490 FOURTH PERIOD. A. D. 590-1049.
Par. 1620, in his Opera, III., also in Bill Max. PP. Lugd. XII.
833 ; and in GALLANDI, XIII. ; also scattered through vols. X. and
XI. of MANSI. See Migne's ed. of Anastas. in " Patrol. Lat." vols.
127-129. MAXIMUS CONFESSOR : Opera, ed. Combefis, Par. 1675, Tom. II. 1-158,
and his disputation with Pyrrhus, ib. 159 sqq. Also in ^Migne's
reprint, "Patrol. Gr." vol. 91. THEOPHANES: Chronographia, ed. Bonn. (1839), p. 274 sqq. ; ed. Migne,
in vol. 108 of his "Patrol. Graca" (1861). (II.) FRANC. COMBEFISIUS (Combefis, a learned French Dominican, d.
1679) : Historia hceresis Monothelitarum ac vindicice actorum Sexti
Synodi, in his Novum Auctuarium Patrum, II. 3 sqq. Par. 1648, fol.
1-198.
PETAVIUS : Dogm. Theol. Tom. V. 1. IX. c. 6-10. Jos. SIM. ASSEMANI, in the fourth vol. of his Bibliotheca Juris
Orientalis. Romse 1784. CH. W. F. WALCH: Ketzerhistorie, vol. IX. 1-666 (Leipzig 1780). Very
dry, but very learned. GIBBON (Ch. 47, N. Y. ed. IV. 682-686, superficial). SCHROCKH, vol.
XX. 386 sqq. NEANDER, III. 175-197 (Boston ed.), or III. 353-398
(Germ. ed.). GIESELER, I. 537-544 (Am. ed.). The respective sections in BAUR : Gesch. der Lehre v. d. Dreieinigkeit
und Menschwerdung (Tub. 1841-'43, 3 vols.), vol. II. 96-128 ; DOR-
NER: Entwicklungsgesch. der Lehre v. d. Person Christi (second ed.
1853), II. 193-305; NITZSCH: Dogmengesch. I. 325 sqq.; and
HEFELE: Conciliengeschichte (revised ed. 1877) III. 121-313. Also
W. MOLLER in Herzog2 X. 792-805. The literature on the case of Honorius see in the next section.
§ 110. The Doctrine of Two Wills in Christ.
The Monotheletic or one-will controversy is a continuation of the Christological contests of the post-Nicene age, and closely connected with the Monophysitic controversy.1
1 The name Monotheletism is derived from ju6vov, one, and i^eA^a, mil. The heresy, whether expressive of the teacher or the doctrine, always gives name to the controversy and the sect which adopts it. The champions of the hereti cal one- will doctrine are called (first by John of Damascus) M.ovo&efyrai, or MovodehijTai, Monotheletes, or Monothelites ; the orthodox two-will doctrine is called Dyotheletism (from &vo deTiT/para), and its advocates AwtfeAr/ra*, Dyothelites. The corresponding doctrines as to one nature or two natures of the Redeemer are termed Monophysitism and Dyophyaitism.
\ 110. THE DOCTK1NE OF TWO WILLS IN CHRIST. 491
This question had not been decided by the ancient fathers and councils, and passages from their writings were quoted by both parties. But in the inevitable logic of theological development it had to be agitated sooner or later, and brought to a conciliar termination.
The controversy had a metaphysical and a practical aspect.
The metaphysical and psychological aspect was the relation of will to nature and to person. Monotheletism regards the will as an attribute of person, Dyothelctism as an attribute of nature. It is possible to conceive of an abstract nature without a will ; it is difficult to conceive of a rational human nature without impulse and will; it is impossible to conceive of a human person without a will. Reason and will go together, and constitute the essence of personality. Two wills cannot coexist in an ordinary human being. But as the personality of Christ is complex or divine-human, it may be conceived of as including two con sciousnesses and two wills. The Chalcedonian Christology at all events consistently requires two wills as the necessary com plement of two rational natures ; in other words, Dyotheletism is inseparable from Dyophysitism, while Monotheletism is equally inseparable from Monophysitism, although it acknowl edged the Dyophysitism of Chalcedon. The orthodox doctrine saved the integrity and completeness of Christ's humanity by asserting his human will.1
The practical aspect of the controversy is connected with the nature of the Redeemer and of redemption, and was most prominent with the leaders. The advocates of Monotheletism
1 This benefit, however, wns lost hy the idea of the impersonal >'h/ (n-nftj/pn^fctsia} of the human nature of Christ, taught by John of Damascus in his standard exposition of the orthodox Christology. His object was to exclude the idea of a double personality. But it is impossible to separate reason and will from personality, or to assert the impersonality of Christ's humanity without run ning into docetism. The most which can be admitted is the Enhypostasia., i. e. the incorporation or inclusion of the human nature of Jesus in the one divine personality of the Logos. The church has never officially committed itself to the doctrine of the impersonality.