MONOTHELITES
513
MONRO
they slipped away by mere supposition." See Com- befis, Hist. hcer. Monothelit. (Paris, 1G48) ; Hagenbach, Hist, of Doctrines, i, 229, 241, 282 ; Schaff, Church Hist. iii, 752, 782 ; Neander, Church Hist, iii, 186 sq. ; Giese- ler, Church Hist. c. i, § 128 ; Baur, Dogmengesch. 1, 211 ; . and his Trinitdtslehre, vol. ii ; Ebrard, Kirchen- u. Dog- ' mengesch. i, 279 sq. ; Trench, Hidsean Lect. p. 200 ; Qregory, Hist, of the Chnst. Church, i, 379 ; Dorner, Doct. of the Person of Christ, vol. ii, pt. i ; Neale, Hist. East. Church (patriarchate of Alexandria), ii, 60 sq., 76 sq. ; Stanley, East. Church, p. 94, 110 ; Knapp, Chris- tian Theology, p. 366 ; Jlilman, Hist, of Latin Christi- anity, ii, 266 sq. ; Walch, Ketzerhistorie, ix, 3-666 ; Gfrorer, Kirchengesch. vol. iii, pt. i, p. 36 sq. ; Bollin- ger, Kirchengesch. i, 170 sq. ; Schroclvh, Kirchengesch. XX, 386 sq. ; Westminster Kev. April, 1871, p. 247. See
MONOPHYSITES. (J. H.W.)
Monothelite.s {Movo^tXi'irai), an ancient heret- ical sect which is first spoken of in the writings of St. John of Damascus, ia the middle of the 8th cen- tury, but which may be traced back to Severus, the de- posed patriarch of Antioch, who flourished in the first half of the 7th centur3^ He founded Monophysitisni (q. v.). In some fragments of his writings which have come down to us, Severus remarks that Christ's words, "Not my will, but thine, be done" (Luke xxii, 42), do not prove the existence of a will distinct from the divine will, nor that there was any struggle or re- sistance on the part of the Saviour's soul, as if he had a human fear of death or a human unwillingness to die ; but that the words are so set down by way of ac- commodation, and for Christian instruction (Mai, Coll. Nov. vii, 288). The distinct formulation of monothe- lism is attributed, however, to Theodore, bishop of Cara, in Arabia. Although not a INIonophysite, The- odore taught that all the acts of Christ proceeded from one principle, originating in the Word, and oper- ating through the human soul and bod}\ Hence, though the Logos and the manhood were distinct nat- ures, they were both acted upon by one and the same ivipyiia ; and there being one activity, there was one will, by which it was moved, that will being divine. (AiToO yap to ^iXi]ua 'iv tan, Kai tovto BtiKuv ; Man- si, Condi, xi, 568.) Athanasius, the Monophj'site pa- triarch of Antioch, was a zealous convert to the opin- ion of Theodore, and laid it before the emperor Herac- lius as offering a basis for such a compromise between his sect and the Church as might enable them to re- unite in one communion. The emperor most enthu- siastically espoused the plan, and thus became the pro- moter of the monothelite dogma, and really the founder of the Monothelites. This emperor, Heraclius I, was born about A.D. 575, and was a son of Heraclius, gov- ernor of Africa. By the violent death of the tyrant Phocas in 610, Heraclius, who had served in the army with credit, obtained the imperial power, and soon af- terwards married Eudoxia. In the early part of his reign the empire was ravaged by pestilence and the barbarian armies of Chosroes, king of Persia. In 622 he led an army against Persia, defeated Chosroes at Tauris, and fought several successful campaigns, in ■which he displayed great military talents and personal courage. In the course of his campaigns against Per- sia he passed through Armenia and Syria, and came to a peaceful understanding with the Monophysite leaders of the Severians and the Jacobites, who at this time had become a powerful and dangerous political party. Hoping to reconcile them, he, in connection with Sergius, patriarch of Constantinople, proposed to them the curious doctrine of monothelism, which sat- isfied the Monophysites, without apparently disturbing the decision of the Council of Chalcedon. Having made peace with Persia in 628, he returned to Con- stantinople, and abandoned himself to inglorious ease, sensual vices, and the subtleties of monothelism, of which he was the chief supporter, ignoring the victori- ous progress of the Mussulman arms, until the verv YI.-K K
subversion of his empire was threatened. In 639, finally, he made an energetic attempt to establish mo- nothelism bj' issuing his "EKBrjaig, with Avhat result may be seen in the article Monothelism. Heraclius died in 641. His character is a puzzle, and presents surprising contradictions. Protected and nurtured by imperial approbation, the Monothelites became a very considerable sect. The decisions of the sixth Council of Constantinople determined that their opinions were not consistent with the purity of the Christian faith, and monothelism was formally condemned ; and though its advocates were sometimes the objects of royal favor, yet they were in general condemned and depressed. In 711, when Philippicus Bardanes was Greek em- peror, they became once more influential and powerful. He convened a new council at Constantinople, which reversed the decisions of the sixth council, and adopt- ed monothelism as an orthodox doctrine. Some few bishops resisted, but were driven from the council. Two years later Anastasius II reinstituted dj'othelism, and the same bishops who had two j-ears before vetoed dyothelism now changed their mind, and adopted it as the only true exposition of faith! Thus persecuted^ the Monothelites retired to the neighborhood of Mount Lebanon. After the Crusades (1291), and especially after 1596, they began to gradually go over to the Ro- man Church, although retaining the communion under both kinds, their Sj-riac missal, the marriage of priests, and their traditional fast-days, with some saints of their own, especially St. Maron. See Maronites. The Monothelites have often been bitterly persecuted, but our concern for the cruelties they suffered cannot but be lessened by the consideration of the persecutions which in the day of their power they were tempted to commit against their orthodox brethren. See, besides the references in the article Monothelism, Blunt, Diet, of Heresies and Sects, s. v. ; Schaff, Church Hist. iii, 752 sq. ; Gregorj', Hist, of the Christ. Church, i, 397 ; 'Mosheim, Ecclesiastical History, ii, 36; Robinson, Pal- estine, iii, 744; Walch, Geschichte der Ketzereien, ix, 475 ; Baumgarten, Geschichte der Religionspartheien, p. 617.