RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Monophysites Mouothelites
least " one state of will " as descriptive of Monophysite views. This teaching had been opposed by the Patriarch Eulogius (q.v.), but Sergius was not prevented bv this from establishing relations with the Alexandrian adherents of " one energy " and " one will." He requested a Monophysite leader, Georgius Arsas, to supply him with the proofs to which he appealed for the teaching of " one will." His conciliatory letter excited the displeasure of the Patriarch Johannes Eleemon (q.v.), who was prevented only by the capture of Alexandria by the Persians from taking steps to protest against Sergius' scheme (Maximus Confessor, in MPG, xci. 333). During the next few years Sergius won over the emperor to his plan of union based on the teaching of " one energy "; more than once during his residence in the East, Heraclius attempted to secure prominent bishops as adherents for the new teaching. Later, the Metropolitan Cyrus of Phasis is found corresponding with Sergius and asking for further information on this subject (Mansi, Concilia, xii. 525 sqq., 560-661). He was referred by the patriarch to the letter of Pope Leo I. as bearing witness to the fact that the teaching of two " energies " had not formed a part of orthodox dogma. He also cited a letter not now extant from the Patriarch Mennas of Constantinople to Pope Vigilius, which contained the expression " one will of Christ " and " one life-making energy." He used the same arguments with several other bishops to win them over to his plan.
For some years there is obscurity about the success of the movement. But in 631, Cyrus was appointed patriarch of Alexandria under the distinct condition that he would work for re- 2. Union union with the Monophysites. The of Mon- conditions were carried out, for on ophysites June 3, 633, the principles of union and Mon- were formulated on the basis that the othelites. one Lord Jesus Christ acts in a human and divine way with one human-divine energy (Mansi, Concilia, xi. 564 sqq.). The teaching of Cyril was appealed to concerning the one incarnate nature; the recognized theopaschite principles of the Church were especially stressed. The result was that Cyrus reported the adherence of thousands of Monophysites. About the same time the Armenians united with the orthodox Church at a synod at Karim at which the emperor was present. In 634 Heraclius was arranging a union with the Monophysite patriarch of Antioch, Athanasius, whom he agreed to appoint orthodox patriarch on condition that he accepted the Council of Chalcedon with the Monothelite interpretation (Vita Maximi, MPG, xc. 76-77). At this point a new difficulty arose through the interference of the monk Sophronius (q.v.), who came from Palestine to Egypt to protest against the terms of union with the Monophysites (Mansi, xi. 532-533, x. 690- 691). The Patriarch Cyrus defended his conciliatory policy, appealing in its defense to historic precedents. Sophronius, still discontented, proceeded to Constantinople and attempted to induce Sergius to remove the expression " one energy " from the act of union. Sergius refused, but he directed Cyrus not to allow any dispute over the one or VII.— 31
two energies, but to insist on the fact that the one and same incarnate Logos was the source of each divine and human action. Especially to be avoided was the teaching of two wills. In 634 the patriarch of Constantinople was directed to furnish to the emperor passages from the writing of Mennas to prove the position as to the single energy. Sergius advised that speculation on this subject be dropped. He placed the situation before Pope Honorius, who, ' in a writing now extant only in a Greek translation, agreed with the patriarch's position, accused Sophronius of bringing up idle questions, and expressed the opinion that the controversy over one or two energies should be abandoned or left to logicians; the use of either expression, he declared, savored either of Nestorianism or Eutychianism. On one point he was perfectly definite: " We confess one will of the Lord Jesus Christ." " There can be no question," he said, " of a second different or opposing will." Even passages like John v. 30 and Matt. xxvi. 39, where Christ seems to set his own and the divine will in contrast, do not really prove a different will but refer only to the " economy " of the assumed manhood. In these places, he argues, Christ is speaking as our example, that we may follow his footsteps and that each may choose not his own will but the will of God.
In the mean time Sophronius had been elevated to the patriarchal see of Jerusalem. He took occasion immediately to issue the so-called Synodikon (MPG, lxxxvii. 3, cols. 3148-3200), in which he laid down the following principles: that from the two natures, divine and human, two 3. The energies proceed; the human condi- Statement tions of the life of the Son of God were of Sophro- real. Room was given to human nanius; the ture to do and to suffer what is pecu- Ekthesis. liar to human nature. This was voluntary, but the process took place after a natural way. All of the words and works of both natures are to be referred to the one person of the God-man, but the unity is not a simple one. Sophronius applies to it the expression of Dionysius " a new and divine-human energy "; he makes no mention of two wills. He attempted to get Honorius' support against the Monothelites. The pope tried to quiet his difficulties by appealing to the Scriptures where nothing is said about one or two energies, stating that both natures were naturally united in the one Christ (Mansi, xi. 579- 581). Sophronius agreed to reject the expression " two energies " and Cyrus of Alexandria consented to give up speaking of " one energy." It is on this basis that Sergius in the year 636 prepared the socalled Ekthesis (Mansi, Concilia, x. 991-998), which was signed by the emperor in 638. This stated that neither one nor two energies are to be spoken of. Although there was precedent for the use of " one energy " in the writings of the Fathers, the term might be considered to be a denial of the two natures; " two energies " was not supported by authority and might be interpreted as establishing two contradictory wills. There is one will in Christ; at no point of time does his body, endowed with reason and soul, fulfil separately its own natural motion contrary to the impulse of the divine Logos
Monothelites