Honorius was a scholar and considered himself a shrewd dogmatist. Therefore, in maintaining his scholarly authority, he did not confine himself to one colorless epistle, as had sometimes happened before with the Roman high priests; but he was not shrewd enough to subject the Epistle of Sergius to a thorough criticism. He further inflated the difference between the two wills, turning them into moral opposites. True, there is also another epistle from Honorius (in fragments), more Orthodox, there are expressions of Leo V., such as: "both natures act"; but even here he tries to retain at least a part of what he has said before. Thus, the defenders of Honorius are right that Honorius is an unconscious and independent Monothelite, but the fact remains: he confirmed the message of Sergius and joined the ranks of the Monothelites.

Such was the question in the first stage of its development. This question (about the two energies in Christ) has long been ripe both in the dogmatic and historical sense. Only an accidental cause, the will of Justinian I, which forced theologians to deal with the question of three chapters instead of a purely dogmatic explanation of the doctrine of God-manhood, produced what Monothelitism had not appeared a century earlier. The question of the three chapters, which filled the greater part of Justinian's reign, did not give anything for the explanation of the dogma of the union of the two natures, in Christ; Theology now set out on its direct path and set about revealing the truth expressed in the Chalcedonian creed.

That this question is long overdue will become clear if we recall the history of Monophysitism. Already in the dispute between Severus and Julian, the question of energy was posed clearly. Severus approached the Orthodox teaching in that he recognized the difference and non-merging in Christ of the definitions of His divinity and humanity, His attributes, ιδιότητες. Only by posing the question of how these qualities are revealed could the difference between Severus's point of view and the Orthodox one be clarified. Severus did not deny, it is true, but limited the relevance of these definitions. In this limitation the reserve of Monophysitism was manifested. These definitions were thought of as potential, eternally connected, simple possibilities without their discovery. Human qualities were recognized, but human nature was denied, from which, according to Orthodox teaching, these qualities flow as actions, on which they depend as their cause. The impulse to these discoveries always comes only from the divine Word, and human nature is not a factor. For this reason, the Monophysites did not want to recognize in Christ another, human nature (although they recognized human qualities in Him), since the tomos of Leo V. and the Council of Chalcedon depict this nature with a strong moment of actuality, with a postulate to the energy inherent in it: "agit utraque forma quod proprium est." By substituting ίδιότης for φύσις, they wanted to replace the living factor with the abstract concept of form [114].

The question of one or two energies appears in history earlier than the question of one or two wills. This is due to the fact that the latter contains more difficulties for human thought than the former. Ενέργεια is life in general; θέλησις (will) is the life of the spirit (energy in particular); Θέλημα is the result of this energy (θελήσεως). Will is important in a person's personal life near his self-consciousness. The will is the "I" turned ad extra, while consciousness and self-consciousness are the "I" turned to the inner man. The will, standing as a link between our actions (the multitude) and our "I" (unity), had to present special difficulties for Christology, in view of the danger of its complete identification with self-consciousness, with the personality. The question was raised: what will the will follow in the God-man: nature or hypostasis? Sergius and his associates considered it not subject to dispute that the will would follow hypostasis, and from the point of view of "εν θέλημα" as a ready-made datum, they argued against "δύο ένέργειαι", drawing a conclusion from them in the sense of δύο θελήσεις (or δύο θελήματα).

Graphically, their method can be represented as follows.

The wills in Christ are rooted in the one centre of His divine self-consciousness (α') and are revealed in their difference only in so far as is necessary in the unmerged union of the two natures (difference in agreement = bc). The Monophysitists exaggerated this distinction to the point of contradiction (extending the lines to certain points — de, between which there was an enormous distance [d opposite to e — contradict e], from these ends [from the contradictory wills = θελήματα] they looked in the direction of α' and bifurcated this center into β' and γ'), from the two wills they concluded to two volitionists = self-conscious = persons.

If we trace all the previous attempts at union with the Monophysites, we must divide them into sincere and mechanical attempts. A sincere attempt was made by Emperor Basiliscus. He openly sided with the Monophysites and abolished the Council of Chalcedon. But this experience cost him his throne and his life. All subsequent unional attempts were extremely mechanical: they were all aimed at luring the Monophysites into the bosom of Orthodoxy. All of them were composed in the same way, which consisted in concealing the real difference of views on both sides. The most famous of these experiments is Zeno's henoticon. There are no exact dogmatic formulas, neither Orthodox nor Monophysite, but only theological eloquent words, which were not contrary to the Chalcedonian definition of faith, but seemed pleasant to the Monophysites, since they understood them as a hidden contradiction to the Fourth Ecumenical Council. Emperor Justinian moved along this line. In order to please the Monophysites, he willingly accepted into dogmatic definitions expressions that were less precise, but liked by the Monophysites. Next to the exact definitions, he put less precise ones to obscure the meaning. From the point of view of theology, such measures were illogical. This meant the same as if modern mathematicians, next to π, a quantity [not expressed by a finite number of signs], recognized a simpler but less precise ratio of 22:7. This would be to condemn the work of predecessors [who have already given more precise definitions].

{p. 475}

Those who acted under the emperor Heraclius drew attention to the vagueness of the doctrine of the two natures and tried to explain the two natures in application to the more particular cases of will and action. They themselves were mistaken, but they gave occasion to speak out to persons who were more gifted and held to Orthodox convictions. The significance of the union attempt begun by Heraclius and Sergius lies precisely in the fact that it promised to be non-mechanical. Sergius and his supporters did not conceal the meaning of Orthodox teaching, but really wanted to explain it, to show that in the Chalcedonian teaching there really is not what the Monophysites ascribed to it: such two natures as are equivalent to two hypostases (two wills = volitional = self-conscious).

The second stage: the dispute about wills.

As long as Sophronius of Jerusalem was alive, his protest against Monothelitism did not allow Sergius to take advantage of the agreement reached with the bishop of Rome. But in 637 [638] Sophronius died. The see of Antioch was replaced by the fictitious Patriarch Macedonius, who resided in Constantinople. It was decided to officially sum up all that had been done for the union, and in 638 there appeared the "exposition of the faith" (έκθεσις τής πίστεως) of the emperor Heraclius. The text of this monument is extracted from the epistle of Sergius. "It is utterly impious," it says, "to recognize in Christ two opposite desires. If Nestorius did not dare to speak of two wills, but on the contrary, pointed to the identity of the will, then how is it possible for the Orthodox to recognize in Christ two wills? It is necessary to strictly adhere to the Church's teaching and recognize in Christ incarnate only one will." With the appearance of this work, the question of Monothelitism passed into its second stage, from a monenergistic dispute to a monothelite dispute in the proper sense.

Patriarch Sergius waited for the publication of the ecthesis and died in the last month of the year 638. A little earlier (October 12, 638 sepelitur) Pope Honorius also died. Pyrrhus, the successor of Sergius, recognized the ekthesis and sent it to the Alexandrian patriarch Cyrus, who received the work with enthusiasm. That is not what happened in the west. In Rome, the Ekthesis was greeted with a fervent protest. At this time, there were disputes about the election of the pope. Despite the pressure of the imperial viceroy (exarch), Severin was elected. On May 26, 640, he was recognized as bishop of Rome in Constantinople, and on August 2 of the same year he was no longer there. Severinus' successor was John IV, who ascended the papal throne on December 24 without the consent of the court of Constantinople. In 641 he convened a council, where it was decided to send an epistle to Constantinople, which stated that the authority of Honorius was not worth referring to, and insisted on the destruction of the ekthesis. The aged emperor completely despaired of pacifying the church and even feared to lose the west, where in 640 the following fact took place. A man from the east appeared in Gaul and began to preach the Monothelite doctrine. A council was held at Orleans, at which this doctrine was condemned. Seeing the confusion of affairs in the church, Heraclius laid all the blame for the ekthesis on Sergius. Soon he died on February 11, 641.

After his death, troubles came. At first, Heraclius' son from his first wife, Constantine, ascended the throne, held on the throne only 103 days and, as popular rumor suspected, was poisoned by Martina, the second wife of Heraclius. But Martina herself, who began to rule in the name of her son Heraclius II (= Heraklona [115]), suffered together with the latter 6 months after this death. Pyrrhus was deposed and exiled, and Paul took his place. The throne passed to the grandson of Heraclius, the son of his eldest son Constantine (= Constans). Rome began to hope that Heraclius' policy would be abandoned. Pope Theodore, the successor of John IV, began to demand that Paul destroy the ecthesis, but it turned out that Heraclius' policy was supported in full force even under Constans. Relations between Rome and Constantinople became more and more strained. Paul clearly expressed his Monothelite convictions, for which Theodore declared him deposed. In the meantime, in 643, a council of bishops was convened in the East, who took the side of Rome. They wrote to the bishop of Rome that they would have united with him long ago, but hoped that the troubles would settle themselves; now they ask for the condemnation of Monothelitism.