{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.

In Egypt, the union was accepted by a minority, and the masses of the people remained pure Monophysites. The Palestinian monk Sophronius, who was in Alexandria at that time, begged Cyrus to remove the expression μία ενέργεια from the union document, as not agreeing with Orthodox teaching. Cyrus, of course, did not agree to this proposal, which was tantamount to the destruction of the reunion itself, and sent Sophronius with a letter of recommendation to Sergius for an explanation on this matter. Sergius, who apparently stood completely aside, in fact had long wanted to put the union into effect, wrote letters on this and collected suitable passages from the Holy Fathers (with μία ενέργεια). Sergius asked Sophronius to remain silent beforehand, so as not to disturb the peace that had taken place; but since Sophronius continued to insist on his own, Sergius demanded that he bring from the Holy Fathers passages where the two energies would be spoken. But Sophronius could not present the patristic quotations in this form, and therefore Sergius remained unconvinced and recommended that Sophronius not upset the ecclesiastical peace because of one word: once the union had taken place, one should not speak of either one or two energies. Sergius made a promise to Sophronius to remain silent, and they parted in peace. But this situation changed thanks to the election of Sophronius to the vacant see of Jerusalem (in 633 or 634).

As soon as the news of Sophronius' election reached Constantinople, Sergius was alarmed. The fact is that every newly elected bishop of an outstanding cathedra considered the first act of his activity to be the compilation of an encyclical, by which he was to declare to the Orthodox bishops that he was of one mind with them in the faith. It probably happened at one time that the council that consecrated it also signed this epistle, testifying to its agreement with the newly-consecrated bishop, which is why this epistle {p. 463} was called επιστολή συνοδική. Sergius understood that the συνοδική of Sophronius, which would not be very pleasant to him in terms of content, would spread widely and, what was most dangerous, would reach the Orthodox West. Hitherto Sergius had conducted business only in the East, for example, in Armenia, but had not tried to win over the West; He concealed the true state of affairs. Mentioning the Unia of Alexandria, he presented it to the Westerners only as the accession to Orthodoxy of many thousands. And Sophronius, of course, informed the West about everything that was happening in the East. Sergius' task was to warn Pope Honorius, to predispose him to treat Sophronius with distrust. Therefore, Sergius considered it necessary to turn to Honorius with an epistle in which he explains what had happened in the East during the past years. He writes that he had heard about the election of Sophronius, but συνοδική had not yet received it. This is quite probable, for the συνοδική, of course, was not composed suddenly after the election, and could have reached Constantinople many months after the election of Sophronius.

Regarding the controversial issue, Sergius expressed himself as follows: "In accordance with the teaching of all the ecumenical councils, the one and the same Lord Jesus Christ performs all His actions; therefore, one should not reason about one or two energies, and be content with the recognition of "one will" (εν θέλημα) in Christ. The expression "μία ενέργεια," although found in some Fathers, makes a frightening impression on the inexperienced (τάς τινων άκοάς), since they believe that this expression denies the duality of nature in Christ. On the other hand, the expression "two actions" also seduces many (πολλους σκανδαλίζειν), since it does not occur in any father, and leads to the conclusion of two opposite wills, and through this introduces two wills, which is completely impious." Sergius asked Honorius' advice on a controversial issue.

Sergius, it should be noted, was well aware of his position in relation to Rome. People with well-known claims, but without a sufficient degree of intelligence and will, can always easily imagine an excellent and very dark case. Sergius knew how to play the papal string very well. He wrote to Honorius with the greatest outward reverence, presenting the matter as follows: he was always ready to consult with his Roman brother, but this was prevented by the distance; now even the distance does not prevent him from seeking advice, since the matter is of the greatest importance and requires consultation. Honorius, as a learned man, naturally could not evade the solution of the question proposed to him. In Rome, however, there were traditional methods of answering - to express oneself in general phrases, to talk quite a lot about an outsider, and to say absolutely nothing on the necessary question. But Honorius, who considered himself very learned, did not want to resort to these methods, expressed himself very clearly, and fell into the snare set by Sergius. He replied to Sergius with an epistle, in which he repeated the most essential expressions of Sergius, recognizing his point of view as quite just: όθεν καί έν θέλημα όμολογούμεν τού Κυρίου Ίησού Χριστού, "Wherefore we confess the will of the Lord Jesus Christ in one way," recognizing Him as πολυτρόπως ένεργούντα, "acting in many ways." A dispute about one or two energies in Christ is an empty, schoolboy dispute; Honorius treats those who argue about this with contempt; they are hucksters in newly invented words, departing from the simplicity of apostolic teachings, sophists, luring the people with the biting of new teachings. But the darkness of the apostolic teachings is strong; Rome will not succumb to error and will erase all doubtful innovations by the simplicity of her teaching.

Only after this correspondence did Sophronius' "communicative epistle" become known. The doctrine of the incarnation in this epistle is as follows. Jesus Christ is one and two, εν καί δύο, one complex hypostasis, μία ύπόστασις σύνθετος, which is called "the one nature of God the Word incarnate." The unity in Him of divinity and humanity is ενωσις υποστατική καί φυσική. He is known inseparably in the two natures, and acts naturally (φυσικώς), according to his two natures (ουσίας), and is peculiar to the essential qualities of each of these natures (ουσιώδη ποιότητα ή καί φυσικήν ιδιότητα). This would have been impossible if He had possessed one hypostasis, as a single and uncomplicated nature. One and the same Christ produces the divine and the human, but κατ' άλλο καί άλλο. This is precisely what Leo said: "Both act what is peculiar to them." From actions, and from actions alone, natures are known, and, according to the teaching of those who can know this, the difference of essences is always noticed from the difference of actions. In both natures we recognize both actions, i.e., the essential and natural, as well as the reciprocal, inseparably proceeding from the one and the other being and nature by reason of the natural quality inherent in it, and at the same time the inseparable and unmerged concomitant interaction of the two natures. This is the reason for the difference in actions in Christ, and equally gives to His natures the existence of natures. Christ, like us, is born; like us, it feeds on milk; like us, age passes; like us, he gets weary; It moves from one place to another; in His walk there is the same actual power, άνθρωπίνως 'ενεργουμένη, as in us. His humanity declares itself by unconstrained actions: He allowed His human nature to be ένεργείν when He Himself wanted and because He Himself wanted; in Him the infirmities (πάθη αδιάβλητα) of mankind had no compulsion: He was the Lord of His human sufferings.

A significant part of Sophronius' expressions turns out to be common with those union points that were proclaimed in Alexandria. Sophronius was afraid to miss anything indifferent in the dogmatic sense, but dear to the Monophysites, for otherwise the cries of the Monophysites would have been heard that he was violating the faith. Therefore he could not do without such vague expressions as εν καί δύο, or κατ' αλλο καί αλλο. But having satisfied the scrupulousness of his opponents, he clarified the question indisputably. The Monophysites did not want to recognize Christ έν δύο φύσεσι after the union, although they recognized έκ δύο φύσεων. The Orthodox also spoke of two natures, the Monophysites recognized one nature. Where, it may be asked, has the other nature disappeared? The Monophysites declared that this was the inevitable result of the very union of natures. But since the realization of the one nature was utterly impossible in view of the facts of the Gospel which testify to the human nature of Christ, the following usually happened. When the Orthodox proved to the Monophysites on the basis of the Gospel facts the reality of human nature in Christ, the Monophysites, without in the least disputing the facts themselves, tried to prove to the Orthodox that it was by no means possible to draw any conclusions from this regarding the humanity of Christ. The fact is that they admitted human nature in Christ not as a factor, but as a pure potentiality. If Christ fed, was tired, and suffered, this is a revelation of human nature. But, said the Monophysites, the theologian has no right to say that humanity and not divinity are manifested here, for otherwise the separation of natures would be affirmed. Consequently, it can be assumed that human actions are in fact manifestations of the deity. A theologian, the Monophysites asserted, can and should know two natures, but he has no right to state human nature. The whole point, therefore, boils down to the fact that in Christ there is a human φύσις, but without ενέργεια, i.e. that in Christ there is only μία ενέργεια. To say that this human φύσις ενεργεί was absolutely impossible for the Monophysites. Thus not acknowledging that φύσις is active in Christ, the Monophysites also concluded the opposite, i.e., that it is impossible to infer about the essence from actions, and that from the facts that show human nature in Christ cannot be inferred to the existence of human nature in it. The Encyclical Epistle of Sophronius rebels precisely against such a view, when it emphasizes, with particular force, the idea that essence can be known only in its manifestations and actions.

Of the three persons who acted in the era of union attempts between the Orthodox and the Monophysites, each has its own specific physiognomy.