Now we must regard the Monothelete contention as historically a branch of the Monophysite. But it appeared as an irenicon, as a happy compromise granting to the orthodox their main requirements and yet opening a door for the heretics. According to this view Christ did possess two natures. He was not only of two natures, combining in His person the human and the Divine. He remained in two natures; that is to say, He retained the two natures subsequent to the act of incarnation, all through His earthly life, and even after the resurrection, although that event resulted in a change in the condition of His body. But, according to the Monothelete, these two natures were so harmonised and blended in their co-operation that there was only one will in Christ, and that, of course, the Divine will.
At first, however, the notion of the wills was not raised, and the controversy began with the question as to whether we are to affirm "one activity,"[1] or "two activities,"[2] as operative in Christ. Sergius, the patriarch of Constantinople, states that he and Cyrus the bishop of Phasis were consulted by the Emperor Heraclius about this question, showing that whatever had been its source it was now much interesting the emperor's mind. True to the traditional ecclesiastical policy of his predecessor, but with more vigour in the execution of it, Heraclius was anxious to establish a modus vivendi between the Monophysites and their opponents. Thus from the first Monotheletism appears as a political movement. It was the energetic Heraclius' proposed compromise for bringing together the two parties whose bitter mutual antagonism he saw to be a menace to the State. Sergius worked well to further his master's object. First, he had a synod to fortify him for his enterprise; then he made good use of a collection of sayings of the Fathers supposed to favour the view of the one energy or operation, which was attributed to Mennas, patriarch of Constantinople under Justinian. At the third council of Constantinople (a.d. 680) this
