of Bishop Thomas.²² The archbishop of Ephesus named, however, is pointed out by Pope Gregory II. as the secret counsellor of Leo.²³

Another ancient witness places Bishop Constantine of Nacolia in relation with the Caliph Jezid. This is the monk John, representative of the Oriental patriarchate, who read, in the fifth session of the seventh Ecumenical Council, a short essay, in which he states: "After Omar's death, Ezid, a frivolous and stupid man, became chief of the Arabs. There lived at Tiberias a leader of the Jews, a magician, a soothsayer, and a servant of demons, named Tessaracontapechys (= 40 ells long; according to other MSS., his name was Sarantatechos), who gained the favour of Ezid, and told him: You will live long, and reign for thirty years more . . . if you immediately destroy all the images, pictures, and mosaics, all the pictures on walls, vessels, and cloths, which are found in the Christian churches of your kingdom; and so also all other pictures, even those which are not religious, which here and there in the towns are put up for ornament. The latter he mentioned in order to remove the suspicion that he was speaking only out of hatred against the Christians. The tyrant lent him a hearing, destroyed the pictures, and robbed the Church of all ornament, even before this evil came into our neighbourhood. As the Christians fled, and would not themselves destroy the holy images, the emirs who were charged with the business made use of the Jews and common Arabs for the purpose. The venerable pictures were burnt, the walls of the churches smeared or scratched. When the pseudo-bishop of Nacolia and his friends heard this, they imitated the wickedness of the Jews and Arabs, and caused great disfigurement of the churches. Ezid, however, died after $2\frac{1}{2}$ years, and the images were restored again in his kingdom. His successor, Ulid (Walid), even ordered the Jewish leader to be executed, because he had brought about the death of his father (as a judgment of God).”²⁴

According to this, the bishop of Nacolia, who moreover did not stand alone, but must have had associates (perhaps also in the episcopate), appears as intermediary between Jezid and the Emperor Leo, as the man who induced the Emperor to become successor of the Caliph in the assault on the images. Another intermediary, however, has been introduced by the later Greek historians, and, according to their statement, the same Jews who misled Jezid won over the Emperor to their side. Fleeing, after the Caliph's death, they came to the borders of Isauria, and lighted upon a young man of distinguished form who lived by merchandise. They seated themselves by him, prophesied to him the imperial throne, and took an oath of him that, in case of his elevation, he would everywhere remove the pictures of Christ and Mary.²⁵ Leo promised it; some time afterwards entered the army, became under Justinian II. Spatharius, and finally even Emperor. Then came the Jews, reminded him of his promise, and in the tenth year of his reign Leo attacked the images.

Thus related, with several variations in detail, but in fundamental agreement, Cedrenus, Zonaras, Michael Glycas, Constantine Manasses, and two anonymous writers, the authors of the Oratio adv. Constantinum Cabalinum, and of the Epistola ad Theophilum. The time of the two latter cannot now be determined, probably they lived some centuries after Leo the Isaurian,²⁶ and the whole narrative bears so clearly the character of a later story, that it would be superfluous, with Bower (Hist. of the Popes, vol. iv.) and Walch (l.c. S. 205 ff.), to collect all kinds of grounds of suspicion against it. To mention only one, the Jews would have bargained with Leo for something more useful to themselves than the destruction of images; and how little the Emperor was grateful or well-disposed to the Jews, is shown by the circumstance that, as we have already seen (p. 264), he forcibly compelled them to receive baptism. Perhaps, however, the experience which he gained later on may have brought him to the reflection, that the conversion of the Jews, which he so greatly desired, would be made much easier by the removal of the images. Many suppose that, in this way, he endeavoured to make his Saracen neighbours more favourable, and to pave their way into the Church.²⁷

If we add to these political grounds the narrow view of Leo already noticed, that all veneration of images was idolatrous, and also the insinuations of Beser, Constantine of Nacolia, and others, the reasons for the rising against images lie before our eyes.—That this was connected with the Monothelite controversies, and dated from the fact that the Emperor Philip Bardanes caused to be removed a picture of the sixth OEcumenical Synod (see p. 257), is a mere capricious assertion of some older Protestants, particularly Daillé and Spanheim.

According to Theophanes (l.c. p. 621), whom Anastasius (Hist. Eccles.) and Paul the deacon (Hist. Miscell. lib. xxi.) followed, Leo began in the ninth year of his reign (A.D. 725) λόγον ποιεῖσθαι of the taking away of the sacred pictures, i.e. not merely in general to speak, to publish an ordinance, a command; for a few lines lower down Theophanes says: The Pope wrote on this subject to the Emperor, μὴ δεῖν βασιλέα περὶ πίστεως λόγον ποιεῖσθαι. Pope Gregory II., on the contrary (Epist. 1 ad Leonem), as well as Cedrenus and Zonaras, remove the beginning of the controversy about images into the Emperor's tenth year; and this has also the greatest probability. So it comes that in this year, 726, that convulsion of nature took place which, according to the unanimous testimony of the ancients, brought the plan of the Emperor to maturity. Between the islands of the Cyclades group, Thera and Therasia (north-east from Crete), a volcano arose suddenly under the sea, which for several days vomited fire and stones with such violence, that the coasts of Asia Minor, and even those of Lesbos, Abydos, and Macedonia, were covered with it. There immediately arose a new island which united with the island of Hiera. The Emperor and his associate Beser professed to see in this a judgment of God on account of the veneration of images, and now set to work.²⁸

That the Emperor at his first steps against the images either did not consult Germanus, the patriarch of Constantinople, at all, or did not follow his counsel, is clear from the first letter of Gregory II. to Leo, in which he reproaches him that Sapientes non percontatus es.²⁹ In opposition to this, the biography of Abbot Stephen, martyred under Constantine Copronymus on account of the images, speaks of an assembly which the Emperor held, and in which he declared: "As the making of images is an idolatrous art, so may they not be venerated (προσκυνεῖσθαι)." The old Latin translation departs from the Greek original in the rendering of this: "Accita et coacta senatorum classe absurdum illud et impium evomuit (Leo): imaginum picturas formam quamdam idolorum retinere, neque iis cultum esse adhibendum.”³⁰ In accordance with this, Schlosser (l.c. p. 166) has assumed that the Emperor Leo now held a consultative assembly on account of the images, but I fear mistakenly, for Pope Gregory II. knows nothing of any such assembly in the year 726, nor Theophanes or the Patriarch Nicephorus, nor the oldest authorities generally; and the biographer of Stephen had, in his expressions, nothing else in view but that Silentium (assembly of clergy and secular grandees) which first took place on the subject of the images in the year 730, as Theophanes and others testify.

Cedrenus, Zonaras, Constantine Manasses, and Glycas relate that the Emperor summoned the twelve professors who were appointed over the great library (of 36,000 volumes) in the neighbourhood of the Church of S. Sophia, with their director, and endeavoured to gain them over to his views. As this did not succeed, he caused the library to be burnt, together with the thirteen scholars named shut up within it. As this is not mentioned either by Gregory II. or by Theophanes or Nicephorus, or indeed any of the ancients, who yet fully describe Leo's cruelty, this story must be removed into the realm of fable. Schlosser thinks (S. 163 f.) so much is clear, that the Emperor spoke with those scholars, but did not gain them over; and then that the burning of the library, which took place six years later, was connected with this. But the fact of this burning is by no means sufficiently attested, and indeed rests on a confusion with the subsequent burning of that library which took place A.D. 780, under the Emperor Zeno. In particular, the celebrated copy of the Iliad and Odyssey, written upon a dragon's skin, according to the testimony of Suidas, was burnt under Zeno, and not, as Constantine Manasses asserts, under Leo. Occasion for the fable of the burning, however, was perhaps given by the circumstance that Theophanes (l.c.) tells us that Leo specially persecuted the learned, so that the schools had been destroyed.

That the Emperor Leo published an ordinance, an edict against images (A.D. 726), is perfectly clear from the words of Theophanes quoted above (p. 271), and is by no one denied. But it is more difficult to arrive at the contents of this first edict. We shall discover hereafter that several of its principal passages are preserved in the letter of Gregory II. to Leo; but it was just here that they were not sought, because this letter was assigned to a later time. People founded rather upon the old Latin translation of the biography of Abbot Stephen, according to which the Emperor, in order to please the people, declared: "He would not destroy the pictures, but only hang them higher, so that people might no longer touch them with their mouths";³¹ and they inferred from this, that the first edict merely forbade the kissing and veneration of images, and that it was the second, in 730, which first ordered their destruction.³² But, apart from the fact that this Latin translation has very little authority, this assembly, in accordance with what has already been said (p. 272), in which the Emperor made this declaration, belongs to the year 730. It appears, too, that a number, perhaps the most of the old pictures in the churches, were wall pictures or wall mosaics, which could not easily be disturbed, and, besides, were mostly fixed at a considerable height. Moreover, the incidents now to be narrated would be quite inexplicable if the Emperor had only required the pictures to be hung higher. Theophanes relates, at the year 718 of his reckoning, i.e. the tenth year of Leo, or A.D. 716: "The inhabitants of Constantinople were much disturbed by the new doctrines (the prohibition of images), and provoked to insurrection. When some servants of the Emperor destroyed the figure of the Lord over the great brass gate, they were killed by the populace, whereupon the Emperor punished many for their piety (adhesion to the images) with mutilation, blows, and exile." On the same occurrence Pope Gregory II., in his first letter to the Emperor Leo, says: "When you sent the Spatharocandidatus (i.e. Spatharius and Candidatus at once; see Du Cange) Jovinus to Chalcoprateia (a division of Constantinople where metal wares were sold), in order to destroy the figure of Christ which is called Antiphonetes,³³ some pious women who stood there besought the workman not to do so. He, however, paying no attention to this, climbed a ladder and struck with an axe three times the face of the figure of Christ. (It was not, then, merely that he wanted the figure to be hung higher: it hung already so high that he required a ladder.) The women, profoundly indignant, overturned the ladder, and struck him dead; but you sent your servants and caused I know not how many of the women to be executed.” The like is related by Cedrenus and others, and small variations in the particular accounts are of no great moment.

The biographer of S. Stephen transfers this incident to the time after the deposition of the Patriarch Germanus, and adds: These women, after they had upset the ladder of the image-breaker, drew off in front of the residence of the new patriarch, Anastasius, in order to stone him, and shouted, “You shameful enemy of the truth, have you been made patriarch for this purpose, that you might destroy the sanctuaries?” Resting upon this, Pagi removed this incident to the year 730, and regards it as a consequence of the second edict.³⁴ Almost all the later scholars agreed with him; but Theophanes and Cedrenus—not to mention Anastasius and Paul the deacon—place this occurrence expressly in the tenth year of Leo (= 726), and Pope Gregory II. clearly refers it to the beginning of the controversy about images. The first intelligence, he says, of the iconoclasm of the Emperor came to the West through those who had been witnesses of the incident at Chalcoprateia; and before an imperial edict against the images had stirred up a ferment in the West, the news of that occurrence had caused incursions of the Lombards into the imperial provinces of Italy.³⁵

Thence it further appears that between the destruction of that figure of Christ and the composition of the papal letter a considerable interval must have elapsed. We could not, however, account for this if we removed that event to the year 730, for Pope Gregory died on February 11, 731, and we cannot assign the letter in question to his last days, as he received an answer to it from the Emperor, and even addressed a second letter to him.

The assumption that the brutal destruction of the celebrated figure of Christ gave occasion, so early as the year 726, to violent outbreaks in the West, need not be a matter of doubt, since, in the same year, elsewhere disturbances and even insurrections arose for the same reason. Theophanes (p. 623) and Nicephorus (p. 65) and others relate that the inhabitants of Greece and of the Cyclades did not receive the impious error, revolted against the Emperor, fitted out a fleet, and proclaimed a certain Cosmas as rival Emperor. Under the guidance of two officers, Agallianus and Stephanus, they sailed to Constantinople, and arrived there on April 18 of the 10th Indiction (727). But their ships were destroyed by Greek-fire, Agallianus flung himself in complete armour into the sea, Cosmas and Stephanus were executed, and the Emperor proceeded so much the more decidedly in his iconoclasm. Soon afterwards, about the time of the summer solstice of the 10th Indiction (June 21, 727), the Arabs besieged the city of Nicaea, which was defended by an imperial army. A soldier of the latter, named Constantine, at this time threw a stone at a picture of the blessed Virgin (θεότοκος), which had been set up in the city, and shattered its feet; but next day he himself was killed by a stone in an assault by the Arabs. Moreover, as Theophanes (p. 625) says, Nicaea was saved "by the intercession of Mary and other saints, whose images were venerated there, for the wholesome instruction of the Emperor. But instead of repenting, Leo now also cast off the intercession of the saints and the veneration of relics. From this time (i.e. since the controversy about images began), he hated the Patriarch Germanus, and declared (practically) that all previous emperors, bishops, and Christians were idolaters."

We mentioned above the letter which the Patriarch Germanus of Constantinople addressed to Bishop Thomas of Claudiopolis, blaming him for his attacks on the images. As Germanus, among other things, says here: On account of this affair whole cities and peoples were in no slight tumult,³⁶ we may assume that the letter of Germanus falls in this time, and that some bishops, as Thomas, Constantine of Nacolia, and others, reformed in the sense of the Emperor. They naturally also cast the images out of their churches. In other cities, on the contrary, whose bishops held with Germanus, the attack on the images ordered by the Emperor seems hitherto to have touched the interior of the churches less than the images set up in public places. Of this kind was that over the brazen gate at Constantinople, and that destroyed by the soldier at Nicaea, whilst the latter city, according to the testimony adduced of Theophanes, was at that time rich in sacred pictures. If the crusade against the images was to make powerful progress, and the interior of the churches was also to be cleared, it was necessary finally to gain over the Patriarch Germanus, or to remove him. Theophanes (p. 625 sqq.) relates that, in the year 721 (according to his reckoning = the thirteenth regnal year of Leo, beginning March 25, 729), the Emperor summoned the patriarch to him, and gave him first very friendly words. Germanus replied: "An ancient prophecy says that certainly an assault on images will be made, but not in your reign." "Under what reign, then?" asked the Emperor. "Under Conon." "I myself," said the Emperor, "in baptism received the name of Conon." Thereupon the patriarch: "Far be it from you, my lord, that under your government this evil should come to pass. For he who does this is a forerunner of antichrist." The tyrant, embittered by this, sought in the words of the patriarch material for a charge of lese-majesty, in order that he might depose him the more decently. A helper in this he found in Anastasius, the pupil and companion of the patriarch, who wished to thrust him from his see. Germanus remarking this, exhorted the new Judas gently, in the spirit of Christ; but as he would not listen to him, and once, when the patriarch was visiting the Emperor, followed in the train of the former, Germanus spoke to him: "Do not hasten so; you will soon enough come into the circus." He prophesied to him in those words the destiny which happened to him, after fifteen years, under the next Emperor (he was set upon an ass and carried round in the circus). Hereupon the Emperor, on Tuesday, January 7, of the 13th Indiction (730), held a Silentium or consultative assembly³⁷ in the hall of the nineteen accubiti or cushions,³⁸ and again endeavoured at this to bring the patriarch, who had been summoned to it, to fall in with his scheme. When he had boldly resisted, and had set forth [his views of] the truth in a powerful and lengthy speech, but saw no result, he laid down his episcopal dignity, and took off his pallium, with the words: "If I am Jonah, cast me into the sea; without the authority of an OEcumenical Council, O Emperor, nothing may be altered in the faith." Thereupon he withdrew into his private residence, where he spent his remaining days (he was already over ninety years of age) in perfect peace. Anastasius was consecrated as his successor on January 7 (or, as other MSS. give it, January 22).—Thus relates Theophanes (l.c.),³⁹ and the Patriarch Nicephorus agrees with him. Only, he speaks with his accustomed brevity merely of the Silentium which the Emperor held (Nicephorus calls it an assembly of the people), without mentioning the preceding negotiations with Germanus; but adds very well that Leo wanted to induce him to put forth a document in favour of the destruction of the images. We see from this that the patriarch would have had to publish an edict against the images, corresponding with that of the Emperor, or else to join in subscribing a new imperial edict.

Theophanes (l.c. p. 629) says quite precisely that this Silentium was held on Tuesday, January 7 (ζ'). But in the year 730, January 7 fell on a Saturday, and therefore we must here assume a slip of the pen. Petavius, in his notes to Nicephorus (l.c. p. 128), proposed either to put January 3 instead of 7, or instead of ἡμέρα γ' (Tuesday) to put ζ' (= Saturday). But more probable is perhaps the suggestion, instead of January 7 (ζ') to read 17 (ιζ'). The different statements will then agree, that the new patriarch, Anastasius, had been ordained on January 22, for this was a Sunday, and indeed the next Sunday after Tuesday, January 17,—and it is on Sundays that the consecrations of bishops did and do ordinarily take place.

As we saw above, there was a considerable interval between the interview spoken of between the Emperor and Germanus and the holding of the Silentium. To this interval belong the attempts to entangle the patriarch into a trial for lèse-majesty, and also the warnings given by Germanus to the faithless Anastasius, and his visit to the Emperor connected with the prophesying. Moreover, so at least we suppose, Germanus now wrote also to Pope Gregory II., in order to make him acquainted with the demand of the Emperor and his own refusal. This letter is lost, but we still know it from the answer of the Pope, which is preserved among the Acts of the seventh Ecumenical Council. Gregory in this letter greets the patriarch as his brother and champion of the Church, whose deeds he is bound to praise. "Moreover," he proceeds, "we might fitly declare that these deeds will be still more proclaimed by that precursor of impiety, who to thee, O fortunate man (felicitati tuae), has returned evil for good. He thought that he could revolt against Him who came from above (Christ), and triumph over godliness. But he is now hindered from above, and robbed of his hopes, and has heard from the Church what Pharaoh was forced to hear from Moses, that he was an enemy of God. But he heard also the word of the prophet: God will destroy thee. So is he hindered in his undertakings, deprived of power by the God-given strength of your opposition, and his pride has been wounded almost to annihilation. The strong, as Holy Scripture says, has been overcome by the weak. Have you not fought on the side of God, and as God has directed you, since HE ordained that in the camp of the kingdom of Christ the labarum of the cross should stand first, and then the sacred picture of His Mother! The honour shown to the picture goes over to the prototype (that which is represented in the picture), as the great Basil says; and the use of pictures is full of piety, as Chrysostom expresses himself. . . . And the Church does not err when she asserts that God permits the veneration of images, and this is not an imitation of heathenism. When the woman with the issue of blood (S. Matt. ix. 20) set up a statue of Christ at Paneas in remembrance of the miracle wrought on her, she was not for that rejected (by God); on the contrary, a quite unknown medical plant grew up,⁴⁰ by the grace of God, at the foot of that statue. This is for us a proof that we may place before the eyes of all the human form of Him who took away our sins, so that we may thereby know the greatness of the self-humiliation of the divine Logos, and call to remembrance His life on earth and His sufferings. The words of the Old Testament are no hindrance to this; for if God had not become man, we should not represent Him in human form. . . . Only the images of things which do not exist are called idols, as, e.g., the images of non-existent deities feigned by the Hellenic mythology. The Church of Christ has no fellowship with idols, for we worship no calf, etc., never sacrificed our children to demons, etc. Did Ezekiel see (viii. 14, 16) that we bewailed Adonis, and brought a burnt-offering to the sun? If, however, anyone, in Jewish fashion, misusing the words of the Old Testament which were formerly directed against idolatry, accuses our Church of idolatry, we can only hold him for a barking dog, and as a Jew of later times he shall hear that it so happened that Israel brought worship to God by means of visible things which were prescribed to him, and commemorated the Creator by means of types! He would have asked for more at the holy altar than at the calves of Samaria, more at the rod of Aaron than of Astarte! Yea, Israel would have seen more at the rod of Moses, at the golden pot, and the ark of the covenant, and the throne of grace (cover of the ark), and the ephod, and the table, and the tabernacle, and the cherubim, which are merely works of men's hands, and yet are called the most holy. If Israel had thought of these things, it would not have fallen into idolatry. For every image which is made in the name of God is worthy of veneration and sacred. . . . The mistress of Christendom fought with you, the Mother of God,⁴¹ and those who have long rebelled against her have experienced an opposition as strong (from her) as a contradiction (from you).”⁴²

The contents of this letter, as we believe, by themselves point to the time immediately after the powerful opposition which Germanus maintained against the Emperor (A.D. 729), and before the Silentium, when, despairing of the result of his effort, he laid aside the episcopal mantle. The words of the Pope, so far the echo of those of the patriarch, show that the latter had written in the consciousness of a spiritual victory over the Emperor, and at that time had not the intention of resigning. On the contrary, he was hoping, by his opposition, to put an end to the controversy about images. After that Silentium, on the contrary, and after the elevation of Anastasius, it was natural that the latter should draw up the συγγραφή against the images desired by the Emperor, as Nicephorus (p. 65) tells us, or as Theophanes will have it (p. 929), subscribed the edict published by the Emperor. Whether this was different from that of the year 726, as Walch (S. 225) and others assume, or whether that which was new in it consisted only in the subscription of the patriarch, may remain doubtful. The original authorities do not require us to assume an entirely new edict. The assault on the images, however, had now, in any case, obtained an ecclesiastical sanction, and with the well-known servility of the Greek bishops, after the opposition of the prima sedes had been broken, the Emperor henceforth made sure of important advances.

It was otherwise in the West. It is indeed unfortunately most difficult to reconcile the accounts of what happened there with one another, and with facts otherwise known. Theophanes informs us that, in the ninth year of the Emperor, “after Pope Gregory of Rome had learnt this (the λόγος of the Emperor on the removal of the images), he wrote to Leo a doctrinal letter, to the effect that the Emperor should issue no ordinance in regard to the faith, and should alter nothing in the ancient dogmas; that, in consequence, he prevented Italy and Rome from paying taxes (φόρους).”

Theophanes speaks of the same affair for the second time (p. 628 f., at the year 729–730) in the words: “The Patriarch Germanus withstood the Emperor Leo at Constantinople, like the apostolic man Gregory at Rome, who separated Rome and Italy and the whole of the West from political and ecclesiastical obedience to Leo and from his Empire . . . and censured him in his universally known letters.” The third passage (p. 630) runs: “Gregory, however, the holy bishop of Rome, rejected (the new patriarch) Anastasius with his letters (the litterae inthronisticae, which he had sent to Rome), reprimanded the Emperor Leo, in a letter, for his impiety, and made Rome and the whole of Italy separate from his Empire.”

The Latins were naturally better informed on this subject than Theophanes. Anastasius relates, in his biography of Gregory II., in Mansi, t. xii. p. 229 sqq.: “The Longobardi made an incursion into the imperial domain of Italy (before the imperial decree against the images arrived in Italy), took Narnia (in the Duchy of Spoleto) and Ravenna, and secured large booty. After some days, the Dux Basil, the Chartular Jordanes, and the sub-deacon John Luxion, conspired to put the Pope to death, and the imperial Spatharius, Maximus, who then administered the Duchy of Rome, agreed with them; but they found no occasion suitable for this. Subsequently, when the Patriarch Paul came to Italy as exarch, they again formed their scheme, but the affair was discovered, and the Romans killed Luxion and Jordanes, whilst Basil took refuge in a monastery. On the other hand, the exarch Paul, at the command of the Emperor, now endeavoured to kill the Pope, “eo quod censum in provincia ponere praepediebat, et cogitaret suis opibus ecclesias denudare, sicut in caeteris actum est locis, atque alium in ejus ordinare loco,” i.e. because the Pope prevented him from oppressing the province with an (unjust) tax, and because the Emperor had the intention to strip the churches of their property, as it had happened elsewhere, and to put another Pope in Gregory's place. Thereupon the Emperor sent another Spatharius with the command to remove the Pope from his see, and Paul sent for the execution of this outrage as many people (soldiers) from Ravenna and the camps to Rome as he could get for the purpose. But the Romans and Lombards rose up to defend the Pope, took possession of the bridge Salario in Spoleto, surrounded the boundaries of Rome, and prevented the accomplishment of the attempt.

In a decree which was afterwards sent, the Emperor had ordered that no one should make the image of any saint or martyr or angel; these things were all accursed. If the Pope should agree with this, the favour of the Emperor would be granted to him; if, however, he opposed, he should lose his office. The pious man, however, rejected the heresy, armed himself against the Emperor as against an enemy, and wrote in all directions to warn Christians to be on their guard against the new impiety. Upon this all the inhabitants of Pentapolis and the Venetian army offered opposition to the imperial command, declaring that they would never agree to the murder of the Pope, but, on the contrary, would boldly fight in his defence. They now anathematised the exarch Paul, and him who had given him the commission, as well as all his associates; and discharging themselves from obedience to him, the Italians generally chose their own leaders, and on learning of the Emperor's wickedness, the whole of Italy decided to choose a new Emperor, and conduct him to Constantinople. But the Pope quieted them, and induced them to give up this design, hoping that the Emperor would still amend. In the meantime, the Dux (imperial viceroy) Exhilaratus of Naples and his son Hadrian had led away the inhabitants of Campania to obey the Emperor and to make an attempt on the life of the Pope. The Romans, however, followed him up, and put him and his son to death. They also drove out the Dux Peter (from Rome), because he was suspected of having written to the Court against the Pope. In Ravenna, however, because one party was on the Emperor's side and the other with the Pope and the faithful, controversies broke out, and the Patriarch Paul (the exarch) thus lost his life. The Lombards about this time took the cities of Castra AEmilia, Ferorianus, Montebelli, Verablum, with Buxum and Persicetum, also Pentapolis⁴³ and Auximanum.⁴⁴ After some time, the Emperor sent the patrician Eutychius, the eunuch, who had formerly been exarch, to Naples, to carry through the plan against the Pope which had previously miscarried; but it was soon evident that he would violate the churches, and ruin and plunder all. When he sent one of his subordinates to Rome with the command to kill the Pope and the nobles of the city, the Romans endeavoured to kill the envoy, but the Pope prevented them. They now anathematised Eutychius, and pledged themselves by oath to the protection of the Pope. Eutychius now promised to the King and the dukes of the Lombards great presents if they would desist from protecting the Pope; but the Lombards united with the Romans, and declared themselves ready to lay down their lives for the Pope. The latter thanked the people for such attachment, but sought his chief protection in God by abundant prayers and fasting and rich almsgiving. At the same time he exhorted them all ne desisterent ab amore vel fide Romani imperii. About the same time, in the 11th Indiction (from September 1, 727–728), the Lombards got possession, by stratagem, of the castle of Sutri (in the neighbourhood of Rome, to the north), and held it for 140 days, until the Pope, by entreaties and gifts, received it back as an offering for the Apostles Peter and Paul. Soon afterwards, in the January of the 12th Indiction (729), a comet appeared in heaven. Now also Eutychius and Luitprand, King of the Lombards, entered into the shameful league, to unite their armies and subject to Luitprand the Lombard vassal dukes of Spoleto and Benevento (who perhaps were endeavouring to make themselves independent), and to seize the city of Rome for the Emperor, and to deal with the Pope according to his instructions. Luitprand in fact compelled the two dukes to subjection, and then drew towards Rome. But the Pope met him and spoke so earnestly to him that the King cast himself at his feet. Only, he petitioned that the Pope would again receive Eutychius in peace. This was done, and the reconciliation took place.

Whilst the exarch was residing in Rome, a deceiver, Tiberius Petasius, set himself up in Italy as rival Emperor, and received homage from several cities.⁴⁵ The exarch was greatly troubled about this, but the Pope comforted him and supported him so powerfully, that the insurrection was speedily suppressed, and they were able to send the head of Tiberius to Constantinople. Notwithstanding this, the Emperor remained unfavourable to the Romans. Moreover, his evil disposition became ever clearer, so that he compelled all the inhabitants of Constantinople everywhere to take away the pictures of the Redeemer, of His holy Mother, and of all the saints, to burn them in the middle of the city, and to smear the painted walls with whitewash. As a good many of the inhabitants resisted, several were executed and others mutilated. The Patriarch Germanus was deposed by the Emperor, who made over the see to Anastasius. The latter sent a Synodica to Rome, but Gregory found that he assented to the heresy, and threatened him with excommunication if he did not return to the Catholic faith. And to the Emperor he gave wholesome counsels in letters.⁴⁶

From all this we learn (1) that even before the imperial edict against images was published in Italy, a violent division between Pope Gregory II. and the Emperor had taken place. How and why it arose, Anastasius does not relate, he only says: The Pope prevented the exarch from imposing a tax on the (Roman) province. By this tax we have to think of an unusual and unjust import, probably similar to the poll-tax which the Emperor Leo, somewhat later, imposed on Calabria and Sicily.⁴⁷ Anastasius indicates that it had been directed chiefly to the plundering of the churches, and perhaps it is here that we are to find the ground of the papal resistance. As to the manner in which this was exercised, its legal character can no longer be ascertained, on account of the quite defective account of Anastasius (and Theophanes). It is only clear from the subsequent behaviour of the Pope (which we learn from Anastasius), that he endeavoured to preserve carefully his loyalty to the Emperor and to discharge his duties as a subject. It was an opposition to unrighteous demands from authority, and within the bounds of right and duty. But that the Pope did not hinder the payment of legal dues and taxes, nor was guilty even of great disloyalty towards the Emperor, is quite sufficiently clear (a) from the principles which he himself set forth on the relation of the priesthood and the imperial power in his letters to the Emperor Leo. We shall shortly ascertain their contents more exactly (pp. 293 and 297).⁴⁸ Witnesses for us are also (b) the zealous efforts of Gregory to prevent any kind of rebellion against the Emperor, and all acts of violence against his officials. This is clear from the details which Anastasius gives, and from the letter of the Pope to Duke Ursus in Venice (p. 287). But moreover (c), Paul the deacon is a powerful witness on the same side, since he writes (De rebus gestis Longobard. vi. 49): "Omnis quoque Ravennae exercitus et Venetiarum talibus jussis (for the destruction of the images) uno animo restiterunt, et nisi eos prohibuisset Pontifex, imperatorem super se constituere fuissent aggressi." When, therefore, the Greeks, who were often badly instructed in Western affairs, assert that the Pope had occasioned the revolt not merely of Italy, but the whole of the West (!) from the Emperor, such an assertion cannot weigh in the balance against the words of Gregory himself, and against the testimony of Anastasius and Paul the deacon. When, however, Zonaras says, "The Pope and his Synod had anathematised the Emperor," seeing that no other of the ancients mentions it, this must be only a misunderstanding arising out of an expression in the second letter of Gregory to the Emperor Leo (see p. 296 f.), when the Pope, applying the words of S. Paul (1 Cor. v. 5), wishes the Emperor a demon for the destruction of his flesh that his soul may be safe.⁴⁹ On another misunderstanding rests the assertion of the same Zonaras, that Pope Gregory II. had endeavoured to form a union with the Franks against the Emperor. That the Pope did make efforts for such a union is quite correct, and Anastasius in his Vita Stephani II. (III.) speaks of it;⁵⁰ but it was directed against the Lombards, not against the Emperor.

(2) We remember that Theophanes represents the hindering of the imposition of that tax as a consequence of the controversy about images of the year 726. Anastasius, on the other hand, brings these two events into no connection with one another.

(3) He says expressly, the imperial officers had, with the previous knowledge of the Emperor, repeatedly made attempts on the life of the Pope. Some explain this to mean that the Emperor Leo had only given orders that the Pope should be taken and conveyed to Constantinople, of which Gregory himself speaks in his first letter to Leo (see p. 293 f.), and that report had exaggerated the matter, and made the order to imprison a command to murder.⁵¹

(4) Anastasius speaks of two principal incursions of the Lombards into the imperial domain. The one, in which they seized the city of Narnia, and even Ravenna, the capital of the exarchate, with the harbour of Classis, and carried off much booty,⁵² he places before the arrival of the edict against the images; the other incursion, in which Castra AEmilia, etc., were plundered, later. To the same effect, Paul the deacon (De gestis Longobard. vi. 48, 49) tells of the pillaging of Narnia and Ravenna, before he mentions the prohibition of the images; but speaks of Castra AEmilia, etc., falling into the hands of the Lombards after the appearance of the imperial edict. For full light on this subject, however, we are indebted to the first letter of Gregory II. to the Emperor Leo, in which it is said that many Westerns had been present at the time of the destruction of the figure of Christ in Chalcoprateia in Constantinople, and by telling of this outrage, and of the cruelties connected with it, they had filled the whole of the West with anger against the Emperor, so that the Lombards invaded Decapolis,⁵³ and even seized Ravenna.⁵⁴

We see that the Lombards made use of the disagreement of the Italians with the Emperor which had been occasioned by those relations, and invaded his domain, which had long been desired by them. The capture of Ravenna etc., certainly was connected with the prohibition of images, and was a consequence of it; and yet Anastasius and Paul the deacon were right when they put this incident before the publication of the imperial edict in Italy. Undoubtedly those witnesses of the destruction of the figure of Christ in Chalcoprateia brought the first certain intelligence of the attack on the images to Italy.

(5) Among the letters of Gregory II. there is one to Ursus, the Dux of Venice.⁵⁵ Gregory says in it: The city of Ravenna was taken a non dicenda gente Longobardorum, and, as he hears, the exarch fled to Venice. The Dux should remain faithful to him, and co-operate with him, so that Ravenna may again be restored to the Emperor.⁵⁶ That this was actually realised we learn from Paul the deacon (De gestis Longobard. vi. 54), who says: In his many wars against the imperialists, the King of the Lombards, Luitprand, was only twice unfortunate—once at Ariminum; the second time, when his nephew Hildebrand, whom he placed over Ravenna, was surprised by a sudden attack of the Venetians, and taken.

That Pope Gregory used the expression of horror, A non dicenda gente, in reference to the Lombards, is clearly shown by the fact that this letter was written before the Lombards had come nearer to him, and made themselves serviceable to him. Indeed, the recovery of Ravenna must have taken place before, for the exarch Paul was able soon again to send out from Ravenna an army against Rome and the Pope, as Anastasius and Paul the deacon concur in relating. This was that army which was opposed by the united Romans and Lombards at the Pons Salarius (p. 281 f.).

(6) Pagi, Walch, and others assume that the imperial edict against the images, of the publication of which in Italy Anastasius speaks, was that of the year 730;⁵⁷ but Anastasius gives us quite another chronological turning-point. After describing the disturbances which this edict caused in Italy, and the indestructible fidelity of the much ill-used Pope to the Emperor, he thus proceeds: "About the same time (i.e. some time after the publication of the imperial edict), the Lombards, in the 11th Indiction (September 1, 727, 728), got possession of the castle of Sutri, and in January 729 a comet appeared." According to this, the publication of the imperial decree must have happened some time before the year 728, so that the first decree of the year 726 must here be meant.

(7) Theophanes,⁵⁸ immediately after the mention of the first edict against the images, adds that the Pope sent a letter against it to Leo, setting forth "that it was not the Emperor's business to issue an ordinance on the faith, or to alter anything in the old dogmas." In two other places also Theophanes speaks (see above, p. 281 f.) of letters of Gregory to the Emperor, and Anastasius also refers to them. But it was not until the sixteenth century that these letters were discovered by the learned Jesuit Fronton le Duc in the library of the Cardinal of Lorraine, and translated from the Greek into Latin. From him Baronius received them, and had them printed for the first time ad ann. 726. Pope Gregory bears in the superscription of these letters, by confusion with Gregory the Great, the surname of Dialogus, the latter on account of his famous work of that name being often so entitled. These letters soon found their way into the Collections of Councils, and were placed before the Acts of the seventh OEcumenical Council. That they were not, like other similar documents e.g. the letter of the same Pope to the Patriarch Germanus, presented and read at the seventh OEcumenical Council, is certainly remarkable, as Rösler observes;⁵⁹ but is explained by the fact that the Emperor Leo had probably caused the copy which came to Constantinople to be destroyed, and thus the Synod had none in hand. Labbe was mistaken in thinking that these two letters should not be ascribed to Gregory II., but to his successor Gregory III.,⁶⁰ and the doubts which Semler and Rösler have raised as to their genuineness are of no importance. As to the time of the composition of these letters, we can form a judgment only after we have communicated their contents.

The first runs: "Your letter, God-protected Emperor and brother, we received through the imperial Spatharocandidatus, when you were reigning in the 14th Indiction. We have preserved safe in the church your letter of this 14th Indiction, and those of the 15th, and of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th, at the foot of the grave of Peter, where those of your predecessors are also kept. In ten letters you have, as is becoming in a Christian emperor, promised faithfully to observe the doctrines of the Fathers. And above all, the most important is, that they are your own, furnished with the imperial seal, and none interpolated. You write in these: If anyone removes the ordinances of the Fathers, let him be anathema. After receipt of these letters we offered hymns of thanksgiving to God that He had given you the empire. And as you did run well, who has rung the falsehood into your ears and perverted your heart? Ten years by God's grace you have walked aright, and not mentioned the sacred images; but now you assert that they take the place of idols, and that those who reverence them are idolaters, and want them to be entirely set aside and destroyed. You do not fear the judgment of God, and that offence will be given not merely to the faithful, but also to the unbelieving. Christ forbids our offending even the least, and you have offended the whole world, as if you had not also to die and to give an account. You wrote: 'We may not, according to the command of God (Exod. xx. 4), worship anything made by the hand of man, nor any likeness of that which is in the heaven or in the earth.' Only prove to me, who has taught us to worship (σέβεσθαι καὶ προσκυνεῖν) anything made by man's hands, and I will then agree that it is the will of God. But why have not you, O Emperor and head of the Christians, questioned wise men on this subject before disturbing and perplexing poor people? You could have learnt from them concerning what kind of images made with hands (χειροποίητα) God said that. But you have rejected our Fathers and doctors, although you gave the assurance by your own subscription that you would follow them. The holy Fathers and doctors are our scripture, our light, and our salvation, and the six Synods have taught us (that); but you do not receive their testimony. I am forced to write to you without delicacy or learning, as you also are not delicate or learned; but my letter yet contains the divine truth. . . . God gave that command because of the idolaters who had the land of promise in possession, and worshipped golden animals, etc., saying: These are our gods, and there is no other God. On account of these diabolical χειροποίητα, God has forbidden us to worship them. As, however, there are also χειροποίητα for the service and

honour of God, . . . God chose and blessed two men from the people of Israel, that they might prepare χειροποίητα, but for the honour and service of God, namely, Bezaleel and Aholiab (Exod. xxxv. 30, 34). God Himself wrote the Ten Commandments on two tables of stone, and said: Make cherubim and seraphim, and a table, and overlay it with gold within and without; and make an ark of shittim wood, and in the ark place the testimonies for the remembrance of your tribes, namely, the tables of the Law, and the pot, and the rod, and the manna (Exod. xxv. 10-24). Are those objects and figures made by man's hand or not? But for the honour and the service of God. Moses wished to see the Lord, but He showed Himself to him only from behind. To us, on the contrary, the Lord showed Himself perfectly, since the Son of God has been made man. . . . From all parts men now came to Jerusalem to see Him, and then depicted and represented Him to others. In the same way they have depicted and represented James, Stephen, and the martyrs; and men, leaving the worship of the devil, have venerated these images, but not absolutely (with latria) but relatively (ταύτας προσέκυνησεν οὐ λατρευτικῶς ἀλλὰ σχετικῶς). What think you now, O Emperor, that these images are venerable or those of the diabolical illusion? Christ Himself sent His portrait to Abgar, an ἀχειροποίητον.⁶¹ Look on this: many peoples of the East assemble at this, in order to pray there. And also other images made by men's hands are venerated by pious pilgrims till to-day. Why, then, do we make no representation of God the Father? The divine nature cannot be represented. If we had seen Him, as we have the Son, we could also make an image of Him. We adjure you, as a brother in Christ, turn back again to the truth, and raise up again by a new edict those whom you have made to stumble. Christ knows that so often as we go into the Church of S. Peter, and see the picture of this saint, we are moved and tears flow from us. Christ has made the blind to see: you have made the seeing blind. . . . You say: We worship stones and walls and boards. But it is not so, O Emperor; but they serve us for remembrance and encouragement, lifting our slow spirits upwards by those (persons) whose names the pictures bear, and whose representations they are. And we worship them not as God, as you maintain ; God forbid ! For we set not our hope on them ; and if a picture of the Lord is there, we say : Lord Jesus Christ, help and save us. At a picture of His holy Mother we say : Holy God-bearer, pray for us with thy Son, and so with a martyr. And this is not correct which you say, that we call the martyrs gods. I adjure you, leave off the evil thoughts, and save your soul from the wrath and execration with which the whole world visits you. The children mock at you. Go now into the schools of the children, and say : I am the enemy of images, and they will immediately throw their tables at you. You wrote : As the Jewish King Uzziah (it should be Hezekiah) after 800 years cast the brazen serpent out of the temple (2 Kings xviii. 4), so I after 800 years cast the images out of the churches. Yes, Uzziah was your brother ; and, like you, did violence to the priests (2 Chron. xxvi. 16 ff.). That brazen serpent David brought with the Ark of the Covenant into the temple, and it was an image of brass, sanctified by God for the use of those who had been bitten by the serpent (Num. xxi. 9 ff.). We might punish you in accordance with the power which has come down to us from Peter ; but you have pronounced a curse upon yourself,⁶² and may now have it with your counsellors. What a great edification of the faithful you have destroyed ! Christ knows that, as often as we went into the church, and saw the representation of the miracles of Christ, or the picture of His Mother, the divine Suckling in her arms, and the angels standing round in a circle and acclaiming the Trisagion, we did not go out again without emotion. . . . It would have been better for you to have been a heretic than a destroyer of images. The dogmatisers fall easily into error, when they are lacking in humility, partly from ignorance, partly because of the darkness of the subject ; and their guilt is not so great as yours, for you have persecuted that which is open and clear as light, and stripped the Church of God. The holy Fathers clothed and adorned them ; you have stripped them and laid them bare, although you have (ἔχων) so excellent a high-priest, our brother Germanus. Him you ought to have taken into your counsels as father and teacher, for he has great experience, is now ninety-five years old, and has served many patriarchs and Emperors. But, leaving him aside, you have listened to the impious fool from Ephesus, the son of Apsimar (Archbishop Theodosius, see p. 266), and people like him. The Emperor Constantine (Pogonatus) behaved quite differently when he wrote to Rome about the holding of the sixth OEcumenical Synod. You see that the dogmas of the Church are not a matter for the Emperor, but for the bishops. As these may not intrude into civil affairs, so should not the Emperors into the ecclesiastical. You wrote that an OEcumenical Synod should be called. This seems to me superfluous ; for if you are peaceful, all is peaceful. Think : if I had responded to your wish, and the bishops of the whole world had been assembled, where is the God-fearing Emperor who, in accordance with custom, should assist at these assemblies, since you destroy the peace of the Church and imitate the barbarians (Jezid)? . . . While the churches of God had deep peace, you have occasioned conflicts, controversies, and troubles. Cease and be peaceful, and there is need of no Synod. Write to all the countries which you have disquieted, that Germanus of Constantinople and Pope Gregory of Rome had erred in regard to the images, and we who have the power of binding and loosing will pardon your false step.⁶³ God is witness that I communicated all your letters to the Kings of the West, and made them your friends, commending and praising you. Therefore they accepted and honoured your laureata (likenesses) before they heard of your evil undertaking against the images. When, however, they learnt that you sent the Spatharocandidatus Jovinus to Chalcoprateia, to destroy the miraculous figure of Christ, which is called Antiphonetes, pious women, followers of those who anointed the Lord, cried to the Spatharocandidatus : Do it not ; and when he paid no regard to them, but mounted a ladder and struck with an axe three times on the face of the figure, the women enraged upset the ladder and killed him ; but you sent soldiers and caused I know not how many women to be killed in the presence of many distinguished men from Rome, France, from the Vandals, Goths, and from Mauritania, almost from the whole of the West. When these returned back, and every one told in his home your childish acts, then they destroyed your laureata, and the Lombards, Sarmatians, and others who dwell in the North, made incursions into the unhappy Decapolis and took the metropolis Ravenna,⁶⁴ deposed your rulers, put their own in their place, and wanted to do the same with the imperial cities in our neighbourhood, and even with Rome itself, unless you can protect us. There you have the fruit of your folly. But you will alarm me and say : I will send to Rome and destroy the picture of S. Peter, and carry off Pope Gregory a prisoner, as Constantine (Constans II.) did with Martin. You must know that the bishops of Rome, for the sake of peace, sit as middle walls between the East and West, and are promoters of peace. If you wish to lay snares for me, as you say, I have no need to contend with you. The Roman bishop will merely remove twenty-four stadia to Campania ; and then come you and persecute the winds.⁶⁵ The Emperor Constantine (Constans II.) ill-treated and banished our predecessor, Martin I. But the Emperor was murdered in his sins, whilst Martin is honoured as a saint. Willingly would I bear the same fate as Martin ; but for the benefit of the people I am willing to remain in life ; for the whole West turns its eyes on me, although unworthy, and hopes in me and in S. Peter, whose image you threaten to destroy. If you venture upon that, the Westerns are ready to take vengeance upon you for the Easterns whom you have wronged. But I adjure you by the Lord to leave off from such foolish things. You know that your throne cannot defend Rome,⁶⁶ the city alone, not to think of that which is outside; and if the Pope, as we said, removes himself twenty-four stadia, he has no more to fear from you. . . . If the picture of S. Peter is really destroyed, I call God to witness that I am innocent of the blood that will then be shed. Let it fall on your head. A prince from the interior of the West, named Septetus,⁶⁷ has prayed me to come to him and administer baptism to him, and I shall do so. May the Lord again place in your heart the fear of God, and bring you back to the truth! Would that I might soon receive from you letters with the news of your conversion.”⁶⁸

We saw that Pope Gregory, in this letter, repeated quite or almost verbally several passages from the edict which the Emperor had sent on the subject of the images to Italy. We have quoted those passages above in italics, and since, as we have shown, this edict was not published in Italy in the year 730, but before 728, our desire to be acquainted with the tenor of the first edict, at least in outline, is satisfied. At the same time, we see how Walch and others have gone astray, who regard the first edict as mild, and would ascribe to it only the prohibition against the kissing of the pictures. The passages extracted from the edict itself prove its already fully iconoclastic character.

That the Emperor answered the Pope, we learn from the second letter of Gregory: “I have,” says the Pope here, “your letter, God-protected Emperor and brother in Christ, by your messenger Rufinus, and it has quite overshadowed my life, because you have not altered your disposition, but persevere in evil, and refuse to follow the holy Fathers. And yet I make my appeal not to strangers, but to Greek Fathers.

You write: I am Emperor and priest at the same time. Yes; your predecessors were so in fact, Constantine the Great, Theodosius the Great, Valentinian the Great, and Constantine (Pogonatus). They reigned as Emperors religiously, and held Synods in union with the bishops, and built and adorned churches. They showed by their works that they were Emperors and priests at the same time; but you have . . . not observed the decisions of the Fathers, but have plundered and stripped the churches of their ornament. . . . Men and women instruct their children, and the new converts from heathenism, pointing with their fingers to the histories which are painted in the churches, they edify them therewith, and give thereby to their hearts the tendency to go upwards. But you have taken this from the people, and left them nothing but foolish discourses, fables, and musical farces.⁶⁹ Hear me, the lowly one, O Emperor; leave off and follow the holy Church, as you have known it as handed down to you. Doctrines are not matters for the Emperor, but for the bishops, because we have the mind (νοῦν) of Christ. . . . There is a difference between the palace and the Church, between Emperors and bishops. Recognise this, and save yourself! If you were to be deprived of the imperial robes, the purple, the diadem, etc., you would seem before men to be treated with disrespect. In the like condition you have placed the churches, in robbing them of their adornment. As the bishop has no right to mix himself with the business of the palace, and to give away the offices, so it does not belong to the Emperor to mix in the inner affairs of the Church, to choose the clergy, to administer the sacraments, etc. Let each one remain in the place to which God has called him. Do you know, O Emperor, the difference between Emperor and bishop? When anyone fails in his duty towards you, O Emperor, you take from him his house and property, perhaps also his life, or you banish him. Not so the bishops. If anyone sins, and he confesses, instead of a rope, they lay upon his neck the gospel and the cross, and instead of casting him into prison, they bring him into the Diaconia or Catechumena of the Church,⁷⁰ and impose upon him fasting, etc. If he has repented, they administer to him the body and blood of the Lord. . . . You persecute and tyrannise over us with military and physical force; but we, without weapons or earthly army, invoke the Leader of the armies of the whole creation, Jesus Christ, that He may send you a demon, according to the words of the apostle (1 Cor. v. 5): ('I will) deliver him to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.' Behold, O Emperor, into such misery you plunge yourself. How unhappy are we compared with our forefathers, who, on account of their good influence on the Emperors, will obtain praise in the day of judgment, while we shall be forced to blush because we cannot present our Emperor before God glorious and rich in renown. Behold, even now we exhort you: repent and return to the truth, and honour the holy Fathers. You wrote: How comes it that in the six Councils nothing is said of images? But there is nothing said there, O Emperor, of bread and water, whether it shall be eaten and drunk, or not, because here the custom stood fast. So also the custom of the pictures; and the bishops themselves brought pictures with them to the Councils, as no pious man travelled without pictures. We exhort you to be at once bishop and Emperor, as you wrote. If you are ashamed, as Emperor, to ascribe the guilt of your mistake to yourself (αἰτιολογήσαι ἑαυτόν), then write into all the places which you have troubled, that Pope Gregory of Rome and Germanus of Constantinople made a mistake in regard to the images, and we forgive you your false step, by virtue of our power to bind and loose. . . . As we must give account to Christ, we have exhorted you; but you have not listened to our lowliness, nor to Germanus, nor to the holy Fathers, but have followed the perverters and falsifiers of the true doctrine. As we have written, we shall travel into the interior of the West, in order to administer holy baptism. I have already sent bishops and clergy thither, but the leaders of these countries are not yet baptized, and prefer to be baptized by me. God grant to you insight and a change of mind.”⁷¹

When we compare the expressions of Theophanes, adduced above (p. 281), in the letters of Gregory to the Emperor Leo, with the contents of the two now quoted, there can be no doubt that Theophanes had these very letters, and no others, in his eye. That which he presents as the chief contents of the papal letters, “It does not belong to the Emperor to issue ordinances in regard to the faith, or to alter anything in the old doctrines,” we find not only verbally in our two letters, but it is even a leading argument there. If, notwithstanding, it is attempted to distinguish the latter from those which Theophanes mentions, and to declare them considerably later, this rests upon a false assumption which proceeded from Pagi, which has perforce made its way through almost all later books, and with this we come to the examination into the time of the composition of the two papal letters.

Baronius had placed them at the beginning of the controversy, thus in the year 726, and had regarded them with Theophanes as an answer to the imperial edict. This was contested by Pagi (ad ann. 726, 3–6; 730, 7). Supporting himself upon the life of the Abbot S. Stephen (p. 273), Pagi removes the breaking of the figure of Christ over the χαλκῆ πύλη, or in Chalcoprateia, into the time after the deposition of Germanus, and after the consecration of Anastasius, thus into the year 730. Of this event, so Pagi further argues, Pope Gregory speaks in his first letter, consequently this must be placed deeper into the year 730, and accordingly the second at the end of the year 730 or the beginning of 731, for Gregory II. died February 11, 731.

As already remarked, we contest the foundation of this whole argument, since, with Theophanes and others, we refer the incident at the χαλκῆ to the year 726; and the first letter of Gregory himself confirms us in this, since he informs us that the first information of the Emperor's attack on the images (thus before the arrival of his edict) was given by witnesses of that act of violence who had come into the West. But that the first edict was published in Italy before the year 728 we learnt from Anastasius (p. 288).

Pagi appeals a second time to the fact that Pope Gregory, in his first letter to Leo, speaks of Germanus as former patriarch, in the words: "Tametsi talem habebas pontificem" (Pagi, ad ann. 726, 3). But this Latin translation is well known to be only a work of Fronton le Duc, and the Greek text has ἔχων (p. 292), and in neither letter of Gregory is there any indication that Germanus had then been deposed. Pagi, in the third place, refers to the short chronological indications which are found at the beginning of the first papal letter to the Emperor Leo. Gregory says in it that he has received the letter of the Emperor of the 14th Indiction. As Leo became Emperor on March 25 of the 15th Indiction, as Theophanes says, the 14th Indiction would go from the 1st of September 730 to the 1st of September 731, and accordingly the answer of the Pope must be referred to the year 730 (Pagi, ad ann. 730, 7). But this argument, which Pagi brings forward with such confidence, we must turn against himself. If the Emperor, in the 14th Indiction, thus after September 1, 730, wrote to the Pope—and that the Emperor did write in the 14th Indiction, not that the Pope answered in this Indiction, the words of Gregory declare expressly—if the Emperor wrote so late, after September 1, 730, then a good many weeks would elapse before this letter arrived in Rome, and weeks again before the Pope despatched his answer, which would not only be well considered, but undoubtedly discussed in council with his clergy. The year 730 must now have come to an end. But the papal answer is now sent to Constantinople, and again weeks were necessary for this. The Emperor answers it, sends the answer to Rome, and the Pope writes to him the second time, and all this must have taken place in the year 730 or in January 731 (Pagi, ad ann. 730, 10). Such despatch in official and diplomatic intercourse would be a rare thing even in the times of railways and telegraphs. I think, then, we may venture to maintain: If Gregory II. died on February 11, 731, and Pagi throws no doubt upon this, then the facts so often mentioned above—the letter of the Emperor, its conveyance to Rome, the answer of the Pope, its conveyance to Constantinople, the reply of the Emperor, its conveyance to Rome, and the second letter of the Pope following upon this—could not be pressed into the brief time between September 1, 730, and the death of the Pope.

Pope Gregory places the letters which he received from the Emperor in the following order:—That of the 14th, that of the 15th, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th Indiction. Pagi thinks here that the letter placed primo loco of the 14th Indiction was the latest of the year 730, the one following the earliest of the year 717, and so the series would go on; only, there is a gap between the 9th Indiction and the 14th, i.e. from 725 to 730, as the Emperor, in these five years, apparently had not written to the Pope.⁷² To me it seems more natural that Pope Gregory referred to all the letters which he received from the Emperor in chronological order, beginning with the earliest and ending with the latest. This latest would then be that of the 9th Indiction, or of the year 726, and this we regard as the one which contained the offensive remarks on the images. This agrees perfectly with the date of the beginnings of the controversy on the images, and with the expression of Gregory, that Leo had begun his follies in the tenth year of his government. This tenth regnal year bears the Indiction number ix. Gregory adds: Ten letters of the Emperor had been quite right, and this number of ten we obtain, even if we take away from the series given above the last letter of the 9th Indiction. Moreover, we shall be constrained, by what has been said, to the same inference as Baronius. Thus, if the first or earliest letter of the Emperor Leo to Pope Gregory belongs to the 14th Indiction, then the beginning of his reign must be placed in the year 716, and not, with Theophanes, in 717.⁷³ And we are not afraid to do this, in spite of the express statement of Theophanes, for the latter reckons the regnal years of Leo from the day of his solemn entrance into Constantinople, and therefore ascribes to the Emperor Leo a government of 24 years 2 months and 25 days. Nicephorus, on the contrary, gives in his Chronicon, 25 years 3 months and 14 days, reckoning from the moment at which Leo rose against the weak Theodosius, and was proclaimed Emperor in the camp.⁷⁴ It is not, therefore, improbable that the Emperor Leo, at the very beginning of his elevation, and so still in the 14th Indiction, i.e. in the year 716, sought also to win for himself, in the West, so powerful a Pope, and assured him, by letter, of his orthodoxy, knowing well that the Italian provinces of the Empire would recognise him much more readily if the Pope spoke for him.

Thus do we believe that we have placed the occurrences of the first Lustrum of the controversy about images in their true light, and, at the same time, in the correct chronological order.

§ 333. The first Synods on the Controversy about Images.

We assumed before, in the discussion of the chronological question, that Pope Gregory II., after the arrival of the imperial edict against the images, did not immediately return an answer, but only after mature reflection and consultation. This supposition finds itself confirmed, not only by the statements of Cedrenus and of the Libellus Synodicus, which speak of a Synod which Gregory now held at Rome, but also Pope Hadrian I. refers to such an assembly in his letter to Charles the Great.⁷⁵ He says that Pope Gregory II. gave an address on the permissibility of the veneration of images, and he produces several of the arguments used, e.g., in regard to the ark of the covenant, the cherubim, to Bezaleel and Aholiab, which have so great a similarity with some passages of the two letters of Gregory to the Emperor, that we may suppose that Gregory had also delivered in the Synod the principal part of that which he wrote to the Emperor. Naturally, this Roman Synod was contemporaneous with the first letter of Gregory to the Emperor Leo, and may therefore properly be placed in the year 727.⁷⁶

In immediate connection with this Roman Synod, the Libellus Synodicus places a Council at Jerusalem under the Patriarch Theodore, which anathematised the new heresy of the "burners of the sanctuary." As, however, Theodore demonstrably had possession of the see of Jerusalem after the middle of the eighth century, and despatched a Synodica to Pope Paul I. (757–767) in favour of the images,⁷⁷ our Synod cannot be earlier than 760.

In Rome, after the death of Gregory II., the excellent priest Gregory III., by birth a Syrian, was raised to the papal throne, March 18, 731. The whole people, says Anastasius,⁷⁸ at the funeral procession, as he was following the bier, called him with one consent to be Pope, and constrained him to receive this dignity. Soon he too endeavoured to turn the Emperor away from his iconoclasm; but the priest George, whom he had sent with a letter to Constantinople, had not the courage to deliver it, and returned back with the business undone. The Pope wanted to depose him, but the Synod which he had convoked at Rome on this account, A.D. 731,⁷⁹ interceded for him, so that he was merely subjected to penance, and then was sent anew with the same letter to Constantinople. When he came on his journey to Sicily, Sergius, the viceroy there, at the Emperor's command, had him seized, and kept him a whole year long in prison. The Pope, however, full of indignation at this, immediately celebrated a new Synod at the grave of S. Peter, at which ninety-three Western bishops were present, among them the Archbishops Anthony of Grado and John of Ravenna,⁸⁰ with the priests, deacons, and clerics of the Roman Church, and many distinguished laymen. It was decreed: "If anyone, for the future, shall take away, destroy, dishonour, or revile the pictures of the Lord or of His Mother, he shall be excluded from the body and blood of the Lord and the communion of the Church." They all solemnly subscribed this. That this Synod was summoned on November 1, 731 (Indict. xv.), we see from the letter of invitation which Pope Gregory III. addressed to Archbishop Anthony of Grado and his suffragans.⁸¹

The Pope then sent again a letter in favour of the pictures through the Defensor (sc. pauperum, an office among the Roman clergy) Constantine to the Emperor. But he was also imprisoned in Sicily, and the letter taken from him. The same happened to the deputies of the Italian cities, who had to bring similar letters to Constantinople. On the result of a fourth attempt which the Pope made to send letters, by the Defensor Peter, to the Patriarch Anastasius and the two Emperors, Leo and Constantine (Copronymus, the son of Leo), our authorities are silent.⁸²

In order to punish the Pope, Rome, and Italy for their opposition to iconoclasm, the Emperor Leo sent out a powerful fleet against them. It suffered shipwreck in the Adriatic Sea, and Leo now raised the taxes in Sicily and Calabria, and confiscated the patrimonies of the two apostle princes, i.e. the 3½ talents of gold coming annually to their churches (at Rome) for the exchequer.⁸³ Besides, Leo now separated, besides Calabria and Sicily, also the Illyrian provinces which hitherto belonged to the patriarchate of Rome, namely, Old and New Epirus, Illyricum, Macedonia, Thessaly, Achaia, Dacia Ripensis and Mediterranea, Moesia, Dardania, and Praevalis (with its metropolis Scodra), and subjected them to the patriarchate of Constantinople, an act of violence which in great measure became the cause of the later unhappy schism.⁸⁴

§ 334. John of Damascus.

Besides and along with Pope Gregory II. and Gregory III. and the Patriarch Germanus of Constantinople, John of Damascus belonged to the first and most powerful defenders of images. Theophanes (l.c. p. 629) says of him: "Then (729) lived at Damascus, John Chrysorrhoas, the son of Mansur, priest and monk, distinguished for holiness and knowledge. . . . In union with the bishops of the whole East, he pronounced anathema on the Emperor Leo." This account is very summary, for, at the outbreak of the controversy on images, John was not yet either priest or monk, but he occupied then one of the highest offices of State with the Caliph who ruled over Syria. At the news of the transactions in Constantinople, he prepared three discourses in defence of the images (λόγοι ἀπολογητικοί), the first at the very beginning of the controversy, when it might still be hoped that the Emperor would be brought by reason to a change in his conduct; the other two after the deposition of the Patriarch Germanus.⁸⁵ His ancient biography relates that the Emperor Leo, in order to revenge himself on John, got up and caused to be sent to the Caliph a false letter, in which John invited him to surprise the city of Damascus. Not suspecting the deception, the Caliph caused the right hand of the supposed traitor to be hewn off; but, at the intercession of Mary, the piece which had been cut off grew on again during the night, and the Caliph, astonished at this, asked forgiveness of the saint, and wished to appoint him again to his high office. But John preferred to become a monk, and withdrew to Palestine, into the Laura of S. Sabas.⁸⁶ That he did the latter is beyond doubt.

§ 335. The Emperor Constantine Copronymus.

What the Emperor Leo the Isaurian did in the last years of his reign (†June 18, 741) in regard to the images is unknown; but it is certain that the conflict was carried on by his son Constantine Copronymus.⁸⁷ The widespread disaffection towards the new Emperor, whom his contemporaries depict in the darkest colours, encouraged his brother-in-law Artabasdus, who had married the Princess Anna, and at that time commanded in Armenia against the Arabs, to make an attempt upon the crown for himself.⁸⁸ Constantine pretended to take no notice, and invited his brother-in-law and his sons to him, to consult about plans for war, but in truth to seize him. But Artabasdus saw through the trick, took to arms, struck and killed the renegade Beser, who first opposed him, and marched to Constantinople, where he had himself solemnly proclaimed Emperor. The governor Theophanes, to whom Constantine had entrusted the capital, did his best for Artabasdus, especially by circulating the false report that Constantine was dead, and that his brother-in-law was recognised as Emperor in the whole of the East. Partly from his own inclination, partly to gain the people over more to himself, Artabasdus soon restored the veneration of images, and the Patriarch Anastasius of Constantinople, the same who had been the tool of the departed Emperor in his attack on the images, and had so basely supplanted Germanus, now took the side of the images and for Artabasdus, and solemnly and publicly declared the Emperor Constantine to be a detestable heretic, who had even impudently denied the Godhead of Christ.

There were now two Emperors, since Artabasdus ruled in Europe, Constantine in Asia; but each intended, as far as possible, soon to supplant the other. Schlosser, in his history of the iconoclastic Emperors (S. 205), writes: "The Pope (Zacharias), however, acknowledged the protector of the images (Artabasdus), and entered into friendly intercourse with him." This is incorrect, for in truth Zacharias, soon after coming to the see, sent legates to Constantinople with a letter to the Emperor Constantine, and with the commission to deliver the customary papal letter of enthronisation, which was addressed to the Church at Constantinople, but not to the excommunicated patriarch. When the papal legates arrived in Constantinople, as we are told by the Roman Vitae Pontificum, they found the invasor and rebellis Artabasdus in possession of the imperial power, then waited until Constantine had regained the Empire, and were now by him quite friendly received, and sent back to Rome with presents. In particular, the Emperor confirmed to the Roman Church the perpetual possession of the two properties of Nymphae and Normiae,⁸⁹ all which would certainly not have been done if the Pope had taken part with the usurper. The fact that in Rome, after Artabasdus was practically master of Constantinople, the documents were dated according to the years of his reign, in noways proves that his side was taken. More correct than the judgment of Schlosser was that of Walch (l.c. Bd. x. S. 359, A. 3).

With the restoration of Constantine came the following events. After the great attack which Artabasdus, in union with his son Nicetas, made upon Constantine, in order to assail him from two sides, from the east and from the west, and to crush him, had entirely failed through the delay of Nicetas, Constantine marched across the Bosporus, blockaded Constantinople, and, on the 2nd of November 743, captured the city, weakened by terrible famine, and took a horrible revenge on his opponents, particularly on his brother-in-law, his adherents and friends.⁹⁰ The Patriarch Anastasius also was blinded, and led through the streets seated backwards upon an ass. Nevertheless Constantine replaced him, probably because he could find no more servile tool, and immediately with his assistance removed again the images which had been restored under Artabasdus. His contemporaries regarded the terrible plague which then raged, specially in Constantinople (A.D. 746), as a punishment of this outrage.⁹¹ Whether special acts of violence now took place against the friends of the images is unknown. In any case they were afterwards frightfully persecuted.

§ 336. The Mock-Synod at Constantinople, A.D. 754.

The Emperor Constantine Pogonatus now formed the plan of having the veneration of images forbidden also ecclesiastically by means of a great Ecumenical Synod, and a preparation for this was made by several Silentia (assemblies for consultation), which he caused to be held (A.D. 752) in several cities, principally in order to mislead the people and gain them over to his impiety, as Theophanes says (p. 659). About this time the Lombards under King Astolph rent off and took possession of one piece after another of the still Byzantine provinces of Italy, and very seriously threatened Rome itself. In vain Pope Stephen III. entreated that the Emperor, in accordance with his oft-given promise, would send a distinguished commander to Italy, as the need had become very great; but Copronymus, without disturbing himself, gave an evasive answer, and preferred to fight the images rather than the Lombards. Thus shamefully abandoned by their own master and protector, Pope Stephen had recourse to Pipin, King of the Franks,⁹² and, whilst with this purpose he remained in France, and anointed Pipin with his sons as Kings, the Emperor, after the death of the Patriarch Anastasius (A.D. 753), summoned the bishops of his Empire to a great Synod in the palace Hieria, which lay opposite to Constantinople on the Asiatic side of the Bosphorus, between Chrysopolis and Chalcedon, a little to the north of the latter. The vacancy of the patriarchate facilitated his plans, since the hope of succeeding to this see kept down, in the most ambitious and aspiring of the bishops, any possible thought of opposition. The number of those present amounted to 338 bishops, and the place of president was occupied by Archbishop Theodosius of Ephesus, already known to us as son of a former Emperor Apsimar, from the beginning an assistant in the iconoclastic movement (see above, sec. 332). Nicephorus (l.c. p. 74) names him alone as president of the Synod; Theophanes, on the contrary (l.c. p. 659), mentions Bishop Pastillas of Perge as second president, and adds, "The patriarchates of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem were not represented (the last three were then in the hands of the Saracens), the transactions began on February 10, and lasted until August 8 (in Hieria); on the latter date, however, the Synod assembled in S. Mary's Church in Blachernae, the northern suburb of Constantinople, and the Emperor now solemnly nominated Bishop Constantine of Sylaeum, a monk, as patriarch of Constantinople. On August 27, the heretical decree (of the Synod) was published."

We see from this that the last session or sessions of this Conciliabulum were held no longer in Hieria, but in the Blachernae of Constantinople. We have no complete Acts of this assembly, but its very verbose ὅρος (decree), together with a short introduction, is preserved among the Acts of the seventh Ecumenical Council. In its sixth section a document in six tomi was read, bearing the title, "Refutation of the patched-up, falsely so-called decree of the heap of accusers of the Christians,"⁹³ which contained both the words of the Conciliabulum itself and their complete refutation, by an anonymous writer. Bishop Gregory of NeoCaesarea read the ὅρος to the Synod, and the deacon John its refutation.⁹⁴