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.

At this time, the strongest opponent of Monothelitism was Maximus the Confessor. Maximus the Confessor turns out to be the central figure in the history of the question of wills in Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, there is no accurate information about his life. His existing Greek biographies are positively bad, since they were written in later times by compilers. What was in the sources of facts, they changed to their own eloquence. Even the facts that they proclaim as positive are distrustful. Thus, for example, the assertion that Maximus the Confessor retired to a monastery in view of the flourishing of the Monothelite heresy turns out to be so chronologically untenable that it shows a complete lack of understanding of the matter. [It is also reported] that Maximus was a monk of the Chrysopolis monastery or even its abbot. He was hardly an abbot anywhere, but he was really a monk of a monastery in Asia Minor. In 615 or 626 he had to flee from Persian persecution. Perhaps he was also in the monasteries of Constantinople, and his cell was in [Βέσσαι] [116] but it is difficult to determine what these places are. In general, the first years of monasticism of Maximus the Confessor thus remain poorly illuminated.

The most valuable is his own testimony at the trial, when he was a 75-year-old man (he was born in 580). At that time, one could see in him a man who had gone through more than one theological school. In this case, he turned out to be a practical lawyer: he showed a practical understanding of cases during legal proceedings. When he seemed to be in danger, he felt calm and safe, for he felt legally right, and his premonitions were justified. As soon as he began to worry, then things turned out to be unfavorable for him. Nothing is more natural than to suppose that during his legal education he occupied an eminent social position; But he was not the leader of political affairs. They call him the first secretary of the emperor. In general, he was in the service of the emperor Heraclius and was in close relations with his family. Maybe it was a home service. At the trial, the Emperor Constans treated him with restraint, seeing in him an old servant of his house.

The first years of Maximus the Confessor were not marked by anything on the Monothelite question. The invasion of the Persians forced him to retire to Africa; there he could establish relations with the Latin West. It is difficult to determine how long he has been here. At the time of the declaration of the union of Cyrus, he was not in Alexandria, and only Co{p. 479} Phronius opposed the union. After that, he appears near Constantinople and represents a venerable theological force. Even Sergius had previously sent him a draft of the ekthesis for consideration. Whether it was monastic humility or something else that guided Maximus, he did not treat the ekthesis with such disapproval as he did the typos. He calls Sergius [in a letter to Pyrrhus, who was then presbyter and abbot] the second Moses, the visible organ of divine revelation, humbly declares his unworthiness and incompetence. But in the end he spoke in such a way that Sergius could well understand that the essential point (μία ενέργεια) presented many difficulties. Sergius, however, did not foresee in Maximus a future fighter.

When. Heraclius and Sergius left the scene, Maximus had no relations with Pyrrhus until 645, when he met and had a dispute with him in Africa. Here Maximus is a defender of the Diphelite doctrine. This dispute between the ex-Patriarch of Constantinople Pyrrhus and St. Maximus took place in the presence of the imperial governor Gregory, a man of full Orthodoxy, who at that time was preparing to leave the Constantinople government. The expectation of this political change must have influenced Pyrrhus, in the sense that he decided to draw closer to Orthodoxy and surrender, after a rather weak defense, to his in all respects strongest opponent.

The dispute revolved around the following points. 1) Both opponents recognized the qualitative difference of desires in Christ (as ιδιότητες, as particular discoveries). But Pyrrhus did not want to admit two wills, for fear that this duality would dissolve the unity of divinity and humanity in Christ. Maximus replied that if the two natures cannot dissolve the unity in Christ, then neither can the two wills.

(2) Pyrrhus asserted that two wills must presuppose two volitional wills, i.e., two hypostases. Maximus objected that if two wills presuppose two wills, then vice versa – two wills must presuppose two wills. But such logic, applied consistently, leads either to Sabellianism or to Arianism. In the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In the Spirit, according to the teaching of the Church, there is only one will. If we conclude from this that there is one volitionist in them, then we get Sabellianism. Or: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Spirit, according to the teaching of the Church, is three hypostases. Should we conclude from this that in the Trinity there are both three wills and three wills? That would be Arianism.

3) Pyrrhus believed that the two wills cast doubt even on the moral unity of the Person of Christ and could contradict each other. Maximus remarked that there could be no contradiction in the Person of Christ: if human nature inevitably led to this, then it would have to be attributed to the Creator of human nature himself, God; and God cannot contradict Himself. If this contradiction (as it happens in us) depends on sin, then in Christ, as sinless by nature, this contradiction is inadmissible.