Sect. 174The Two Wills and Two Operations in Christ, and the Organic Relation of the Human to the Divine Principle: as Defined Against MonothelitismThe Two Wills and Two Operations in Christ, and the Organic Relation of the Human to the Divine Principle: as Defined Against Monothelitism

I. The existence of two natures in Christ, as defined against Nestorianism, implied the coexistence of two free wills, or, speaking more generally, of two distinct principles of operation. Yet, as these two principles are united in one Person, the question arises whether a proper and distinct activity can be attributed to the human principle without elevating it to the dignity of personality and thus destroying the unity of person. Eutyches and his followers answered in the negative, and consequently admitted in Christ only the Divine will; the Church, on the contrary, maintained the two wills and operations consistently with the unity of person. The definitions on this point complete the Catholic doctrine concerning the constitution of Christ.

The notion “that two wills and two corresponding operations are inconsistent with the unity of person” is the leading principle of all the Monothelites; but in its application they differ. The more strict and logical attribute to the Logos one and all the functions of the human soul; the more moderate but less logical only claim for the Logos the acts of free will and their execution, thus depriving the human soul of all power of self-determination and of all control over the body.

This latter doctrine is cleverly veiled in the letter addressed by the Patriarch Sergius to Pope Honorius. Sergius does not draw the consequence that there is only one will-power or one sort of operation in Christ, but merely purports to point out possible wrong interpretations of the phrases “one operation or two operations (energies) of Christ.” He is strong on the unity of Person and the duality of natures, and rightly deprecates two “contrary” will-powers. In his mind, two will-powers would necessarily be opposed to one another, and therefore he admitted but one; yet the expressions he uses are ambiguous, and may be taken to merely imply that in Christ the human will always acted in accordance with the Divine. Honorius was deceived, and did not oppose the Patriarch with as much energy as might have been expected from the Holy See. His error lay in this, that he thought more stress ought to be laid on the moral unity (=absence of contradiction) of the two wills than on their physical duality, and that, under the circumstances, the term “two operations” ought to be avoided, because it was liable to be misunderstood, in the same way as the term “one operation.” The Catholic dogma is, however, sharply defined by the Pope at the end of his second letter, where he asserts in Christ two natures each with its own activities and operations (propria operantes et operatrices).

II. The Catholic doctrine was first defined by Martin I. in a Lateran Council (649), then by the Sixth General Council (680). Christ, having two natures, has also two physical wills and two physical operations, existing side by side unchanged and unmixed, yet inseparably and physically united in one physical Person, in the same manner as the two natures; these natures, therefore, will and operate conjointly, but in both kinds of volitions and operations, He Who wills and operates is physically one and the same, willing and operating in two different manners. The difference of the two wills does not involve either a contradiction between them or the independence of the human from the Divine; the human will is so subordinated to and influenced by the Divine that it follows this latter in all things (Denzinger, Enchir., xxv. and xxvii.).

Theologians of the time laid particular stress on the duality of “physical” wills. They did not wish to exclude a unity of harmony or co-ordination; their object was to assert the real existence of a human principle of immanent volitions and of operations flowing therefrom, equal in perfection to the same principle and operations in man. We shall consider first the human will and its operations, as resulting from the human nature of Christ; secondly, the relation of the human to the Divine will and operations, as resulting from the substantial union of the two natures.

III. The human nature, through its union with the Logos, loses none of its essential properties or faculties; intellect and will and all the lower powers of the soul remain unimpaired, because without them the human nature in Christ would not be a real human nature. Besides, special reasons require the existence and functions of an unimpaired human will in the Redeemer. The act of Redemption is a great act of obedience; but obedience, that is free submission of one will to another, cannot be conceived where there is only a Divine will. Again, if Christ has no distinct human will, all His volitions and operations must be attributed to the Divine Will, which is one and the same in the three Divine Persons, and thus all the human operations of Christ would no longer belong to the second Person, but would be common to the three Persons of the Trinity. Moreover, if from the unity of Person in Christ, the unity of will could be inferred, then, for a similar reason, a distinction of wills ought to be admitted in the Trinity. But the number of wills follows the number of natures, not of persons; hence there is one will in the Blessed Trinity and two in Christ. Scriptural proof for our dogma is found in all the texts which attribute to Christ human affections, and especially in His agony and prayer, where the two wills appear not only as distinct but also as materially opposed.

The acts of the two wills are so essentially distinct that they cannot even be conceived as fused into one. For a volition is an immanent act: it originates and terminates in the same spiritual principle, it is a “self-motion.”

Immanent acts are necessarily complete in themselves. Besides, in this special case, a fusion of the Divine and the human wills into one, would make the Divine Will dependent on the human in their common activity. The two wills can only concur into one common action after the manner of two distinct persons agreeing to do the same thing or to pursue the same object; with this difference, however, that in Christ the bearer of the two wills is physically one, and that consequently the wills are physically united. The unity of pursuit constitutes only a moral unity of the persons willing the same object.

IV. The first consequence of the substantial union of the two natures, is that the operations of both must be attributed to the same operator, viz. to the Divine Person, to Whom the operations of His human nature appertain not less than that nature itself. Another consequence is, as St. Leo I. expresses it, that each nature performs its own operations, yet in communion with the other. The two sets of operations are, however, affected very differently by this communion; the human principle operates dependently on the Divine, but this very dependence gives a greater perfection to its operations. The actions of the human principle, in order to be actions of the Logos, must be caused by the Logos, in the same manner as the acts of man are only attributable to him when they proceed from his free will, i.e. from the supreme principle of action. The causation in question is similar to the concurrence of the First Cause in the working of all other causes, with this difference, that in Christ the Divine influence is exercised on a nature hypostatically (personally) united to the influencing Logos, and that thus the actions of that nature are the actions of the Logos, whereas in the general Divine concurrence the actions of creatures do not become actions of God. The influence of the Logos on His human nature extends, however, beyond the general concurrence of God with all created causes. The Fathers analyze it into three factors: permission (ἔνδοσις), motion (κίνησις), and co-operation (συνέργεια). The Logos “permits” the human principle to remain subject to all passibility which involves nothing unworthy of the Divine Person; He “moves or inspires” the human will so as to bring it always into harmony with His own; He “co-operates” with His lower nature so as to add perfection to its ordinary acts, and, under certain circumstances, to enable it to perform supernatural actions. The perfection accruing to the human actions from the Divine influence is pregnantly expressed in the classical phrase: “Christ does human things in a divine manner” (humana agit divine).

V. The Divine Principle in Christ is entirely independent of the co-operation of the human: His “acting in communion” is limited to this, that in external operations in which the co-operation of the human principle is possible, admissible, or congruous, He uses it as His own instrument for carrying out His will. Such co-operation is impossible in creative acts, but not in the natural or supernatural government of creation; it is necessary, hypothetically, in the works which the Logos had undertaken to perform in the flesh; as a matter of fact, it exists in all operations specially ascribed to Christ—that is, not simply to God. It is to these latter operations the Fathers apply the phrase, “Christ does divine things in a human manner” (divina agit humane).

VI. The peculiar constitution of Christ the God-Man gives to His operations a peculiar and unique character. They are “theandric;” that is, belonging to the God-Man. This term was first introduced by Dionysius the Areopagite, and later on was much exploited by the Monothelites in favour of their heresy. Its real meaning, as explained by the Areopagite himself, and defined in the Council of Lateran (A.D. 649), can. 15, is that in Christ the human operations are performed under the influence of the Divine Principle, or that the external Divine operations are performed with the co-operation of the human principle. In this sense, all human actions of Christ are theandric; but not all His Divine operations, many of these admitting of no human co-operation. In a more special or eminent sense, the Fathers reserved the term theandric to “Divine operations wrought with human co-operation,” and to “human operations intended to produce, with Divine co-operation, a supernatural or Divine effect.” These latter operations, e.g. the healing of the sick by touch, are eminently theandric, because in them both natures act simultaneously, in communion and subordination, and for the same object, thus clearly manifesting the Divine-human constitution of Christ.

VII. The peculiar harmony between the two kinds of operations in Christ results from the manner in which the human soul operates. The human soul knows and loves itself as soul of the Logos, and its one intention is to conform in all things to the will of the Logos. The soul is no blind instrument when co-operating with the Logos: it knows and wills and works for the same ends. And the Divine inspiration of the Logos so assists and influences the immanent actions of the soul as to enable it to rule and regulate all its operations in conformity with the Divine Will.