and against the teaching of the East by churches (in Spain and France) which had nothing to do
with the original production.
This controversy of the middle ages was raised from the tomb by the Old Catholic Conference
held in Bonn, 1875, under the lead of the learned historian, Dr. Döllinger of Munich, and attended
by a number of German Old Catholic, Greek and Russian, and high Anglican divines. An attempt
was made to settle the dispute on the basis of the teaching of the fathers before the division of the
Eastern and Western churches, especially the doctrine of John of Damascus, that is, the single
procession of the Spirit from the Father mediated through the Son. The Filioque was surrendered
as an unauthorized and unjustifiable interpolation.
But the Bonn Conference has not been sanctioned by any ecclesiastical authority, and forms
only an interesting modern episode in the, history of this controversy, and in the history of the Old
Catholic communion.^603
§ 109. The Monotheletic Controversy.
Literature.
(I.) Sources: Documents and acts of the first Lateran Synod (649), and the sixth oecumenical Council
or Concilium Trullanum I., held in Constantinople (680), in Mansi, X. 863 sqq. and XI. 187
sqq.
Anastasius (Vatican librarian, about 870): Collectanea de iis quae spectant ad controv. et histor.
monothelit. haeret., first ed. by Sirmond, Par. 1620, in his Opera, III., also in Bibl. 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.
Graeca" (1861).
(II.) Franc. Combefisius (Combefis, a learned French Dominican, d. 1679): Historia haeresis
Monothelitarum ac vindiciae actorum Sexti Synodi, in his Novum Auctuarium Patrum, II. 3
sqq. Par. 1648, fol. 1–198.
Petavius: Dogm. Theol. Tom. V. l. IX. c. 6–10.
Jos. Sim. Assemani, in the fourth vol. of his Bibliotheca Juris Orientalis. Romae 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). Schröckh, 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. Dreieinigkeii und Menschwerdung (Tüb.
1841–’43, 3 vols.), vol. II. 96–128; Dorner: Entwicklungsgesch. der Lehre v. d. Person Christi
(^603) See the theses of the Conference in the Proceedings published by Dr. Reusch, Bonn, 1875, p. 80 sqq., and in Schaff’s
Creeds of Christendom, vol. II. 552 sqq. Formerly Dr. Döllinger, when he was still in communion with Rome, gave the usual
one-sided Latin view of the Filioque-controversy, and characterized Photius as a man "of unbounded ambition, not untouched
by the corruption of the court, and well versed in all its arts of intrigue." Hist. of the Church, trans. by E. Cox, vol. III. 86. Comp.
his remarks on the Council of Photius (879), quoted in § 70, p. 317.