Lateran Councils, a general name for the eccle- siastical councils that have been convened in the Lat- eran Church at Rome, but especially five great councils held there, and regarded by the Roman Catholics as a'cumenical,viz. those of the years 1123,1139,1179,1215, and 1512-17. We have room to notice the most impor- tant only of all these councils, and that with reference to their principal enactments and historical connections.
I. The council of 649, under IVIartin I, condemned the Monothelitic doctrine, or that of one vill in the person of Christ. This view was developed as a continuation of the Monojihysite controversy. The Council of Chal- cedon, in 451, had affirmed the existence ci{ two natures in Christ in one person, against the Antiochians, the Nestorians, and Eutychians. This determination of the council did not obtain final supremacy in the Greek and Latin churches till after the time of Justinian, and the conflict with it was continued under various forms. From the Council of Chalcedon tUl that of Frankfort, in 793, the Church councils especially sought to maintain the tirofoldness of the nature of Christ asserted at Chal- cedon, with less regard to the unity, which v,as at the same time established. An early source f(»r the rise of Moiiothelitism appeared in the writings of Pseudo-Dio- nysius the Aroopagite, which, originating jirobably in the 4th century, obtained for many centuries thereafter great credit in the Church. A Neo-Platonic mysticism in these writings seeks to mediate between the prevalent Chiu^ch doctrine and Monophysitism (or the doctrine of one nature in Christ). The Areopagite is not an out- spoken Monophj-site, and yet, with him, the human in Christ is only a form of the ilivine, and there is in all
LATERAN COUNCILS
LATERAN COUNCILS
the acts of Christ but one mode of operation, the thean- dric energy (jUia ^lavcpiKt) tvipytia). This expression became a favorite one with all the Monophysite oppo- nents of the Chalcedonian decisions.
The Monothelitic controversy proper extends from 623 10 080, at which latter date the Synod of Constan- tinople gave the most precise definition of two wills in the two natures of Christ. The earlier stage of the con- troversy, extenduig to the year 638, concerns rather the question of one or two energies or modes of working in the acts of Christ. The emperor Heraclius, on occasion of his recontiuering the Eastern provinces from the Per- sians in the year 622, and there coming in contact with certain Monophysite bishops, conceived the idea of rec- onciling them to the Church by authorizing the expres- sion in reference to the acts of Christ which was used by Dionysius — the /lia BeavcpiKi) tvipyiia. Sergius, patriarch of Constantinople, being consulted, admitted the propriety of the expression as one sanctioned by the fathers, and recommended it to Cyrus, bishop of Phasis, who, being soon made bishop of jUexandria, set up a compromise for the Monophysites with the Council of Chalcedon on nine points. Sophronius, a monk of Al- exanilria, seriously objected to the course taken by Ser- gius, and, on being made bishop of Jerusalem, became so strong an opponent that Sergius called to his aid the inliuence of Honorius, bishop of Home, who expressed liimself in favor of the view rather of one will than of one operation, but advised that controversy be avoided. It is unquestionably the fact that the expressed views of Ilonorius, thougli a pojje, were subsequently con- demned in council. By occasion of the more decided opposition of Sophronius, the emperor Heraclius, under advice of Sergius, issued his edict, the EctJiesis, in the year 038, in which he forbade the use of either expres- sion, " one mode of working" or " tv.'O modes of work- ing," in a controversial way, liut especially prohibited the latter, since it is evident that Christ can have but one will, the human being subordinate to the divine. This was distinct Monothelitism. A powerful opponent ol this view was the monk IVIaximus, whose writings had a controlling influence with the Lateran Council. He asserts that for the work of redemption a complete- ness in the two natures of Christ is necessary; there must be a complete human will. The Logos, indeed, works all through the human working and willing. There is a theandric energy in his own sense. It is rather as a rpoTroc dvTtSoffeuic, or what was subse- quently called the comrmimcafio idiomatum. Maxi- mus worked with great zeal against Monothelitism in Rome and Africa, sending out thence tracts on the sub- ject into the East. Sophronius still carried on the con- troversy, as also, with him, Stephen, bisho]i of Doria, his pupil. After the death of Honorius in 638, the bishops of Kome were decidedly opposed to Monothelitism, and INIartin I, who had zealously contended against the view whUe representative of the Roman Church at Constan- tinople, became, when made pojie in 649, the chief ])illar of tlie contrary opinion. Advocates of tlie ^iew enim- ciated in the Ect/tesli of Heraclius were Theodore, bish- op of Phasan, and Pyrrhus of Constantinople. In 648 the emperor Constans H, under the influence of the pa- triarch Paul, issued his Ti/pe {rinroQ TziaTHoQ), which, though not so decidedly jVIonothelitic as the Ecthesis, condemns, under threat of the severest penalties, any further controversy upon this suliject. 'Without con- sulting the emperor, Martin I now convoked this first Lateran Council, in which he presided over about 104 bishops from Italj', Sicily, Sardinia, and Africa. The pope sought to obtain generally recognition for the council, and it was finallj' evert^where received with the five (ecumenical councils. Five sessions were held: the writings of the prominent jNIonothelitcs were examined and condemned ; pope ]\[artin explained the proper meaning of Dionysius's term " tlieandric oiteration," stating that it was designed to signify two operations of one person; the Ecthesis of Heraclius and Type cf