b) The last decade of the sixth century was marked by a movement to the north of Armenia, which apparently proved that the devotion of the Armenians to Monophysitism was not so deep that, under favorable conditions, they could not be persuaded to union. The Armenian Catholicoses managed to make Iviria dependent on them: they installed "Catholicoses of Ivir" (residence in Mtskheta). Moses appointed as "Catholicos of Ivir" a certain Kiron or Kirion (Κύρων, Κυρίων), a man who had received his education in Nicopolis and Colonia (in the ancient Byzantine possessions). Soon Moses doubted his Orthodoxy. Under his successor Abraham, Kirion maneuvered for some time, but then (for petty reasons, according to the assurances of Armenian writers) he declared himself a like-minded person of the patriarchs of Constantinople and Jerusalem, who accepted the Fourth Ecumenical Council. By 606 this fall away from the Iviri was already a fait accompli. It is quite possible that Cyrus, Metropolitan of Phasis (now Poti), was well aware of the history of the "retreat" of Iberia, neighboring Lazica, and therefore did not consider the plan of Emperor Heraclius hopeless. But he doubted the possibility of reconciling the teaching ό μία ενέργεια after the union, which Heraclius considered to be the basis of his union project, with the decree of the Council of Chalcedon and the tomos of Leo V. Then the emperor suggested that Cyrus turn to the Patriarch of Constantinople Sergius for clarification; Sergius' answer was not in favor of δύο ένέργειαι.

There are two versions regarding the conditions for the emergence of the Monothelite movement: official and unofficial. The official version is given to us in the narration of Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople. If this source is to be believed, the Monothelite movement arose quite by accident, without any desire of the great Church of Constantinople. The reason for this is that the Emperor Heraclius had to wage war against the Persians, a desperate war, costing as many victims as in our country, for example, the invasion of the Poles or Napoleon. War was inevitable. The Persian king decided to take revenge not on Phocas, but on Heraclius for the death of Maurice, the chosen father of the Persian king. The war was fought on the borders of Armenia. On the occasion of this war, the emperor was in Armenia in 622, and here, in the city of Theodosiopolis or Karina (Erzurum), meeting with the head of the Sevirians, Paul One-Eyed, had a conversation with him about the faith. As a theologically educated man, the emperor, in refutation of the usual Monophysite assurances that two natures necessarily lead to the recognition of two hypostases in Christ, pointed out to Paul that with the two natures in Christ there is only one energy, μία ενέργεια. Thus, the first word that gave rise to controversy was pronounced by the emperor himself. From this report, borrowed from the epistle of Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople, to Honorius of Rome, it follows that the word μία ενέργεια was proposed by the emperor himself, that the initiative in this matter belonged not to the church, but to the state, or even only to the emperor personally. Everything happened somehow by chance. A chance conversation took place between the emperor and Paul, and this gave rise to the Monothelite movement.

{p. 448}

Another version, unofficial, is presented by the debate of St. Maximus the Confessor with Pyrrhus, Patriarch of Constantinople. From this source it is clear that the Monothelite movement was prepared and discussed in advance by Sergius.

The expression of the polemicist "to depose him" is not clear: whom did John the Merciful want to depose, whether it was George Arsa or Sergius? But judging by the fact that George Arsa did not belong to Orthodoxy, it is most likely that John intended to raise the question of Sergius' Orthodoxy and to conduct the matter in such a way as to depose Sergius. From a Syrian source attributed to the presbyter Thomas, it is clear that in July 619 Alexandria was taken, and on November 12 Pope John of Alexandria died.

{p. 449}

Thus, even before 622, in an epistle to Theodore, bishop of Pharan, Patriarch Sergius asked him what he thought of the expression μία ενέργεια, and in doing so referred in favor of this expression to the epistle of Menas of Constantinople to Pope Vigilius, in which it is said that in Christ there is one will and one action. This epistle, together with the epistle of Menas and the answer of Theodore of Pharan, Sergius sent to Paul One-Eye, with whom the emperor himself later negotiated. But Paul opposed unity and demanded patristic testimony in favor of what is in Christ with two φύσεις εν θέλημα. Perhaps before all this, Sergius wrote to the Monophysite George Arsa [Άρσάς] and asked him to collect patristic proofs in favor of μία ενέργεια, since on the basis of this formula he, Sergius, hopes to arrange the reunion of the Sevirians with the Church. But, says Maximus the Confessor, the Patriarch of Alexandria, John the Merciful, who became aware of Sergius' letter to George, took it away and wanted to initiate proceedings for the deposition of Sergius. The attack of the Persians on Egypt, when Alexandria was taken, and the death of John prevented this. Since the invasion took place in the summer of 619, and John died on November 12 of the same year, it is evident that the testimony of Maximus provides us with solid chronological data. It is clear that the meeting of the emperor with Paul One-Eyed took place after the preliminary steps of Sergius.

Sergius himself was a prominent figure in this entire union movement. In the person of Sergius, the emperor had such an ecumenical patriarch as could be desired for this union experience. A man who understood the needs of the state, with a flexible character, incapable of stubborn "non possumus", Sergius was ready to sacrifice church canons for the sake of even the personal desires of the emperor. The flexibility of Sergius' character was clearly expressed in the question of Heraclius' second marriage. The emperor's choice fell on his own niece, Martina. The marriage was illegal. In Byzantium, such marriages, in violation of canonical requirements, were treated much more intolerantly than public opinion would react to us at the present time. The Patriarch exposed to the Emperor the inconveniences of such a marriage, but the Emperor objected: "Hitherto you have acted as a bishop; and now, as a friend, do my will." Sergius did not find it difficult to do this, and did not arrange a conflict with the state authorities. That Sergius could go in parallel with the emperor in organizing a union is clear from the fact that he was of Eastern Syrian origin. He was well aware of the difficult state of affairs in the East and found that certain concessions to the Monophysites were necessary to achieve favorable results. Thus, the case of 622 was prepared by Sergius in advance.

He himself was such in his psychological make-up; that he could hold on to such a movement. He was a good politician, but not a good theologian. He was a person of the type of Eusebius of Caesarea, who was a great expert in the sense of erudition, his business was to make references and extracts, but it was not in his type to draw correct dogmatic conclusions of irreproachable consistency, to make broad generalizations. That is why he was an Arian against his will and principled aspirations. And Sergius was a well-read man, but his head did not go beyond that. If he did not see textual confirmation of an idea, he was not able to obtain it by combinating the propositions. This was also his psychological strength. He did not hesitate to draw up a project for such a union, since he did not see the weaknesses of some of its sides, which gave him confidence in action. It was enough that the Fathers did not literally express "δύο ένέργειαι," and he considered himself justified in asserting that Christ has one. If Cyrus believed that from the proposition of Leo V.: "agit utraque forma quod proprium est" follows the conclusion: "in Christ there are two natures, consequently two actions," then for Sergius such a conclusion seemed too bold. Such a conclusion was not drawn from the tomos of Leo V., for none of the theologians who defended the tomos against the Monophysites made an explicit conclusion; it was not done, for example, by Eulogius, Patriarch of Alexandria [107]; consequently, they, Sergius and Cyrus, should not draw this conclusion either.

Thus, the first stage of the Monothelite movement could seem at first glance to be an accident: a chance meeting of the emperor, a chance acquaintance with one of the Monophysite metropolitans. All this information is reported in this way by Sergius himself in his epistle to Honorius, the Pope of Rome. But if we use other documents, then we have to admit that many accidental things are not entirely accidental.

Paul the One-Eyed, except for two mentions – in Sergius and in Maximus the Confessor, is unknown from other Greek sources. Meanwhile, it is clear from the Syriac manuscripts that Paul translated from Greek the works of Gregory the Theologian in Cyprus and completed the translation in 624. He even translated the poetic works of Greek hymnographers. But it is especially important to note that he was the bishop of Edessa. This circumstance makes it possible to shed some light on his position before Heraclius. It is known that the Persians, when they took possession of the cities of Armenia, appointed to the episcopal sees from among their subjects who enjoyed their favor. It is quite possible that Paul was bishop of Edessa, but was then supplanted by the appointment of another bishop, Isaiah, or perhaps he was only still destined for this see, but his appointment was not confirmed. Heraclius in his person faced a person offended by the Persian authorities. It was natural for him to suppose that this person would try to take advantage of his protection and agree to some concessions. There is no doubt, at least, that Paul sought refuge in Byzantium. It is clear, therefore, that Heraclius' meeting with Paul was a probing of the ground.

After 622, the movement in favor of the union continued quite consistently. [Some believe that already] around 622, a union with the Armenian Monophysites took place. Paul One-Eyed was probably her opponent, so the emperor issued a decree against him. In 626, the emperor, while in Lazica, entered into negotiations with Cyrus, metropolitan of Phasis, about a single energy. Cyrus at first objected and said that the Chalcedonian doctrine and the tomos of Leo contained the premises for the doctrine of the two energies. At the same time, the emperor presented Cyrus with the epistle of Sergius, which justified the expression μία ένέργεια, and took a promise from Cyrus to explain himself to Sergius. In his epistle to Cyrus, Sergius wrote that the question of one or two energies had not yet been resolved by the conciliar settlement, but in the writings of the Fathers (Cyril, Menas) there is a speech about a single energy and will. As for the words of the tomos of Leo: "agit utraque forma quod proprium est", although many fathers wrote about the tomos who polemicized against the Monophysites, not one of them drew conclusions about two energies from these words; suffice it to point to Eulogius, Patriarch of Alexandria († February 13, 607), who wrote a whole book in defense of the tomos. Cyrus was defeated.

{p. 453}

Cyrus of Phasius is one of the most interesting figures in history, and perhaps even mythological [109]. And in his meeting with the emperor, not everything is accidental. Shortly before the meeting with the emperor, there was a movement of Kirion, which ended with the separation of part of his flock from under the authority of the Armenian Catholicos. For Cyrus it was clear that under certain conditions it was possible to make a lot out of the Armenians and even persuade them to unite with the Orthodox Church. But Cyrus was cautious and wanted to communicate with Constantinople first. This man had already been promoted by the very circumstances and had gained the favor of Heraclius, and he then had the honor of occupying the see of Alexandria.