The theological contest was carried on chiefly in the Eastern church which had the necessary
learning and speculative talent; but the final decision was brought about by the weight of Roman
authority, and Pope Agatho exerted by his dogmatic epistle the same controlling influence over the
sixth oecumenical Council, as Pope Leo I. had exercised over the fourth. In this as well as the older
theological controversies the Roman popes—with the significant exception of Honorius—stood
firmly on the side of orthodoxy, while the patriarchal sees of the East were alternately occupied by
heretics as well as orthodox.
The Dyotheletic decision completes the Christology of the Greek and Roman churches, and
passed from them into the Protestant churches; but while the former have made no further progress
in this dogma, the latter allows a revision and reconstruction, and opened new avenues of thought
in the contemplation of the central fact and truth of the divine-human personality of Christ.
§ 111. History of Monotheletism and Dyotheletism.
The triumph of Dyotheletism was the outcome of a bitter conflict of nearly fifty years (633 to
680). The first act reaches to the issue of the Ekthesis (638), the second to the issue of the Type
(648), the third and last to the sixth oecumenical Council (680). The theological leaders of
Monophysitism were Theodore, bishop of Pharan in Arabia (known to us only from a few fragments
of his writings), Sergius and his successors Pyrrhus and Paul in the patriarchal see of Constantinople,
and Cyrus, patriarch of Alexandria; the political leaders were the Emperors Heraclius and Constans
II.
The champions of the Dyotheletic doctrine were Sophronius of Palestine, Maximus of
Constantinople, and the popes Martin and Agatho of Rome; the political supporter, the Emperor
Constantine Pogonatus (668–685).
- The strife began in a political motive, but soon assumed a theological and religious aspect.
The safety of the Byzantine empire was seriously threatened, first by the Persians, and then by the
Arabs, and the danger was increased by the division among Christians. The Emperor Heraclius
(610–640) after his return from the Persian campaign desired to conciliate the Monophysites, who
were more numerous than the orthodox in Armenia, Syria, and Egypt.^609 He hoped, by a union of
the parties, to protect these countries more effectually against the Mohammedan invaders. The
Monophysites took offence at the catholic inference of two energies (ejnevrgeiai) in the person of
Christ. The emperor consulted Sergius, the patriarch of Constantinople (since 610), who was of
Syrian (perhaps Jacobite) descent. They agreed upon the compromise-formula of "one divine-human
ad alterutrum dicimus (sicut a via veritatis errantes apostolicam traditionem accusant, absit haec impietas a fidelium cordibus),
nec tanquam separatas in duabus personis vel subsistentiis, sed duas dicimus unum eundemque Dominum nostrum J. Ch., sicut
naturas, ita et naturales in se voluntates et operationes habere, divinam scilicet a humanam: divinam quidem voluntatem et
operationem habere ex aeterno cum coëssentiali Patre, communem; humanam temporaliter ex nobis cum nostra natura
susceptam." Agatho quotes Scripture passages and testimonies of the fathers, but does not define the mode in which the two
wills cooperate.(^609) In Egypt the Monophysitic or national Coptic church numbered between five and six millions, the orthodox and
imperial party only three hundred thousand heads. Renaudot, Hist. Patriarch. Alexandr. Jacob. (Par., 1713), p 163 sq., as quoted
by Hefele, III. 130.