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.

There is no doubt that Heraclius tried to arrange the reunification of the Armenians with the Orthodox Church on the border with Armenia, but when this was done [at the council] cannot be said with certainty. Some date this fact [namely, the convocation of the Council of Carina] to the year 622, others [to 628, still others] to 629, [some to 632, and finally, in modern times, stop at the year 633] [110].

{p. 454}

[It may be thought that Heraclius first of all tried to involve the head of the Armenian Church, Ezra, who had been Catholicos in the second half of 630.] The state of affairs in Armenia was as follows: the Armenians elected a new Catholicos, and since Armenia was divided into allodial sections, each feudal lord represented his bishop, who even bore the name of his principal. Naturally, the feudal lords were inclined to bring their acquaintances to the cathedra of St. Gregory. The former Catholicos Christopher incurred the indignation of one of the influential feudal lords and therefore had to leave his see; the choice fell on Ezra. He naturally felt uneasy with his predecessor alive. [Soon after his election, Ezra was asked to go to the emperor and enter into ecclesiastical communion with him, otherwise a new Catholicos would be installed for the part of Armenia subject to the emperor. At the request of Ezra, a statement of faith was sent to him by the emperor; it contained anathemas against Nestorius and other heretics, but the Council of Chalcedon did not condemn it. where the emperor was, and there he communed with him. As a reward he was given, at his request, the salt mines at Kulpi].

The emperor transferred his activities to Edessa. The bishop here was Isaiah, who had been appointed by the Persians and whose position was problematic. The emperor, [having won over the Armenian Catholicos], thought of uniting with the Syrian Monophysites [apparently] without any effort. When the emperor arrived here, he was greeted with the most solemn one. The ascetics of the neighboring monasteries came out to meet them in order to appear before the victorious emperor. The emperor treated them kindly, pointed out some differences, but at the same time noted that they should not be separated because of them. The feast of the Nativity of Christ (630) came, and the emperor appeared in the cathedral where Isaiah was performing divine services, and then wished to partake of Holy Communion together with the others. For Isaiah, the question arose: what would be the meaning of Communion? Strictly speaking, this circumstance should not have created any difficulties for Isaiah: in order to reunite with this or that church, nothing more was required than communion in it. A Monophysite, for example, entered into communion with the Orthodox Church ipso facto if he communed in it; This meant that he renounced Monophysitism and converted to Orthodoxy. In principle, it turned out that once the emperor came to the Monophysite church and communed with the Monophysite metropolitan, he converted from Orthodoxy to Monophysitism. The wrong conclusion was de facto. The emperor was a layman, however, a representative of Orthodoxy so powerful that one might think that the metropolitan had accepted the faith of the emperor, not the other way around. By agreeing to commune Heraclius, the metropolitan aroused the suspicion that he was accepting the Council of Chalcedon. Isaiah was not so blind as not to understand that the emperor approaches the Holy Mysteries with a clear tendency. And he solemnly announced from the church pulpit to the emperor that he would commune him only if he solemnly renounced the Council of Chalcedon. The emperor turned his back on Isaiah and left the church. The service ended, the keys to the cathedral church were taken away from the Monophysites and handed over to the Orthodox.

Isaiah went to the Monophysite Antiochian Patriarch Athanasius. Hitherto the Syrian monophysites had paid very little attention to the Armenians, but now Athanasius also decided to establish relations with the Catholicos Christopher, who had been deprived of his cathedra without trial. Thus, on the part of the Antiochian Monophysites, there was agitation in favor of Monophysite Orthodoxy among the Armenians. In the meantime the emperor had advanced as far as Hierapolis. Here (in 631) Athanasius himself appeared to him with 11-12 Monophysite bishops. A conversation ensued about the unification of the churches. The emperor promised Athanasius that he, too, would recognize him as Patriarch of Antioch, if only he would unite with the Orthodox Church. Heraclius was handed a note which pursued union aims, but which amounted to a denial of the Council of Chalcedon. The Orthodox theologians who considered this confession of faith did not recognize it as sufficient to enter into communion with Athanasius. The emperor not only failed to realize the hopes that the Monophysites had placed in him, but even began to persecute the latter, forbidding them to occupy the highest posts.

To this day, Sergius of Constantinople seems to have remained on the sidelines: [with Ezra] the union is arranged by the emperor himself, but the natural course of events compels him to come to Edessa, but no relations are made with the Patriarch of Constantinople. In reality, however, Sergius (p. 458) represented such a magnitude as was most convenient for the emperor. The remote ancestors of Sergius came from Syria and were Monophysites. Therefore, one could assume that he was sympathetic to Monophysitism, and he understood well what the Monophysites would want from the Orthodox Church. [At the same time] Sergius was one of the most accommodating natures. He was a man with statesmanlike views, who understood that in certain cases it was possible to compromise the observance of church rules. One could count on the same agreement on the union issue.

Now Cyrus of Phasius is coming on the stage. When the Greek authorities had the opportunity to rule in Alexandria, there followed an order to transfer Cyrus to the Alexandrian cathedra (about 630). His first task was to establish union relations with the local Monophysites. These relations were conducted so successfully that Cyrus was soon able to please Sergius with the reunification that had taken place. When all this happened is a question within a whole year. Indications have survived that the reunification followed on June 3; The sixth indiction also survived, which means that the reunification took place in 633. But since the Indiction was written in [Alexandria], the reunion must be dated to the year 632 [111].