Chapter IV: The Revolution In The Ecclesiastical And Political Situation (1)

Due To The Rise Of Islam And The Doctrinal Disputes In The Eastern Church

In the course of the seventh and eighth centuries, the ecclesiastical and political situation altered completely. This change was due, in the first place, to the rise of the religion and empire of the Moslems, whereby a very large part of the Eastern Empire was conquered by the followers of the Prophet, who had rapidly extended their conquests over Syria and the best African provinces. Reduced in extent and exposed to ever fresh attacks from a powerful enemy, the Eastern Empire had to face new political problems. In the second place, as the provinces overrun contained the greater number of those dissatisfied with the doctrinal results of the great councils, the apparently interminable contests over the question as to the two natures of Christ came to an unexpected end. This did not take place until a new cause for dispute had arisen among the adherents of Chalcedon, due to an attempt to win back the Monophysites by accounting for the unity of the person of Christ by positing one will in Jesus. Monotheletism at once became among the adherents of Chalcedon a burning question. It was finally condemned at the Sixth General Council, Constantinople, A. D. 683, at which Pope Agatho played a part very similar to that played by Pope Leo at Chalcedon, but at the cost of seeing his predecessor, Honorius, condemned as a Monothelete. It was the last triumph of the West in the dogmatic controversies of the East. The Eastern ecclesiastics, irritated at the diplomatic triumph of Rome, expressed their resentment at the Concilium Quinisextum, in 692, where, in passing canons to complete the work of the Fifth and Sixth Councils, an opportunity was embraced of expressly condemning several Roman practices. In the confusion resulting in the next century from the attempt of Leo the Isaurian to put an end to the use of images in the churches, the Roman see was able to rid itself of the nominal control which the Emperor still had over the papacy by means of the exarchate of Ravenna. When the Lombards pressed too heavily upon the papacy it was easy for the Bishop of Rome to make an alliance with the Franks, who on their side saw that it was profitable to employ the papacy in the advancement of their own schemes. In this way arose that alliance between the pontiff and the new Frankish monarchy upon which the ecclesiastical development of the Middle Ages rests. But Iconoclasm suffered defeat at the Seventh General Council, 787, in which the doctrinal system of the East was completed. As this was the last undisputed general council, it may be taken as marking the termination of the history of the ancient Church. In following the further course of the Western Church there is no longer need of a detailed tracing of the history of the Eastern Church, which ceased to be a determining factor in the religious life of the West. The two parts of Christendom come in contact from time to time, but without formal schism they have ceased to be organically united.

§ 106. The Rise and Extension of Islam

Mohammed (571-632) began his work as a prophet at Mecca about 613, having been “called” about three years earlier. He was driven from Mecca in 622 and fled to Yathrib, afterward known as Medina. Here he was able to unite warring factions and, placing himself at their head, to build up despotic authority over the surrounding country. He steadily increased the territory under his sway, and by conquests and diplomacy was able to gain Mecca in 629. Before his death in 632 he had conquered all Arabia. His authority continued in his family after his death, and the course of conquest went on. Damascus was conquered in 635; in 636 the Emperor Heraclius was driven to abandon Syria, which now fell into the hands of the Moslems. In 637 the Persians were forced back. In 640 Egypt was taken, and by 650 all between Carthage and the eastern border of Persia had been acquired for Islam. In 693, after a period of civil war, the work of conquest was resumed. In 709 all the African coast as far as the Straits of Gibraltar was gained, and in 711 the Moslems entered Spain. They at once made themselves masters of the peninsula with the exception of a small strip in the north in the mountains of Asturias, the kingdom of Gallicia. Crossing the Pyrenees, they attempted to possess Gaul, but were forced to retreat from central Gaul by Charles Martel at the battle at Tours and Poitiers in 732. They maintained themselves north of the Pyrenees until 759 when they were driven out of Narbonne and across the mountains.

Additional source material: _The Koran_, standard translation by
E. H. Palmer, in the _Sacred Books of the East_; Stanley
Lane-Poole, _Speeches and Table Talk of the Prophet Mohammed_.

(_a_) Mohammed, _Koran_ (translation of E. H. Palmer).

Surah CXII.

The Unity of God.

The following surah or chapter of the Koran, entitled “The Chapter
of Unity,” Mohammed regarded as of value equal to two-thirds of
the whole book. It is one of the shortest and most famous.

In the name of the merciful and compassionate God, say:

“He is God alone! God the Eternal. He begets not and is not begotten! Nor is there like unto Him any one.”

Surah V, 73, 76, 109 _ff._

The teaching as to the nature and mission of Jesus.

[73.] Verily, those who believe and those who are Jews, and the Sabæans, and the Christians, whosoever believes in God and the last day and does what is right, there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.

[76.] They misbelieve who say, “Verily, God is the Messiah, the son of Mary”; but the Messiah said, “O Children of Israel, worship God, my Lord and your Lord.” Verily he who associates aught with God, God hath forbidden him paradise, and his resort is the fire, and the unjust shall have none to help them.

They misbelieve who say, “Verily, God is the third of three”; for there is no God but one, and if they do not desist from what they say, there shall touch those who misbelieve amongst them grievous woe.

Will they not turn toward God and ask pardon of Him? for God is forgiving and merciful.

The Messiah, the son of Mary, is only a prophet; prophets before him have passed away: and His mother was a confessor.

[109.] When God said, “O Jesus, son of Mary! remember my favors towards thee and towards thy mother, when I aided thee with the Holy Ghost, till thou didst speak to men in the cradle and when grown up.

“And when I taught thee the Book and wisdom and the law and the gospel; when thou didst create of clay, as it were, the likeness of a bird, by my power, and didst blow thereon, it became a bird;(281) and thou didst heal the blind from birth, and the leprous by my permission; and when thou didst bring forth the dead by my permission; and when I did ward off the children of Israel from thee, and when thou didst come to them with manifest signs, and those who misbelieved among them said: ‘This is naught but obvious magic.’

“And when I inspired the Apostles that they should believe in Him and in my Apostle, they said, ‘We believe; do thou bear witness that we are resigned.’ ”

[116.] And when God said, “O Jesus, son of Mary! is it thou who dost say to men, take me and my mother for two gods, beside God?” He said: “I celebrate thy praise! what ails me that I should say what I have no right to? If I had said it, Thou wouldest have known it; Thou knowest what is in my soul, but I know not what is in Thy soul; verily Thou art one who knoweth the unseen. I never told them save what Thou didst bid me, ‘Worship God, my Lord and your Lord,’ and I was a witness against them so long as I was among them, but when Thou didst take me away to Thyself Thou wert the watcher over them, for Thou art witness over all.”…

Surah IV, 152.

Relation of Islam to Judaism and Christianity.

[152.] The people of the Book will ask thee to bring down for them a book from heaven; but they asked Moses a greater thing than that, for they said, “Show us God openly”; but the thunderbolt caught them in their injustice. Then they took a calf, after what had come to them of manifest signs; but we pardoned that, and gave Moses obvious authority. And we held over them the mountain at their compact, and said to them, “Enter ye the door adoring,” and we said to them, “Transgress not on the Sabbath day,” and we took from them a rigid compact.

But for that they broke their compact, and for their misbelief in God’s signs, and for their killing the prophets undeservedly, and for their saying, “Our hearts are uncircumcised”—nay, God hath stamped on them their misbelief, so that they cannot believe, except a few—and for their misbelief, and for their saying about Mary a mighty calumny, and for their saying, “Verily we have killed the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, the apostle of God,” but they did not kill Him, and they did not crucify Him, but a similitude was made for them. And verily, those who differ about Him are in doubt concerning Him; they have no knowledge concerning Him, but only follow an opinion. They did not kill Him, for sure! nay God raised Him up unto Himself; for God is mighty and wise!…

[164.] O ye people of the Book! do not exceed in your religion, nor say against God save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, is but the apostle of God and His Word, which He cast into Mary and a spirit from Him; believe then in God and His apostles, and say not “Three.” Have done! it were better for you. God is only one God, celebrated be His praise that He should beget a Son!

Surah LVI.

The delights of heaven and the pains of hell.

This description of the future life has been taken as
characteristic of the religion of Mohammed, but not quite fairly.
It is simply the Bedouin’s idea of complete happiness, and is by
no means characteristic of the religion as the whole.

In the name of the merciful and compassionate God.

When the inevitable [day of judgment] happens; none shall call its happening a lie!—abasing—exalting!

When the earth shall quake, quaking! and the mountains shall crumble, crumbling, and become like motes dispersed!

And ye shall be three sorts;

And the fellows of the right hand—what right lucky fellows!

And the fellows of the left hand—what unlucky fellows!

And the foremost foremost!

These are they who are brought nigh,

In gardens of pleasure!

A crowd of those of yore, and a few of those of the latter day!

And gold-weft couches, reclining on them face to face.

Around them shall go eternal youths, with goblets and ewers and a cup of flowing wine; no headache shall feed therefrom, nor shall their wits be dimmed!

And fruits such as they deem the best;

And flesh of fowl as they desire;

And bright and large-eyed maids like hidden pearls;

A reward for that which they have done!

They shall hear no folly there and no sin;

Only the speech, “Peace, Peace!”

And the fellows of the right—what right lucky fellows!

Amid thornless lote trees.

And tal’h(282) trees with piles of fruit;

And outspread shade,

And water poured out;

And fruit in abundance, neither failing nor forbidden;

And beds upraised!

Verily we have produced them(283) a production,

And made them virgins, darlings of equal age (with their spouses) for the fellows of the right!

A crowd of those of yore, and a crowd of those of the latter day!

And the fellows of the left—what unlucky fellows!

In hot blasts and boiling water;

And a shade of pitchy smoke,

Neither cool nor generous!

Verily they were affluent ere this, and did persist in mighty crime; and used to say, “What, when we die, have become dust and bones, shall we indeed be raised? or our fathers of yore?”

Say, “Verily, those of yore and those of the latter days shall surely be gathered together unto the tryst of the well-known day.”

“Then ye, O ye who err! who say it is a lie! shall eat of the Zaqqum(284) tree and fill your bellies with it! a drink of boiling water! and drink as drinks the thirsty camel!”

(_b_) Paulus Diaconus, _Historia Langobardorum_, VI, 46 ff. (MSL, 95:654.)

The Advance of the Saracens.

Ch. 46. At that time [A. D. 711] the people of the Saracens, crossing over from Africa at a place which is called Ceuta, invaded all Spain. Then after ten years, coming with their wives and children, they invaded as if to settle in Aquitania, a province of Gaul. Charles(285) had at that time a dispute with Eudo, prince of Aquitania. But they came to an agreement and fought with perfect harmony against the Saracens. For the Franks fell upon them(286) and slew three hundred and seventy-five thousand of them; but on the side of the Franks only fifteen hundred fell. Eudo with his men broke into their camp and slew many and laid waste all.

Ch. 47. At the same time [A. D. 717], the same people of the Saracens with an immense army came and encompassed Constantinople and for three years besieged it until, when the people had called upon God with great earnestness, many of the enemy perished from hunger and cold and by war and pestilence and so wearied out they abandoned the siege. When they had left they carried on war against the people of the Bulgarians who were beyond the Danube, but, vanquished by them also, they fled back to their ships. But when they had put out to the deep sea, a sudden storm fell upon them and many were drowned and their vessels were destroyed. But in Constantinople three hundred thousand men died of the pestilence.

Ch. 48. Now when Liutprand heard that the Saracens, when Sardinia had been laid waste, had also polluted those places where the bones of the holy bishop Augustine, on account of the devastation of the barbarians, had formerly been transported and solemnly buried, he sent thither and when he had given a large sum obtained them and transported them to the city of Pavia, where he buried them with the honor due so great a father.(287) In these days the city of Narnia was conquered by the Lombards.

§ 107. The Monothelete Controversy and the Sixth General Council, Constantinople A. D. 681

The Monothelete controversy was the natural outcome of the earlier Christological controversies. With the assertion of the two complete and persisting natures of Christ, the question must sooner or later arise as to whether there was one will or two in Christ. If there were two wills, it seemed to lead back to Nestorianism; if there was but one, either the humanity was incomplete or the position led to virtual monophysitism. But political causes played even a greater part than the theological dialectic. The Emperor Heraclius, in attempting to win back the Monophysite churches, on account of the war with Persia and later on account of the advancing Moslems, proposed that a union should be effected on the basis of a formula which asserted that there was but one will in the God-man. This had been suggested to him in 622 by Sergius, patriarch of Constantinople [Hefele, §§ 291, 295]. In 633 Cyrus of Phasis, since 630 patriarch of Alexandria, brought about a union between the Orthodox Church and the Egyptian Monophysites on the basis of a Monothelete formula, _i.e._, a statement that there was but one will or energy in Christ. At once a violent controversy broke out. The formula was supported by Honorius of Rome, but attacked by Sophronius, patriarch of Jerusalem, and after the fall of Jerusalem in 638, by the monk Maximus Confessor. In 638 Heraclius tried to end the controversy by an _Ecthesis_ [_Hefele_, § 299], and Constans II (641-668) attempted the same in 648, by his _Typos_. But at the Lateran Council of 649, under Martin I, Monotheletism as well as the _Ecthesis_ and _Typos_ were condemned. For this Martin was ultimately banished, dying in misery, 654, in the Chersonesus, and Maximus, after a long, cruel imprisonment, and horrible torture and mutilation, died in exile, 662. But Constantius Pogonatus (668-685), the successor of Constans II, determined to settle the matter by a general council. Pope Agatho (678-682) thereupon held a great council at Rome, 679, at which it was decided to insist at the coming general council upon the strictest maintenance of the decisions of the Roman Council of 649. On this basis Agatho dictated the formula which was accepted by the Council of Constantinople, A. D. 681, which sent its proceedings and conclusions to the Pope to be approved. Along with them was an express condemnation of Honorius. Leo II (682-683), Agatho’s successor, approved the council with special mention of Honorius as condemned for his heresy.

(_a_) Cyrus of Alexandria, _Formula of Union_, A. D. 633, Hahn, § 232.

The author of this formula, known also as Cyrus of Phasis, under
which name he was condemned at Constantinople, A. D. 680,
attempted to win over the Monophysites in Alexandria and met with
great success on account of his formula of union. The first five
anathemas, the form in which the formula is composed, are clearly
based upon the first four councils. The sixth is slightly
different; and the seventh, the most important, is clearly tending
toward Monotheletism. The document is to be found in the
proceedings of the Sixth General Council in Mansi, and also in
Hardouin. For a synopsis, see Hefele, § 293, who is most valuable
for the whole controversy.

6. If any one does not confess the one Christ, the one Son, to be of two natures, that is, divinity and humanity, one nature become flesh(288) of God the Word, according to the holy Cyril, unmixed, unchanged, unchangeable, that is to say, one synthetic hypostasis, who is the same, our Lord Jesus Christ, being one of the holy homoousian Triad, let such an one be anathema.

7. If any one, saying that our one Lord Jesus Christ is to be regarded in two natures, does not confess that He is one of the Holy Triad, God the Word, eternally begotten of the Father, in the last times of the world made flesh and born of our all-holy and spotless lady, the Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary; but is this and another and not one and the same, according to the most wise Cyril, perfect in deity and the same perfect in humanity, and accordingly only to be thought of as in two natures; the same suffering and not suffering, according to one or the other nature, as the same holy Cyril said, suffering as a man in the flesh, inasmuch as he was a man, remaining as God without suffering in the sufferings of His own flesh; and the one and the same Christ energizing the divine and the human things with the one theandric energy,(289) according to the holy Dionysius; distinguishing only in thought those things from which the union has taken place, and viewing these in the mind as remaining unchanged, unalterable, and unmixed after their union according to nature and hypostasis; and recognizing in these without division or separation the one and the same Christ and Son, inasmuch as he regards in his mind two as brought together to each other without commingling, making the theory of them as a matter of fact, but not by a lying imagination and vain combinations of the mind; but in nowise separating them, since now the division into two has been destroyed on account of the indescribable and incomprehensible union; saying with the holy Athanasius, for there is now flesh and again the flesh of God the Word, now flesh animated and intelligent, and again the flesh of the animated and intelligent God the Word; but should under such expressions understand a distinction into parts, let such an one be anathema.

(_b_) Constans II, _Typos_, A. D. 648, Mansi, X, 1029. _Cf._ Kirch, nn. 972 _f._

The attempt to end the controversy by returning to the condition
of things before the controversy broke out, an entirely futile
undertaking. The question having been raised had to be discussed
and settled by rational processes. See Hefele, § 306.

Since it is our custom to do everything and to consider everything which can serve the welfare of the Christian State, and especially what concerns our true faith, by which we believe all our happiness is brought about, we perceive that our orthodox people are greatly disturbed, because some in respect to the Economy(290) of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ assert that there is only one will, and that one and the same affects both the divine and human deeds; but others teach two wills and two operations in the same dispensation of the incarnate Word. The former defend their views by asserting that our Lord Jesus Christ was only one person in two natures, and therefore without confusion or separation, working and willing as well the divine as the human deeds. The others say that because in one and the same person two natures are joined without any separation, so their differences from each other remain, and according to the character of each nature one and the same Christ works as well the divine as the human; and from this our Christian State has been brought to much dissension and confusion, so that differing from one another they do not agree, and from this the State must in many ways needs suffer.

We believe that, under God’s guidance, we must extinguish the flames enkindled by discord, and we ought not to permit them further to destroy human souls. We decree, therefore, that our subjects who hold our immaculate and orthodox Christian faith, and who are of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, shall from the present moment on have no longer any permission to raise any sort of dispute and quarrel or strife with one another over the one will and energy, or over two wills and two energies. We order that this is not in any way to take anything from the pious teaching, which the holy and approved Fathers have taught concerning the incarnation of God the Word, but with the purpose that all further strife in regard to the aforesaid questions cease, and in this matter we follow and hold as sufficient only the Holy Scriptures and the tradition of the five holy general councils and the simple statements and unquestioned usage and expressions of the approved Fathers (of which the dogmas, rules, and laws of God’s holy Catholic and Apostolic Church consists), without adding to or taking from them anything, or without explaining them against their proper meaning, but everywhere shall be preserved the former customs, as before the disputes broke out, as if no such dispute had existed. As to those who have hitherto taught one will and one energy or two wills and two energies, there shall be no accusation on this account; excepting only those who have been cast forth as heretics, together with their impious doctrines and writings, by the five holy universal councils and other approved orthodox Fathers. But to complete the unity and fellowship of the churches of God, and that there remain no further opportunity or occasion to those who are eager for endless dispute, we order that the document,(291) which for a long time has been posted up in the narthex of the most holy principal church of this our God-preserved royal city, and which touches upon the points in dispute, shall be taken down. Whoever dares to transgress this command is subject before all to the fearful judgment of Almighty God, and then also will be liable to the punishment for such as despise the imperial commands. If he be a bishop or clergyman, he will altogether be deposed from his priesthood or clerical order; if a monk, excommunicated and driven out of his residence; if a civil or military officer, he shall lose his rank and office; if a private citizen, he shall, if noble, be punished pecuniarily, if of lower rank, be subjected to corporal punishment and perpetual exile.

(_c_) Council of Rome, A. D. 649, _Canons_, Mansi, X, 1150. _Cf._ Denziger, nn. 254 _ff._

Condemnation of Monotheletism, the _Ecthesis_, and the _Typos_, by
Martin I.

Text of canons or anathematisms and abstract of proceedings in
Hefele, § 307.

Canon 18. If any one does not, according to the holy Fathers, and in company with us, reject and anathematize with mind and mouth all those whom as most wicked heretics the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of God, that is, the five universal synods and likewise all approved Fathers of the Church, rejects and anathematizes, with all their impious writings even to each point, that is, Sabellius, etc. … and justly with these, as like them and in equal error … Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius of Constantinople, and his successors Pyrrhus and Paul, persisting in their pride, and all their impious writings, and those who to the end agreed with them in their thought, or do so agree, that there is one will and one operation of the deity and manhood of Christ; and in addition to these the most impious _Ecthesis_, which, by the persuasion of the same Sergius, was put forth by the former Emperor Heraclius against the orthodox faith, defining, by way of adjustment, one will in Christ our God, and one operation to be venerated; also all those things which were impiously written or done by them; and those who received it, or any of those things which were written or done for it; and along with these, furthermore, the wicked _Typos_, which, on the persuasion of the aforesaid Paul, was recently issued by our most serene prince Constans against the Catholic Church, inasmuch as it equally denies and excludes from discussion the two natural wills and operations, a divine and a human, which are piously taught by the holy Fathers to be in Christ, our God, and also our Saviour, and also the one will and operation, which by the heretics is impiously venerated in Him, and therefore declaring that with the holy Fathers also the wicked heretics are unjustly freed from all rebuke and condemnation, to the destruction of the definitions of the Catholic Church and its rule of faith … let him be condemned.

(_d_) Sixth General Council, Constantinople, A. D. 681, _Definition of Faith_. Mansi, XI, 636 _ff._

The concluding, more strictly dogmatic portion of this symbol is
to be found in Greek in Hahn, § 150, and in Latin and Greek in
Denziger, nn. 289, _ff._ See also PNF, ser. II, vol. XIV.

The holy, great, and ecumenical synod assembled by the grace of God and the religious decree of the most religious, faithful, and mighty Emperor Constantine, in this God-preserved and royal city of Constantinople, New Rome, in the hall of the imperial palace called Trullus, has decreed as follows:

The only begotten Son and Word of God the Father, who was made man, like unto us in all things, without sin, Christ our true God, has declared expressly in the words of the Gospel: “I am the light of the world; he that followeth Me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life” [John 8:12]; and again: “My peace I leave with you, My peace I give unto you” [John 14:27]. Our most gracious Emperor, the champion of orthodoxy and opponent of evil doctrine, being reverentially led by this divinely uttered doctrine of peace, and having assembled this our holy and ecumenical synod, has united the judgment of the whole Church. Wherefore this our holy and ecumenical synod, having driven away the impious error which has prevailed for a certain time until now, and following closely the straight path of the holy and approved Fathers, has piously given its assent to the five holy and ecumenical synods—that is to say, to that of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers assembled at Nicæa against the insane Arius; and the next at Constantinople of the one hundred and fifty God-inspired men against Macedonius, the adversary of the Spirit, and the impious Apollinaris; and also the first at Ephesus of two hundred venerable men assembled against Nestorius, the Judaizer; and that in Chalcedon of six hundred and thirty God-inspired Fathers against Eutyches and Dioscurus, hated of God; and in addition to these the last, that is the fifth, holy synod assembled in this place against Theodore of Mopsuestia, Origen, Didymus, and Evagrius, and the writings of Theodoret against the twelve chapters of the celebrated Cyril, and the epistle which was said to have been written by Ibas to Maris the Persian—without alteration this synod renews in all points the ancient decrees of religion, chasing away the impious doctrines of irreligion. And this our holy and ecumenical synod, inspired of God, has set its seal to the creed of the three hundred and eighteen Fathers, and again religiously confirmed by the one hundred and fifty, which also the other holy synods gladly received and ratified for the removal of every soul-destroying heresy.

Then follow:

The Nicene Creed of the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers.
_We believe_, etc.

The Creed of the one hundred and fifty holy Fathers assembled at
Constantinople. _We believe_, etc., but without the _filioque_.

The holy and ecumenical synod further says that this pious and orthodox creed of the divine grace would be sufficient for the full knowledge and confirmation of the orthodox faith. But as the author of evil, who in the beginning availed himself of the aid of the serpent, and by it brought the poison of death upon the human race, has not desisted, but in like manner now, having found suitable instruments for the accomplishment of his will—that is to say, Theodorus, who was bishop of Pharan; Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, who were prelates of this royal city; and also Honorius, who was pope of Old Rome; Cyrus, bishop of Alexandria, Marcarius, lately bishop of Antioch, and Stephen, his disciple—has not ceased with their declaration of orthodoxy by this our God-assembled and holy synod; for according to the sentence spoken of God: “Where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them” [Matt. 18:20], the present(292) holy and ecumenical synod, faithfully receiving and saluting with uplifted hands also the suggestion which by the most holy and blessed Pope Agatho, Pope of Old Rome, was sent to our most pious and faithful Emperor Constantine, which rejected by name those who taught or preached one will and operation in the dispensation of the incarnation of Christ(293) our very God, has likewise adopted that other synodal suggestion which was sent by the council held under the same most holy Pope, composed of one hundred and twenty-five bishops beloved of God,(294) to his God-instructed tranquillity [_i.e._, the Emperor], as consonant to the holy Council of Chalcedon and the _Tome_ of the most holy and blessed Leo, Pope of the same Old Rome, which was directed to the holy Flavian, which also the council called the pillar of a right faith; and also agrees with the synodical letters written by the blessed Cyril against the impious Nestorius and addressed to the Oriental bishops.

Following(295) the five holy and ecumenical synods and the most holy and approved Fathers, with one voice defining that our Lord Jesus Christ must be confessed to be our very God, one of the holy and consubstantial and life-giving Trinity, perfect in deity and the same perfect in humanity, truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with His Father as to His godhead, and consubstantial with us as to His manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin [Heb. 4:15]; begotten of His Father before the ages according to His godhead, but in these last days for us men and for our salvation begotten of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary, strictly and in truth Theotokos, according to the flesh; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only begotten, in two natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, inseparably, indivisibly to be recognized; the peculiarities of neither nature lost by the union, but rather the properties of each nature preserved, concurring in one person,(296) and in one subsistence,(297) not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same only begotten Son, the Word of God,(298) the Lord Jesus Christ, according as the prophets of old have taught, and as Jesus Christ Himself hath taught, and the creed of the holy Fathers hath delivered to us;(299) we likewise declare that in Him are two natural wills or willings and two natural operations indivisibly, unchangeably, inseparably, unconfusedly, according to the teaching of the holy Fathers. And these two natural wills are not contrary one to the other (which God forbid), as the impious heretics say, but His human will follows, not as resisting or reluctant, but rather therefore as subject to His divine and omnipotent will. For it was right that the will of the flesh should be moved, but be subject to the divine will, according to the most wise Athanasius. For as His flesh is called and is the flesh of God the Word, so also the natural will of His flesh is called and is the proper will of God the Word, as He Himself says: “I came down from heaven, not to do Mine own will, but the will of the Father which sent Me,” [John 6:38], wherein he calls His own will the will of the flesh, inasmuch as His flesh was also His own. For as His most holy and immaculately animated flesh was not destroyed because it was deified [θεωθεῖσα], but continued in its own state and nature, so also His human will, although deified, was not taken away, but rather was preserved according to the saying of Gregory the Theologian:(300) “His will, namely that of the Saviour, is not contrary to God, but altogether deified.”

We glorify two natural operations, indivisibly, unchangeably, inseparably, unconfusedly, in the same our Lord Jesus Christ, our true God, that is to say, a divine operation and a human operation, according to the divine preacher Leo, who most distinctly says as follows: “For each form does in communion with the other what pertains to it, namely the Word doing what pertains to the Word, and the flesh what pertains to the flesh.”(301) For we will not admit one natural operation of God and of the creature, that we may not exalt into the divine essence what is created, nor will we bring down the glory of the divine nature to the place suited for those things which have been made. We recognize the miracles and the sufferings as of one and the same person, but of one or of the other nature of which He is, and in which He has His existence, as the admirable Cyril said. Preserving in all respects, therefore, the unconfusedness and indivisibility, we express all in brief phrase: Believing that our Lord Jesus Christ, one of the Trinity also after the incarnation, is our true God, we say that His two natures shone forth in His one subsistence [hypostasis], in which were both the miracles and the suffering throughout the whole incarnate life,(302) not in appearance merely but in reality, the difference as to nature being recognized in one and the same subsistence; for, although joined together, each nature wills and operates the things proper to it.(303) For this reason we glorify two natural(304) wills and operations concurring most fitly in Him for the salvation of the human race.

Since these things have been formulated by us with all diligence and care, we decree that to no one shall it be permitted to bring forward or write or to compose or to think or to teach otherwise. Whosoever shall presume to compose a different faith or to propose, or to teach, or to hand to those wishing to be converted to the knowledge of the truth from the heathen or the Jews or from any heresy any different symbol, or to introduce a new mode of expression to subvert these things which have now been determined by us, all these, if they be bishops or clergy, shall be deposed, the bishops from the episcopate, the clergy from the clerical office; but if they be monks or laymen, they shall be anathematized.

(_e_) Council of Constantinople, A. D. 681, _Sessio_ XIII. Mansi, XI, 1050. _Cf._ Mirbt, n. 188.

The condemnation of the Monotheletes, including Honorius of Rome.

The condemnation of Honorius has become a _cause célèbre_,
especially in connection with the doctrine of papal infallibility.
It should be observed, however, that the doctrine of papal
infallibility, as defined at the Vatican Council, A. D. 1870
(_cf._ Mirbt, n. 509), requires that only when the Pope speaks _ex
cathedra_ is he infallible, and it has not been shown that any
opinion whatever held by Honorius was an _ex cathedra_ definition
of faith and morals according to the Vatican Council. The matter
is therefore a mere question of fact and may be treated apart from
the Vatican dogma. It should be borne in mind, further, that the
Sixth General Council was approved by Pope Leo II, A. D. 682
(_cf._ Mirbt, n. 189), who included Honorius by name among those
whose condemnation was approved. That he did so approve it is also
stated in the _Liber Pontificalis_ (_cf._ Mirbt, n. 190), and
according to the _Liber Diurnus_, the official book of formulæ
used in the papal business, the Pope took an oath recognizing
among others the Sixth General Council, and condemning Honorius
among other heretics (_cf._ Mirbt, n. 191). That Honorius was
actually a heretic is still another matter; for it seems not at
all unlikely that he misunderstood the point at issue and his
language is quite unscientific. The text of the letters of
Honorius may be found in Kirch, nn. 949-965, and in Hefele in a
translation, §§ 296, 298. On the condemnation of Honorius, see
Hefele, § 324.

The holy council said: After we had reconsidered, according to our promise made to your highness,(305) the doctrinal letter written by Sergius, at one time patriarch of this royal God-preserved city, to Cyrus, who was then bishop of Phasis, and to Honorius, sometime Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, and finding that the documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the definitions of the holy councils, and to all the approved Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics, we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul.

But the names of those men whom we execrate must also be thrust forth from the holy Church of God, namely, that of Sergius, sometime bishop of this God-preserved royal city, who was the first to write on this impious doctrine; also that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, who died bishops of this God-preserved city, and were like-minded with them; and that of Theodore, sometime bishop of Pharan, all of whom the most holy and thrice-blessed Agatho, Pope of Old Rome, in his suggestion to our most pious and God-preserved lord and mighty Emperor, rejected because they were minded contrary to our orthodox faith, all of whom we declare are subject to anathema. And with these we decree that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius, who was Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrine.

We have also examined the synodal letter(306) of Sophronius, of holy memory, sometime patriarch of the holy city of our God, Jerusalem, and have found it in accordance with the true faith and with apostolic teachings, and with the teachings of the holy and approved Fathers. Therefore, we have received it as orthodox and salutary to the holy and Catholic and Apostolic Church, and have decreed that it is right that his name be inserted in the diptychs of the holy churches.

§ 108. Rome, Constantinople, and the Lombard State Church in the Seventh Century

The Sixth General Council was the last great diplomatic triumph of Rome in the East in matters of faith, though two centuries after, in the matter of Photius, Rome played a brilliant part in the internal affairs of the Eastern Church. Immediately after the council of 681, it was felt that the West, of which the Greeks had grown very jealous, had triumphed over the East, especially as several of the leading patriarchs had been condemned. Monotheletism, furthermore, was too strongly intrenched in the East to be removed by a single conciliar action. It was felt necessary to take action to confirm the results of Constantinople in 681. The fifth and sixth general councils had been occupied entirely with doctrinal matters and had not issued any disciplinary canons. A new council might be gathered to complete the work of the Sixth General Council, not only to reaffirm it, but in connection with some much-needed legislation to retort upon the West by condemning some Roman practices. In this way the Second Trullan Council, or Concilium Quinisextum, came about in 692. The Roman see, in the meanwhile, although it had triumphed at Constantinople in 681, did not enjoy an independent political position in Italy. It was still under the Roman Emperor at Constantinople, as had been most painfully perceived in the treatment of Martin I by Constans. Although the Pope had his apocrisiarius, or nuncio, at Constantinople, he came into immediate contact with the exarch of Ravenna, the Emperor’s representative in Italy. In Italy, furthermore, the Arian heresy long persisted among the Lombards, although greater toleration was shown the Catholic Church.

Additional source material: The canons of the Quinisext Council
may be found complete in Percival, _Seven Ecumenical Councils_,
PNF, ser. II, vol. XIV.

(_a_) Concilium Quinisextum, A. D. 692, _Canons_. Bruns, I, 34, _ff._

This council was commonly regarded as the continuation of the
Sixth General Council, and has been received in the East, not as a
separate council, but as a part of the sixth. The West has never
accepted this opinion and has only to a limited extent admitted
the authority of its canons, though some have been current in the
West because, like much conciliar action, they were re-enactments
of older canons. Occasionally some of the canons have been cited
by popes as belonging to the Sixth Council. The canons given here
are, for the most part, those which were in some point in
opposition to the Roman practice.

Canon 1. _Renewal of the Condemnations of the Sixth Council._

We, by divine grace at the beginning of our decrees, define that the faith set forth by the God-chosen Apostles, who themselves had both seen the Word and were ministers of the Word, shall be preserved without any innovation, unchanged and inviolate. Moreover the faith of the three hundred and eighteen holy and blessed Fathers, etc.

[Here follows a detailed statement of the first five general
councils.]

Also we agree to guard untouched the faith of the Sixth Holy Synod, which first assembled in this royal city in the time of Constantine, our Emperor, of blessed memory, which faith received still greater confirmation from the fact that the pious Emperor ratified with his own signet what was written, for the security of every future age. And again we confess that we should guard the faith unaltered and openly acknowledged; that in the Economy of the incarnation of our one Lord Jesus Christ, the true God, there are two natural wills or volitions and two natural operations; and have condemned by a just sentence those who adulterated the true doctrine and taught the people that in the one Lord, our God, Jesus Christ, there is but one will and operation, that is to say, Theodore of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Honorius of Rome, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, who were bishops of this God-preserved city, Macarius, who was bishop of Antioch, Stephen who was his disciple, and the insane Polychronius, depriving them henceforth of the communion of the body of Christ our God.…

Canon 2. _On the Sources of Canon Law._

This canon opposed Rome in two respects: it accepted eighty-five
Apostolic Canons, whereas Rome received but fifty; it drew up a
list of councils and of Fathers whose writings should have
authority as canons, and omitted the important Western councils,
except Carthage, and all the papal decrees. With this canon should
be compared the decretal of Gelasius, _De Libris Recipiendis, v.
supra_, § 92.

It has also seemed good to this holy synod that the eighty-five canons received and ratified by the holy and blessed Fathers before us, and also handed down to us in the name of the holy and glorious Apostles, should from this time forth remain firm and unshaken for the cure of souls and the healing of disorders. And since in these canons we are bidden to receive the _Constitutions of the Holy Apostles_ by Clement, in which, in old time, certain spurious matter entirely contrary to piety was introduced by heterodox persons for the polluting of the Church, which obscures to us the elegance and beauty of the divine decrees; we, therefore, for the edification and security of the most Christian flock, reject properly such constitutions; by no means admitting the offspring of heretical error, and cleaving to the pure and perfect doctrine of the Apostles. But we set our seal likewise upon all the other holy canons set forth by our holy and blessed Fathers, that is, by the three hundred and eighteen God-fearing Fathers assembled at Nicæa, and those at Ancyra; further, those at Neo-Cæsarea and at Gangra, and besides these those at Antioch in Syria [A. D. 341], those too at Laodicea in Phrygia, and likewise those of the one hundred and fifty assembled in this God-preserved imperial city and of the two hundred, who assembled for the first time in the metropolis of the Ephesians, and of the six hundred and thirty holy and blessed Fathers at Chalcedon; in like manner those of Sardica and those of Carthage; those also who assembled in this God-preserved imperial city under Nectarius [A. D. 394], and under Theophilus, archbishop of Alexandria; likewise too the canons(307) of Dionysius, formerly archbishop of the great city of Alexandria, and of Peter, archbishop of Alexandria, and martyr; of Gregory the Wonder-worker, archbishop of Neo-Cæsarea; of Athanasius, archbishop of Alexandria; of Basil, archbishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia; of Gregory, bishop of Nyssa; of Gregory the Theologian;(308) of Amphilochius of Iconium; of Timothy, archbishop of Alexandria; of the first Theophilus, archbishop of the same metropolis of Alexandria; of Gennadius, patriarch of the God-preserved imperial city; moreover the canons set forth by Cyprian, archbishop of the country of the Africans, and martyr, and by the synod under him,(309) which have been kept in the country of the aforesaid bishops and only according to the custom delivered down to them. And that no one be allowed to transgress the aforesaid canons, or to receive other canons besides them, supposititiously set forth by some who have attempted to make a traffic of the truth. But should any one be convicted of innovating upon them, or attempting to overturn any of the aforementioned canons, he shall be condemned to receive the penalty which the canon imposes and so to be cured of his transgressions.

Canon 13. _On the Marriage of the Clergy._

The following canon permits subdeacons and priests if married
before ordination to continue to live in marriage relations with
their wives. But they are not allowed to marry a second time or to
marry a widow. Neither are bishops to remain married; but if they
are married when elected, their wives must enter a monastery at a
distance. With this canon should be compared the earlier
legislation of Nicæa, _v. supra_, § 78, and also the law of
Justinian, _v. supra_, § 94.

Since we know that it is handed down in the canonical discipline in the Roman Church that those who are about to be deemed worthy of ordination to the diaconate or presbyterate should promise no longer to live maritally with their wives, we, pursuing the ancient rule of apostolic discipline and order, will that henceforth the lawful marriage of men in holy orders remain firm, by no means dissolving their union with their wives, nor depriving them of intercourse with each other at a convenient season.… Therefore, if any one shall have dared, contrary to the Apostolic Canons, to deprive any one in holy orders, that is, any presbyter, deacon, or subdeacon, of cohabitation and intercourse with his lawful wife, let him be deposed; likewise also if any presbyter or deacon, on pretence of piety, puts away his wife, let him be excluded from communion; but if he persists let him be deposed.

Canon 36. _On the Rank of the Patriarchal Sees._

Rome always rejected the claim of Constantinople to rank as
second. _Cf._ Leo’s opinion, _v. supra_, § 87.

Renewing the enactments of the one hundred and fifty Fathers assembled in the God-preserved and imperial city, and the six hundred and thirty assembled at Chalcedon, we decree that the see of Constantinople shall enjoy equal privilege with the see of Old Rome, and in ecclesiastical matters shall be as highly regarded as that is, and second after it. And after this [Constantinople] shall be ranked the see of the great city of Alexandria, and after that the see of Antioch, and after that the see of Jerusalem.

Canon 37. _On Bishops of Sees among Infidels._

This canon is cited here, though not entering into the controversy
between the East and the West, because it is significant of the
changed position of the Eastern Church at this time, due to the
Moslem and other conquests. The Monophysite bishops in Egypt and
Syria were not molested by the Moslems. This canon marks the
beginning of the practice of ordaining bishops _in partibus
infidelium_.

Since at different times there have been invasions of the barbarians, and consequently very many cities have come into the possession of the infidels, so that as a consequence the prelate of a city may not be able, after he has been ordained, to take possession of his see and to be settled in it in sacerdotal order, and so to perform and manage, according to custom, the ordinations and all other things which appertain to the bishop; we, preserving the honor and veneration of the priesthood, and in nowise wishing to make use of the heathen injury to the ruin of ecclesiastical rights, have decreed that they who have been thus ordained, and for the aforesaid causes have not settled in their sees, may be kept from any prejudice from this thing, so that they may canonically perform the ordination of the different clerics and use the authority of their offices according to proper limits, and that whatever administration proceeds from them may be valid and legitimate. For the exercise of his office shall not be circumscribed by reason of necessity, when the exact observance of the law is circumscribed.

Canon 55. _On Fasts in Lent._

As stated in the canon, this enactment is aimed at the Roman
usage, and refers to the 64th Apostolic Canon, which Rome
rejected. For the Apostolic Canons, see ANF, VII, 504.

Since we have learned that in the city of the Romans, in the holy fast of Lent, they fast on the Sabbaths(310) contrary to the traditional ecclesiastical observance, it seemed good to the holy synod that also in the Church of the Romans the canons shall be in force without wavering which says: If any cleric shall be found to fast on Sunday or on the Sabbath except on one occasion only,(311) he shall be deposed; and if a layman he shall be excommunicated.

Canon 67. _On Eating Blood._

This canon is less distinctly aimed at Rome. In the West the
prohibition against eating blood seems to have been little
observed, as it had been given another interpretation. At the time
of the Second Trullan Council the practice was very common.
Augustine, it might be said, did not consider the apostolic
command as binding except in the special circumstance in which it
was issued. _Cf._ Augustine, _Contra Faustum_, 32:13.

The divine Scriptures command us to abstain from blood, from things strangled, and from fornication. Those, therefore, who, on account of a dainty stomach, prepare by any art for food the blood of animals and so eat it, we punish suitably. If any one henceforth venture to eat in any way the blood of an animal, if he be a clergyman let him be deposed; if a layman, let him be excommunicated.

Canon 82. _On Pictures of the Lamb of God._

The custom which is here condemned was prevalent in the West.