THIRD DIVISION.

FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE MONOTHELITIC CONTROVERSY, AND FROM THE TIME OF MUHAMMED TO THE BEGINNING OF THE CONTROVERSY CONCERNING THE WORSHIP OF IMAGES. FROM 622–726c

FIRST CHAPTER.

RESTRAINING OF THE CHURCH IN THE EAST:

§ 127.

Though the Persians tolerated the Nestorians, they hated the Catholic Christians, as was apparent in the war which Kesra (Chosröes) II. Purveez carried on against the East Roman empire from A.D. 604, and especially in the taking of Jerusalem (614). On this account the victories of Heraclius from 621, ending with the dethronement of Chosröes by his son Schirujeh Siröes) (628) were of importance in relation to the Church. Besides, Heraclius brought back the wood of the true cross which had been carried off; and instituted a festival in commemoration of it, the oravρwoos huépa, festum exaltationis (14th. of September).1

2

In the mean time, a far more dangerous enemy of the Church had appeared in Arabia. Muhammed, in the year 611, began to preach Islamism, at first in private, and then publicly among the Koreish in Mecca. At first, indeed, he was obliged to give way to his enemies (15th July, 622, Hegira), but gained over the city Yatschreb (Medina al Nabi) in his favor; extended his dominion and his doctrines thence, prince and prophet in one person, till they spread far into Arabia; at length conquered Mecca (630); consecrated the Caaba as the chief temple of Islamism; and bequeathed to his successors (Chalifs) Arabia,

1 Theophanis Chronographia p. 245-273, among other things says, of the conduct of Chosroes in the conquered lands, p. 263 : Ηνάγκαζε τοὺς Χριστιανοὺς γενέσθαι εἰς τὴν τοῦ Νεστορίου θρησκείαν πρὸς τὸ πλῆξαι τὸν βασιλέα.

2 Ideler's Chronologie, Bd. 2, S. 482, ff.

as a country completely subject to their faith and their dominion († 632).3

5

Islamism, whose holy writings are contained in the Koran,1 collected by Abu-Bekr, was, in its chief doctrines, a compound of Judaism and Christianity. But it made the doctrine of the infinite sublimity of God its basis, in a way so one-sided that an absolute dependence of man on God resulted from it; and deas of a likeness and an inward union between man and God, and consequently the fundamental principles of all the higher morality, found no place in the system. By making it a religious duty to wage war on unbelievers, by its fatalism, and its sensual promises, it excited among the rude and powerful people of the Arabs so unconquerable a spirit for war, and so wild a desire for conquest," that the two neighboring kingdoms, the Persian and the Byzantine, could not withstand such resistance, amid their internal weaknesses. The provinces of the Byzantine empire, which lay nearest, were the more easily conquered, inasmuch as the greater number of the inhabitants consisted of Monophysites who joyfully met the Arabians as their deliverers. The conquest of Syria was begun under the first Chaliph AbuBekr († 634), and completed under the second, Omar (639), under whom the valiant Amru also overcame Egypt (640). Under Othman the Persian empire was conquered (651). Dur

3 Abulfeda de vita Muhammedis ed. J. Gagnier. Oxon. 1723. fol. La vie de Mohammed par J. Gagnier. Amsterd. 1732. 2 voll. 8, translated into German by Ch. F. R. Vetterlein. Köthen 1802-1804. v. Hammer-Purgstall's Gemäldesaal der Lebensbeschreibungen grosser moslimischer Herrscher. Bd. 1. Mohammed d. Prophet. Leipzig. 1837. (Comp. Umbreit in the Theol. Studien u. Krit. 1841. i. 212). Gust. Weil's Mohammed d. Prophet, s. Leben u. s. Lehre, aus handschriftl. Quellen u. d. Koran geschöpft. Stuttgart. 1843. 8.-On the miracles of Muhammed and his character, see in Tholuck's vermischten Schriften i. 1.

4 Arab. et lat. ed. Lud. Maraccius. Patav. 1698. fol. French par Savary, Paris. 1783. 2 voll. 8. German by F. E. Boysen, Halle. 1775. 8, by F. S. G. Wahl, Halle. 1828. 8, literally translated with annotations by Dr. L. Ullmann. Bielefeld u. Crefeld, 3te Aufl. 1844. 8. G. Weil's hist. krit. Einleit. in den Koran. Bielefeld. 1844. 8. [English by G. Sale].

5 Weil's Mohammed, see note 3. Muhammed's Religion nach ihrer innern Entwickelung und ihrem Einflusse auf das Leben der Völker, von. I. I. I. Döllinger. Regensburg. 1838. 4. Dettinger's Beiträge zu einer Theologie des Korans, in the Tübingen Zeitschr. f. Theol. 1831. iii. 1.-Was hat Mohammed aus dem Judenthume angenommen? von Abr. Geiger. Bonn. 1833. 8.-Maier's christl. Bestandtheile des Koran, in the Freiburger Zeitschr. f. Theol. Bd. 2. Heft. 1. S. 34 (1839). C. F. Gerock's Darstellung der Christologie des Koran. Hamburg und Gotha. 1839. 8.-On the relation of Islamism to the gospel, in Möhler's Schriften u. Aufsätzen, herausgeg. v. Döllinger, i. 348.

6 See a representation of the influence of his faith on the middle ages by K. E. Oelsner.. Frankf. a. M. 1810. 8. Muhammed's religion by Döllinger, see note 5.

ing the reign of the Ommeyades, their general Musa, brought first the entire northern coast of Africa (707), and then Spain also (711), under the Arabian dominion; while, on the other side, the Árabians advanced several times as far as Constantinople, and twice besieged the city for a long time (669 till 676, and 717 till 718).

7

Jews and Christians were tolerated by the Arabs on condition of paying a poll-tax; and though sometimes severely oppressed, yet they were not compelled to change their religion. Still, however, the advantages held out to those who adopted Islamism attracted many converts; and thus Christianity not only lost all political importance in the conquered provinces, but the number of its confessors was always diminishing in proportion. to that of the Moslems. The catholic patriarchates of Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria, remained unoccupied; for their possessors, living in the Greek empire, were merely titulars.

7 Muhammed was tolerant at first of other religions (cf. Sura, ii. et v.): afterward, however, he made it the duty of believers, by the 9th and 67th Surats, to carry on religious war, for the purpose of exterminating idolaters and making Jews and Christians tributary (comp. Gerock's Christologie des Koran, S. 118). Before this he had granted the Christians of some parts of Arabia, as well as the Jews and Sabaeans, letters of freedom, though doubtless both the Testamentum et pactiones initae inter Mohammedem et christianae fidei cultores (first brought from the East by the Capuchin Pacificus Scaliger, and printed at Paris 1630, 4to, and often afterward), and the Pactum Muhammedis, quod indulsit Monachis montis Sinai et Christianis in universum (in Pococke Descr. of the East, Lond. 1743. fol. i. 268, translated into German, 2d edition, Erlangen. 1771. 4. i. 393), in which distinguished privileges are secured to all Christians, are spurious. The humiliating terms under which Omar, at the taking of Jerusalem, 637, allowed freedom of religion to the Christians there (Le Beau Hist. du Bas-Empire, xii. 421), express, on the contrary, the spirit with which the subjugated Christians were treated at a later time. Cf. Th. Chr. Tychsen comm. qua disquiritur, quatenus Muhammedes aliarum religionum sectatores toleraverit, in the Commentationes Soc. Reg. Gotting. xv. 152.

SECOND CHAPTER.

HISTORY OF THE GREEK CHURCH.

§ 128.

MONOTHELITIC CONTROVERSY.

Original Documents in the Acts of the first Lateran Synod, A.D. 649 (ap. Mansi, x. 863), and the sixth General Council, A.D. 680 (ap. Mansi, xi. 190). Anastasii Bibliothecarii (about 870) collectanea de iis quae spectant ad Histor. Monothelit. (prim. ed. J. Sirmond. Paris. 1620. 8, in Sirm. Opp. t. iii. in Bibl. PP. Lugdun. xii. 833, ap. Gallandius, t. xiii. and scattered in Mansi, t. x. and xi.)

Historical authorities: Theophanes (comp. the preface to section 2).

Works F. Combefisii Hist. haeresis Monothelitarum ac Vindiciae actorum sextae synodi, in his Nov. auctarium Patrum. ii. 3 (Paris. 1648). Walch's Ketzerhist. ix. 3. Neander's K. G. iii. 353.

A fresh attempt to bring the Monophysites back to the Catholic Church was followed by no other consequence than that of introducing into the latter a new element of controversy.

When the Emperor Heraclius (A.D. 611–641) during his Persian campaign abode in Armenia and Syria (from 622), he thought he perceived that the Monophysites were particularly stumbled at the consequence arising from the catholic doctrine, viz., two manifestations of will (¿vépyɛiai) in the person of Christ. Sergius, patriarch of Constantinople, having been applied to on the point, declared that the adoption of one active will, and one manifestation of will, was not inconsistent with the received creed of the Church; and therefore the emperor, as well as several bishops, decided in favor of this opinion.1 But when one of these bishops, Cyrus, whom the emperor had appointed patriarch of Alexandria, reunited (633) the Severians

2

1 Cyri Episc. Phasidis Epist. ad Sergium (ap. Mansi, xi. 561), mentions Kéλɛvoiç of Heraclius to Arcadius, archb. of Cyprus, δύο ἐνεργείας ἐπὶ τοῦ δεσπότου ἡμῶν Ἰ. Χ. μετὰ Tηv ëvwσiv λéyɛoÐαi kwλúovoa. Sergius ad Cyprum (ibid. p. 525), rests on the authority of Cyril of Alexandria, who speaks of μíav Swoñoiòv ¿vépyɛlav, and on Mennas' letter to Virgilius, which says, ἓν τὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ θέλημα καὶ μίαν ζωοποιὸν ἐνέργειαν, though he is willing to be instructed by stronger reasons in favor of the contrary opinion. More decidedly Theodorus Episc. Pharan. (Fragments, ibid. p. 567, ss.), elvai μíav ¿vépγειαν ταύτης δὲ τεχνίτην καὶ δημιουργὸν τὸν θεὸν, ὄργανον δὲ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα.

2 Cyri Epist. altera ad Sergium (ap. Mansi, xi. 561), with the nine articles of agreement appended, p. 563. In the seventh we read: Τὸν αὐτὸν ἕνα Χριστὸν καὶ υἱὸν ἐνεργοῦντα τὰ θεοπρεπῆ καὶ ἀνθρώπινα μιᾷ θεανδρικῇ ἐνεργείᾳ, κατὰ τὸν ἐν ἁγίοις Διονύσιον (Dionys. Areopag. Epist. iv. ad Cajum. Comp. § 110, note 8. The orthodox read kaivõ θεανδρικῇ ἐνεργεία).

3

of that place with the Catholic Church by articles of agreement, in which that doctrine of one will was expressed; Sophronius, a Palestinian monk, who happened to be there at the time, raised the first opposition to this doctrine, which he afterward continued with zeal after he became patriarch of Jerusalem (634). Sergius now advised that nothing should be said on the disputed point. Pope Honorius agreed with him, not only in this advice, but in the doctrinal view of the matter." Sophronius was quieted by the incursions of the Arabs; but the spark which had fallen on spirits so susceptible of dogmatic speculation could not be extinguished. In vain did the emperor now issue the Ἔκθεσις (638), composed by Sergius for the purpose of putting down the controversy. The west, too, now rose up against the new doctrine. The monk Maximus," a

6

3 Sophronii Synodica ap. Mansi, xi. 461.-His other extant writings (saints' lives, discourses, etc.), to which many have been added in the Spicilegium Romanum t. iii. and iv. (1840) do not refer to Monothelitism.

4 Sergii Ep. ad Honorium (ap. Mansi, xi. 529), contains the most credible account of the beginning of the controversy. He assures Cyrus that his advice was, μηκέτι τοῦ λοιποῦ τινι συγχωρεῖν, μίαν ἢ δύο προφέρειν ἐνεργείας ἐπὶ Χριστοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν· ἀλλὰ μᾶλ λον, καθάπερ αἱ ἅγιαι καὶ οἰκουμενικαὶ παραδεδώκασι σύνοδοι. ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν υἱὸν μονογενῆ τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰ. Χ. τὸν ἀληθινὸν θεὸν ἐνεργεῖν ὁμολογεῖν τά τε θεῖα καὶ ἀνθρώπινα, καὶ πᾶσαν θεοπρεπῆ καὶ ἀνθρωποπρεπῆ ἐνέργειαν ἐξ ἑνὸς καὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ σεσαρκωμένου θεοῦ λόγου ἀδιαιρέτως προϊέναι, καὶ εἰς ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν ἀναφέρεθαι· διὰ τὸ τὴν μὲν μιᾶς ἐνεργείας φωνὴν-θορυβεῖν τὰς τινῶν ἀκοὰς, ὑπολαμβανόντων, ἐπ' ἀναιρέσει ταύτην προφέρεσθαι τῶν ἐν Χριστῷἡνωμένων δύο φύσεων.—ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ τὴν τῶν δύο ἐνεργειῶν ῥῆσιν πολλοὺς σκανδαλίζειν —ἕπεσθαι ταύτῃ τὸ καὶ δύο πρεσβεύειν θελήματα ἐναντίως πρὸς ἄλληλα ἔχοντα,δύο τοὺς τἀναντία θέλοντας εἰσάγεσ θαι, ὅπερ δυσσεβές.

5 Honorii Ep. i. ad Serg. (ap. Mansi, xi. 537). Extracts from the Ep. ii. ad eund., ib. p. 579. 6 Ap. Mansi, x. 992: Οθεν ἕνα ἴσμεν υἱὸν τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰ. Χ.—καὶ ἑνὸς καὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ τάτε θαύματα καὶ τὰ πάθη κηρύττομεν, καὶ πᾶσαν θεῖαν καὶ ἀνθρωπίνην ἐνέργειαν ἑνὶ καὶ τῷ αὐτῷ σεσαρκωμένῳ τῷ λόγῳ προσνέμομεν,-οὐδαμῶς συγχωροῦντες τινὶ τῶν πάντων μίαν ἢ δύο λέγειν ἢ διδάσκειν ἐνεργείας ἐπὶ τῆς θείας τοῦ κυρίου ἐνανθρωπήσεως, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον, καθάπερ αἱ ἅγιαι καὶ οἰκουμενικαὶ παραδεδώκασι σύνοδοι. What follows is word for word the same as the passage from Sergii Ep. ad Honor., given in note 4. But he continues, εἰ γὰρ ὁ μιαρὸς Νεστόριος καίπερ διαιρῶν τὴν θεῖαν τοῦ κυρίου ἐναν θρώπησιν, και δύο εἰσάγων υἱοὺς, δύο θελήματα τούτων εἰπεῖν οὐκ ἐτόλμησε, τοὐναν τίον δέ ταυτοβουλίαν τῶν ἐπ' αὐτοῦ ἀναπλαττομένων δύο προσώπων ἐδόξασε, πῶς δυνατὸν, τοὺς τὴν ὀρθὴν ὁμολογοῦντας πίστιν, καὶ ἕνα υἱὸν τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰ. Χ. τὸν ἀληθινὸν θεὸν δοξάζοντας δύο καὶ ταῦτα ἐναντία θελήματα ἐπ' αὐτοῦ παραδέχεσθαι; ὅθεν τοῖς ἁγίοις πατράσιν ἐν ἅπασι καὶ ἐν τούτῳ κατακολουθοῦντες, ἓν θέλημα τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰ. Χ.-ὁμολογοῦμεν, ὡς ἐν μηδενὶ καιρῷ τῆς νοερῶς ἐψυχωμένης αὐτοῦ σαρκὸς κεχωρισμένως καὶ ἐξ οἰκείας ὁρμῆς, ἐναντίως τῷ νεύματι τοῦ ἡνωμένου αὐτῇ καθ' ὑπόστασιν θεοῦ λόγου, τὴν φυσικὴν αὐτῆς ποιήσασθαι κίνησιν, ἀλλ' ὁπότε καὶ οἷαν καὶ ὅσην αὐτὸς ὁ θεὸς λόγος ήβούλετο.

7 Who is also worthy of notice as a commentator on Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite. See Neander's K. G. iii. 344. Ritter's Gesch. d. christl. Phil. ii. 535. His works, for the most part against the Monothelites, were edited by Franc. Combefisius. Paris. 1675. 2