I. MONOTHELITISM AND THE ChURCH. a)

In order to restore the unity of faith which had been disturbed by the Monophysitic controver- sies, Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople (610- 638, in the days of Mohammedan ascendancy), with Bishops Theodore of Pharan and Cyrus of Phasis,^ pitched upon the formula: Christ has "one will and one operation." ^ This phrase, though not meant to deny the ''duality of na- tures" defined by the Council of Chalcedon, in matter of fact signalized a revival of Mono- physitism and was promptly denounced by the Palestinian monk Sophronius, who became Bishop of Jerusalem in 634. The adherents of the new doctrine were called Monothelites or Monergetae.^
88 Cfr. Rusticus Diaconus, Contra surdity of Monophysitism cfr. St.
Acephalos: " Anima compatitur Thomas, S. TheoL, 3a, qu. 2, art. i.
corpori, Deus autem Verbum nequa- 1 Cyrus became Patriarch of Alex-
quam." andria in 630.
84 Cfr. St. Bernard, De Consider., 2 Jy diX-qfia Kal fiLa ivipyeia.
V, 9. On the philosophical ab- 8 For a good sketch of the rise
MONOTHELITISM
555
Owing to the imprudent and dilatory attitude of Pope Honorius, who had been deceived by a cleverly worded letter addressed to him by Sergius, the new heresy soon assumed formidable proportions in the Orient. Hono- rius overemphasized the moral unity of the two wills (= absence of contradiction) as against their physical duality.^ But he was not at heart a IVIonothelite here- tic ; ^ nor did he issue an ex-cathedra decision on the subject.
b) Among the first to condemn Monothelitism as a revival of the Monophysite heresy was, as we have already noted, St. Sophronius, Pa-
and spread of the Monothelite heresy see T. Gilmartin, Manual of Church History, Vol. I, 3rd ed., PP- 395 sqq., Dublin 1909.
4 Cfr. Wilhelm-Scannell, Manual of Catholic Theology, Vol. II, p. 83.
5 Funk gives the following con- siderations to show that Honorius was not at heart a Monothelite. (i) Though in his arguments he constantly, like Sergius, starts with the Hypostatic Union as his prem- ise, yet he never goes as far as the latter, never inferring from this premise the oneness of will or en- ergy. (2) The expression una vo- luntas, which he once uses with approval, is, as the context shows, not to be taken physically, but only morally — it does not mean that Christ has only one will-faculty, but that the will of His untainted hu- man nature agrees (and in this sense is one) with His divine will; it should therefore be taken as a testimony to Honorius' belief in a twofold will. Neither was he at all inclined to accept the doctrine of a single energy, as we may see from
the fragments which remain of his second epistle to Sergius. After having therein condemned as novel, and likely to cause dissent, the doctrines of a single or of a double will, he makes his own the words of the Epistula Dogmatica of Lea I, and declares that in Christ's per- son the two natures work without division and without confusion, each in its proper sphere. (Funk- Cappadelta, A Manual of Church History, Vol. I, pp. 165 sq., London 1910). The conduct of Honorius gave rise to many controversies. Cfr. Dom J. Chapman, The Condem- nation of Pope Honorius, reprinted from the Dublin Review, London 1907, and the same writer's article, with bibliography, in Vol. VII of the Catholic Encyclopedia, s. v. " Honorius I." Cfr. also Schwane, Dogmengeschichte der patristischen Zeit, 2nd ed., §48, Freiburg 1895; Grisar in the Kirchenlexikon, Vol. VI, 2nd ed., col. 230 sqq.; L. Jans- sens, De Deo-Homine, Vol. I, pp. 691 8qq.
11
156 UNITY IN DUALITY
triarch of Jerusalem. Another prominent de- fender of the orthodox faith against this heresy was St. Maximus Confessor.^ Officially the Catholic truth was first defined by Martin the First in a council held at the Lateran in 649, at which the Ecthesis, a Monothelite profession of faith issued by the Emperor Heraclius (638), together with the Typus, a similar edict promul- gated by his grandson Constantius II (648), were solemnly condemned.'^ Pope Agatho (A. D. 680) definitively disposed of the matter by his "Epistle to the Emperors" (Constantine Pogo- natus and his brothers Heraclius and Tiberius), which was read at the Sixth Ecumenical Coun- cil ^ of Constantinople (A. D. 680-681) and hailed by the assembled Fathers as the decision of St. Peter. This Council drew up a new profes- sion of faith, in which the Creed of Chalcedon was supplemented by the following phrase: "We confess, according to the teaching of the holy Fathers [that there are in Christ] two nat- ural wills® and two natural operations, without division, without change, without separation, without confusion." ^^
6 Died about 662; his name ranks 8 Sometimes called the Trullan
high in the Patristic annals of the Council from the domed roof of
seventh century. For an account the hall in which it was held,
of his life and writings see Barden- 0 5uo vffiKa.i OeXiaeis ■l^roi
hewer-Shahan, Patrology, pp. 576 deKrjfiara,
sqq. 10 Kal dvo (l)VfftKd.s ivepyelas
t Cfr. Denzinger-Bannwart, En- dStatpirus, arpeirrus, dfieplarus,
chiridion, n. 263 sqq. dffu'yx'^''''*'^. "^^^ Emperor Philip-
TWO WILLS IN CHRIST 157
TE Teaching of Revelation. — The ex- ' ;' two wills and two operations in Jesus -^ clearly taught by Sacred Scripture and the I 'at hers.
'\j The Scriptural argument was first exhaus- tively developed by Pope Agatho in his Epistula Dogmatica ad Imperatores. He quotes these texts among others : Matth. XXVI, 39 : "Pater mi, . . . non sicut ego volo, sed sicut tu — My Father, . . . not as I will, but as thou wilt." Luke XXII, 42: "Non mea voluntas, sed tua Hat — Xot my will, but thine be done." The opposition here expressed between the will of Christ and that of His Heavenly Father can not refer to the divine will of our Saviour, which is numerically one and really identical with the will of the Father. Consequently it must have reference to His human will. The same relation is emphasized in John V, 30: "Non qiiaero volmitatem meam, sed voluntatem eiiis qui misit me — I seek not my own will, but the will of
picus Bardanes (711-713) again until, beginning in the twelfth cen-
brought Monothelitism to the fore, tury, at the time of the Crusades,
but his attempt to reintroduce the they, too, were gradually united to
heresy came to an end with his the Western Church. The opinion
fall. After this Monothelitism sur- which has found favor among them
vived only among the Christians of of recent years, that, as a whole.
Mount Lebanon (called Maronites they never professed Monothelitism,
from John Maron [ -|- 701], one of is not historically defensible, accord-
their patriarchs, who was civil as ing to Funk iA Manual of Church
well as ecclesiastical chief of his History, tr. by Cappadelta, Vol. I,
people and successfully defended p. 165, London 1910). their liberty against the Saracens),
158 UNITY IN DUALITY
him that sent me." Another argument for the existence of two wills in Christ is derived by Pope Agatho from those Scriptural passages which accentuate our Lord's obedience to His Heavenly Father/^ None but a human will, he argued, can exercise the virtue of obedience towards God.
b) Agatho was able to quote abundant Patris- tic testimony in favor of the doctrine of the two wills and two operations.
a) Thus St. Cyril of Jerusalem draws a sharp dis- tinction both between Godhead and manhood, and be- tween divine and human operation. " Christ was double," he says ; " man according to that which was visible, and God according to that which was nowise seen ; as man He truly ate as we eat, and as God He fed five thousand people with five loaves of bread ; as man He really died, and as God He raised Lazarus from the dead ; as man He truly slept in the boat, and as God He walked upon the sea." ^^ In the West, Pope Leo the Great, in his Epistula Dogmatica ad Flazianiim, con- demned Monophysitism, and at the same time, as it were in advance, cut the ground from under Monotlieli- tism : " Sicut enim Deus non mutatiir miseratione, ita homo non consumitur dignitate. Agit enim utraque forma cum alterius communione, quod proprium est; Verho sciL operante quod Verhi est, et came exequente quod carnis est." ^*
11 Cfr. John XIV, 31: "Sicut — Becoming obedient unto death."
mandatum dedit mihi Pater, sic facio 12 Catech., 4.
— As the Father hath given me 13 Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiri-
commandment, so do I." Phil. II. 8: diott, n. 144. " Foetus obediens usque ad mortem
TWO WILLS IX CHRIST 159
/S) Besides recording their belief in the doc- trine of the two wills as part and parcel of the revealed deposit, the Fathers also demonstrated its conformity with right reason and supported it by philosophical arguments.
In the first place they appeal to the metaphysical axiom that, since nature is the principle of operation/* a nature cannot be separated from the operation peculiar to it " No nature is without operation," says Damascene/' And Cyril : " Beings whose operation and power ^' are identical, must be of the same species." ^"
In the second place the Fathers point to the episte- mological principle that the intellect apprehends the es- sence of things through their sensible manifestations. In regard to nature and its operations, we first apprehend the operations and from these conclude to the underlying essence.^^ We need only apply this principle to tlie mat- ter under consideration to see that Monothelitism is purely a revival of ^lonophysitism. As Pope Agatho puts it, " It is impossible to conceive a nature which does not exercise the operation proper to itself." ^"
14 Natura est principium opera- temporalis an aeterna dicenda est, tionis. divina an humana, . . . eadem quae
15 De Fide Orth., HI, 13. est Patris an alia praeterquam Pa-
18 iyepysia Kal Svpafiii, trisT Si una est eademque [ope- 17 Thesaur. Assert., 32. ratio'i, una est divinitatis et humani- 18 " As we perceive the nature talis Christi communis, quod ab-
of a thing in no other way than by surdum est did. . . . Sin autem
its operations," says St. Sophronius, (quod Veritas continei), dum hu-
" a difference of essence always mana quaedam operatus est Christus,
manifests itself by a difference in ad solam eius ut Filii personam
operation." (£p. Syn. ad Ser- redigitur. quae non eadem est quae
*"""•)• et Patris, secundum aliud profecto
19 Cfr. Mansi. Condi., XI, 271. et aliud operatus est Christus, ut The Pope demonstrates the truth secundum divinitatem, quae fadt of this proposition by a dilemma: Pater, eadem et Filius faciat; simi- "Si una est operatic, dicant, si liter secundum humanitatem. quae
i6a UNITY IN DUALITY
Another axiom adduced by the Fathers against Mono- thelitism is this : " Num^rus voluntatum non sequitur numerum personarum, sed naturarum." Thus Pope Agatho, quoting the words of St. Maximus : " Dum tres personae in s. Trinitate dicuntur, necesse est ut et tres voluntates personales et tres personales operationes dicantur, quod absurdum est. . . . Sin autem, quod fidei christianae Veritas continet, naturalis voluntas, uhi una natura dicitur Trinitatis, consequenter et una naturalis voluntas et una naturalis operatio intelligenda est. Ubi vero in una persona Christi duos naturas, i. e. divinam et humanam coniltemur, sicut duas unius et eiusdem naturas, ita et duas naturales voluntates duasque operationes eius regulariter ^° confitemur." ^^ That is to say : Operation follows nature, not person, and hence it is not necessary to assume as many persons as there are operations, and vice versa.
c) Two wills would not, as Sergius tried to persuade Pope Honorius, be necessarily opposed to each other. If "duality" ^^ were synonymous with "contrariety," ^^ Christ could have but one will. Yet the expressions Sergius uses are am- biguous, and may be taken to imply merely that in Christ the human will always remained subject to, and cooperated with the divine. Therefore the Sixth General Council defined: "Dims natu- rales voluntates non contrarias, ahsit, iuxta quod impii asseruerunt haeretici, sed sequentem eius humanam voluntatem ct non resistentem vel re-
sunt hominis propria, idem ipse 21 Mansi, Concil., XI, 213.
opcrabaiur ut homo" (/. c). 22 Dualitas.
20 KavoviKus. 28 Contrarietas.
CHRIST'S THEANDRIC OPERATION i6i
luctanteni, sed potius et subiectam divinae eius at que omnipotenti voluntati."
Duothelitism {i. e., the doctrine that there are two wills in Christ) is not incompatible with the philosophical principle that actions belong to their respective supposita ("actiones sunt supposi- torum"). For, although two wills are oper- ative in Christ, both belong to one and the same person, namely, the Divine Logos, who as prin- cipiiun quod is possessed of a double principium quo, by means of which He exercises two spe- cifically different kinds of operation. Hence the theological axiom : "Duae operationes, sed unus operans." ^*
3. The So-called Theandric Operation of Christ. — The familiar phrase "theandric opera- tion" (OiavSpiKTj cve'pycia^ operatw deiviriUs) first oc- curs in the writings of the Pseudo-Dionysius.^^
When the Severians, who were moderate Monophysites, at a religious conference held in Constantinople, A. D. 531 or 533, appealed in favor of their doctrine to the writings of Dionysius the Areopagite, the Catholic representative,. Hypatius of Ephesus, publicly rejected these writings as spurious.*^ In spite of this protest, however, the works of the Pseudo-Areopagite, owing particularly to St.
24 The canon of the Vlth Ecu- 26 Mansi, Condi., VIII, 821.
menical Council cited above can be The renewal of this protest, many
found in Mansi, /. c. On the doc- centuries later, is called " one of
trine of Duothelitism see J. H. New- the first manifestations of the newly
man. Select Treatises of St. Athana- awakened spirit of criticism " by Dr.
sius, Vol. II, pp. 331 sqq. Bardenhewer. (Pafro/ogji, translated
25£/.. ad Cat., IV. by Shahan, p. 538.)
i62 UNITY IN DUALITY
Maximus Confessor, who wrote commentaries on them and defended them against the charge of Monophysitism, gradually obtained esteem even among Catholics and ex- ercised a far-reaching influence on theological science.^^ The phrase " theandric operation " became current chiefly in consequence of a canon adopted by the Lateran Coun- cil held under Martin I, in 649.-^
a) For a better understanding of the term "theandric operation" it will be useful to consult the commentary on the writings of the' Pseudo- Areopagite by St. Maximus Confessor, who con- jointly with St. Sophronius was the chief cham- pion of Catholic orthodoxy against Monotheli- tism. "Christ acted solely as God," he explains, "when, though absent, he cured the ruler's son; He acted solely as man, though He was God, when He ate and was troubled ; He acted both as God and as man when He miraculously gave sight to the man born blind by spreading clay upon his eyes, when He cured by mere contact the woman who was troubled with an issue of blood — and these [last-mentioned] operations are properly called theandric." ^"
Accordingly we must distinguish in Christ
27 Cfr. Bardenhewer-Shahan, Pa- sanctos Patrcs, hoc est divinam et trology, p. 537 sq. humanam, aut ipsam dcivirilis . . .
28 Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiri- novam vocabuli dictionem unius esse dion, n. 268: "Si qtiis secundum designativam, scd non utriusque scclerosos hacreticos deivirilem ope- mirificae ct gloriosae unitionis de- rationem, quod Graeci dicunt monstrativam, condcmnatus sit." OfavdpiKTjPt unam opcrationem in- 20 OeavdpiKal- Maximus Confes- sipienter suscipit, non autem du- sot. In Ep. IV Dionys. Areop. plicem esse confitetur secundum
CHRIST'S THEAXDRIC OPERATION 163
three different and distinct operations: (i) purely divine/*^ such as, for instance, the omnipo- tent fiat which He pronounced on the son of the ruler; (2) purely human,*^ such as eating and sorrowing; and (3) mixed,^^ partly divine and partly human, such as, e. g., the cure, by physical contact, of the man born blind and the woman troubled with an issue of blood. Christ's purely divine operations by their very nature are not the- andric, since He performs them in His capacity as Second Person of the Divine Trinity conjointly with the Father and the Holy Ghost. Only those acts of our Lord can be called theandric which He performs partly as God and partly as man, or merely as man.^^
b) In its strict and proper sense the term "theandric" is applied to those divine operations only which are wrought with the cooperation of our Lord's human nature, such as, for example, the raising of Lazarus to life by means of the cry: ''Lazarus, come forth I"^"* But it would be heretical to conceive this "mixed" or "thean- dric" operation of the Godman monergetically as a compound neither divine nor human. Christ's divine energia proceeds solely from His divine nature, His human energia solely from
30 ivepyeia Oeoirpeirfii. 33 Cfr. J. H. Newman, Select
31 ivepyeia avdpwTtoirpeTnjt, Treatises of St. Athanasius, Vol. II,
32 ivepyeia OeavbpiKrt icot' e^o- PP- 4i2 sqq. Xfiv- 34 John XI, 43.
i64 UNITY IN DUALITY
His human nature, though both belong to the Person of the Logos hypostatically and precisely in the same manner as the two natures them- selves.^^
St. John of Damascus says : " Non divisas opera- tiones dicimus aut divisim operantes, sed unite utrmnque cum alterius communione, quae propria ipsi sunt, operan- tem." ^° As it is the Person of the Logos alone who operates as principium quod through the Divine Nature, common to all Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity as principium quo, none other than the Son of God or Logos can be regarded as the " hegemonic principle " {to -^efioviKov) of this "mixed" operation.^^
c) It would, however, be a mistake to except such purely human acts and emotions as hunger, thirst, exhaustion, pain, suffering, and death, from the theandric operation of the Godman and to re- strict the latter term solely to those "mixed" or composite acts in the performance of which His Godhead and manhood cooperated. In a wider sense our Saviour's purely human actions and emotions, too, are truly theandric.
SB Cfr. Newman, /. c. tern in me manens facit opera sua;
86 De Fide Orthod., Ill, 19. ut sine Spiritu S., quum similiter
37 St. Augustine aptly exemplifies opus sit Filii, quod eiiciebat dae-
this truth as follows: " Quis neget, monia. Illius quippe carnis ad
non Patrem, non Spiritum Sane- solum Filium pertinentis lingua
turn, sed Filium ambulasse super crat, qua imperabatur daemonibus
aquas? Solius enitn Filii caro est, ut exirent et tamen dicit : In Spi-
cuius carnis illi pedes aquis impositi rilu S. eiicio daemonia." Contr.
et per aquas ducti sunt. Absit Serm. Arianor., c. 15. Cfr. Peta-
autem, ut hoc sine Fatre fecisse vius, De Incarn., VHI, 10; Sten-
credatur, quum de suis operationi- trup, Christologia, thes. 51. bus universaliter dicat: Pater au-
CHRIST'S THEANDRIC OPERATION 165
For it is the Godman who performs them, not a mere man. By virtue of the Hypostatic Union the purely human actions and affections of the Godman are at the same time and in a true sense actions and affections of the Divine Logos, who, as the " hegemonic principle," dominates and controls the purely human element and through the mediation of His manhood as principium quo performs human deeds and suffers human affections quite as truly as He performs divine deeds through His God- head. Thus and thus only was it possible for the Son of God to redeem the human race by His passion and death. The limitation implied in the last sentence will explain why we must conceive this special divine co-operation as connected with His human actions and affections only in so far as they bear an intrinsic relation to the atonement. For, as Rusticus Diaconus observes : " Dens Verhum et in humanitate existens in coelo ubique consuetas operationes implevit, licet quasdam et inaestimahiles etiatn per corpus. Quid enim differehat ad operationes eius ab initio, utrum non haberet an haberet humanitatem, dum per humanita- tem non pliieret, non tonaret, non astra tnoveret et si, licet simpliciter dicere, non amplius per earn sit operatiis nisi sola, quae noviter propter nostram sunt facta salva- tionem, pro qua et inhumanatus est" '* It is in this same sense that the Sixth Ecumenical Council defines : '" " iuxta quam rationem et duas naturales voluntates et operationes confitemur, ad salutem humani generis *° con- venienter in eo concurrentes."
38 Contr. Aceph. (Migne, P. L., 40 irphs awrijplav rov avOpwwLvov LXVII, 1 191). 'fhnvt.
39 Denzinger-Bannwart, Enchiri- dion, n. 291.