MONOTHELITES, men'eth-el-sits.
- Rise under Sergiw (§ 1).
- Union of Monophyaitee and Monothelites (§ 2).
- The Statement of Sophronius; the Ekthesis (§ 3).
- Rising Opposition to the Doctrine (§ 4).
- The Trullan Councils (§ 5).
- Basle in Patriotic Dogmatics (§ 6).
- Relation to New-Testament Statements (§ 7).
The Monothelites owe their origin to an attempt
to bridge over the difference between the orthodox
position based on the decrees of the Council of
Chalcedon and the Monophysite principles (see
Monophysites),
which had caused a z. Rise schism in the Eastern Church. The
under impulse to this reconciliation was two
Sergius. fold. During the age of Justinian the
development of theology had tended
toward the Christology of Cyril to whom the
Monophysites had always appealed. The Emperor
Heraclius (610-641) had
political reasons for
encouraging the movement. The Asiatic provinces
of the empire were being invaded both by the
Persians and the Arabs, and it was necessary to
consolidate the population for defense. The emperor
was powerfully supported by the Patriarch Sergius
(q.v.), whose sympathies were with the program
of union from the first. It was theological
discussion in Alexandria that first brought
to the front
the terms " one energy " and " one will " or at
least "one state of will" as descriptive of Monophysite views. This teaching had been opposed
by the
Patriarch Eulogius (q.v.), but Sergius was
not prevented by this from
establishing relations
with the Alexandrian adherents of "one energy"
and "one will." He requested a Monophysite
leader, Georgius Arsas, to supply him with the
proofs to which he appealed for the teaching of
"one will." His conciliatory letter excited the dis
pleasure of the
Patriarch Johannes Eleemon (q.v.),
who was prevented only by the capture of Alex
andria by the Persians from taking
steps to pro
test against Sergius' scheme (Maximus Confessor,
in
MPG, xci. 333). During the next few years
Sergius won over the emperor to his plan of union
based on the teaching of " one energy'; more than
once during his residence in the East, Heraclius
attempted to secure prominent bishops as adher
ents for the new teaching. Later, the Metropolitan
Cyrus of Phasis is found corresponding with Ser
gius and asking for further information on this sub
ject (Mansi,
Concilid, xii.
525 sqq., 560-661). He
was referred by the patriarch to the letter of Pope
Leo I. as bearing witness to the fact that the teaching
of two "energies" had not formed a part of
orthodox dogma. He also cited a letter not now
extant from the Patriarch Mennas of Constanti
nople to Pope Vigilius, which contained the expres
sion " one will of Christ " and " one life-making
energy." He used the same arguments with several
other bishops to win them over to his plan.
For some years there is obscurity about the suc
cess of the movement. But in 631, Cyrus was ap
pointed patriarch of Alexandria under the distinct
condition that he would work for re
s. Union union with the Monophysites. The
of Mon- conditions were carried out, for on
ophysites June 3, 633, the principles of union
and Mon- were formulated on the basis that the
othelites. one Lord Jesus Christ acts in a human
and divine way with one human-di
vine rgy (Mansi, Concilia, xi. 564 sqq.). The
teach of Cyril was appealed to concerning the
one incarnate nature; the recognized theopaschite
principles of the Church were especially stressed.
The result was that Cyrus reported the adherence
of thousands of Monophysites. About the same
time the Armenians united with the orthodox
Church at a synod at Karim at which the emperor
was present. In 634 Heraclius was arranging a
union with the Monophysite patriarch of Antioch,
Athanasius, whom he agreed to appoint orthodox
patriarch on condition that he accepted the Coun
cil of Chalcedon with the Monothelite interpretation
(Vita Maximi,
MPG, xc. 76-77). At this point
a new difficulty arose through the interference of
the monk
Sophronius (q.v.), who came from Pales
tine to Egypt to protest against the terms of union
with the Monophysites (Mansi, xi. 532-533, x. 690
691)- The Patriarch Cyrus defended his conciliatory
policy, appealing in its defense to historic precedents. Sophronius, still discontented, proceeded
to Constantinople and attempted to induce Sergius
to remove the expression "one energy" from the
act of union. Sergius refused, but he directed
Cyrus not to allow any dispute over the one or
two energies, but to insist on the fact that the one
and same incarnate Logos was the source of each
divine and human action. Especially to be avoided
was the teaching of two wills. In 634 the patriarch of Constantinople was directed to furnish
to the emperor passages from the writing of Mennas
to prove the position as to the single energy. Sergius
advised that speculation on this subject be dropped.
He placed the situation before Pope Honorius, who,
in a writing now extant only in a Greek translation,
agreed with the patriarch's position, accused Sophronius of bringing up idle questions, and expressed
the opinion that the controversy over one or two
energies should be abandoned or left.to logicians;
the use of either expression, he declared, savored
either of Nestorianism or Eutychianism. On one
point he was perfectly definite: " We confess one
will of the Lord Jesus Christ." " There can be no
question," he said, " of a second different or opposing will." Even passages like John . v. 30 and
Matt. xxvi. 39,
where Christ seems to set his own
and the divine will in contrast, do not really prove
a different will but refer only to the " economy )y
of the assumed manhood.
In these places, he
argues, Christ is speaking as our example, that we
may follow his footsteps and that each may choose
not his own will but the will of God.
In the mean time Sophronius had been elevated
to the patriarchal see of Jerusalem. He took occasion immediately to issue the so-called Synodikon
(MPG, lxxgvii. 3, cots. 3148-3200),
in which he
laid down the following principles: that from the
two natures, divine and human, two
3. The energies proceed; the human oondiStatementtions of the life of the Son of God were
of Sophro- real. Room was given to human nanius; theture to do and to
suffer what is pecuEkthesis. liar to human nature. This was voluntary, but the process took place after
a natural way. All of the words and works of both
natures are to be referred to the one person
of the God-man, but the unity is not a simple
one. Sophronius applies to it the expression of
Dionysius " a new and divine-human energy "; he
makes no mention of two wills. He attempted to
get Honorius' support against the Monothelites.
The pope tried to quiet his difficulties by appealing
to the Scriptures where nothing is said about one
or two energies, stating that both natures were
naturally united in the one Christ (Mansi, xi. 579-581). Sophronius agreed to reject the expression
"two energies" and Cyrus of Alexandria consented
to give up speaking of "one energy." It is on this
basis that Sergius in the year 636 prepared the socalled Ekthesis (Mansi, Concilia, x.
991-998), which
was signed by the emperor in 638. This stated that
neither one nor two energies are to be spoken of.
Although there was precedent for the use of "one
energy" in the writings of the Fathers, the term
might be considered to be a denial of the two natures; "two energies" was not supported by authority and might be interpreted as establishing
two contradictory wills. There is one will in Christ;
at no point of time does his body, endowed with
reason and soul, fulfil separately its own natural
motion contrary to the impulse of the divine Logos
united hypostatically with it, but only at what
time and in what way and in what degree the Logos
himself wills it. This amounted to a practical abandonment
of monergism, but was an emphatic statement of Monothelitism.
