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].

{p. 459}

The union act consisted of 9 anathemas. The main points of reunification were as follows. In the 3rd paragraph it was said: "Whoever does not confess that miracles and sufferings belong to one and the same Lord Jesus Christ, the true God, let him be anathema." The defenders of Orthodoxy called this union written in water letters, painted in water color (ύδροβαφής), and this is right. The Orthodox Church undoubtedly recognized that miracles and sufferings belong to one and the same Jesus Christ; But the question arises in what sense "one and the same" is to be understood. We recognize this belonging by hypostasis, i.e., that miracles belong to Him according to divinity, and sufferings belong to Him according to humanity. Meanwhile, in the following 4th point, it was affirmed that Christ has a flesh of one essence with us and animated by a rational soul: "ενώσει φυσική τε καί καθ' ύπόστασιν." The question is which of these words the reader will pay attention to: the Monophysites could understand belonging not by hypostasis, but by nature. The other points of the agreement were of the same nature: they seemed to satisfy both parties, and, in fact, did not give anything. For example, the 6th point reads as follows: "Whoever does not confess Christ from two natures, one nature of God the Word incarnate, one complex hypostasis, let him be anathema." Much has been said and nothing has been said, because Christ of the two natures is one, a single complex hypostasis, recognized by both the Orthodox and the Monophysites. The expression "the one nature of God the Word incarnate" (μία φύσις τού {p. 460} Θεού Λόγου σεσαρχωμένη), although it is found in Cyril of Alexandria, how to understand the word "φύσις" is not clear, and was left to everyone to understand it as he pleased. In the same way, έκ δύο φύσεων was recognized by everyone equally, but it was also necessary to recognize εν δύο φύσεσιν, which was not said. In the 7th paragraph it says: "whoever, using the expression 'one Lord in two natures, knows', acknowledges Him as ετερος καί ετερος, and does not confess that one and the same κατ' άλλο suffered and κατ' άλλο was impassible, and that the same one Christ and the Son are one By his God-manly action he performed both God-worthy and human actions, let him be anathema" (ένεργουντα τά θεορεπή καί άνθρώπινα μια θεανδρικη ενεργεία).

What was achieved by such union theses? Cyrus wrote triumphantly about this union to Constantinople to Sergius, that now both Alexandria and all Egypt rejoiced, having entered into communion with the Church. The Theodosians really rejoiced, because in this ή ύδροβαφής (colorless, painted with water) ενωσις saw the great shame of the Council of Chalcedon. "We did not go to the Council of Chalcedon," they said, "but the Council of Chalcedon came to us." This, of course, offended the Orthodox; But even for the Monophysites who accepted the union, the situation turned out to be difficult.

[Perhaps this alleged success achieved in Egypt prompted the emperor, at the end of 632 or the beginning of 633, to demand that all the Armenian bishops and theologians, with Ezra at their head, should assemble at Karina (= Theodosiopolis, Erzurum) for negotiations on the faith.] The Armenian nobles found it impossible [to refuse the invitation]. Ezra tried to strengthen himself with influential people. He turned to the learned elder Matusag (Methuselah) of Siuni and John of Mayragom. But they both did not agree to go to the Greek possessions; Matusaga sent his disciple Theodore in his place. Thus, the Armenian theologians had to enter the struggle with somewhat poor weapons.

When they arrived at the emperor, he received them favorably and spoke kindly. First, he asked why the Armenians did not agree with the Orthodox faith; at the same time he handed Ezra the text of the Council of Chalcedon and asked him to show what he found wrong in this monument {p. 461}. The reception is masterful, brilliant! For the Orthodox Church, any disputes were inconvenient because in these disputes it was, as it were, a defendant. Usually, the Monophysites began to sing their song that the Council of Chalcedon had changed the faith and Orthodoxy confirmed by the three ecumenical councils. Here the situation changed completely.

For three days the Armenian theologians deliberated and could not discover any errors. When the emperor asked them to express their opinion, they replied that they could not point out mistakes. "Consequently, do you agree with the Orthodox Church?" asked the emperor. "Partly," they answered, "only ... the Greek clergy does not lead a moral life." The emperor objected to this that it was not a question of life, but of faith, that not all Armenians were moral, why should they be pleased to speak better about faith, on what grounds did they not agree with the Council of Chalcedon. The Armenian nobles began to be indignant that Ezr did not know how to conduct business and did not support the Armenian Church with glory. Ezra pleaded that he could not take with him the persons he desired. But the nobles pointed out to him Theodore. After that, Theodore appears on the stage. Offended by the lack of respect for his authority, he began to argue that the Armenians had absolutely no firm grounds for not recognizing the dogmatic definitions of the Council of Chalcedon. His words had such an effect that the Armenian legates agreed to reunification. Ezr performed divine services with the Greek clergy; The legates were in the Orthodox Church and received Holy Communion from the Orthodox. This is how the union of the Armenian Monophysites with Orthodoxy took place.

Soon Ezr returned to his see with the Armenian legates. He had the difficult task of attracting other Armenians to Orthodoxy. But then there were cries that Ezra had changed the faith of the fathers. The same John who had previously refused to go with Ezra now burst out in a philippic against the Catholicos. He said that his life was by his name ("Ezr" in Armenian means "limit", and this must mean that his Catholicism was the last limit to which the Orthodoxy of the Armenians went, and now it has turned to the path of heresies). A letter was sent to the emperor [co{p. 462} compiled on behalf of Ezra] Matusag. In it [the belief in the Trinity in the confession of Heraclius is approved, and the condemnation of Eutyches by the Council of Chalcedon is recognized as just], but here the reservation is made that the council has gone too far [in its teaching on the two natures], followed by a reference from the Holy Fathers, and ends with the statement that the Armenians do not agree with the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon. Thus the union with the Armenians ended unsuccessfully.