The Lateran Synod of 649

The Lateran Synod of 649

§ 1

SEC. 307. Pope Martin i. and the Later an Synod of A.D. 649.

Soon after the promulgation of the Typus, and perhaps without having seen it, Pope Theodore died, May 13, 649 ; and on July 5, Martin i. was elected. He had been formerly a Koman priest, before that legate of the holy see at Con stantinople, a man distinguished for beauty, virtue, and know ledge, destined by providence as martyr for the Dyothelite faith. The Ada S. Audoeni declare that the Emperor in a friendly manner requested the new Pope to agree to the Typus, but that he had rejected this request with all decision, and petitioned the King of the Franks to send wise and able bishops to Eome, so that the Pope, with them and the bishops out of all Italy, might prepare an antidote for the heresy. They relate that the King agreed to this, and assembled the bishops of his kingdom, in order to select deputies who should

v.— 7

be sent to Eome. The election had fallen unanimously upon Audoenus of Eouen and Eligius of Noyon, but an accident hindered their journey.1

According to this, we should be forced to believe that Pope Martin had been required to receive the Typus immediately after he had taken possession of the see, and that, in order to be able to take more decisive steps, he had summoned a great Synod. But the Ada jS. Audoeni are a very dubious source, and in one of the points adduced are corrected by S. Audoenus himself, since he relates that it was after the Synod that the Pope made that request to the King of the Franks.2 Bower and others maintain that the Emperor Constans n. immediately confirmed the new Pope, in order the more easily to gain him over to himself and the Typus.3 Muratori,4 on the contrary, supposes that, this time in Eome, they did not await the imperial confirmation, and consecrated Pope Martin without such approval. This comes out clearly, that the Greeks maintained subsequently that he irregulariter et sine lege episcopatum subripuisse.5

The first great act of the new Pope was the holding of that famous Synod, in importance almost oecumenical, which was opened on the 5th of October 649, in the Basilica of Con- stantine (Ecdesia Salvatoris) in the Lateran. It lasted until October 31, fell into five sessions, here called secretarii? numbered 105 bishops, chiefly from Italy, Sicily, and Sardinia, with some Africans and other foreigners. There was no one present from Longobardian Italy, for Maximus of Aquileia, who was there, had his see at Grado, which belonged to the Byzantines (vol. iv. p. 364, note 2). The Pope presided, and had the Acts immediately translated into Greek, that he might be able to send them to the Emperor and the Oriental

1 Baron, ad aim. 649, n. 4 ; Surius, t. iv. ; died Aug. 24. These Ada assert, quite incorrectly, that Andoenus was not then a bishop. He became one as early as 640 ; see above, sec. 302.

2 Baronius, I.e. 3 Bower, vol. iv.

4 Muratori, History of Italy, vol. iv.

5 Martini, Ep. 15, in Mansi, t. x. p. 852.

6 The Synods were often held in the secretarii, buildings adjoining the church, and it was perhaps for this reason that the sessions themselves were called secretarii or secretaria. Cf. vol. ii. sees. 109, 119 ; vol. iii. sees. 166, 172, 186.

bishops. They have come to us in all completeness and in both languages, and it hardly needs to be said that, of the Greek documents received there and read at the Synod, e.g. the Ecthesis and Typus, the Greek text here presented to us is not a translation back from the Latin, but the original.

First of all, the first notary of the Eoman see, Theophylact, as master of the ceremonies, spoke and invited the Pope to deliver an address. He spoke as follows : — " Christ has commanded the shepherds to be watchful. This applies also to us ; and especially must we watch over the purity of the faith, as some bishops, who do not deserve this name, have sought of late to corrupt the Confession by newly invented expressions. All the world knows them, for they have come publicly forward to injure the Church, namely, Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius of Constantinople, and his suc cessors, Pyrrhus and Paul. Cyrus, eighteen years ago, taught in Alexandria one operation of Christ and proclaimed nine capitula from the pulpit. Sergius approved of this, somewhat later sent out the Ecthesis under the name of the Emperor Heraclius, and taught one will and one operation,1 which leads to one nature of Christ. By the Fathers it is quite clearly taught (passages in proof from Basil and Cyril) that the operatio corresponds with the nature, and he who has like operatio must also be of like nature. As now the Fathers teach two natures in Christ, it follows hence that in one and the same Incarnate Logos two wills and operations are united without mixture or separation. That both are naturaliter one is not possible. Pope Leo, too, taught two wills (proof passages), and the Holy Scriptures (proofs) point to the same. He worked thus the divine corporeally , for He manifested it by His rationally quickened flesh : the human He worked divinely, because, for our saJces, He voluntarily took upon Him human weaknesses, but without sin.

" These men contradicted the doctrine of Leo and of the Council of Chalcedon, since Cyrus set forth the nine capitula,

1 This is, taken literally, not quite accurate. Certainly there stands fast in the Ecthesis the doctrine of one energy, but, as a matter of fact, it forbids, for the sake of peace, the expression fj-ta, frtpyeia and dto frtpyeiai, and defends only

and Sergius the Ecthesis. Pyrrhus and Paul have spread the heresy more widely. Pyrrhus, in particular, by threats and flattery misled many bishops to subscribe that impiety. Later, to his shame, he came here and presented a letter to our holy see, in which he anathematised his earlier error. But he is like a clog returned to his vomit, and there fore is properly deposed. Paul, however, has outbid his predecessor, confirmed the Ecthesis, and opposed the true dogma. Therefore he has also been deposed by the holy see. In particular, imitating Sergius in order to hide his error, he gave the Emperor the counsel to send out the Typus, which annuls the catholic dogma, denies to Christ properly all will and all operation, and therewith also each nature, for the nature shows itself through its activity. He has done what no heretic has previously dared — destroyed the altar of our holy see in the palace, Placidia, and forbidden our envoys to celebrate there. He has persecuted these envoys, with other orthodox men, because they exhorted him to abandon his error, assigning to some imprisonment, to others exile, to others flogging. As these men (Sergius, etc.) have dis quieted almost the whole world, there have come to us from different sides complaints in writing and by word of mouth, with the request to destroy the falsehood by the apostolic authority. Our predecessors exhorted these men to amend ment, in writing and by their representatives, but without result. Therefore we have thought it necessary to call you together, in order, in consultation with you, to consider their case and the new doctrine." x

At the request of the two representatives of Archbishop Maurus of Eavenna, his letter to the Pope was now read, as follows : " He had been requested by the Pope to appear at the Synod, but the garrison and the residents of Eavenna and the neighbourhood (Pentapolis) had earnestly entreated him not to leave them, on account of the invasions of the barbarians, and as no imperial exarch was present. He would therefore ask to be excused, and to be considered as present. He thought in no way differently from the apostolic

1 This is the principal content of the rather lengthy discourse of the Pope, in Mansi, t. x. p. 870 ; Hardouin, iii. p. 694.

POPE MAETIN I. AND THE LATERAN SYNOD OF A.D. G49. 101

see and the orthodox Church, condemned and anathematised the Ecthesis, and that which had been recently put forth in its favour (the Typus), acknowledged two operations and two wills, since one and the same, God and man, in one person worked both, the godlike and the human ; he honoured the five holy Synods, and had sent deputies whose subscription against the Ecthesis, etc., he would recognise as valid."

After this letter had been embodied in the Acts, Arch bishop Maximus of Aquileia-Grado (see vol. iv. sees. 267 and 283) showed that the denial of two wills and operations necessarily led to the denial of the difference of the two natures in Christ, and thus to the rejection of the Council of Chalcedon, and proposed to have the heretical writings of Cyrus, Sergius, Pyrrhus, and Paul read aloud, and to set up one or two public accusers against them. Bishop Deusdedit of Calaris supported this proposal ; and the Synod, in the interest of thoroughness, agreed to it, although it was clear that any one who maintained only one will and one operation violated the doctrine of the Fathers and Synods.1 With this closed the first session.

In the second, on October 8, 649, Bishop Stephen of Dor (see above, sec. 305), at his own request, was introduced to the Synod, and his memorial addressed to it read. He says herein : " Theodore of Pharan, Cyrus, Sergius and his suc cessors, have put forth false doctrines, and have distracted the Church. On account of the primacy of the Eoman Church, Archbishop Sophronius of Jerusalem sent me to Eome, in order to give information respecting the erroneous doctrines of those men, and to obtain their condemnation. On Mount Calvary he bound me to this by a solemn oath, and I have fulfilled this commission immediately and faithfully. To-day I appear for the third time before the apostolic see, in order to pray for the condemnation of those heresies. On this account I have drawn the hatred of the opponents upon me, so that the (imperial) command has gone into all the provinces, to arrest me and to send me in chains (to Constantinople). Yet God protected me and awoke the apostolic bishops, so that they admonished those men (Sergius,

1 Mansi, t. x. p. 882 sqq. ; Hardouin, t. iii. p. 703 sqq.

etc.), although in vain. God awoke anew Pope Martin, who summoned this Synod for the preservation of the doctrines. I adjure you to bring the work to an end. The holy faith endures no defilement by innovation. If Christ is perfect God and perfect man, HE must also have a divine and a human will, otherwise His Godhead and manhood were imperfect, and He would be neither true God nor true man. If we admit two natures, then we must, in con sistency, teach also two wills and operations, and whoever denies this assails the Council of Chalcedon. Quite recently the opponents have invented something new, and Paul of Constantinople has persuaded the pious Emperor to publish the Typus, which prohibits the doctrine of the Fathers (of two wills) equally with that of the heretics (of one will). The same people who formerly taught one will now demand that we should not confess one, and declare Christ neither for God nor for man, as they would bring about the denial both of the human and the divine will. In the East, the heresy has carried destruction round it. Bishop Sergius of Joppa, after the departure of the Persians, has uncanonically, by secular power, taken possession of the see of Jerusalem, has ordained other bishops, and these, to maintain themselves, have acceded to the innovation. I acquainted the late Pope Theodore with these things, and was by him named as his representative in Palestine, with the commission to depose the bishops who would not amend. At my request, some of them gave a written declaration that they would adhere to the orthodox faith. I conveyed their documents to Pope Martin, and he confirmed several of them. I and the Orientals repeat now the petition of S. Sophronius, that you will condemn and root out the errors of Apollinaris and Sever us, which have been renewed by the men whom I have named, and rejoice the world by a declaration of the genuine faith." *

Thereupon thirty - seven Greek abbots, priests, and monks, who had resided for several years in Eome (probably driven into exile by the Saracens), were, at their request, brought before the Synod. At their head stood John, abbot

1 Mansi, I.e. p. 891 ; Hardouin, I.e. p. 711. Stephen of Dor subscribes as Trpwros of the ayla o-foodos standing under the patriarchal see of Jerusalem.

of the Laura of S. Sabas at Jerusalem ; Theodore, abbot of a (Greek) Laura (of S. Sabas) in Africa ; Thalassius, abbot of the Armenian monastery of S. Eenatus in Eome ; and George, abbot of the Cilician monastery Ad aquas Salvias at Eome. They handed in a Greek memorial, which, read aloud in a Latin translation, requested the assembled bishops to condemn Monothelitism, and to pronounce anathema on Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, and their adherents, and also on the Typus, and to confirm synodally the true doctrine of the duality of the wills. With this was connected the petition that the Pope would immediately cause the Acts of this Synod to be accurately translated into Greek.1

It was naturally of interest for the Lateran Synod to collect these and all other writings of complaint against Monothelitism which were presented to them, and to use them as material for their own decision. Therefore the letter of Archbishop Sergius of Cyprus to Pope Theodore (sec. 302), and the four African letters mentioned above were read.2

The third session, on October 17, had to bring up from the writings of the Monothelite leaders passages in proof of their heresy; and they began with Theodore of Pharan, because that doctrine had been first uttered in his writings. There were read eleven passages, which had already been noted from two letters of his (to Bishop Sergius of Arsinoe, and on the explanation of patristic utterances), each of which con tains the thought : " The Godhead and the manhood in Christ had only one, and this the divine energy." Some of these fragments bring out this thought more fully, thus : " All that Christ did and spoke, that He hungered and thirsted, etc., proceeded from the Godhead, and happened under mediation of the rational, human soul, through the services of the body. The Logos is opifex of the operatio ; the human nature is only the organ." Theodore started from the correct thought, " that Christ had voluntarily allowed hunger and thirst, and human TrdOrj in general " (which is quite correct, see sees. 296, 297, 303), but it was an erroneous saltus when from that he inferred the fiia evepyeia. Christ certainly did not hunger or thirst

1 Mansi, I.e. p. 903 ; Hardouin, I.e. p. 722.

2 Mansi, I.e. p. 914 sqq. ; Hardouin, I.e. p. 727 sqq.

involuntarily, as we do, nor through the constraint of nature, but only when and as the Logos allowed it ; but the hunger or the thirst was yet not an evepyeiv of the divine, but of the human nature.

In the discourse which the Pope delivered after this reading, he endeavoured to point out the heresy of Theodore, and reproached him first with Arianism, arguing thus : " Theodore says, the Godhead and manhood of Christ have only one operation ; in another place he calls it condita, created (in the words : The Logos is its opifex) ; thus the divine in Christ, to him as to Arius, is something created, conditum." Then he convicts him of Docetism, Manichgeism, and Apollinarism, because, in support of the fila evepyeia, he says in the tenth fragment : " In man the soul is certainly not master of the grossly material body ; but with the divine and quickening body of Christ this was different, since it came forth, not in a grossly material manner (aoy/ccos), but, so to speak, ao-w/xttVo)?, from His mother's womb, and subsequently out of the grave and through closed doors." From the acra>//,aT&>? the Pope infers that Theodore had denied the true Incarnation of the Logos, and adduces a series of patristic passages to show that the orthodox Fathers had maintained a true humanity of Christ, with a material body subject to gravity. What he evidently wanted to do with him, as later with Bishop Maximus of Aquileia (below, in this sec.), was to show that Bishop Theodore of Pharan was already anathe matised by the anathema on Arius, the Docetse, etc., to the proof, however, that Dyothelitism is the true doctrine, and the necessary consequence of the Chalcedonian dogma, he does not here proceed.1 Then were read :

(1) The seventh capitulum of Cyrus of Alexandria (sec. 293);

(2) The letter of Sergius of Constantinople to Cyrus (sec. 293); and

(3) The passage from Dionysius Areop. Ad Caium, to which the seventh capitulum of Cyrus appealed. Pope Martin remarked on this, that the heretics were ready to creep under patristic passages, and that Cyrus on this point had

1 Mansi, I.e. p. 954-970 ; Hardouin, I.e. p. 762-774.

falsified the passage of Dionysius the Areopagite, and made him assert a una operatic deivirilis instead of a nova. Sergius, in his answer to Cyrus, had carried the falsification further, since he, repeating the words of Cyrus (sec. 293), said not only, like him, una instead of nova, but also omitted the word deivirilis (OeavSpiKrj), as if Dionysius had taught merely the IJL la evepyeia.1 Then were read :

(4) Several passages from writings of the Monothelite leader Themistius, founder of the sect of Agnoetas (see vol. iii. sec. 208), in proof that more than a hundred years ago the Monothelites, particularly Themistius and Severus, maintained the ^ia evepyeia OeavSpiitr), and the former opposed Colluthus (also a Monophysite, but an opponent of the Agnoetse), because the latter rejected the OeavSpLtctj on the supposition that this expression involved the recognition of two energies.2 The Pope showed what absurdity resulted from understanding only one evepyeia under QeavSpucr), and (as we saw above, sec. 128) showed very well what Dionysius the Areopagite meant to say in the passage in question : " Nee enim nuda Deitate (Christus) divina, neque pura humanitate humana, sed per carnem quidem intellectualiter animatam . . . operabatur sublimifcer miracula, et iterum per potestatem validissimam . . . passionum sponte pro nobis experimentum suscipiebat." 3 He added that Leo the Great also fully agreed with this doctrine (of two operations), and that Sergius and Cyrus had grossly misinterpreted his words.

Bishop Deusdedit of Calaris is of the same view, and declares that, along with Cyrus and Sergius, Pyrrhus must also be condemned. He had thoroughly approved of their heresy, and had excused Cyrus for the falsification of the passage of the Areopagite, by saying that KCUVTJV must necessarily be taken in the sense of /u'az/.4

Finally, the Pope caused to be read :

(5) The Ecthesis (see sec. 299);

1 Mansi, I.e. pp. 970-980 ; Hardouin, I.e. pp. 775-783.

2 On Themistius, cf. Photii Biblioth. cod. 108 ; and Walch, Ketzerhist. Bd. viii. S. 652 and 658.

3 Mansi, I.e. p. 986 ; Hardouin, I.e. p. 787.

4 Mansi, Lc. p. 987 ; Hardouin, I.e. p. 790.

(6) The fragments of the Synods of Constantinople of 638 and 639 under Sergius and Pyrrhus (sec. 300); and

(7) The letter of Cyrus to Sergius containing the approval of the Ecthesis (sec. 301), when the Pope remarked that now the heresy of these men was as clear as day.1

In the fourth session, October 19 (or 17), the Pope resumed the proofs for the heterodoxy of Cyrus, Sergius, Pyrrhus, and the Ecthesis, and pointed to the changeableness of the Monothelites, who at first had taught the pia evepyeia so zealously, and yet in the Ecthesis had forbidden its being asserted. They had anathematised themselves, and their threats to anathematise others (the Dyothelites) were wrong and powerless. In order, however, to show most clearly that they were heretical, before the Synod should give their sentence, the declarations of faith of the holy Fathers and of the five (Ecumenical Synods, bearing on the subjects, should be read aloud and compared with the Monothelite doctrine. As, however, Bishop Benedict of Ajaccio made the proposal that the Patriarch Paul of Constantinople should be associated with the heretics named, and that judgment should also be pronounced upon him, they read next the proofs against him, namely, his letter to the departed Pope, Theodore (sec. 305), and the Typus of the Emperor, composed by him, and after wards the documents which had first been used as witnesses against the Monothelites generally, the creeds of the old Synods of Nicsea, Constantinople, and Chalcedon, together with the twelve anathematisms of Cyril (under the title of Symbol of Ephesus) and the fourteen anathematisms of the fifth Synod.

At the close of the session, Bishop Maximus of Aquileia delivered an address, in which he commended the zeal of the Pope, and showed that Sergius and Pyrrhus, etc., could in no way appeal to the five (Ecumenical Synods, that, on the contrary, their teaching was implicitly anathematised by these in the anathematisms against Arius, Apollinaris, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Nestorius, who had also taught only one will and one operation.2 Also that Monothelitism led to the

1Mansi, I.e. pp. 990-1007 ; Hardouin, I.e. pp. 791-804.

2 The two latter sought in the moral unity of the human and of the divine

denial of the full Godhead and manhood of Christ, thus to the rejection of the Council of Chalcedon. Sophronius had already, in opposition to Sergius, collected testimonies of the Fathers for the two wills, and the doctrine of the Monothelites was only a renewing of the Severian heresy, in the foundation of which they had misinterpreted the words of Leo : Agit enim utraque forma, etc.1

In the fifth session, October 31, there was first read a passage from the Confession of Faith of the fifth (Ecumenical Synod (sess. 3 ; see vol. iv. sec. 268 ad Jin.), in which every one who opposed the doctrines of the earlier Synods is smitten with anathema, and then a previously prepared rich collection of patristic testimonies in favour of Dyothelitism was read. The first division of these, taken from Ambrose, Augustine, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, Cyril, and Amphilochius, treats of this, that where there is una essentia or natura, there also there is una operatic and una voluntas, and conversely, and that the will lies on the side of the nature, is o-vvSpo/jios with the nature. Father, Son, and Spirit there fore, as they had only one nature, so had only one will. The second series, from Hippolytus (sanctm episcopus et martyr), Ambrose, Augustine, Leo, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, Chrysostom and his two opponents, Sanctus Theopliilus and Beatus Severianus of Gabala, gives testimony, that these Fathers ascribe to the divine nature of Christ a divine will, to the human nature a human will and human passiones, which, however, Christ had assumed voluntarily. The third section shows the same in reference to the two natural operations of Christ, by passages from Hilary, Leo, Dionysius the Areopagite,2 Justin,3 Athan-

will in Christ, the connection of the two persons asserted by them. (See vol. iii. sec. 127).

1 Mansi, t. x. p. 1007 sqq. ; Hardouin, t. iii. p. 806 sqq.

2 Here are adduced the two passages of the Areopagite mentioned in sec. 291, but the Latin translation of one is incorrect, since TTJS avdpiairlv^ aurov Geovpylas is translated by humanse ejus operationi.

3 The four passages which are here adduced are not by Justin. They are quoted as being taken from the 17th chapter of his first book on the Trinity. In the same manner are several of them quoted by Leontius Contra Monophys. , and the anonymous ancient writing, Patrum doctrina, etc. (both in Aug. Mai, Vcterum Script. Nova Collectio, t. vii. pp. 22, 24, 130). The three first of these

108 HISTOEY OF THE COUNCILS.

asms,1 Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, Amphi- lochius, Epiphanius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Cyril of Alexandria, Chry sos torn, etc. The Synod remarked : From this it is clear that Cyrus and Sergius contradicted the holy Fathers, since these most decidedly taught not only two natures, but also two natural wills and operations. It now remains only to show that the innovators agreed with heretics already condemned ; 2 and this was shown by forty-one utterances from the Arian Lucius, from Apollinaris, Sever us, Themis tius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Nestorius,3 Colluthus, Julian of Halicarnassus, etc., who all acknowledged only one energy and one divine will in Christ.4 Immediately afterwards the Pope interposed, in order to draw the conclusion that the new doctrine of Sergius and Cyrus was identical with the heresies read out, which he showed still more clearly and forcibly by comparing the lead ing propositions on both sides. He closed with the words : " The innovators therefore deserve the same anathema as the old heretics, since they not only have not been alarmed by the anathema pronounced on the others, but, going still further, have maintained, to the deceiving of the people, that the Council of Chalcedon and the holy Fathers were upon their side." After that, Maximus of Aquileia and Deusdedit of Calaris delivered addresses to show that the doctrine of two wills and energies was the only true one ; and after the Pope had, in a short address, finally done the

four passages are found verbally in the book (of pseudo-Justin) Expositio rectse fidei, seu de Trinitate (Otto, Opp. S. Justini, t. iii. pt. i. p. 34 sqq. ), but not c. 17, but c. 11 and 12 (the division of chapters must formerly have been different); and this writing is here called liber iii., not as though it were divided into three books, but because the author (probably the Sicilian Bishop Justin in the 5th century) says, in chap, i., that he has already written two books against the Jews and heathen, so that the present is the third. (Cf. Prud. Maran. Opp. S. Justini, Admonitio in exposit. rectee confessionis ; and Otto, De Justini Mart, script-is, etc., p. 63.) The fourth passage here cited I do not find literally in pseudo- Justin, but the sense of it in c. 11.

1 One of the passages here adduced as of S. Athanasius is no longer found in his works.

2 Mansi, t. x. pp. 1066-1114 ; Hardouin, t. iii. pp. 854-890.

3 From his treatise on the "Glorious Consecration" (^Trt<pavovs jituTjo-eus = baptism). The Latin text of our Council is corrupt and gives no meaning — Epiphanius Myeseos.

4 Mansi, I.e. pp. 1114-1123 ; Hardouin, I.e. pp. 891-898.

same,1 the Synod put forth a Syrribolum and twenty ana- thematisms or canons.

The Lateran symbol is, in the first place, a repetition and translation of the Chalcedonian, from eva KOI rov avrov (vol. iii. sec. 193, p. 350) down to 'lycrovv Xpia-rov.2 To this is added that which, for the present, is the most important, the new passage : " Et duas ejusdem sicuti naturas unitas inconfuse, ita et duas naturales voluntates (sc. credi- mus), divinam et humanam, in approbatione perfecta et in- diminuta eundem veraciter esse perfectum Deum, et hominem perfectum (the Greek text has the addition, povris S/^a T^? a^apT-ias), eundem atque unum Dominum nostrum et Deum J. Chr., utpote volentem et operantem divine et humane nostram salutem.3

The same doctrine is developed more explicitly in the twenty canons ; but they are not confined to this point alone, but extend, in precise and clear exposition, over the whole christo- logical question, and anathematise the opposed heresy with its adherents, and with the Ecthesis and the Typus.