Andrew Louth - Syriac Christian Church

4
THE DOCTRINE OF THE PERSON OF
CHRIST
Maximus owes his title ‘Confessor’ to his defence of the Orthodox
doctrine of the Person of Christ, against the theological view,
emanating from theological circles in Constantinople, and endorsed by
imperial authority, that suggested language of one activity, or one
will, in Christ, as a compromise with the Monophysites. It is,
however, a striking fact that it is with apparent reluctance that
Maximus becomes involved in this controversy. Although he follows
Sophronius’ lead in rejecting the Alexandrian Pact of Union of 633, to
begin with he abides by the Psephos of Patriarch Sergius, defending it
as implicitly condemning the Alexandrian Pact—which seems
somewhat disingenuous. It is only from 640 that he explicitly attacks
Monothelitism, and even then he seems anxious to defend Pope
Honorius, the originator of the Monothelite formula, from any personal
charge of heresy. 1 It would seem, however, that this hesitation was due
to a reluctance to engage in public controversy (he was, after all, only
a simple monk, not even an abbot), rather than from any lack of
clarity about what Christological orthodoxy demanded, as it can be
shown that from well before 640 his exposition of Christological
doctrine demands duality of energy and of will in the Incarnate Person
of Christ. For it is not only in the later Christological opuscula that
Maximus discusses the doctrine of Christ. Christology is so central to
his theological reflection that it is rarely far from his thought: of the
works translated in the present volume (most of which must be dated
earlier than 635, and the most substantial complete by 630) only one
(Amb. 1, the first of the later Difficulties) is free from allusion to
Christology, being a very brief comment on the doctrine of the Trinity.
MAXIMUS’ ‘CHALCEDONIAN LOGIC’
But before we look at these, it will be useful to say a word about the
theological terminology Maximus uses in his exposition of the mystery
of Christ (and indeed the mystery of the Trinity). We have already