Justinian's successor was his nephew Justin II († October 4, 578). The new emperor did not consider it convenient either to renounce Justinian's policy or to continue it energetically. What policy he adhered to in general is shown by an anecdote: when there was a fuss in the great circus, he sent word to the blue that Justinian was dead for them, and to the green that he was alive for them. First of all, he ordered the exiled bishops to return to their places. This applied most of all to the bishops of the West. To calm the unrest of the Monophysites in Egypt, the emperor sent there Abba Photinus with some special powers.

Soon the emperor issued an edict, τό πρόγραμμα τής πίστεως, explaining his religious policy. By issuing this edict, the emperor did everything that could be done for them to please the Monophysites, without renouncing Orthodoxy. The edict repeated all the expressions experienced during the period of the Unia, which were pleasant to the Monophysites, although not entirely accurate dogmatically, and as far as possible avoided precise and decisive Orthodox terms. The emperor recognized in Christ not the other or the other, but one and the same, from both natures, divine and human, composed. Then there are expressions that are pleasant to the Monophysites: 1) One of the Holy Spirits. The Trinity suffered; 2) the only miracle and suffering; 3) Εμμανουήλ; 4) εξ έκατέρας φύσεως, έξ ών σονετέθη (strictly – the Chalcedonian preposition is not έξ, but εν); 5) μία φύσις του Θεού Λόγου σεσαρκωμένη. On the other hand, the following is noticed: 1) silence about the Council of Chalcedon (but also about others); 2) "νουύμενης" next to "ύπαρχούσης" and "έν θεωρία" when talking about διαφορά των φύσεων; 3) ή εκατέρα φύσις, preferred to the Chalcedonian δύο φύσεις, two natures, which expression occurs only once. In conclusion, the emperor asked not to argue over syllables, words, and persons, and he declared that the present form of doctrine should remain inviolable for all time. Thus, the emperor did not have any relations with the Council of Chalcedon.

This edict, union in nature, was accepted by all Orthodox, but the Monophysites did not join the Orthodox Church on the basis of it. They saw in the emperor a supporter of the "Chalcedonians", who did not live up to their expectations, which they placed on a new reign. It should be noted that Justin was married to Theodora's niece, Sophia: there was a rumor about the latter among the Monophysites that until 562 she always received communion from the Monophysite presbyter.

But the policy of peace discovered by Justin II led to a peaceful relationship between the Orthodox and the Monophysites. In the first years of Justin's reign, the following extraordinary phenomenon took place. The Theodosians strongly pressed their opponents, the Tritheites; the latter obtained permission from the emperor to arrange a dispute, the arbitrator of which was appointed John Scholasticus, Patriarch of Constantinople. The disputing parties were not allowed to refer to the writings of the Orthodox Fathers, but were allowed to cite in their favor only passages from the works of their outstanding authorities: Anthimus, Severus, Theodosius. The dispute lasted 4 days, and, in the end, the Tritheites were declared defeated.

But in the sixth year of the reign of Justin (570-571) a change occurred in the position of the Monophysites. At the insistence of John Scholasticus, the emperor decided to make a statement against the Constantinople monophysites. Their monasteries, male and female, were cordoned off by soldiers. After the forced communion from the hands of Orthodox priests and the replacement of Monophysite icons with Orthodox ones (they had previously used icons depicting Monophysite bishops and kings), it was announced that communion between these monasteries and the Orthodox Church had taken place. The stubborn monks and nuns were imprisoned. The monasteries thus converted were visited by the emperor and empress, and the obedient were rewarded with gifts. Communion was also concluded with the Monophysite hierarchs. They aroused hopes that the Council of Chalcedon would be abolished in one way or another. Apparently accepted "in their present rank," the bishops, presbyters and deacons of the Monophysites celebrated 36 liturgies together with the Orthodox. But then the Patriarch of Constantinople made an attempt to recognize their consecration as invalid and ordain them again. The narrow-minded Monophysite metropolitan of Caria, Bishop Paul of Aphrodisias, allowed the Orthodox metropolitan of Caria to consecrate him bishop of Antioch of Caria. But other Monophysite bishops, especially Stephen of Cyprus, opposed these new consecrations in the most energetic way and demanded that, if they did not recognize the validity of their consecrations, they would not recognize them (according to Nic. 19) as having a valid baptism. John abandoned this idea of reuniting them and explained that he only wanted to adorn the Monophysites with the episcopal omophorion.

The attempt to find a dogmatic middle way for reconciliation was also fruitless. The dogmatic dispute that lasted for 33 days only made it clear that the question of the dogmatic significance of the Council of Chalcedon remains essential, since the Orthodox cannot renounce this council, and the Monophysites make the abolition of this council a condition for their reunion with the Orthodox. And to the program of the union edict proposed to the Monophysites, they made several additions, which the Orthodox could not accept in their entirety, and when these additions were included in the edict only partially, the Monophysites refused to accept it.

Justin acted with great success on the Monophysites, who occupied court and state offices. He forbade them to greet him if they did not wish to be in church communion with him. Fearing for their position and property, these Monophysites heaped reproaches on their bishops and demanded that they agree to the union. In the end, a few people outwardly converted to Orthodoxy, and the stubborn ones were expelled from the capital after imprisonment. Conferences with the bishops of Monophysite were not successful even under Justin.

Justin's successor, Tiberius († August 14, 582), withdrew from pressure on the Monophysites by government measures. The emperor replied to Patriarch Eutyches of Constantinople, who had been restored to the cathedra after the death of John Scholasticus, that the struggle against the Monophysites was a matter of ecclesiastical authority, not of the state, and that even an external struggle against enemies was sufficient for the state. Left to himself, Patriarch Eutyches tried to influence the Monophysites with exhortations, but without success. It was reported to Eutyches that the Syrian nuns who had reunited with the Church still used the Trisagion with the addition: "crucified for us." Arriving at the monastery, the patriarch exhorted the nuns to abandon these words, introduced by the Monophysites. But the nuns replied that it was enough for them to apostatize from their former faith and enter into communion with the Synodites; but they will never agree to give up the conviction that Christ is the true God, who suffered for us. Eutyches then sent them his theological and polemical work. But the nuns answered: "We are women and do not understand anything about theological subtleties; but we will never abandon the traditions of the Eastern Fathers." The successor of Eutyches († April 6, 582), John the Faster, did not exert any external pressure on the Monophysites, and a period of 40 years of peace again began for them. John the Faster put an end to the policy of Eutyches on principle. When the Constantinople clergy suggested that he persecute the Monophysites and referred to the fact that Eutyches had done so, John the Faster replied that it was Patriarch Eutyches, that they should go to him and ask him whether he would now allow the Monophysites to be persecuted.

The unionist attempts of John Scholasticus and Eutyches are interesting in that in this case the initiative was taken by the representatives of the church, and not by the state power, as had been the case up to now. The Monophysite historian, Bishop John of Ephesus, who himself was imprisoned at that time, does not conceal the fact that the Monophysites did not place the martyrs in this "persecution," that the whole affair was limited to taking them into custody, from which the champions of Monophysitism usually managed to escape.

The weak participation of the state power in these union experiments, apart from the personal character of the sovereigns and the preoccupation with urgent state needs, is probably explained, on the one hand, by the fact that experience showed the ineffectiveness of union agreements, and on the other hand, by the fact that the division of monophysitism into interpretations made it impossible for everyone to reunite; and the annexation of only a small part could not have any special value for the state.

5. The Monothelite dispute.

The causes of the dispute and its first stage: the dispute about actions in Christ.

If Monothelitism were to be regarded as a phenomenon in the history of dogmas, the problem would seem simpler than if it were to be regarded as a historical phenomenon. Once it has been proved that in the Orthodox or Monophysite teaching there existed internal theological data for posing the question of the two wills and actions in Christ, then the genesis of Monothelitism is obvious, and its necessity as a historical-dogmatic phenomenon has already been explained.

There is no doubt that in the person of its prominent representatives the Monophysite doctrine came unusually close to the Orthodox teaching, and the Orthodox themselves felt this closeness, but, nevertheless, there was an abyss between them that prevented their unity. For the Orthodox, this phenomenon seemed inexplicable: how to confess Orthodox teaching and not be able to explain it. On the other hand, the Monophysites also experienced internal shocks that made them fear for their existence: Monophysitism broke up into sects, between which there was a constant polemic about all the essential aspects of this doctrine. Naturally, the Monophysites had to make an attempt to explain their teaching. As a result of this movement, Monothelitism is found. Monothelitism is a novelty in comparison with Monophysitism: while the latter is held in the field of metaphysics, Monothelitism, on the contrary, signifies a transition to the field of psychology. It was impossible for the Monophysites to explain from the point of view of metaphysics some terms of their dogmatics, such as: ουσία, φύσις, ενέργεια, πρόσωπον; Naturally, it was necessary to try to explain these terms psychologically. For the history of the Church, this inner necessity [of Monothelitism] exists; But it is important to solve the question, why did this inner necessity appear at this particular time, and not before or after?