“The Historical and Political Development of Christology from

The Council of Chalcedon in 451 to the Third Council of Constantinople in 681”

A Paper Submitted to

Dr. Marc Cortez

Western Seminary

Portland, OR

In Partial Fulfillment of

the Requirements of

CHS 662JZGreek Fathers

By

Justin Cardinal

April 22, 2010

 2

Introduction
In this paper I would like to examine the historical development of the theological
debates concerning the human nature in the divine Christ from the Council of Chalcedon in 451
to the Third Council of Constantinople in 681 with special attention given to political power-
plays that both influenced them and caused some to reject them. Focus will not be given to the
differences between the Alexandrian and Antiochene schools of thought since I think that by this
time those distinctions were pretty blurred. Gregory of Nazianzus, representing well the
Cappadocian Fathers, believed that it was essential to believe in Jesus Christ as a human being
for salvation to apply since “For that which he has not taken up he has not saved.”1 However, the
language that was used to explain what that looked like would subsequently be hotly contested as
various factions felt their opponents did not properly express a fully divine and fully human
Jesus.
Previous debates with Arius and his successors who denied a full divinity in the person of
Jesus Christ were settled more or less at the Council of Nicaea in 325. In contrast, Apollinarius
overemphasized the deity of Christ compromising his humanity. Holding a very Platonic
understanding of humanity, Apollinarius was unwilling to grant that Christ had a human will
which would have been nothing but sinful. His divine nature replaced the human rational soul
which ultimately denied the full humanity of Christ.2 These teachings were condemned at the
Council of Constantinople in 381.
Once those debates had passed and it was virtually universally accepted that Jesus Christ
was both God and man the issue emerged concerning how to define and understand this union.
From the debates between Cyril and Nestorius to the debates between Maximus and Pyrrhus we
see the terminology emerge that defines Christ as a single person with both a divine nature and
human nature, a divine will and a human will. This terminology appears as second nature to us as
demonstrated in a typical systematic theology book by Wayne Grudem, “Jesus Christ was fully
God and fully human in one person, and will be so forever.”3 Absent from this definition
however is any mention of nature or will which is the subject of the debates outlined here. What
I will seek to demonstrate is how this tension was fueled not only by political motivations
following the dwindling Eastern Roman Empire and precarious Western Roman Empire but also

1
Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Civilization (Peabody, MA: Prince Press, 2001), 253.
2
Stephen J. Nichols, For Us and For Our Salvation (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2007), 102-103.
3
Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 529.
 3

by the church’s growing veneration for authorized theologians, councils, and synods that
required full acceptance in spite of disputed terms and formulas. Of course this does not negate
the dangerous heresies that our Greek Fathers fought against but it does seek to add to the
incessant tension.
The Western Roman Empire is widely recognized to have fallen in 476. The political
vacuum that this created was filled in part by ecclesial leaders that wielded great political power.
Meanwhile the Eastern Roman Empire, though beleaguered by foreign invasion and inner
turmoil, continued for roughly another thousand years. Byzantine Emperors kept a tight rein on
ecclesial affairs in attempts to unite and strengthen the empire as theological and doctrinal
debates often divided its citizens. With North Africa and Egypt in jeopardy they were keenly
aware of a potential loss of citizens who paid taxes and the bread-basket of the empire. As the
emperors intervened in ecclesiastical matters to unite their citizens, edicts were issued that did
more to divide and incite persecution. At times those who we consider Orthodox were on the
positive side of power while at other times our heroes were exiled and tortured. Maximus, who
with his two companions had his tongue cut out so that he could no longer speak against the
Monothelites and his right hand cut off so that he could no longer write his treatises and letters,
found himself on the negative side of the empire for most of his life though as we shall see his
doctrine and teachings would be exonerated little more than a generation after his death. Though
theological discussions were at times tainted by appeals to the emperor, our key players are
believed to me primarily concerned with the continued defense of the gospel that they felt was
being undermined by the heresies that they fought.
Cyril & Nestorius
The new and rapidly growing city of Constantinople is seen throughout our tale through
both its influential Patriarchs and active Emperors. Ecclesially, the see of Constantinople was a
sought after position of influence and those who served there wielded great influence over
church matters. Similarly as Emperors were stationed there their political might brought safety
for those who sided with the doctrine of Constantinople and turmoil to those who spoke against
them.
Nestorius, patriarch of Constantinople from 428-431, enters our discussion with a sermon
in which he declared that Mary should not be called the Theotokos(Mother of God) but instead
the Christotokos(Mother of Christ). This distinction which affirmed the fact that Mary being a
 4

created human being could not be the mother of the uncreated, eternal, and infinite God implied
that Christ was something less than fully divine. Nestorius’ desire was a distinction between the
divine person and human person in Jesus. The human person then was born of Mary while the
divine person was not. His declaration of Jesus having “two natures and two persons,” one divine
and one human, though, made in an attempt to protect the divinity of Jesus from the weakness of
humanity actually did more to weaken Christology.4
Cyril of Alexandria, superior to Nestorius in both his theology and political prowess,
defined Orthodoxy in terms of the hypostatic union of the two natures in the person of Jesus
alleviating the question of how Mary could be considered the mother of God. If Jesus in some
mysterious way could be shown through scripture to be both fully divine and fully human
following the incarnation than Cyril had no problem saying that the Godhead through Jesus
partook in all those things that made him human. He was also effective in showing how the
logical outcome of Nestorius’ teaching was a belief in two Christs, neither of which were able to
fulfill the economy of salvation. Either a divine Christ could not identify with us and fulfill the
economy of our salvation, or a human Christ could not fulfill what was necessary in the
atonement. In his On the Unity of Christ he demonstrates how the scriptures describe the Divine
humbling himself and taking on the fullness of humanity in the incarnation. The mystery which
is Christ that Nestorius attempted to unwrap remained secure through clear Biblical affirmations
and the doctrine of the two persons in Christ was anathema.5
Eutyches&Dioscorus
Eutyches, a presbyter at Constantinople shortly after, also argued against the teachings of
Nestorius. Though he was correct in dismissing Nestorius for ultimately teaching two Christs, his
solution lay in a combination of the two natures in the incarnation resulting in an entirely new
nature. It was his lack of subtlety in outlining how Jesus could have two natures before the union
but one nature after it that both diminished his humanity and divinity.6 Where Cyril had masterly
affirmed a full divinity and full humanity while speaking of one nature clouded in mystery,
Eutyches desire to clarify his position and define the terms too preciselycut out mystery and
4
Gonzalez, 254.
5
“If anyone shall divide between two persons or subsistences those expressions which are contained in the
Evangelical and Apostolic writings, or which have been said concerning Christ by the Saints, or by Himself, and shall
aply some to him as to a man separate from the Word of God, and shall apply others to only the Word of God the
Father, on the ground that they are fit to be applied to God: let him be anathema.” (number 4 of his 12
Anathemas)
6
Gonzalez, 255.
 5

inserted heresy. Though he did not fall as far as Apollinarius he did reduce Christ’s humanity to
“a drop of wine in the ocean of his deity.”7 While the divine characteristics permeated and
transformed the humanity of Christ the same could not be said of the reverse therefore the result
was the same as Apollinarius and Christ was not fully human.
Cyril’s successor in Alexandria, Dioscurus, zealously proclaimed the doctrine of “one
nature” from his predecessor but without the same precision and tact. In 448 he manipulated a
synod of bishops in Constantinople to condemn Eutyches. Then at the would-be fourth
ecumenical council of Chalcedon which became known instead as the “Robber Synod,”
Dioscorusmade sure that the doctrine of Christ’s two natures was declared heretical.Leo’s Tome,
which called for an affirmation of a full divinity and full humanity in Christ, threw a wrench in
Dioscurus’ plot. It’s deliverer was beat nearly to death by those holding the bishops captive
communicating their point quite effectively.
Pope Leo, disgusted by both the outcome of the Council and by the treatment of his
messenger, called for action to reverse the “Robber Synod.” The emperor refused because he was
happy with the outcome and the perceived peace that it might bring to the empire in conflict. Leo
then threatened to call a council of his own in the East without support of the emperor in the
West. This development was a manifestation of a split in the church following a split in the
empire though things turned around when the emperor fell off his horse and died. His sister, who
took the throne, was sympathetic to Leo’s request and agreed to call for new counsel that would
reverse the acts of the previous one until an honest position could immerge apart from
manipulative threats. This would be the Council of Chalcedon.
What we have seen so far is this. Nestorius of Constantinople doctrine of two Christs, one
human and one divine, was defeated by Cyril of Alexandria’s formulation of the hypostatic
union of both the divine and human elements of Jesus in one nature. Then the next generation
comes along and zealously overstates Cyril’s argument presenting either a Christ that is quite
strangely a third nature following the incarnation (Eutyches) or a divine nature with a human
glove (Dioscorus). Either way the mystery is gone and a new heresy has emerged, and the empire
has been solicited to help sort things out.
The Council of Chalcedon

7
Roger Olson, The Story of Christian Theology (Downers Gorove, IL: InterVarsity, 1999), 226.
 6

It was clear to the 500 bishops in attendance at this Council of Chalcedon in 451 that a
new definition of the person of Jesus Christ was needed to clean up the mess that had been made
of Cyril’s formula. Consulting Leo’s Tome and Cyril’s own letters to Nestorius the counsel
produced an elaboration of the Nicene Creed. This Chalcedonian definition of faith8 clarified and
reaffirmed the church’s previous councils in declaring Christ’s complete and perfect divinity and
humanity, acknowledged in two inseparable natures preserved and concurrent in one person.
This affirmation repudiated the teachings of Apollinarius, Eutyches, and Nestorius. Against
Apollinarius it denied that the divine nature replaced the human nature. Against Eutyches it
declared that the two natures not be confused or changed remaining fully intact. And against
Nestorius it declared that the two natures were in one person without division or
distinction.9Further, use of the Greek term hypostasis confirmed the unity of two natures which
identified its argument with Cyril though Cyril had previously only spoken of “one nature.”
The teaching of Nestorius and Eutyches identified problem areas in Christology without
providing a way out. The Chalcedonian definition avoided describing how the two natures came
together by simply stating that they did. As Leo had said, “We should not be disturbed but rather
strengthened by these mysteries.”10 Chalcedon attempted to declare what the Bible declared
without going beyond it. The problem of stressing two natures without stressing one person is
that Christ becomes the conflicted individual of Nestorius. The problem of stressing the unity
without the two intact natures is the loss of Christ’s humanity ofEutyches.
Chalcedon by no means settled the dispute, but it did produce a statement that avoided
the pitfalls of Apollinarius, Nestorius, and Eutyches. Standing firm in tradition, while not saying
anything new, it produced a form in words that at least all those who gathered found acceptable.
Following the council three groups emerged. First were the Chalcedonians who were satisfied

8
It reads, “We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach people to confess one and the same
Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a
reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us
according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according
to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God,
according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures,
inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by
the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one
Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word,
the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus
Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.”
9
Nichols, 110.
10
Ibid, 113.
 7

with the council and its language. Second were those who felt that Chalcedon didn’t go far
enough in distinguishing the two natures. These Nestorians who were spread throughout the
empire were now even more entrenched in their beliefs. Third, in opposition to the
Nestorians,were those who felt that the language of Chalcedon went too far in separating the
natures of Christ. Holding up Cyril’s statements about one nature they became known as the
Monophysites. Interestingly, both the Monophysites and the Chalcedonians claimed to be faithful
to Cyril. Indeed the Monophysites held up Cyril’s language of “one nature” but missed what the
Chalcedonians picked up in Cyril’s uncompromising affirmation of a complete divinity and
humanity in Christ.
In the meantime, Chalcedon did more than just affirm the two natures of Christ. Pope Leo
picked out and rejected the twenty-eighth canon of the Council of Chalcedon because it called
for a higher status of Constantinople in relation to Rome. Claiming that Rome had been granted
special privileges because it was a royal city, and the Bishops in Chalcedon felt it prudent to
grant similar privileges to Constantinople which was the new royal city of the Byzantine Empire.
Pope Leo’s rejection of this canon served to aggravate the increasing tension between East and
West.
At the conclusion of the council, the empress and her consort decreed that no further
debates would be allowed in the empire as Christians were required to affirm the teachings of
Nicaea, Constantinople, and Chalcedon.11 If only it were that simple. Many of those in Egypt and
Syria considered Dioscorus, who Chalcedon condemned, to be a martyr and Leo, whose writings
influenced Chalcedon, to be a heretic. On top of this they were also resentful of the growing
political might of Constantinople and its influence on ecclesial matters.12
Emperor Zeno & Pope Felix III
As already stated, those who rejected the “two natures” language of the Chalcedonian
definition became known as the Monophysites, which literally means “one nature.” Adopting the
“one nature after the union” terminology from Cyril and turned off by Nestorianism’slanguage of
“two natures,” their concern was that the divine and human nature not be divided up rendering
the incarnation meaningless. This thinking was adopted by large portions of the population.The
empress’ desire to quench the debates was simply impossible as later Byzantine Emperors were
compelled to appease theMonophysitesto bring strength and stability to the empire.
11
Olson, 232.
12
Gonzalez, 257-258.
 8

The first decree that we will look at came in 476 when Emperor Zeno13 annulled the
decisions at Chalcedon frustrating Pope Felix III since precedent was continuing to be made that
the emperor could decide what was proper to believe.With the then Patriarch of Constantinople,
Acacius, he then published a statement called the Henotikon which meant “act of union.” It
reaffirmed the decisions of Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus; asserted Christ’s full divinity
and humanity; and anathematized and condemned Nestorius and Eutyches while not specifically
mentioning Chalcedon, Leo’s Tome, or the “two natures.” From our vantage point and context in
history it would seem that this “act of union” was perfectly suited to pull together the various
factions of the church though ecclesial standards and old-fashioned politics made it difficult to
accept. Pope Felix III rejected it if for no other reason than the fact that it ignored Chalcedon.
With the emperor in the east garnishing support from his Patriarch in Constantinople,
who by the way was excommunicated by the Pope for his involvement in the Henotikon, the
divide between east and west deepened. In fact the church on both sides of the Mediterranean
took offense at the Emperor for openly dictating church doctrine. However, this union in
Constantinople between emperor and patriarch would continue to play a major role in the
stability of the empire and the definition of Orthodoxy throughout this debate.
Emperor Justinian I& Pope Vigilius
Emperor Justinian14 was quite successful in restoring the Byzantine Empire to the height
of its glory after it suffered at the hands of invading armies on all fronts. After his military and
political conquests, he like so many otherstried to unite and extend the dwindling empire through
religious agreement. He decreed that every pagan had to be instructed and baptized or have his
property confiscated. Subsequent relapse from the faith meant death. The school of Athens was
closed in 529 and in Constantinople grammarians, sophists, physicians were arrested, flogged,
and even executed. Jews could not testify in court against Christians. Samaritans were treated
like pagans. Heretics were excluded from imperial offices and from teaching and practicing law.
Bishops were given extensive governmental duties. In short, Justinian as emperor took interest in
all areas of the church and even consideredhimself to be an inspired theologian. Christianity
under Justinian’s reign grew in popularity, wealth, and influence as did Constantinople.
Still the Christians in his empire were sourly divided. If he could bring the Monophysites
back into the Chalcedonian fold he could solidify the empire. Settling these religious factions
13
Ruled from 474-491
14
Ruled from 527-565.
 9

was important since Monophysites made up a considerable proportion of the general population
in the East and sometimes whole provinces. Justinian called for a council and invited Pope
Vigilius. Justinian’s wife, Empress Theodora, was a strong supporter of the Monophysites, no
doubt exercised considerable influence over Justinian’s policies. After Vigilius travelled to
Constantinople he became uncomfortable with the Christological thinking in Constantinople and
felt that he needed to defend Chalcedon. To do so he fled Constantinople for Chalcedon, a
physical affirmation of the pope’s rejection of Constantinople and support of Chalcedon. He
would subsequently head back to Rome avoiding Justinian’s council altogether.Calling the
various factions together to work out a doctrinal solution only served widen the debate. Instead
of rejecting the Council of Chalcedon as some of his successors had done he rejected some of the
writings of three Antiochene theologians.
Justinian died in 565, after a long reign. Though he had been largely successful in his
military expansion, part ofthe peace that he earned was in part dependent on a large annual
tribute to the Persians. Unfortunately, his successor failed to understand the necessity of the
tribute and discontinued it. What followed after his death was a series of continuous invasions
from the Persians that led to a long drawn out war between Byzantine Empire and Persia.
Monothelitism
The driving questions of Monophysitism eventually morphed as we shall see, into the
doctrine that Maximus argued against which is Monotheletism, meaning “one will.” It came to be
believed that it could be possible to reconcile the differences between Chalcedonians and
Monophysites if it was accepted that Christ had two natures as Chalcedon had proclaimed but
only one will to protect Christology from falling back in the extremes of Nestorianism or
Apollinarianism. The questions that fueled these debates were metaphysical and psychological
dealing with the relation of will to nature and person. Settled at Chalcedon was the debate that in
Christ there were two natures. But as Monothelites contested, the will is an attribute of the
person. Reason and will go together which constitute the essence of personality. Where
Chalcedon affirmed two wills and two natures, Monothelites sought a correction. Sure Christ had
two natures but their contention was that in his single personality he only had one will.
Again, their motivation was to guard the unity of Christ’s person and work which was
divided under Nestorianism. They continued to believe that the language of Chalcedon would
lead to an undue separation in Christ. If Christ had two wills they would necessarily conflict and
 10

the best explanation for a sinless Christ is the denial of a purely human will. They then regarded
the Divine will of the Logos to be the efficient cause of the incarnation and redemption while
regarding the human nature of Christ as that through which the work is accomplished. Through
his human nature he was born, tempted, and suffered all the while his divine will was in control.
This is the position that would be developed during the reigns of Heraclius and Constans II.
Emperor Heraclius
Nearly fifty years down the line from Justinian, Emperor Heraclius15 inherited an empire
that was threatened on all sides by the Persians and Arabs besides the usual tensions and bitter
divisions in the church. After returning to Constantinople from his Persian campaigns he focused
his efforts on uniting his empire through ecclesial as Justinian had done. Now that the
Monophysites were more numerous than the Orthodox believers in most of the regions of the
Byzantine Empire, he hoped to unite all parties in order to better ward off the Mohammedan
invaders. He solicited Sergius who was Patriarch of Constantinople16and of Syrian descent to
establish a compromising position. Sergius’ position, though, not completely clear implied that
Christ’s divine will took the place of the human will. Their formula was a single “divine-human
energy” called Monoenergism. With the consent of Pope Honorius17 and Cyrus, the Patriarch of
Alexandria, the formula was published in 633 successfully converting thousands of
Monophysites.
This is the place in the story where Maximus steps in. Little is known for certain about
him prior to his immersion into the debate following his arrival in North Africa around 630
having fled from the invading Persians and Arabs. There he continued his monastic ways while
building relationships with the imperial governors there probably due to his previous
involvement in the court of Heraclius. It was probably Sophronius, who would later be named
Patriarch of Jerusalem18and had made a name for himself opposing both Monophysitism and
Monoenergism, who awakened Maximus to the urgency of the debate. Maximus was
sympathetic to the debates having had his own works previously identified and held up by
certain Monothelites. For instance, in a letter he had written to a Bishop named John of
Chamberlain he stated,

15
Emperor from 610-641
16
Patriarch of Constantinople from 610-638
17
Pope from 625-638
18
Partriarch of Jerusalem from 634-638
 11

“As we all have one nature, so we are able to have with God and with one another but
one mind and one will, being in no way at odds either with God or with one another.”19
In his Ambigua, which was also addressed to this same John he wrote of a single “energy” of
God that although it was quite unrelated to Christology he felt bound to retract later.20 He thus
proceeded with caution aware of the difficulty of properly expressing one’s beliefs concerning
Christology with the terms nature, will, and energy. He did however become increasingly
involved in the struggle against Monothelitism.
Swimming against the current, Sophronius protested the formulation of
Monoenergismagainst Cyrus, the Patriarch of Alexandria and then travelled to Constantinople to
argue the point with Sergius, unaware of Sergius’ involvement in the formulation of the doctrine.
He was successful though in convincing Sergius that future synodal letters should not speak of
either one or two modes of activity in Christ. When Sophronius left to become Patriarch in
Jerusalem, Sergiusturned right around and wrote a letter to Pope Honorius asking him to approve
this policy of silence on the number of modes of activity in Christ on the grounds that speaking
of two wills might lead one to conclude that Christ had two opposed wills whereas his human
will must always be directed by God. Honorius’ answer, which plagued the church for centuries,
spoke enthusiastically of a unity of will in Christ in which Christ’s human nature never acted on
its own initiative and in turn issued a recommendation of Sergius’ solution. Four years passed
with an illusion of agreement between Rome, Constantinope, Alexandria, and Jerusalem.21
But shortly after Sophronius’ death in 638 Heraclius issued an edict written by
Sergiusknown today as the Ekthesis.22 This edict commanded empire wide silence concerning the
disputed modes of activity in Christ though ultimately asserting the doctrine of the one will of
Christ, Monothelitism. Sophronius’ successor in Jerusalem adopted the doctrine as did Sergius’
successor in Constantinople. It was however met by resistance by Maximus in North Africa.
Heraclius threatened to withhold confirmation of Honorius’ successor though his reign was so
short that he never had to take a stand on the Ekthesis.23

19
Sherwood, 7.
20
Hans Urs von Balthasar, Cosmic Liturgy: the Universe According to Maximus the Confessor (New York: Ignatius
Press, 2003), 74-75.
21
Balthasar, 76.
22
Titled Exposition of the Faith
23
Balthasar, 76.
 12

Maximus’ early writings occasionally touched on issues of the natures of Christ, but there
are no definitive treatises before his essay against Sergius after receiving the Ekthesis. Originally
Maximus conversed with Sergius over the meaning of various terms but in the end concluded,
“for the mystery of our redemption does not stand on syllables but on the meaning of
what is said and on the reality itself.”24
From this point on, Maximus tracts against the Monos follow nearly uninterrupted.
Pyrrhus,25Sergius’ successor in Constantinople was a Monothelite as well. However,
when Constans II became Byzantine Emperor in 637, Pyrrhus became frightened knowing the
circumstances that brought Constans to the throne so he fled to North Africa where he travelled
from city to city spreading his beliefs concerning Monothelitism. Constans did not enter the fray
right away though since the Arab conquests of Syria and Egypt which caused a softening on
imperial policy to either appease or include the Monophysites since it was the population in these
areas that was strongest in opposition to Chalcedon.26
Pyrrhus, who traveled around Northern Africa for a time making Monotheliteconverts,
would eventually square off with Maximus in Carthage in 645. Their debatestruck a stinging
blow to the Monothelite doctrine as the depths of the controversy were laid out resulting in
Pyrrhus’ conversion. Maximus believed that “will” was tied to nature and if Jesus did not possess
a human will than he did not possess a human nature and therefor was not fully human and could
identify with us in the incarnation and perform the necessary work of the cross for the economy
of salvation. Where Maximus and others would argue is that for our redemption to be complete
Christ had to assume all that is humanity including the human will so that it too may be
redeemed, purified, and sanctified. Without a human will it is argued that Christ was not fully
human, unable to identify with us in temptation and the choice between good and evil.27The
debate had such an impact of the African bishops that they held several synods the following
year in North Africa declaring favor for the Dyothelite position and producing several anti-
Monothelite statements.
Previously, Pope Theodore who thought that the Ekthesis was Pyrrhus work had written
for his removal from the See of Constantinople and delivery to Rome. When he heard that

24
Ibid, 78.
25
Patriarch of Constantinople from 638-641
26
Gonzalez, 259.
27
Schaff, 491-492.
 13

Pyrrhus had been deposed for political reasons he was quite upset that the deposition had
happened for any reason other than the Monothelite controversy. At any rate, Maximus and
Pyrrhus set out for Rome following their debate either together or separate to ensure support of
the Pope.
Emperor Constans II & Pope Martin I
News reached Emperor Constans II28 that the African bishops and the pope had forced
Pyrrhus to assent to their positions and he sent one of his officials, Olympius, to return Pyrrhus
to Monothelitism and to his See in Constantinople. It didn’t take long for Pyrrhus to recant the
doctrine of Maximus and return to his post. It seems that he did so on purely political
grounds.Maximus would subsequently pen a letter to Sicilian monks refuting the Monothelite
heresy and defending his orthodoxy just in case anyone had doubts after Pyrrhus’ relapse.
In 648 Constans attempted unsurprisingly to unite the empire once again by means of an
imperial edict continuing the tradition of emperors sticking their noses in ecclesial affairs for
political means. Like his grandfather had done with the Ekthesis, Constans signed an edict called
the Typos affirming Monothelitismand commanding empire wide silence on the disputed subject.
It also included strong threats to clergymen, monks, and military officers. Maximus was still in
Rome in 648 when the Typos arrived. He rejected it of course. In fact, most of his time in Rome
was spent defending orthodoxy and formulating the doctrine of the two wills. Clearly in
opposition to imperial edicts concerning ecclesial matters, Pope Martin I called a Lateran council
just months after his election in 649. The one-hundred and five bishops in attendance
anathematized Monophysitism, the Ekthesis, and the Typos. Its acts were published and sent to all
parts of the Christian world. A Greek translation was sent directly to the Emperor notifying him
of the true doctrine and condemning the heresies all the while explicitly disobeying the edict of
silence on the matters. Many believe that the official acts were written by Maximus because it is
his terminology that was used in them. He and Pope Martin were arrested in 653 by a very
boldConstans. Trumped up charges were levied against the pope of which he was convicted. He
would die in exile in Crimea. Maximus’ refusal to accept Monothelitism caused him to be
brought to Constantinople where he was tried as initially in 653 and sent into exile for four years.
A year into his exile he was interrogated hoping that he had changed his mind. To no avail he
told his examiners,

28
Emperor from 642-668
 14

“I have no private teaching, but the common doctrine of the Catholic Church.”
Martin’s successor, Pope Eugenius I, started conciliatory talks with Constans while Maximus
was in exile. However, letters written by Maximus and his companion Anastasius were
influential on Eugenius.29Maximus would stand trial as a heretic in 662 where he was convicted
of heresy along with his two companions.
The Sixth Ecumenical Council
Constanse II was murdered in a bath at Syracuse in 668. Wishing to restore harmony
between the east and the west, Constans’ son Constantine IV, changed the policy of his father
and called for the third ecumenical council in Constantinople hoping to settle the debate.
With as many as 174 attendees, the council, which was presided by the emperor, defined
and sanctioned the two-will doctrine using the very language of a letter written by current Pope
Agatho. The decision of the council was published by the emperor anathematizing all heretics
including Sergius and Pope Honorius30 and forbidding the teaching of Monothelitism and
Monoenergism.In reaffirming Chalcedon and the “two natures” of Christ it maintained that this
pointed to two energies and two wills. Pope Agatho would endorse the council’s theological
rulings temporarily settling the score. On the books the issue was resolved though debates would
continue in pockets until this day.
Conclusion
Initially we may note the constant conflict aroused by political ends influencing doctrinal
means, though I believe that point has been well established. However another growing concern
for me lies in the church’s developing approach to the authority of tradition and the weight of
Popes and councils. If there was one statement that best resembles our modern orthodox
Christology, it might as well have been the imperially produced Henotikon since it affirmed both
the full divinity and humanity of Jesus while not falling into the traps that produced
Nestorianism and Apolonarianism. However, since it was a political slap in the face to the
established church and the accepted Council of Chalcedon it only added fuel to the fire. Without

29
Balthasar, 80.
30
Interestingly, Pope Agatho’s letter to Constantine IV claimed infallibility of the Roman church in spite of Pope
Honorius’ previous support of the Ekthesis. The edict of the Council in Constantinople meanwhile expressly
condemned Honorius as a Monothelite heretic. When Pope Leo II succeeded Agatho he confirmed the sixth council
including the anathematizing of Honorius. This issue is of special interest to papal infallibility and has not been
ignored by the Catholic Church.
 15

minimizing the sure differences in theology it seems that political means often clouded the
debate both in imperial policy and in the church’s reaction to that policy.
Both sides following Chalcedon were attempting to avoid the heresies of Nestorius and
Appolinarius and the way they defined the terms caused them to look at each other as suspect.
Cyril who clearly affirmed the full humanity and divinity of Christ through a hypostatic union
spoke of “one nature” which the Monophysites defended while the Dyophysites felt they went too
far in their attempts to safeguard any statement that implied Eternal God suffering which is
exactly what Cyril allowed room for. Orthodoxy prevailed and the misguided trajectory of the
Monophysites was eventually squelched by an ecumenical counsel.
Finally, we see in the monks of Palestine centuries after Chalcedon during the times of
John of Damascus a continued veneration for Cyril and his “one nature” hypostasis while
affirming Chalcedon. This obviously stands in contrast to the great numbers of Christians and
ecclesial leaders in that region and others that continued to follow either Nestorius or its stark
opposite Monothelitism. These monks, possibly out of their lack of direct connection to the
established church and the Byzantine Empire following the Arab conquests, were able to grab
the best of both worlds so to speak in developing and defining their Christology.31Standing out of
reach from both empire and papacy they were free to accept and promulgate the doctrine that
they felt was truly Orthodox. Yes, it was the orthodoxy of the final council in our discussion but
as history tells us, ruling and decrees from church and state have done comparably little to
ultimately shape the hearts and minds of the masses. Thus it was they who both sustained and
continued it while the empire faded and the church in Rome headed into the Dark Ages.

Bibliography
Bowden, John, ed. Encyclopedia of Christianity. New York: Oxford, 2005.

31
Andrew Lough, St John Damascene (New York: Oxford, 2002) , 10-11.
 16

Chrysostom Press. 17 March 2010 <http://www.chrysostompress.org/saints-0121-maximus-the-

confessor>.
Dopp, Stegmar and Wilhelm Geerlings.Dictionary of Early Christian Literature. New York:
Crossroad, 2000
Gonzalez, Justo L. The Story of Christianity. Peabody, MA: Prince Press, 2001.
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology.Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.
Jedin, Hubert, ed. History of the Church, Volume II. New York: Seabury Press, 1980
Lough, Andrew. St John Damascene.New York: Oxford, 2002.
Need, Stephen W. Truly Divine & Truly Human. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2008.
Nichols, Stephen J. For Us and For Our Salvation. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2007.
Olson, Roger.The Story of Christian Theology.Downers Gorove, IL: InterVarsity, 1999.
Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church Vol III Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity. New
York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1893.
Sherwood, Polycarp. St. Maximus the Confessor. New York: Newman, 1955.
vonBalthasar, Hans Urs.Cosmic Liturgy: the Universe According to Maximus the Confessor.
New York: Ignatius Press, 2003.
Young, Frances. From Nicaea to Chalcedon. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983.