496 FOURTH PERIOD. A. D. 590-1049.
who happened to be in Alexandria at that time, protested against the compromise-formula as a cunning device of the Monophysites. When he became patriarch of Jerusalem (in 633 or 634), he openly confessed, in a synodical letter to the patriarchs, the doctrine of Dyotheletism as a necessary part of the Chalcedonian Christology. It is one of the most important documents in this controversy.1
A few years afterwards, the Saracens besieged and conquered Jerusalem (637) ; Sophronius died and was succeeded by a Monotheletic bishop.
In the year 638 the Emperor issued, as an answer to the manifesto of Sophronius, an edict drawn up by Sergius, under the title Exposition of the Faith (ex&efftc rijc Ttlffrswc), which commanded silence on the subject in dispute, but pretty clearly decided in favor of Monotheletism. It first professes the ortho dox doctrine of the Trinity and incarnation in the Chalcedonian sense, and then forbids the use of the terms "one" or "two energies" (/2ia or duo ivepYecac), since both are heretically inter preted, and asserts one will (&£fa]fia) in Christ.2
2. Two synods of Constantinople (638 and 639) adopted the Ekthesis. But in the remote provinces it met with powerful resistance. Maximus Confessor became the champion of Dyo theletism in the Orient and North Africa, and Pope Martinus I. in the West. They thoroughly understood the controversy, and had the courage of martyrs for their conviction.
Maximus was born about 580 of a distinguished family in Constantinople, and was for some time private secretary of the Emperor Heraclius, but left this post of honor and influence in 630, and entered a convent in Chrysopolis (now Scutari). He was a profound thinker and able debater. When the Monothe letic heresy spread, he concluded to proceed to Rome, and pass ing through Africa he held there, in the presence of the imperial
1 It is preserved in the acts of the sixth oecumenical council. See Mansi, XV. 461-508; and Hefele, III. 159-166.
2 Mansi, X. 991 sq.; Hefele, III. 179 sq.
I 111. MONOTHELETISM AND DYOTIIELETISM. 497
governor and many bishops, a remarkable disputation with Pyrrhus, who had succeeded Sergius in the see of Constantino ple, but was deposed and expelled for political reasons. This disputation took place in July, 645, but we do not know in what city of Africa. It sounded all the depths of the contro versy, and ended with the temporary conversion of Pyrrhus to Dyotheletism.1
About the same time, several North-African synods declared in favor of the Dyotheletic doctrine.
In the year 648 the Emperor Constans II. (642-668) tried in vain to restore peace by means of a new edict called Typos or Type, which commanded silence on the subject under dispute without giving the preference to either view.2 It set aside the Ekthesis, and declared in favor of neutrality. The aim of both edicts was to arrest the controversy and to prevent a christological development beyond the fourth and fifth oecumenical coun cils. But the Type was more consistent in forbidding all con troversy not only about one energy (jj.ia Ive^-feea), but also about one will (sv ftetypa). Transgressors of the Type were threat ened with deposition ; if clergymen, with excommunication ; if monks, with the loss of dignity and place, of military or civil officers.
3. An irrepressible conflict cannot be silenced by imperial decrees. Pope Martin I., formerly Apocrisiarios of the papal see at Constantinople, and distinguished for virtue, knowledge and personal beauty, soon after his election (July 5th, 649),
1 The disputation is printed in the Opera of Maximns, ed. Combefis, II. 159 sqq., and Migne, I. 287 sqq. Compare Walch, IX. 203 sqq., and Hefele, III. 190-204. The report in Mansi, X. 709-760, is full of typographical errors (as Hefele says). Maximns dealt in nice metaphysical distinctions, as -dtXrjnH;, /3oi'7(.TfOic} svlpyeta, fiov^evriKov \?t/^//a, i-T7oarar/K6i\ f^nvaiaariKdv, TrpoatpfTiKov, yvujundv, olxovoiuiidv. Pyrrhus returned afterwards to the see of Constantinople and adopted the absurd theory of three wills in Christ, one personal and two natural.
2 Also called rv-n^ rrepl Trmrewf. In Mansi, X. 1029; Walch, IX. 167; Hefele, III. 210; also Girseler, 1.539, note 9. The Typnn was composed by Paul, the second successor of Sergius, who had written the Ekthesis.