(10) A hypostatic will, as Pyrrhus proposed, cannot be admitted either: God has three hypostases, and therefore it would follow that there are also three wills in Him. —

(11) A complex will is inadmissible (apart from what has been said ad 5) also because the complex presupposes the simple.

The question of energies was already predetermined by the question of wills. Most interesting in this respect is Pyrrhus's attempt to prove that in Christ there is one ενέργεια, because the action of His divinity and humanity produces a single result, εν αποτέλεσμα; thus, the blow of a red-hot sword produces one effect. Maximus refuted this argument by remarking that (a) αποτέλεσμα — εξω τού Χριστού, and when we speak of energies and wills, we are talking about the fact that έν τώ Χριστώ. But (b) he did not admit a real unity of result: a red-hot sword has two effects: it burns and cuts.

The dispute ended favorably for Maximus. Pyrrhus, defending himself delicately and weakly, expressed a desire to enter into communion with the Orthodox, only not in Africa, but in Rome, where he went and where he was actually received into communion by Pope Theodore I.

In Africa, meanwhile, there was a lively ecclesiastical activity: in Byzacene, Numidia, and proconsular Africa, councils were convened against the Monothelites. The Fathers energetically urged the Pope to oppose the Constantinople Pope. Patriarch. But Pyrrhus did not wear the mask for long: in 647 he arrived in Ravenna and there again accepted the Constantinople faith (Gregory's attempt ended in his death). In Rome Pyrrhus was anathematized for this, and the document to this effect is signed not with ink, but with holy blood from a chalice.

The Patriarch of Constantinople Paul responded to the energy of the Pope of Rome with the following measures: a) he broke the altar on which the Pope's apocrisiaries were worshipped, and forbade them to celebrate the Liturgy; (b) Secondly, it induced the emperor to issue the so-called "Τύπος περι τής πίστεως," which differed from ̓εκθεσις only in that it had the character of an edict, whereas it was a dogmatic treatise. The emperor declared that he was aware of the disturbances taking place in the church: some recognized a single will, asserting that one and the same performed both divine and human actions; others recognize two wills and two actions; the former proceed from the concept of Christ as one in hypostasis, the latter from the concept of two natures that invariably retain their properties. In view of these disputes, the emperor ordered that his subjects should not quarrel with each other about either will: it was necessary to adhere to the status quo that existed in the church before. Amnesty was declared to the perpetrators of disputes, it was forbidden to censure and condemn each other for the past; but those who continue to argue are threatened by the edict with deposition, resignation, confiscation, corporal punishment, and exile.

Typos, of course, could not reconcile the defenders of Orthodoxy with the Monophysites. The edict was mocked for recognizing Jesus Christ as ανενέργητον καί αθέλητον, ανουν, αψοχον και ακίνητον, like soulless idols. In comparison with ekthesis, the typos represents a step backward in the sense of Monothelitism. By juxtaposing the doctrine of the one and two energies in Christ, the ekthesis places greater responsibility on the adherents of the latter teaching; In the typos, the arguments of both sides are reproduced objectively and equally conscientiously. In the Ekthesis, instead of the unpleasant δύο ένέργειαι, the Monothelites introduce εν θέλημα, sacrificing the favorite μία ενέργεια; the typos refuses to carry out this favorite expression εν θέλημα, being content not to dispute it and not to be replaced by directly opposite ones — If we compare the attempts of the Monothelites with those of the Monophysites, then the ekthesis is compared with the εγκύκλιον of the Basilisk, and the typos with the henoticon of Zeno. From this it becomes clear that the Monophysites entered life with greater energy than the Monothelites: the latter (in the εγκύκλιον) could dream of a complete victory over the Chalcedonian faith, but the latter began directly with concessions. Both the typos and the henoticon want to achieve unity by keeping silent about precise dogmatic formulas; but the typos is more moderate than the henoticon: it does not contain that hidden reproach to the Council of Chalcedon that is read between the lines in the edict of Zeno.

Typos did not find Pope Theodore alive. Martin was chosen as his successor (May 13, 649), who had previously been the apocrisiary of Constantinople. His election took place without the consent of the Emperor of Constantinople. Martin did not accept the typos and convened a Lateran Council, which was attended by 105 bishops and had 5 secretaries (sessions) from October 5 to October 31, 649. Of the Easterners were Stephen, Bishop of Dor, plenipotentiary of Patriarch Sophronius, and the abbots of the Greek monasteries in Rome.

The assembly was opened by a speech by the pope, in which he set forth the course of affairs that had taken place in Constantinople. At the second meeting, Stephen of Dora asked the pope to take up the restoration of Orthodoxy, which Sophronius defended. From the third session, the actual conciliar investigation of Sergius, Cyrus and Paul of Constantinople began. At the fourth session, the view of Theodore of Pharan was mainly considered. In his teaching On μία ενέργεια, τούτης δέ τεχνίτης καί δημιουργός ό Θεός, the Pope saw Apollinarianism (usually recognized as the source of Monothelitism) and Arianism (if God is the creator of energy, then it is operatio condita; and as energy, so is nature; ergo: Christ is a created being); and Theodore's opinion that Christ άόγκως and, so to speak, άσωμάτως passed from the womb of the Holy Virgin is recognized as docetical and Manichean. The fifth meeting was especially important. In some places from the writings of the heretics it was proved that the Monothelite questions had already been outlined by them, and in places from the Holy Fathers it was proved that a) ενέργεια is the σύνδρομος of nature, b) that in Christ both divinity and humanity have a will, and c) that in Christ both divinity and humanity act. Then the Chalcedonian definition of faith is read with the addition: "We confess both the two unmerged natures of one and the same, and the two natural wills of divinity and humanity, in full confirmation that one and the same Lord desires and works our divine and human salvation." In 20 canons anathematisms are set forth against the Monothelite teaching and its leaders.

The Pope tried to exert pressure on the Constantinople government through the Frankish kings, and he himself appointed John, Bishop of Philadelphia, as his legate to the East, to carry out the decision of the Lateran Council. But in the East, opposition to the council came primarily from the side from which one could least expect. Paul of Thessalonica, who, according to the traditions of his church, should have been a preacher of Roman influence, as vicarius sedis apostolicae, turned out to be an opponent of the council. Even before the council, he expressed himself in his communicative letter very vaguely and evaded signing the formula sent to him from Rome, and instead of signing he presented his new confession of faith, with some Monothelite expressions. The Pope pronounced deposition and anathema against him for this.

Meanwhile, a thunderstorm was gathering over the pope. Even during the council sessions, the imperial legate Olympius arrived in Rome with an order to capture Martin. But he entered into friendly relations with Martin and, having secret designs against Byzantium, went on a campaign against the Saracens, where he died of an ulcer. Friendship with the conspirator Olympius did a lot of harm to the pope. On Saturday, June 15, 653, a new imperial envoy, Calliope, arrived in Rome. Fearing popular indignation, he refrained from hostile actions against the pope on Sunday; but on Monday the pope's house was searched, motivating it by Martin's complicity with Olympia. Of course, the weapons they were looking for in the diocese were not found. The pope, at this time ill, having a premonition of evil, decided to go to the Lateran Council and placed his bed before the altar. But at midnight Calliope came to the temple and arrested the pope, as accused of having been ordained uncanonically and illegally, irregulariter et sine lege, of teaching incorrectly about the Holy Virgin and of sending money to the Saracens. He then put the pope on board a ship and sent him to Constantinople on June 19, where he arrived on September 17. In the evening of the same day, he was imprisoned, where he remained for 93 days. On December 20, he was summoned to court.

A certain sacellarius presided, who ordered the pope, as the accused, in spite of his illness, to stand. The prosecutors began directly with political treason, and witnesses were also exhibited. Martin began: "When the typos was sent to Rome...", but the chairman would not allow him to speak of the faith, and demanded an answer directly to the accusations that he had not restrained Olympius from his hostile designs. Martin answered: "You in Constantinople could not stop Valentine; How could I hold Olympius, who had an army and arms?" Fearing answers equally strong, the sacellarius stopped the investigation and went to report to the emperor. Receiving his answer, he gave orders that the pope's vestments be torn off and exposed to the mockery of the crowd, which was forced to shout to him: "Anathema! Then they put him in prison, where he was treated extremely cruelly and rudely. The intercessor for him was Paul of Constantinople, who lay dying and complained that the inhuman treatment of Martin would be imputed to him, the patriarch, at the judgment of Christ. Pyrrhus was chosen as Paul's successor. Martin was now required to confess that Pyrrhus had been treated cruelly in Rome and had been forced to renounce his Monothelitism. But Martin, of course, refused such a confession. On March 26, 655, he was sent to Tauric Cherson, where he died on September 16 of the same year. As early as [August] 654, his successor, Eugene I, was elected.

An interesting question is: did the Constantinople government believe in the accusations that were made against the Pope? — Probably, yes. In those troubled times, everyone saw in an important person a public figure with a political character. Pyrrhus himself was more of a political partisan than an ecclesiastical figure. His very attitude towards Martin, his repentance of Monothelitism, and his new conversion to Monothelitism, are explained from political aims. For this reason, the suspicious government of Constantinople did not trust the political reliability of the Pope, just as it looked from a political point of view at the activities of Maximus, who was taken up after Martin.

In 655 Maximus was captured and brought to Constantinople together with his disciple Anastasius, and there he was accused of a political crime. He was accused of having taken Egypt by the Saracens, interpreting in the sense of political treason his friendly relations with the governor Gregory, that he loved only the Latins and did not like the Greeks. Regarding the last point, Maximus agreed, explaining that he loved the Latins not for their nationality, but for their Orthodoxy. Then another semi-political accusation against Maximus was that he did not recognize the emperor as high priest and even anathematized him. To the question: "Τί ούν; ουκ εστι πας βασιλεύς Χριστιανός καί ίερεύς;» (Ergo non est omnis christianus imperator etiam sacerdos?) Maximus replied decisively: "ουκ έστιν" (non est!). But just as firmly he rejected that the anathema to which he had committed the typos also applied to the emperor: the typos, as an ecclesiastical document, lies outside the competence of the state power, and was drawn up not by the emperor himself, but by other persons who had misled the emperor himself. That the emperor was not sacerdos, Maximus proved [among other things] by the fact that at divine services the emperors are commemorated [together with the laity, after the persons of the priestly order]. And Maximus rejected the accusation of Origenism by pronouncing an anathema against Origen.