Life of St. Maximus the Confessor

Holding the Divine Teaching, the pillar was ecu of Orthodoxy, and the power, God-wise, of faith; in two beings and two wills he preached ecu Christ our God, Father Maximus. Canon Rev. Maxim: August 12; canto 3; sedal. Among the famous men of the Orthodox Church, whose life and deeds deserve especially careful study and imitation, is St. Maximus the Confessor. Despite the title of a simple monk 1, he was the first figure of his century in the service of the Church and rendered great services to it. At a time of decline in morals, he became famous for his strict asceticism, and was the “Mentor and light of the monastics” 2. Among the darkness of ignorance and delusion, he shone with the light of spiritual enlightenment and earned the glorious title of the third Theologian 3 (that is, after St. Evangelist John and Gregory of Nazianzus). When heresies apparently triumphed and oppressed Orthodoxy, he showed fiery zeal for the Faith and tireless activity for the good of the Church. Amid persecution and unheard-of torture, he revealed himself as an unshakable confessor of the truth, and he finally sealed this truth with his painful death after difficult years of imprisonment. In a word, Rev. Maxim is great not only in name, but also in his life, as St. Dimitry Rostovsky. All his thoughts, desires, and exploits were directed toward one great goal, namely, to overthrow the heresy of the Monothelites and bring triumph to Orthodoxy. Therefore, the Orthodox Church calls him “the pillar of Orthodoxy” 5 and blesses him for the “persecution and sorrow, wounds and beatings, suffering in chains and prisons and ironclads and imprisonments” that he endured from heretics. But such is the fate of the great Fathers of the Church that not only during their lives are they subjected to various kinds of adversity and suffering in the fight against apostates from Orthodoxy, but also after death they suffer slander and slander from them. To confirm their false ideas and justify their illegal actions, heretics and schismatics always referred to the most famous Fathers of the Church, reinterpreting their words and deeds in their own way. Our imaginary Old Believers do the same. Slandering St. Cyril, St. Ephraim the Syrian, blessed. Theodoret and many others, they, by the way, think to find confirmation for their strange opinions and justification for their apostasy from the Holy Church in the events of the life of the teacher. Maxima. – In defense of the name of the glorious champion of Orthodoxy, in exposing the ignorance and evil deeds of the apostates of the Holy Church and for the edification of its true children, here is offered the biography of St. Maximus the Confessor, based on authentic and reliable sources 7. The Monk Maximus the Confessor was born around 580 8 in Constantinople. His parents were among the nobles of this city, inferior to some of them in family celebrity and worldly fame, but superior to all in Christian piety. They tried to instill the rules of this piety into their son. Having cleansed him soon after his birth from the ulcer of hereditary sin in the font of baptism, they tried to protect him from the infection of the vices of their time through zealous and strict education. Their main concern was to accustom their son from a very young age to a strict, well-ordered life, to the activities required by the title of Christian, and to protect him from idleness, absent-mindedness and idleness - the usual vices of that time. For this purpose, they did not allow him even adolescent fun and amusements, in the conviction that these games and fun could little by little lead to vices. And this way of upbringing was quite consistent with the natural mood of young Maxim. Born with a deep, self-centered soul, he was naturally predisposed to the behavior to which they tried to teach him through his upbringing, and therefore willingly submitted to the suggestions of his parents. And thanks to this upbringing and the mood of his spirit, Rev. Even in his youth, Maxim discovered in himself such inclinations and virtues that clearly indicated in him a future great ascetic of Christian piety 9 . The mental education of the Rev. was just as successful. Maxima. Combining tireless diligence with natural understanding and curiosity, he in a very short time studied the elementary sciences taught in schools, and then with the greatest zeal began to study philosophy, which he preferred to all other sciences, finding a special pleasure for himself in studying it. In philosophy, the Monk Maxim sought solutions to questions about God, the world and man, which questions, as we see from his works, were early aroused in him by his consideration of nature. “How not to be surprised,” he says in one of his works, how not to be surprised when contemplating the immeasurable and beyond amazement of the existing abyss of goodness? Or how not to be horrified, thinking about how and where the verbal and intelligent being and the four elements from which bodies were made came from? What force, moving to action, brought them into being 10? Where did we come from? What do we mean? For what purpose do we exist, and where are we rushing in the stream of visible things 11 » Answers to these questions by the teacher. Maxim expected from philosophy, although in vain, as he later admitted. With all this, studying philosophy was not useless for him: it strengthened his natural thirst for knowledge, enriched his mind with various information, which he later, like Gregory the Theologian, used in favor of the Gospel, and introduced him to dialectical techniques, which he was able to use with such success in the fight against heretics. As for the false trends and errors of philosophers, the teacher could not have been infected by them. Maxim; Possessing a sound mind and pure taste, he knew how to distinguish lies from truth and learned only sound teachings 12. In his youth, the teacher. Maxim, without any doubt, began to study the Holy Scriptures and the works of St. Fathers of the Church, although his biography says nothing about this. From his works we see that he knew the Holy Scripture perfectly. Scripture and carefully studied the works of the Church Fathers, especially St. Dionysius the Areopagite and St. Gregory the Theologian, for whom he had a special love. In general, the education of Rev. Maxim was superior to his contemporaries and everyone was surprised at him, according to his biography 13 . “But neither the nobility of the family, the biography writer continues, nor the education in which he had no equal, nor high virtues, nor anything else could arouse in him a high opinion of himself: he considered modesty to be the only adornment of life and valued it above all human glory 14.” He himself strictly adhered to and convinced others to adhere to the following wise rule: “If you want to be knowledgeable and at the same time modest, and not be enslaved by the passions of arrogance: then always look in things that are hidden from your mind, and having found many and varied things unknown to you, you will be surprised by your ignorance and moderate your arrogance. And having known yourself, you will know many great and wonderful things. For dreaming about one’s knowledge does not allow one to keep up with one’s knowledge 15.” This humility and saving distrust of himself did not allow the teacher. Maxim to dwell on his opinions; on the contrary, the more true and fair they seemed to him, the more he did not trust his own judgment, and appointed other wise men as judges of his judgments and thoughts, and from them he received approval 16. With such humility of mind, the teacher. Maxim could not be disposed to the bustle and anxieties of public life; He tried in every possible way to avoid public positions, worldly honors, and especially the worries of secular life. But Providence was pleased to place him for a while precisely in the environment of this life, so that he would come to know its vanity face to face and, with greater zeal, would desire another life. The nobility of the family, rich mental talents, learning and high moral character of the teacher. Maximus soon brought him to the attention of Emperor Heraclius, who ascended the throne in 610. The Emperor favorably called him to his Court and, against his will, made him his first Secretary. St. performed with zeal and complete success. Maxim the position assigned to him; he amazed with his serviceability in matters of service, prudence and insight in advice, in word and deed he helped the Emperor in all important and difficult cases, he delighted the Tsar and the courtiers with his conversation. And the courtiers were surprised at his intelligence, his insight, but most of all they were surprised at his sedate and strict life, which he did not abandon even at Court 17. Not for long, however, Rev. Maxim remained at the Court. And previously indifferent to the blessings of this world and more inclined to a quiet, solitary life, now, when he took a closer look at the vanity of human life, he completely decided to break off his connection with the world, especially since he considered it unsafe for his morality to remain any longer at the Court, where he was met with temptations at every step. Like the teacher. Nilus, who once left the post of prefect of Constantinople and retired to Mount Sinai, teacher. Maxim, leaving the Court, retired to the Chrysopolis Monastery (which lay on the opposite bank of the Strait of Constantinople - now Scutari), which was famous for the pious life of the monks, and here Maxim took monastic vows. About the life of Rev. Maximus in the Chrysopolis monastery, only a few fragmentary legends have reached us, 18 which introduce us little to his inner life. But this deficiency is partly compensated by his morally ascetic works, in which he depicts the inner life of a monk with its various states and gives advice and instructions to monastics. In this image, written from experience and not from speculation, we, in all fairness, can see the features of his own inner life. The life of a monk, according to the image of Rev. Maxima is completely opposite to the life of a layman. The progress of worldly people, he says, is a fall in monks, and the progress of monks is a fall in worldly people. The successes of the laity consist in wealth, fame, power, luxury, fattening of the body, having many children, and the like. the benefits to which the monk dies by turning. The success of a monk is non-covetousness, humiliation, abstinence, exhaustion of the flesh, and the like. 19. A monk is one who has separated his mind from sensory objects, and through abstinence, love, psalmody and prayer constantly stands before God 20 . He completely renounced all property, and has nothing on earth except his body, and having curbed his attachment to it, he entrusted the care of himself to God and pious people 21 . But whoever renounced property, wife, etc., made a monk only an external person, and not yet an internal one, that is, not the mind. To make an inner man a monk, you need to renounce passionate thoughts 22 that disturb the spiritual forces, as a result of which the mind does not have clear vision during spiritual contemplation and elevation in prayer 23 . A passionate thought is a thought composed of passion and thought. The whole monk’s battle against demons is to separate passions from thoughts, for otherwise it is not possible for him to look at things dispassionately 24 . It is a great thing not to become attached to things, but even more important is to be dispassionate to their mental impressions 25 . Fighting with mental representations of things is just as difficult as fighting with the things themselves, just as it is more convenient to sin in thought than in deed itself 26 . If you want to overcome thoughts, then observe the passions, and then you will conveniently expel thoughts from your mind. Against fornication, fast and be vigilant, work and be secluded; against anger and sorrow, do not value glory, dishonor and sensual things; against rancor, pray for the one who offended you, and you will be delivered 27. Whoever, with God's help, remains victorious in the fight against thoughts, achieves dispassion, i.e. such a peaceful state of the soul in which it is incapable of evil 28 , in which nothing worldly disturbs the mind, and the passionate forces of the soul, i.e. irritable and lustful, remain dispassionate during the presentation of objects and their imaginations 29 . An ascetic who has achieved dispassion acquires at the same time love for God, for dispassion for the world is combined with the blissful passion of holy love for God and is completely impossible without this love 30 . Only the love of God elevates the mind above all creatures, making it blind to everything that is lower than God 31; only it makes the monk indifferent to glory and disgrace, to wealth and squalor, to sweetness and sorrow, only the one who has acquired this Divine love dies completely for the flesh and the world 32. For this reason, he comes to life for a higher, heavenly life, which manifests itself especially in pure and insensible prayer and in the contemplation of Divine things. All virtues assist the mind in ascending to God, but the purest of all is prayer. Opened to God by it, he is outside the flesh and the world, outside matter and images. Illuminated by the Divine and immeasurable light, he is insensitive to everything created, just as the sensory eye does not see the stars when the sun rises 33. Elsewhere Rev. Maxim says this about prayer: The two highest states of pure prayer. One thing happens to people of an active life, another to people of a contemplative life. One thing happens in the soul from reverence for God and good hope; the other from fiery love for God and the greatest purification. The sign of the first degree is when the mind is distracted from all worldly thoughts, gathers inside, and, as if standing before the face of God (who is really present here), performs prayers without distraction or indignation. The second sign: when in the very aspiration of prayer the mind is delighted with the Divine and immeasurable light, and does not feel at all either itself or anything else that exists except the One who produces such enlightenment in it through love. In this state, the one who strives to research about God receives pure and clear information about Him 34. For only to those who have turned their eyes away from everything created, cleansed their minds from the dust of passions and made it pure and bright in the likeness of a mirror, the Lord grants wisdom and reveals Divine secrets. In such minds the Divine knowledge is immediately impressed as soon as they begin to acquire knowledge, just as a face is depicted in a clean mirror. The path to knowledge, the Rev. repeats more than once. Maxim, there is dispassion for the world and love for God: without them no one will see the Lord 35. For passions bind the mind with material objects, and, like a heavy stone, constantly drag it towards the earth, although it is by nature lighter and thinner than fire. Just as a bird tied by the leg, rising to fly, is pulled by a noose to the ground and falls: so the mind, which has not yet achieved dispassion, soaring to the knowledge of heavenly things, carried away by passions, is cast down to the ground 36 . When the mind is completely freed from passions, then it moves unfailingly towards the contemplation of beings, directing the path to the knowledge of the Holy Trinity; through high thoughts, as if on clouds, he rises to the bright sky of mysterious contemplation, where he will abide with the Lord 37. In order not to leave this state, the ascetic must be extremely diligent in love and self-restraint, so that, without giving in to the passionate power of rebellious movement, he has abundant light in his soul. Otherwise, he can easily turn to passions again, without receiving any other fruit from his previous state other than idle knowledge with a high opinion of himself, the end of which is a gradual darkening of knowledge itself and a complete deviation of the mind towards material objects 38 . The teacher portrays himself in these terms. Maxim various states of monastic life, experienced, of course, by himself. From this we can see what heights of spiritual life he himself reached in the Chrysopolis monastery. The biography directly testifies that the teacher. Maxim, who had previously been distinguished by the severity of his life, upon accepting the monastic rank, by exhaustion of the body, fasting, vigil, and unflattering exercise in psalmody and prayer, completely separated his mind from everything earthly, and had not yet been freed from the bonds of the flesh, he lived as if he had no flesh 39 . The monks, amazed at the height of his exploits, having recently lost their abbot, elected St. Maxim in Igumen himself. Long St. the husband, out of a sense of humility and fear of responsibility before God, refused the position offered to him, and only after repeated and persistent requests from the brethren agreed to take over the management of the monastery. Having accepted the rank of Hegumen, teacher. Maxim tirelessly cared for the good of the souls who entrusted themselves to his leadership, intensified his zeal for exploits in order to be an example for everyone, constantly gave advice and instructions to the monks regarding success in spiritual life, was pained by the passions of people who were still unrefined, and either with meekness and kindness, or with severity and reproof, tried to reason with them and correct them, and rejoiced with the greatest joy when he saw their repentance and correction. His concern for the purity of life and faith of his subordinates was so great that, as the biography writer notes, he exhausted the last strength of his weak body on this 40. Lecturer Maxim, despite the rank of Hegumen, remained a simple monk, without the degree of priesthood 41. Nevertheless, even in his simple monastic state, the teacher. Maxim enjoyed the greatest respect and had great influence not only in his monastery, but also outside it - throughout the East. The fame of his learning and godly life quickly spread, and people of all ranks, from Bishops to simple monks, from nobles to commoners, turned to him: some for advice and guidance in matters of life, others with questions about the subjects of Faith and piety 42 . Lecturer Maxim satisfied everyone. “The Word of God is a river in those people who pour pious, right and saving teaching around themselves in abundant streams,” 43 the teacher used to say. Maxim, and these words of his in their entirety of meaning can be applied to himself. He spread the saving teaching 44 both orally and in writing, and explained the hidden meaning of the Holy Spirit. Scriptures, talked with others about the highest dogmas of the Faith, taught others about abstinence and curbing passions, patience and generosity, for others he wrote extensive works about the Christian ascetic life, but in general he tried to instill in everyone alienation from the world, striving for God and love for virtue 45. “With incredible zeal, as the biography writer notes, this Divine man took care to attract everyone to virtue, to invest in love for it, so much desired and desired in itself” 46. The Monophysite heresy, which at that time outraged the world of St. Church, gave new food to the zeal and activity of the teacher. Maxima. To curb the insolence of heretics and protect the Orthodox from their machinations, he left the monastery from time to time and visited the surrounding countries. He himself says about himself that in Cyprus he argued with the Bishops of the Sevirov sect 47 (a branch of the Monophysite heresy); For the same purpose, he visited Alexandria 48, where the Monophysite sect was especially strong and numerous. Not content with oral arguments, Rev. Maxim wrote dogmatic messages to various persons, in which he refuted the errors of the Monophysites; These are his letters to John the Postelnic, to a certain eminent man Peter, (two) to Cosmas, deacon of Alexandria, (two) to Julian Scholasticus, to Marinus, to the nuns who apostatized from Orthodoxy, etc. These letters contain a thorough and complete refutation of the false teachings of the Monophysites. Striking the heretics himself, professor. Maxim also excited others with his writings. One of the letters to Peter says that it was written for the purpose that he would curb the wolves that torment the meek and innocent sheep of the flock of Christ 49 . In general, the teacher. Maxim took an active part in the struggle of the Church against heretics and was an ardent zealot of the patristic teaching. “First of all and most of all,” he says, we must preserve the most important and first means of our salvation, that is, the good heritage of the Faith, boldly confessing it with soul and lips as the fathers taught us, following the original savovids and servants of the Word” 50. But especially his zeal for Orthodoxy and tireless activity for the good of St. Church teacher Maxim showed in the fight against the Monothelites, in which he became the head of the Orthodox, and, like Athanasius the Great, with his words and activities he set East and West in motion. From here begins a new period in the life of the teacher. Maxim, extremely disastrous for himself, but extremely beneficial for the Faith and the Church. In order to fully understand the course of action of the Monk Maxim in the fight against the Monothelites and adequately appreciate the merits rendered by him to St. Church, you need to first say a few words about the origin of the Monothelitian heresy and about its main culprits. At the beginning of the 7th century, the dogma of the Divine and human will in the person of Jesus Christ, which had not yet been definitively set forth at councils or in the writings of previous fathers and teachers of the Church, aroused different opinions and rumors. Already the Monophysites, recognizing one nature in Jesus Christ, stubbornly insisted that in Him one must recognize one will and one activity. Meanwhile, in the Orthodox Church itself there were quite a few Bishops who, while recognizing, in accordance with the Council of Chalcedon, two natures in the God-Man, at the same time argued that, according to the unity of the Hypostasis, one will and one action should be attributed to Him. “Is it possible,” they said, for there to be two opposing wills in one person? To allow this in relation to the God-man does not mean to separate in Him, like Nestorius, the Divinity from humanity and thus to overthrow the truth of the incarnation? And will not these two wills constantly oppose each other? No, in Christ there is one will, and it is Divine 51. His humanity is nothing more than an obedient organ, a passive instrument of the Divine. It performed its natural actions not according to its own impulse, not separately and not contrary to the beck and direction of the Word hypostatically united with it, but when, how and to what extent God the Word wanted it. Just as our body is governed by the soul, so human nature in Christ has always and in everything been moved and directed by the Divine (Θεοκίνητον)” 52. The first culprit and disseminator of such thoughts was Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople, who, as a child, was infused with the poison of the false teachings of the Monophysites 53, in which, as in a seed, the Monotheletian heresy was already hidden. Even several years before the promulgation of this heresy in Alexandria by Cyrus, Sergius, having entered into secret relations with the Eastern Bishops, slyly suggested to them the idea that in Christ they should recognize one will and one action 54 - which idea was actually accepted by some of them. At the same time, he conducted active correspondence with the Monophysites, demanding from them evidence from the Holy Scriptures. Scripture and the Fathers of the Church in confirmation of the doctrine of the one will and promising to accept them into communion with the Church if they present the required evidence 55 . By these means, Sergius managed to acquire new adherents of his false teaching, some of whom (for example, Theodore, Bishop of Parano) immediately began to prove and disseminate it in writing 56 . External circumstances strengthened the nascent heresy and gave it the opportunity to openly rebel against Orthodoxy. The Eastern Empire at the beginning of the 7th century was in the most unfortunate situation: from the outside it suffered constant attacks from the Avars and especially from the Persians, who tore away entire regions from it 57, and was threatened by the Arabians, internally it was torn apart by numerous sects of Monophysites, whose hatred and enmity towards the Orthodox Church and the government that patronized it extended to the point that they were ready to surrender into the hands of the enemies of the empire. The Monophysites in Egypt were especially dangerous for the government, where their number ranged from five to six million, while the Orthodox numbered no more than three hundred thousand 58 . To avert the threatening danger, one remedy was presented: to reconcile the Monophysites with the Orthodox Church. The government immediately resorted to this method. Already in 622 Emperor Heraclius (611–641), under the leadership and assistance of Sergius, tried, through the teaching of one will and one action in Christ, to win over reconciliation with the Church of Paul, who was at that time the head of the Armenian Monophysites of the Northern sect 59. Whether there was success here, however, is unknown. In the same year, he forbade Metropolitan Arcadius of Cyprus from preaching the doctrine of two wills and actions in Christ, obviously fearing the destruction of his plans from this teaching 60 . The emperor's order was approved and confirmed by Sergius 61. In 626, Heraclius managed, with the help of the cunning Sergius, to entice Cyrus, Bishop of Phasidia (in Colchis), into his delusion, who subsequently became one of the ardent champions of the new false teaching and the executor of their plans regarding the Monophysites 62. Encouraged by this success, the emperor became bolder and more decisive. In 629 Having met in Hierapolis (in Upper Syria) with Athanasius, whom the Syrian Monophysites of the Jacobite sect recognized at that time as their Patriarch, Heraclius not only convinced him to accept the Council of Chalcedon, but promised, if he agreed, to make him Patriarch of Antioch. Athanasius feigned consent to the emperor's proposal, and in 650 he was elevated to the patriarchal see of the Antiochian Church 63 . But the evil did not stop there. In the same year 630, on the occasion of the death of George, Patriarch of Alexandria, the emperor transferred Cyrus, Bishop of Phazid, already known to us, to the throne of the Alexandrian Church. Thus, the three patriarchal sees were in the hands of the champions of the new heresy. Feeling their strength, they immediately began to implement their long-conceived and prepared plan. They started with Alexandria, where there was a relatively greater danger from heretics. Cyrus, to whom the emperor, along with the patriarchal dignity, granted the rights and power of the imperial governor over Egypt, arriving in Alexandria in 655, immediately convened a council of his bishops 65 and, having drawn up a new conciliatory confession of faith at it, proposed it to the Egyptian Monophysites. It was not difficult for the heretics to accept this new confession; for although it spoke of two natures in the God-man, it was only for show. Cyrus himself overthrows the difference of natures in Christ when, in the 7th clause of his confession, he anathematizes everyone “who does not confess that one and the same Christ and Son performed those things which are proper to God and man by one divine action (μιᾷ ϑεανδρικῆ ἐνεργεία), as St. Dionysius” 66, and when a little lower he adds that “the separation (i.e., Divine and human actions in Christ) appears only to our mind” 67. Since the difference of natures can be known only from the difference of actions, it is clear that these provisions directly lead to the fusion of natures in the God-Man, or, what is the same, to the Monophysite heresy. Therefore, it is not surprising that Cyrus’s new confession was a success. True, most of the Egyptian Monophysites remained adamant in their convictions, despite the imprisonment, torture and death penalty to which Cyrus subjected them, using the rights of the imperial governor in Egypt; but the Theodosians and Jacobites (two branches of the Monophysite heresy) did not hesitate to enter into imaginary communion with the Church. On June 5, 655, they, among several thousand, solemnly gathered in the Alexandria Church and, as a sign of reconciliation, communed with the Orthodox St. secrets 68. Following this, heretics everywhere began to speak publicly: “We did not go to the Council of Chalcedon, but the Council came to us; for whoever affirms one action in Jesus Christ confesses in Him one nature” 69 . Meanwhile, Cyrus, in an eloquent message to the emperor and to Sergius, presented his imaginary success as such a victory of Orthodoxy over heresy, which the ranks of Angels could not help but rejoice at. – In Constantinople they joyfully accepted the long-desired news; the new confession of faith was approved, the act of reunification of heretics with the Church was approved 71. This is how the Monothelitian heresy arose, intensified and openly rebelled against Orthodoxy. But according to the providential dispensation of the Lord, who preserves his Church, strong opponents and denouncers of this heresy were already ready - St. Sophrony and Rev. Maxim. The former began the fight against the Monothelites, the latter tirelessly continued it until his last breath and with his labors prepared a decisive victory for the right faith over heresy at the Sixth Ecumenical Council. Both of them were in Alexandria at the same time that Cyrus was negotiating with the Monophysites. As people known for their learning and strict asceticism, Cyrus offered them his conciliatory confession of faith for consideration. St. Sophronius, having read it, according to the Monk Maximus, could not restrain himself from tears: with bitter weeping he threw himself at the feet of Cyrus, hugged his knees, asked, begged, demanded not to make this confession public, because it contained the false wisdom of the wicked Apollinaris 72 . When, despite the prayers of St. Sophronius's new confession was made public, he went to Constantinople, and here he used the same prayers before Sergius with which he addressed Cyrus: falling at the feet of the Patriarch, he conjured him with the life-giving suffering of Christ the Savior to exclude the seventh member from the reconciliatory confession, as containing a heretical thought, and not to produce new indignation and division in the Church 73 . When here too the convictions of St. Sophronius was left without success, he used a more drastic measure. Elected in 654, after the death of Patriarch Modestus of Jerusalem, to the throne of the Church of Jerusalem, he convened a council of the Bishops of Palestine subordinate to him, and having condemned the new false teaching there, he sent a circular message to all the Patriarchs, along with the conciliar Acts, in which he set out with particular clarity and thoroughness the dogma of two natures and two corresponding wills and actions in one Person. God-man 74. This decisive act of Sophronius, having encouraged the Orthodox, led to confusion among the heretics. Sergius, having not yet received a message from St. Sophronius, and knowing only from rumors about his election to the throne of the Jerusalem Church and about the council he convened, hastened to win over the Roman High Priest Honorius, which he completely succeeded in doing. Thus, the fourth Patriarch was led into heresy 75. Meanwhile, the message of St. Sophronia. Troubles and unrest intensified. To stop them, Sergius convinced the emperor to issue in 658 a dogmatic edict drawn up by Sergius himself 76 called ἐκϑεσις τῆς πίςεως, which prohibited all disputes regarding the issue that arose and ordered everyone to confess in Christ, with two natures, one will and one kind of activity 77 . The edict was approved at a private council of Constantinople. But even after this, the disputes did not stop and worried the entire Eastern Church. The Orthodox did not agree to give in to the heretics out of consciousness of the correctness of their teaching; the heretics, on the contrary, continued the dispute almost out of sheer pride, out of unwillingness to give in to their opponents, without even having any external goal in mind; because those areas of the Roman Empire (Syria, Palestine, Egypt), for the sake of which the work of reconciling the Monophysites with the Church was undertaken (which was the main reason for the Monothelitian heresy), at that time (637–640) had already fallen under the rule of the Saracens 78 . The latter circumstance also hindered the struggle of St., which was beneficial for the Church. Sophronius with the Monothelitian heresy: busy, after the conquest of Jerusalem by the Saracens, with finding means to alleviate the lot of his suffering flock, he could not continue the fight against the heretics with the same strength 79 . This state of affairs finally caused Rev. Maxima. Saint Maximus, without a doubt, has strongly opposed the Monothelitian heresy to this day, but we have very little information about this activity of his. It is reliably known that the Monothelites tried to win him over to their side. Soon after the promulgation of the new confession of faith in Alexandria, Sergius’s friend and like-minded person Pyrrhus, who later became his successor on the throne of Constantinople, urged St. Maximus in writing to accept the new teaching 80 if, after careful discussion, he found it necessary, but Maximus resolutely refused, citing his inexperience and inability to judge such lofty subjects. “But suppose,” he adds, that I did not lack the strength required for this: who would be so reckless and daring as to decide to arbitrarily change what was approved by the Divine verdict through hierarchical authority” 81? The last words (like the entire message in general) are aimed, among other things, at distracting Pyrrhus himself from error. But Pyrrhus did not listen to the prudent response and, together with other champions of the new false teaching, began to spread it everywhere. The Monk Maxim also did not remain inactive. Having provided his friend St. Sophronius to wage an open struggle against the Monothelites, he acted in defense of Orthodoxy in a different way. Moving to different places in Alexandria, Cyprus, Constantinople, in different provinces of Asia Minor, everywhere with his strong words he affirmed the Orthodox in the faith, asking and begging them “first of all and most of all to preserve the good heritage of the faith, and boldly confess it with soul and lips, as the fathers taught us, following the original witnesses and servants of the Word” 82. In such beneficial exploits for the Orthodox Church, St. Maxim spent about seven years, from 633 to 640 83 . Meanwhile, St. Sophronius, shortly before this, was forced to abandon the fight against the Monothelites, and in 640, to the general regret of all Orthodox Christians, he died. The heretics took heart. Pyrrhus, who succeeded in 659 Sergius, having approved the presentation of Sergius 84 at the council he convened, jealously continued the work of his predecessor and vigilantly followed the actions of Maximus. Rev. Maxim, seeing in the East the decisive predominance of heretics, supported by both spiritual and temporal authorities, fearing violence from them, and, as a simple monk, not having enough strength and authority to stand alone against all the Patriarchs 85 and most of the Bishops, and meanwhile wanting, at all costs, to find defenders of the Orthodox teaching and to defend the truth - he decided to go to the West 86, where St. Sophronius, although due to the invasion the Saracen could not fulfill his intention 87. The invasion of the Persians, who at this time devastated Asia Minor and more than once approached Constantinople itself, and the fear of falling into the hands of the savage Muslims, who had already captured some countries of the Eastern Empire, prompted St. Speed ​​up Maxim by fulfilling his intention. He went, as a result of motives unknown to us, not to Rome, where the heretic Honorius was no longer present at that time, but to North Africa. Along with him and as a result of the same circumstances, many other Eastern Christians went there 88. Stephen of Doria, according to the instructions of St. Sophronius, went straight to Rome 89. Lecturer Maximus arrived in Africa around 640. Until now, the Monothelitic heresy was known here only by rumor. But around this time, adherents of Pyrrhus penetrated here too with messages outrageous against the Orthodox Church 90 . Moreover, the terrible invasion of barbarians in the Eastern Empire forced many of the heretics to move to Africa. The tares of the false teaching they brought soon bore their bitter fruit. Disputes and unrest began here too. Therefore, the arrival here of Rev. Maxim's arrival was most opportune. He revived the zeal of the Orthodox and threw the heretics into confusion. While he himself fought against heresy, he also gave weapons to others against it. “Discussing with the African Bishops,” says the biographer, with his God-speaking lips he confirmed them in the faith, instructed and admonished them; how to avoid the cunning of enemies and refute their false ideas. For this experienced man knew that we need great art and skill in verbal debate if we want to defeat our opponents and overthrow their pride, which is charged to the mind of God. Therefore, he aroused the Orthodox in every possible way, inspired them, ignited courage in them, and filled them with the spirit of jealousy. For although they exceeded him in rank, they were much lower than him in wisdom, not to mention the other excellent qualities of this man. Therefore, they willingly listened to his speeches, unquestioningly obeyed his convictions and advice, the benefits of which were so obvious... And not only the clergy and all the Bishops, but also the people and the leaders, everyone was attracted to him as if by some kind of force” 91. The consequence of this general trust and love for St. Maximus was that the Monothelitian heresy suffered a decisive defeat in Africa. The bishops of Mauritania, Numidia, Bicena and the so-called Africa proper (or Carthage region), according to the conviction and under the leadership of Venerable. Maximus, they convened councils, each in their own region, and solemnly cursed the heresy. “And not only these,” adds the biographer, but also those who inhabited the nearby islands, did the same, because they all recognized him (Maxim) as a mentor and teacher, leader and assistant in this good cause” 92. The Monk Maximus lived in North Africa for about five years (640–645), and during this time he was concerned not only with the affairs of the African Churches, but also with the state of affairs in the East. The unhappy state of the fatherland, devastated by the barbarians, the Orthodox faith abandoned there and the Church, shaken by heresy, all this was the subject of his careful attention. How deeply the Rev. grieved. Maxim about the disastrous invasion of the eastern countries of the barbarians, this can be seen from his letters to his eastern friends. In one of them, he casually says: “What else could be more disastrous than the evils that now beset the universe? What is more terrible for people who feel the present state of affairs? What is more unfortunate and deplorable than to see and hear that a savage and barbaric people has been given the power to stretch out its hand on the inheritance of God, that wild and untamed beasts, having only the image of a man, are robbing and devastating a well-ordered state” 93? In the same letters, he tries to console and encourage his friends and, despite the universal respect, trust and love that he enjoyed in Africa, he mourns the separation from his eastern friends and expresses a strong desire to return to them. “Take me to you and accept me under your wings,” he writes to Presbyter John, if only the danger from external enemies, the fear of which forced me to swim across a fraction of the seas, has truly diminished. The grief of the Rev. was especially strong. Maxim after his companions all returned to their fatherland, leaving him alone in Africa. “Either take me to you along with the others,” he writes to Bishop Sirius, or teach and strengthen me to endure the grave grief that the departure of my dearest ones caused me.”95 But what primarily concerned the teacher. Maxim, this is the state of faith and the Church in the East. Not to mention the Monothelites, there, soon after his departure to Africa, new false teachers appeared who claimed that the life of bodies, after the resurrection, would be supported by the same conditions as now and by the same sensual food, and that in general, after the resurrection, nothing special would follow in them, except that they would be deprived of the opportunity to die. Having received news of this error and that some even famous monks adhere to it, Rev. Maxim was very upset and indignant in spirit. “I am numb and humbled and silent from good things (Ps. 39:3), he says about himself, and I spend time in grief and sadness, imagining how many souls these opinions are killing, scattering everywhere like sparks from negligence, and that, due to the increasing depravity of morals at the present time, there is no such person who could or would want to resist this dangerous teaching” 96. Among all these worries and sorrows, St. Maximus did not cease to defeat the Monothelitian heresy in the East. Most of his dogmatic epistles against this heresy were written in Africa. These epistles, containing a complete and thorough refutation of the errors of the Monothelites, were read in Egypt, Palestine, Cyprus, Asia Minor, read by Bishops, monks, nobles, courtiers, and everywhere and in everyone they revived zeal for the faith and aversion to heresy. In these epistles the firm, unshakable devotion of St. appears in full light. Confessor of the Faith of the Fathers, and his fatherly concern for protecting the Orthodox from the networks of error. “I will not tell you anything from myself,” he says in one place, but I will write what I have learned, which I received from the holy and blessed Fathers, both those who have migrated from this life, and those who, while still alive, rule the helm of the Holy Father. Catholic Church of God; I will not change their faith in anything; with this faith, with the assistance of their prayers, I will move from this life, this faith - pure, immaculate, alien to all heresy, I will present to God instead of all merit "... And then he adds: “I wrote to you about this, so that you would know, if there is anything useful in what I have written, how to drive away the wolves, who, hiding behind sheep’s clothing, with their discordant howls confuse the meek sheep of Christ’s flock, and so that you would not be carried away by lies, which wickedly take on the appearance of truth” 97 . The last glorious deed of Rev. Maximus in Africa had a public debate about faith with Pyrrhus, which ended in the decisive defeat of this heretic. Pyrrhus did not sit on the throne of the Church of Constantinople for long. After the death of Heraclius, who died in 641 98, imperial power passed into the hands of his eldest son Constantine, but the latter’s stepmother Martin, wanting to give the throne to her own son Heraklion, poisoned Constantine. General rumor attributed complicity in this crime to Pyrrhus. Fearing the wrath of the people, Pyrrhus secretly left Constantinople and fled to Africa. Here he began to dispel the same errors that he had spread in the East, and caused quite a few disturbances. Fortunately, he met a strong opponent in Maxim. After private disputes between them, at the request of the Orthodox and the governor of Africa himself, Gregory, who was a friend of St. Maxim, a public debate was finally scheduled. It took place in July 645 at a large meeting of people from all classes and was written down by cursive writers from the words of those who argued, 99 in which form it has come down to us. In this debate, Rev. Maxim won a complete victory over his opponent. He proved to him that will is a property of nature, and not of person, and therefore Jesus Christ, as by nature God and by nature man, had both Divine and human will, that without human will He would not have been a perfect man by nature, but would have been a man, so to speak, incomplete, insufficient (ἐλλιπὴς), - that those who deny the human will in Christ, or represent with its passive instrument of the Divine, which, incidentally, is the same thing, they distort and subvert the dogma of the incarnation of God the Word; for what kind of humanity is this without free, autonomous will? And how could Jesus Christ fulfill the will of His heavenly Father, fulfill His commandment, be obedient to Him even to the point of death, how could He be a model for us if He did not have a human will? – But how can there be two opposing wills in one Person of the God-Man? Will not His human will, in this case, oppose the Divine will? Pyrrhus objected. “This confrontation can only come from sin,” answered the reverend. Maxim; but our Lord had a sinless, pure human will, naturally directed towards Divine objects. “Let’s put it this way,” Pyrrhus objected, but why not recognize in Jesus Christ a single complex Divine will? “In that case,” answered the reverend. Maxim, the will of the Son, being complex, would be completely different from the will of God the Father and the Holy Spirit, not to mention the complete impossibility of such a combination. - Pyrrhus presented many other objections, but having received clear and satisfactory answers to all of them, he finally solemnly confessed his error, asked forgiveness for himself and for his predecessors, because, he said, we all, out of ignorance, fell into this gross error, and begged us to use such a method to destroy the heresy, so that the memory of his predecessors would be spared. The Monk Maxim replied that there is no other way than to condemn the wicked teaching without touching persons. Pyrrhus agreed and asked only for one thing: that he be allowed to see the face of the Pope and personally hand over to him a handwritten act of renunciation of heresy. The Monk Maximus and Prefect Gregory said: “since your intention is good and useful for the Church, then let it be so” 100. Following this, Pyrrhus, accompanied by Rev. Maxima went to Rome (in the 2nd half of 645). In Rome, Honorius's successors did not want to follow in his footsteps; on the contrary, they were staunch defenders of Orthodoxy against heresy. Severin, elected in 638 to replace the deceased Honorius, rejected and condemned the statement of faith sent to him for signature; for which the Emperor did not confirm his election for about two years, and the soldiers of the Exarch of Ravenna plundered the Lateran Palace of the Roman Pontiffs 101. In 640, after the death of Severin, John IV was elevated to the throne of the Roman Church. At this very time, Stephen of Doria arrived from Palestine to Rome, sent by St. Sophronius. His intercession before John, his prayers and demands to provide help to the Eastern Church outraged by the heresy, a touching depiction of the danger in which Orthodoxy is in the East, living stories about how forcefully the Saint of Jerusalem begged and conjured him to use all his efforts to defend the faith, all this prompted John immediately upon his accession to the throne to convene a council and at it condemn the Monothelitian heresy along with the edict of Heraclius, then send (in 641) to Constantine, son of Heraclius, a message complaining about the actions of Patriarch Pyrrhus, who outraged the entire West with his messages and asking for the destruction of the new statement of faith, which had hitherto been exhibited in the vestibule of the main church of Constantinople 102. Pope Theodore, who ascended the throne at the end of 642, also acted in the spirit of John. He conducted active relations on the matter of the Monothelitian heresy with the Bishops of Palestine, Cyprus and Africa, sent special people to different countries to support the right faith, wrote exhorting and accusatory messages to Patriarch Paul, who took the place of the exiled Pyrrhus in Constantinople 103 . The Rev. has now arrived to him from Africa. Maxim and Pyrrhus. Appearing at the church of St. The Apostles, Pyrrhus, in the presence of the clergy and the people, read and handed over to Theodore his own written act of renunciation of heresy, in which he condemned and cursed both the new presentation of the faith and everything that he and his predecessors had done or written against the Orthodox faith. After this, the Pope solemnly joined him to St. Church and showed him the honor befitting his rank 104. Here we must stop and expose the slander of our schismatics. They say: “our priests can receive not just a priest who comes to us, but also a Bishop and a Patriarch. So Rev. Maximus the Confessor - Hegumen, not Bishop - accepted Pyrrhus the Patriarch of Constantinople from the Monothelitian heresy and joined him to St. Church" 105. Pyrrhus was added to the Church not by St. Maximus, but by Pope Theodore, who was added not by a fugitive and erring person, but by one who repented of his error and wished to return to the motherly bosom of St. Churches: history says so. And what our schismatics are talking about is a pure lie, invented to confirm a false idea: not a single historical monument contains anything even similar to their fiction. And why would Rev. Maximus to go with Pyrrhus to Rome, if he considered himself to have the right to join him to the Church? How distant the reverend was. Maxim is against such claims, he proved this in both word and deed. We have already seen that in a response letter to Pyrrhus, in response to the latter’s conviction to accept the new teaching about one will and one action in Jesus Christ, he among other things responded like this: “who would be so reckless and daring as to dare to arbitrarily change what was approved by the Divine verdict through Hierarchical authority”? With such conviction in the Divinity of the definitions of Hierarchical authority and reverence for them, could St. Maximus, in direct contradiction to the rules laid down by the same Hierarchical authority, acquire for himself, a simple monk, the right to join heretics to the Church? The subsequent history of his life shows that he not only expressed respect for the rules of the Church in words, but also fulfilled them in practice. As if deliberately to expose the slander of our superstitious wisdom, Anastasius, the disciple of the Rev., says the following. When Theodosius, Bishop of Caesarea Bithynia, sent by Emperor Constantine to admonish the Venerable. Maxim (while he was already in prison), but convinced by him of the truth of Orthodox teaching, he expressed his readiness to renounce heresy and vouched for the same for the Emperor and Patriarch: this is what the Rev. said, among other things. To Maxim: “I will immediately present a written statement of faith in the sense that in Christ we must recognize two wills and two types of activity with two natures, just agree to enter into communication with us, and let there be peace.” To this Rev. Maxim answered him: “I, as a simple monk, do not dare accept any writing from you about such an important matter. If God has truly moved you to repentance, then send a written statement of faith on behalf of the Emperor and Patriarch to the Roman Pontiff. Until this happens, I cannot have communication with you” 106. In Rome, Rev. Maxim lived for about 10 years (645–655), and during this time he was mainly engaged in scientific works. According to the biography, here he wrote most of his dogmatic treatises and messages to establish the faithful and shame the heretics. Moral, ascetic, interpretative essays on the Holy Scriptures. Scripture, on the works of St. Dionysius the Areopagite and St. Gregory the Theologian were written by him at the same time. All these works, the biography writer notes, immediately spread throughout the Christian world and shed the light of truth everywhere 107. At the same time, Rev. Maximus engaged in oral conversations with Roman Christians, who flocked to him daily in large numbers 108. But even in Rome, during a generally calm and quiet life, he was destined to experience grief. There were evil people who, envious of the glory of the great Confessor, spread the rumor that he recognizes three wills in Christ: Divine, human and Divine-human (ϑεανδρικὴν), and in confirmation of this they referred to some work supposedly belonging to St. Maxim and what he wrote to Marin. At the same time, he was accused of respectful and friendly treatment of Pyrrhus when Pyrrhus was a heretic. No matter how absurd these accusations were, they created such unrest among the Sicilian Christians that Rev. Maxim was forced to justify himself by writing a special message “to the abbots, monks and all Christian people living in Sicily.” Here he shows the absurdity of the opinion about the three wills, rejects the authenticity of the message attributed to him to Marinus, and regarding his relations with Pyrrhus, he notes that Pyrrhus, when he was not yet an obvious heretic, wrote to him a very respectful letter, to which he responded in respectful terms, with the intention of distracting Pyrrhus from the error to which he was apparently inclined 109. As for the fight against the Monothelites, Rev. Maxim continued it tirelessly in Rome, although, in accordance with his rank and position, he acted against the heresy more through others than directly. While he was in Rome, zeal for the overthrow of heresy intensified; measures against her intensified. Pope Theodore, having received complaints from the Bishops of Cyprus and Palestine about oppression from heretics, and through letters and through his legates, repeatedly convinced the Patriarch of Constantinople to abandon his error 110. At the same time, having learned that the Monothelite Sergius of Joppa took possession of the Jerusalem throne and made his like-minded bishops in the area of ​​the Jerusalem Patriarchate, Theodore entrusted the administration of the Jerusalem Church to Stephen of Doria, ordering him to immediately upon arrival in Palestine depose all heretical Bishops if they do not renounce heresy 111. At the same time, the African Bishops sent messages to both Paul and the Emperor Constans (the son of the poisoned Constantine), begging them to put an end to the disastrous heresy 112. But the heretics did not come to their senses. Having learned of Pyrrhus’s renunciation of heresy, they made every effort to again win him over to their side, which they succeeded in doing. The papal legates in Constantinople, along with other Orthodox Christians, were persecuted 113. Finally, Patriarch Paul, following the example of Sergius, convinced Constans to issue (648) a new dogmatic edict called τύπος τῆς πίςεως. This edict ordered to maintain complete silence regarding controversial issues, not to talk about one or two wills, but to be content with what was approved at the previous five Ecumenical Councils. For violation of these instructions, clergy are defrocked, monks are expelled into exile, military and civil officials are deprived of their rights and positions, private individuals of the noble class are punished by confiscation of property, commoners are subjected to corporal punishment 114. Pope Theodore, having learned about all these actions of the heretics, solemnly cursed the apostate Pyrrhus, pronounced a sentence of condemnation against Paul, rejected the new edict with contempt and wanted to convene all the Orthodox Bishops to a council in order, with common consent, to solemnly anathematize the disastrous heresy and its champions, but in May 649 he died. Theodore's successor was St. Martin, friend of the Rev. Maxima. An imperial edict was immediately sent to the new Pope from Constantinople with the command to adhere to it urgently. But St. Martin responded to this command: “If the whole world accepts this new teaching, contrary to orthodoxy, I will not deviate from the Gospel and Apostolic teaching and St. Father of legend, even if one had to endure death.” And after that, together with Rev. With Maxim, he began to seek measures to eradicate heresy. Both of them, knowing very well the state of affairs in the East (St. Martin was the apocrisiary of Theodore and lived for a long time in Constantinople), knowing that most of the churches of Syria, Palestine and Egypt were deprived of their legitimate shepherds and that the heresy supported by the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Emperors, if not opposed to it by a strong barrier, would become more and more stronger in the East, Martin finally decided in a general council to convene Orthodox Bishops from everywhere and, having formed a council of them, solemnly anathematize the wicked heresy and its champions. Such a Council actually took place at the end of 649 and is known as the Lateran Council. It was attended by 105 Bishops; The wisest Maxim was also with them, notes his biography 115. At this Council, the Orthodox doctrine of two wills and actions in Jesus Christ was approved, and the Monothelitian heresy and its champions - Theodore of Paran, Sergius of Constantinople, Cyrus of Alexandria, Pyrrhus and Paul of Constantinople, as well as the ecthesis of Heraclius and the typos of Constantus were cursed 116. The Acts of the Council, together with the district message on behalf of St. Martin and the Council were immediately sent to all countries of the Christian world, among other things, to Constantinople to Emperor Constant, whom St. Martin asked to immediately depose Patriarch Paul as an unholy heretic 117. Emperor Constans, having learned about the definitions of the Lateran Council, became very indignant. The Monothelites tried to increase this indignation by presenting to the emperor that Martin was an accomplice in the plans of Olympius, exarch of Ravenna, who was at that time indignant against the empire, and Maximus was inciting Gregory, prefect of Africa, who had resigned from the Emperor around the same time, to revolt. Therefore, Constant gave orders to the new exarch of Ravenna, Theodore Calliope, to immediately seize Martin and Maximus and present them to Constantinople. Calliope fulfilled the Emperor's command. June 17, 653 St. Martin was taken into custody and sent to Constantinople, where he arrived on September 17, 654. Having endured the most severe sorrows along the way, and even more severe suffering in the capital, accused of lèse-majesté and treason to the fatherland, St. Martin was exiled to Kherson, where he died on September 16, 655, tortured by hunger 118. At the same time as Martin, the Rev. was also taken. Maxim with his two disciples, Anastasius the monk and Anastasius, the former apocrisiary of the Roman Church under the Patriarch of Constantinople; but they arrived in Constantinople already in 655. From here the wondrous feats of confession begin. Maxim, described in detail by his student Anastasius. Since the capture of the teacher. Maximus and his disciples were placed in custody in Rome before their arrival in Constantinople. About a year passed. It is unknown where the saints were at this time. prisoners, and what happened to them. Meanwhile, what awaited them in Constantinople was the anger and vengeance of a government that was not firm in Orthodoxy, the malice of heretics armed with slander, and the betrayal of friends. Embittered by constant failures in the fight against external enemies, frequent betrayals of provincial governors, the separation of entire regions from the Empire, unrest in the Church and the general disorder of the state, the Byzantine government fiercely persecuted anyone whom it considered at least partly responsible for such an unfortunate state of affairs. At the same time, it often saw treason and personal insult to itself where there was nothing of the kind. So St. Martin was tried and condemned as a traitor to the fatherland and an insulter to the Majesty, simply because he did not want to betray Orthodoxy to please the government. For the same reason, we called the Rev. to Constantinople. Maxim 119, and for him there was even less hope of avoiding the fate of St. Martin, the more insignificant his social position as a simple monk, and the more strongly he opposed the Monothelitian heresy, which was patronized by the government itself. The Monothelites, for their part, made every effort to arm themselves against the teachers. Maxim the government and the people and prepare for him the same fate that St. Martin. For this, the heretics did not spare slander. First, they spread the word that Rev. Maxim was in secret relations with the Saracens (who had recently conquered many regions of the Eastern half of the Empire), as if he aroused the indignation of Gregory, the prefect of Africa, and in general, during his stay in Africa and Rome, he showed obvious hatred of the church and civil authorities in the East 120. It was this hatred, and not at all zeal for the faith, that prompted the teacher. Maximus to rebel the African Bishops and the Roman throne against Byzantium. She was, the heretics divulged, the main reason for the unheard-of insolence with which at the Lateran Council not only the Eastern Patriarchs and Bishops, but even the Emperors were anathematized and denounced throughout the world as wicked heretics. In general, no matter what had been undertaken so far in Africa and Rome against the Monothelitian heresy and its champions, which had strengthened in the East, the heretics attributed all this to the unkind suggestions of St. Maxima 121. He was also blamed for the unrest in the Church that continued to this day and the resulting (by the way) great disorder in the state 122 . To this the heretics were not ashamed to add that extremely absurd slander, as if the teacher. Maximus, by violence and cruelty, forced Pyrrhus to renounce the Monothelitian doctrine 123. – With such vile messages, the Monothelites tried to take revenge on the great champion of Orthodoxy for their repeated defeat by him and for his courageous opposition to the successes of their false teaching. What effect did they have on the teacher? Maxim, these slander of heretics, we see from his following words: “there is no illness for the soul more severe than slander, whether faith is slandered, or behavior, and no one can despise this, except one who, like Susanna, looks to one God, who alone is able to deliver from troubles, as he delivered her, and to show people the truth, as he did with it, and to console the soul with hope” 124. But besides the malice of the heretics, St. Maxim was awaiting betrayal from his friends back in Constantinople. In the East at that time there were many people, even among government officials, who were personally disposed towards the Venerable. Maxim and shared his way of thinking about the objects of faith: but having neither the depth of conviction, nor the spirit of jealousy with which St. was animated. Confessor, these people did not consider it a sin to hide their beliefs, and to please the Emperor, pretend to pretend to be adherents of the heresy he patronized. In addition, they tried to persuade the teacher. Maximus when he arrived in Constantinople, presenting him with various benefits of such a course of action 125. And when St. The confessor indignantly rejected such shameful hypocrisy; his former friends became his enemies. Thus, the teacher. Maxim alone had to defend the correctness of his faith and the purity of his life before the government, which was under the influence of heretics. However, as for the accusations of heretics, Professor. It was easy for Maxim to justify himself in them, because their lies were obvious to everyone. The government itself did not sincerely believe them, and if, regarding these accusations, it betrayed the professor. Maxim to the court, immediately upon his arrival in Constantinople, not because he actually considered him a state criminal, but more so that the fear of punishment for the important crimes attributed to him would force him to renounce Orthodoxy and accept the “model of faith” issued by the Emperor. And if the teacher Maxim agreed to this, at least feignedly, as false friends advised him: not only would he not have suffered any torture in Constantinople, but he would even have received favors and honors from the government, 126 for which it was very important to win over to his side the man who had hitherto so strongly opposed the successes of the heresy, and now, after the death of St. Martin, remained her main and almost only opponent 127. But St. At the end of his life, it never occurred to the confessor to change Orthodoxy, to the defense of which he devoted all his previous years. Remaining, after the death of St. Martin, one guardian of Orthodoxy, Rev. Maxim considered his first and most sacred duty to be “to preserve the good heritage of faith handed down to us from the holy and blessed Fathers, not to deviate from this faith in any way, despite threats and reprimands, flattering promises and worldly honors. And not only people, but even the powers of heaven, as he himself says, could not force him to abandon this faith, bequeathed to us by the savoids and servants of the Word 128. For this faith he was ready to endure all kinds of torment and even death. “If the Lord and God of all who became man for our sake,” wrote St. Maxim to Abbot Polychronius, through suffering, the cross and death, entered into his glory, for it was determined for Him to suffer first, and then to enter into His glory (Luke 24:25): then let us not lose heart during temptations, but looking to the Author of our faith and perfecter Jesus (Heb. 12:2), we will courageously endure the misfortunes that befall us, because the end of all our sorrows will be joy, the end of our labors will be peace, and the end of dishonor will be glory; in a word, all our misfortunes for a good deed will end in constant cohabitation with God, the enjoyment of eternal and endless peace” 129. With such thoughts he arrived in Constantinople, and here, during interrogations, trials and torture, he amazed everyone with his firmness, calmness and greatness of spirit. Venerable suffering Maximus and his disciples for the faith began immediately upon their arrival in Constantinople. As soon as the ship on which they were sent from Rome entered the Byzantine pier, a detachment of armed soldiers appeared, who rudely took all three saints. prisoners, they dragged them, barefoot and half-naked, through the streets of the city, and then, as if they were villains, they threw them into a dark dungeon, confining each one to a special room. A few days later, the interrogation and trial began, in the full presence of the Senate, with numerous spectators from all classes of the city. The chairman of the court was Sacellarius 130, a man, according to the biography, insolent to the point of shamelessness, impudent in words, insensitive and cruel in disposition. Neither the venerable old age of St. confessor (75 f.), neither the grace that shone in his eyes, nor his sedate and meek appearance, could inspire him with respect for St. to the old man. Other judges were also prejudiced against Rev. Maxima. When he was brought into the courtroom, everyone's gaze turned to him, and in these gazes, the biography writer notes, there was not pity and compassion, but hostility, anger and rage 131. "Are you a Christian"? Venerable Sacellarius asked angrily. Maxim, as soon as he appeared at the meeting of judges. “By the grace of Christ, the God of all, I was and remain a Christian,” answered St. old man - “But if you are a Christian, how do you hate the king and the kingdom”? - the chairman objected. - “How is this known?” asked the reverend. Maxim; “Hate is an innermost feeling of the soul, just like love.” “From your deeds it became known to everyone,” the judge answered sternly, that you are an enemy of the king and the kingdom. For you alone betrayed Egypt and Alexandria and Pentapolis and Tripolis and Africa to the Saracens.” “But what does a monk have to do with the conquerors of cities, and could I, as a Christian, have fellowship with the Saracens? On the contrary, I have always wished and wish only one good and useful thing for Christian cities,” answered the priest. Maxim demanded solid evidence and evidence of his betrayal 132. The lawless judges already had three false witnesses ready. The first of them, appearing at the meeting, claimed that 22 years before this, when the grandfather of the reigning Sovereign (Heraclius) ordered Peter, the governor of Numidia, to go with an army to Egypt against the Saracens, Peter, honoring Maximus as a man of God, turned to him for advice, and the venerable. Maxim allegedly wrote to him that he should not undertake this campaign, because it was not pleasing to God to promote the Roman state during the reign of Heraclius and his descendants. Rev. Maxim, having listened to this, said: “If he is telling the truth, let him present the letters, both mine to Peter and his to me, and then I will accept a worthy execution according to the law.” But the slanderer replied that he did not have any letters, did not even know whether Peter and Maxim wrote to each other, but “then, he added, everyone in the camp talked about it.” “If the whole army knew about this,” the Rev. objected. Maxim, why are you the only one slandering me? Have you ever seen me? “No,” answered the slanderer. Then St. The confessor, addressing the Senate, said: “Judge, is it fair to present such people as witnesses? By them you judge, they judge you; and if you measure accordingly, they will measure it back to you, said the Lord and Judge of all (Matthew 7:27)” 133. Following this, another false witness was introduced, who presented an accusation even more absurd than the first. “9 years ago,” he said, Abba Thomas, having come from Rome, told me: Pope Theodore sent me to Gregory (the prefect of Africa, who at that time revolted from the Empire) to tell him not to be afraid of anyone, because the servant of God, Abba Maximus, in a sleepy vision, saw in the sky on the eastern and western sides the faces of Angels, from which those standing in the East exclaimed: “Constantine Augusta! you will win,” and those standing in the West cried out: “Gregory Augusta! you will win,” and the voice of the latter prevailed over the voice of the former.” Having listened to this story, Sakellarius, as if having already incriminated the Venerable. Maxim in treason to the fatherland and insult to the Majesty, said to him: “God sent you here to be burned with fire.” “I thank my God,” answered the saint with a heavy sigh. old man, who has been delivered into your hands and for my voluntary sins I am subjected to involuntary executions. But woe to the world because of temptation, woe to the man to whom temptation comes (Matthew 18:7). Truly, one should not say this before Christians and leave without punishment those who, in order to please people who exist today and who bear tomorrow, invent such slander. All this should have been announced at a time when Gregory was still alive; the duty of devotion to the Sovereign demanded this. Then Abba Thomas, Blessed Pope Theodore and me should have been called here. And even if blessed. Dad caught me telling him such a dream: it would have been he who divulged this dream, not me, who would have been to blame, because a dream is an involuntary thing, and the law punishes only for free deeds...” Finally, Rev. Maxim, in order not to leave even a shadow of doubt about the absurdity of the slander, added: “May I not be worthy to see the coming of the Lord with Christians, if I have ever told such a dream, or heard about it from anyone before this hour” 134. The third accusation was not completely fictional, like the previous ones; nevertheless, it is striking in its strangeness, showing what absurd means the heretics resorted to in order to please the government and restore it against the professor. Maxim, Someone Gregory, son of Photinov, testified: “during my stay in Rome, I went into Maxim’s cell and in the conversation that took place here, I mentioned among other things that the Emperor should also be considered a priest. To this his disciple Anastasius objected: “I am not worthy to be a priest.” “Fear God, Gregory,” interrupted the accuser, Rev. Maxim, my colleague did not take any part in this conversation”; then, throwing himself to the ground, St. the elder said to the Senate: “Let your servant, and I will tell you everything that was said at that time; let him accuse me; if I lie." From the story of Rev. Maximus, it is clear that “Gregory actually once came to Rome and had a meeting with Maximus, and announced to him that he had been sent to Rome by the Emperor himself to convince the pope to accept the “model of faith” and enter into communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople. Rev. Maxim noticed that this was wasted work; The Romans will not agree, together with the wicked teaching of the heretics, to destroy the immutable teaching of the word of God and the Fathers of the Church about two wills and actions in Jesus Christ, as the “model of faith” prescribes, which equally prohibits talking about both one and two wills in Christ. And when Gregory “objected to this that “typos” does not destroy Divine teaching, but only commands to remain silent about these expressions for the sake of the peace of the Church, Rev. Maxim answered: silence about what is directly contained in the word of God and the teaching of the Fathers presupposes criminal indifference to faith, and so on. apostasy from God. If we take it as a rule that for the sake of the peace of the Church we must keep silent along with the wicked dogmas of heretics, or, which is the same, destroy the Divine dogmas of the Church: then, perhaps, tomorrow the wicked Jews will tell us: let us make peace and unite; We will abolish circumcision for ourselves, and you baptism, and let there be no more division. There was no time for Ariana, the reverend continued. Maxim, convinced the Great Constantine to destroy the words: όμοούσιος and έτεροούσιος; also for the sake of the peace of the Church: but our divine Fathers, despite the fact that the Emperor himself did not reject this idea, did not allow this, but agreed to endure persecution and death itself rather than remain silent about the word, which accurately expressed the one Divine nature of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. And in general, not one of the previous Emperors could persuade the God-speaking Fathers of the Church to enter into communion with heretics by adopting any inaccurate, ambiguous expressions: the Fathers always used clear, precise expressions appropriate to the dogma that they tried to define, clearly showing by this that it is the work of priests, not Emperors, to examine and define the saving dogmas of faith. – But isn’t every Emperor also a priest? - Grigory objected. “No,” answered the reverend. Maxim, because the Emperor does not stand before the altar, does not perform sacraments, does not ordain Bishops, presbyters and deacons, does not consecrate the churches of God.” “This is what I, and not my disciple, said when meeting with Gregory in Rome,” the Rev. said. Maxim, in conclusion of his story, I say this now. It is in your power to condemn me for this, or to acquit me. “But by saying this, you have caused division in the Church,” one of those present exclaimed. Rev. Maxim answered: “if the one who speaks on the exact basis of the word of God and St. Fathers, the Church divides: what can we say about people who completely overthrow the dogmas and rules of the saints, without whom the Church itself cannot exist? Such a bold answer was highly disliked by the judges, accustomed to hypocrisy and flattery. “Tell the exarch,” the chairman of the court, who lost his temper, shouted furiously: “will he really leave this man alive after this?” 135? When Rev. Maxim was taken out of the meeting of judges, and his student Anastasius was brought there. The judges, without interrogating him, directly forced him to confirm that slander against St. Confessor, as if he treated Pyrrhus cruelly in Africa and Rome. St. Anastasius modestly but courageously answered that no one treated Pyrrhus with such respect as his teacher. For such straightforwardness, he was immediately subjected to severe blows, and then, half-dead, he was carried out of the chamber of judges and sent along with the reverend. Maxim to the former prison 136. During the interrogation there was also another disciple of the Saint, named Anastasius, who was once the apocrisiary of the pope in the Church of Constantinople, who described in detail, as an eyewitness, the entire procedure of the trial of St. Maxim and the last days of his life. Out of modesty, he says almost nothing about himself. After the interrogation described above, the judges clearly saw that the firmness of the saint could not be shaken by fictitious accusations, threats and harsh treatment. Confessor and force him to renounce Orthodoxy, therefore they decided to test whether gentle measures of persuasion and gentle treatment would have an effect on him. That same day in the evening we came to Rev. To Maximus in prison Troilus the Patrician and Sergius Eucrates, the head of the royal meal. Forcing the Rev. to sit down. Maximus, they asked him in a friendly manner: “tell us, Abba, how you convinced Pyrrhus to abandon his own dogma and accept your dogma.” Rev. Maxim told them in order everything that he could remember, adding in conclusion: “I do not have my own dogma, but a common one for the entire Catholic Church; It never even occurred to me to call the dogma about two wills in Christ my dogma.” Then the messengers asked; “Well, you won’t enter into communication with the throne of Constantinople”? “No,” answered St. firmly. Confessor. - "Why"? - “Because the leaders of this Church rejected the definitions of previous Councils, accepting as the rule of faith 9 chapters published by Cyrus in Alexandria, then the “ecthesis” written by Sergius, and finally the “typos” promulgated in recent times; - because further, because they constantly change their teaching: what they affirmed in 9 chapters, they rejected in “ecthesis”, what they laid down in law in “ecthesis”, they rejected in “typos”; - because, finally, these people, who have refuted themselves so many times, were deposed and deprived of the priesthood at a council that recently took place in Rome. After this, what kind of secret action can they perform? Or what Spirit will descend upon their service? “That means you alone will be saved, and the rest will all perish,” the patricians objected. Rev. Maxim answered: “The three youths did not condemn anyone, who refused to bow to the idol to which everyone bowed, for they were not concerned about what others were doing, but so that they themselves would not fall away from true piety.” And Daniel, thrown into the lion's den, did not condemn any of those who, fulfilling the law of Darius, did not want to pray to God, but had only his duty in mind, and wanted to die rather than offend God... And God forbid me to condemn anyone, or to say that I alone will be saved. However, I would rather agree to die than, having deviated in any way from the right faith, to endure the pangs of conscience.” - “But what will you do when the Romans unite with the Byzantines”? - the patricians continued. “Yesterday the Apocrisiaries of Rome came here, and tomorrow they will enter into communion with the Patriarch and receive Holy Communion with him. secrets And through this it becomes clear to everyone that you alone seduced the Romans, because as soon as you were no longer there, they immediately agreed to peace.” Rev. Maximus replied that even if the apocrisiaries united with the Patriarch of Constantinople, they would not harm the honor of the Roman throne, because they did not bring with them a sociable message from the pope to the Patriarch. “But I just can’t believe,” he added, that the Romans would agree to enter into communication with the Byzantines if these latter do not recognize in the God-Man two wills and two kinds of activity.” - “And if they enter into communication without this condition: what will you do?” “The Holy Spirit,” answered the Rev. Maximus, “through the mouth of the Apostle he anathematizes even the Angels, if they began to proclaim anything contrary to the Apostolic preaching. Therefore, if the whole universe enters into communion with the Patriarch and begins to commune with him, I will not commune with him” 137. “But is it really absolutely necessary to recognize in Jesus Christ two wills and two kinds of activity”? – the patricians further objected. “It is absolutely necessary if we want to think piously,” answered the Rev. Maxim. For, according to the understanding of the Fathers, no nature can either exist or be knowable without manifesting itself in actions akin to it. Therefore, our Lord Jesus Christ could not have been true by nature God and true by nature man, if he had not had wills and actions corresponding to nature...” - “We see that this is the real truth, answered the patricians, but do not upset the Emperor, who, for the sake of the peace of the Church, and not for any other reason, issued a “typos”: he does not think of rejecting “anything in Christ, but solely to stop widespread disputes, he ordered silence about these expressions (one will and two wills).” The holy elder, throwing himself to the ground, said with tears: “The meek and merciful Sovereign should not be angry with my humility. For I do not want to anger God by keeping silent about what He Himself commanded to confess openly. If, according to the Divine Apostle, He Himself established in the Church the first apostles, the second prophets, the third teachers: then it is clear that He Himself speaks through them. But from all the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, from the writings of St. teachers and the definitions of the Councils, we learn that the incarnate Lord has will and activity both in Divinity and in humanity, that He has everything in both ways (οὐδενὸς ἐςίυ ἐλλιπής), both as God and as man, excluding sin. If He is perfect in both without any damage, then it is obvious that he completely perverts His mystery who confesses Him not to be what He is, denying the essential qualities of both His natures.” “These words and the whole conversation in general apparently had an effect on the patricians. They sat in silence for some time, exchanging only glances. Then, suggesting Rev. Maxim asked a few more questions and having received satisfactory answers to them, they said with unfeigned cordiality: “God knows what benefit this conversation brought us. From now on we will not harm you." Sergius also said: “Often before, when you were in Bebbah (unknown place), I came to your cell and listened to your teaching. May Christ help you! Don't be discouraged! One thing you upset everyone with, he then added, is that because of you many do not want to have communion with the local Church.” “But who can say,” the Rev. objected. Maxim, have I ever told anyone: do not communicate with the Byzantine Church? “The very same thing,” Sergius answered, that you do not communicate with this Church, removes everyone from communication with it more powerfully than any word.” Rev. Maxim said to this: “there is nothing more expensive than peace and approval of conscience, just as there is nothing more painful and deplorable than the state when it accuses us of something.” - Finally, Troilus, having learned from a conversation with the Rev. Maximus, that the “typos” of Constant was anathematized throughout the West, said with an air of reproach: “Is it good that the name of our pious sovereign is so dishonored”? “May God forgive those,” answered the Rev. Maxim, who inspired the Emperor and allowed him to issue this decree. It is not he who is to blame for this, but the leaders of the Church, who inspired this unfortunate thought in him, and the Senate, which agreed to its implementation. But advise the Emperor to do the same thing that his grandfather (Heraclius) of blessed memory once did. For he, having learned that many in the West were dissatisfied with the “statement of faith” published under his name, immediately declared in a letter to Pope John that this statement was written not by him, but by Patriarch Sergius and was made public at his insistence. Let him do the same, concluded the reverend. Maxim, and the now reigning Sovereign, - and the honor of his name will remain inviolable.” “This is a difficult and hardly possible matter,” answered the patricians, who knew well the wayward and stubborn character of Constantine, and then, after talking about various subjects, they parted amicably with the reverend. Maxim 138. The presented conversation with the patricians depicts the character of the Venerable. Maxim in all his greatness and spiritual beauty. Fiery zeal and love for Orthodoxy, for which he was ready to lay down his soul, selflessness and truly Apostolic boldness, indestructible firmness of faith, which shook even the hardened hearts of heretics, deep respect and reverence for the true shepherds of the Church, through whose mouth, in his conviction, God himself speaks, and disgust for heresy and its champions, with whom he does not want to have any communication, and at the same time modesty, humility, rare self-abasement - amaze everyone here who has eyes to see. Some of our blind schismatics, looking at everything with the dull eyes of prejudice, do not notice this, but see what no one except them can see. Pointing to the above words of Rev. Maxim: “Even if the whole universe begins to commune with the Patriarch, I cannot commune with him,” they say: “That’s what Maxim said, but he didn’t even think about it, that the Church cannot be without a Bishop, as no one says now” 139 . Indeed, Rev. It never occurred to Maxim that the Church could exist without Bishops. For 1) in the above words he speaks not unconditionally, but presumptively; a presumptive manner of speech, as everyone knows, often represents the impossible as possible, the unrealizable as achievable, this is precisely what happens in those cases when they want to express a thought as strongly as possible. So eg. Ap. Paul, in order to determine the highest degree of truth of the teaching taught to him and to impress upon the Galatians that they should in no case deviate from this teaching, says: if we, or an angel from heaven, bring you good news rather than the good news, let him be anathema (Gal. 1:8,9). Obviously, here, in an assumption, an impossible matter is being expressed, and this way of speech was used by the Apostle solely for the purpose of giving more strength and persuasiveness to his exhortation. In the same way, in the quoted words of Rev. Maxim assumes something that can never happen, and he uses such a turn of phrase only in order to express as strongly as possible the unshakable firmness of his conviction. Therefore, his words have the following meaning: if even the impossible happened, if the universe became, etc. That this way and not otherwise should be understood by the words of St. Maximus, it is clear 2) from the fact that at the time he uttered these words, he, as well as his interlocutors, was quite aware that the whole West with all its Bishops and some of the Eastern Bishops firmly adhered to Orthodoxy and did not think of entering into communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople; There were only such courageous and strong defenders of the Orthodox faith as our St. Father. That is why the heretics tried by all means to persuade the saint. Maxim is on his side that he was not the only one who adhered to Orthodoxy, but that together with him and following his example, “the whole West and many in the East,” as the heretics themselves said (see below), did not want to have communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople. Track. The Church was not then left without Bishops. 3) It cannot exist at any time without Bishops, according to the teachings of St. Maxima. Let us cite here, to denounce our superstitions, some passages from the works of St. Confessor, in which he speaks of the meaning, importance and necessity in the Church of Bishops. “The Bishop or Hierarch is the mediator between God and the people” 140 and the representative in the church of Jesus Christ. “Just as in Jesus Christ the Divine dignity is incomprehensibly united with weak and humiliated humanity, so in the Bishop the highest rank is associated with the weakness of human nature. This is why the Lord established the Priesthood on earth in His place, so that He could be visible and bodily in it, and so that His secrets would not cease to be open to those who could contemplate them” 141. “Bishops are appointed by the Holy Spirit to be saviors and guardians of souls; enlightenment and God’s mercies are poured out through them on believers” 142. Thus, “The bishop, by the grace of the high priesthood (ἀρχιερωσύνης) bestowed upon him, is the image and imitator of Divine goodness on earth” 143. “He, by the gift of grace, with the careful fulfillment of his sacred ministry, ascends to a height barely accessible to human nature, and raises there the destiny of those who lie down, distracting them from everything earthly and arousing love for God” 144. “Just as the ray of the sun attracts to itself the healthy eye, which by nature rejoices in light, and imparts to it its own lordship, so the true Priesthood, since it is in everything the image of the blessed Divinity for those on earth, attracts every God-loving soul to itself and makes it a partaker of its knowledge, peace and love” 145. As a consequence of this, “The Bishop is the head of the visible body of the Church, with the assistance of the Spirit, articulating the members or parts of this body into unity” 146. Without the Bishop, nothing can happen in the Church. “All sacred and official actions must be attributed to the Hierarch, since he himself would perform these sacred actions with the hands of those whom he himself appointed to the degrees of the Priesthood and to whom he gave the power to perform sacred functions. But in addition, the sanctification of the world, the consecration of the altar so that a bloodless sacrifice could be offered on it, and the ordination to the degrees of the Priesthood were granted exclusively to the direct sacred action of the Hierarch, and not at all to his action through others.” 147 “All this is done only by the Hierarch, and without this the presbyter can neither baptize nor make a bloodless sacrifice, but he can officiate only when all this has already been consecrated in advance by the Bishop” 148. Likewise, it is the job of the Hierarchs to examine and determine the saving dogmas of faith 149. In this case, the Lord himself speaks through their lips 150, and therefore Rev. Maxim considers it a sign of “great audacity and recklessness if anyone dared to arbitrarily change what was determined by the Divine Spirit through hierarchical authority” 151. “Whoever overthrows the dogmas and rules of St. pastors and teachers, he overthrows the Church itself: without them it cannot exist” 152. Aware in all its strength and space of this significance in the Church of the Episcopal dignity, Rev. Maxim always showed respect, reverence and devotion to the legitimate shepherds of the Church and distanced himself from false shepherds. This is how he taught, and this is how the Rev. acted according to his teaching. Maxim, “indeed, he did not even think that the Church could exist without Bishops, as the netizens now say” is vain. The very thing in which they think to see confirmation of their strange opinion proves the completely opposite, that is, the importance and necessity in the Church of the Episcopal dignity. – Conversation by Rev. Maximus with the patricians, which had such a favorable outcome and apparently promised good consequences for him, in fact did not in the least serve to alleviate his fate. A week after this conversation, Rev. Maxim and his students were again called in for interrogation. This time both Patriarchs were present during the interrogation 153. Again false witnesses were used, among other things, a certain Constantine, a man, according to Anastasius, of the most immoral behavior, whose debauchery was known to everyone in the East, and in Africa, and in Rome. Anastasia, student of Rev. Maxim was again forced to confirm the slander leveled against his teacher, but he, just as before, courageously and boldly testified to the truth, as the Lord gave him to proclaim. Rev. Maxim was briefly repeated the same questions, accusations and threats as before. He answered firmly: “I have already told you, and I say again: do with me what you want: piously honoring God, I am not afraid of untruth and insults from people.” - “But didn’t you anathematize the typos”? - “I told you several times, and now I say: I anathematize.” - “Consequently, he anathematized the Emperor.” “I did not anathematize the Emperor, but the charter that overthrows the faith of the Church,” was the answer of the Rev. Maxima. The judges fell silent. After several minutes of silence, one of them asked: “What is the reason that you love the Romans so much and hate the Greeks”? “We have a commandment from Christ,” answered the Rev. Maxim, don't hate anyone. I love the Romans as fellow believers with me; I love the Greeks as if they speak the same language as me.” Meanwhile, the judges asked the teacher. Maximus asked other questions of this kind; one of the clerics, probably wanting to flatter Pyrrhus, who was present during the interrogation, said publicly: “May God reward you for everything that you have done to blessed Pyrrhus.” Rev. Maxim didn’t answer. After the interrogation of St. the prisoners were again sent to prison 154. During the entire continuation of this interrogation, not one of the Patriarchs said a word. But some time later, on the day of Pentecost, they came to St. Maximus received deliberate ambassadors from the Patriarch of Constantinople and announced to him on behalf of the Patriarch that the apocrisiaries of the Roman High Priest had entered into communion with the Church of Constantinople, and thus now all the Churches, Roman, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem with the regions subordinate to them are in unity (a lie, as we will see below). “Therefore, if you also belong to the Catholic Church,” announced the Patriarch, Ven. Maxim through your ambassadors, then immediately enter into communication with us, unless you want to be subjected to severe exile and experience something you do not expect.” Rev. Maxim expressed a desire to know the content of that confession of faith, on the basis of which all the Churches allegedly entered into communion. “If it is consistent with the truth,” he added, “I will not deviate from it.” “Although we do not have any command regarding this,” the ambassadors answered, so that you do not have any pretext for an apology afterward, we declare to you that we confess in Christ two wills and two actions due to the difference of natures and one will and action due to the Union of them.” Such was, in fact, a new modification of the Monothelitian heresy. At first, the heretics, under the threat of anathema, ordered everyone to confess one will in Christ, then they strictly forbade talking about both one and two wills, and now they command to recognize three wills - Divine, human and Theanthropic. Having shown the absurdity of such a confession, which is contrary not only to the teaching of the Church, but also to common sense, Rev. Maxim said: “Do with me what you want, but I cannot accept such a confession.” The ambassadors threatened with anathema and cruel death. “May the will of God be done to me for the glory of His holy name,” was the answer of St. Confessor 155. Immediately after the departure of the ambassadors, Rev. Maxim let his disciple Anastasius the Apocrisiary know about the subject and purpose of the embassy that was sent to him, asking and begging him to intensify his prayers to God for the salvation of the Church and to inform the Orthodox about the new inventions of heretics. Fulfilling the will of his teacher, Anastasius wrote a letter to the Calarite monks in Sardinia, which has reached us. In it, he, informing Western Christians about the new strange opinion of heretics about the three wills and showing the absurdity of this opinion, among other things says: “they agreed to this confession and the apocrisiaries of ancient Rome, and deceived them, sending them to the one who sent them” (i.e., to Pope Eugene, who took the place of St. Martin). Then he adds: “since the Catholic and Apostolic Church is in great danger, we beg you to take care of her. If possible, go as soon as possible to Rome under some pretext, and uniting there with pious and firm people who, together with us, courageously defend the truth, ask them with tears to protect the Orthodox faith from innovations and not approve of anything contrary to the definitions of the Fathers and Councils.” At the same time, Anastasius expresses hope that the seed of piety will remain at least in the Roman Church. Hope did not deceive him 156. When, a little later, a district message from the new Patriarch of Constantinople Peter was received in Rome, in which he set out his confession of faith in the darkest and most ambiguous terms, the people and clergy of Rome were so outraged by the uncertainty of this confession and with such insistence they demanded the rejection of this message that they did not allow Pope Eugene to celebrate the liturgy until he yielded to the general demand 157 . Meanwhile, the fate of Rev. Maxim and his students was resolved, although not yet final. The very next day after the described embassy to him from the Patriarch, the primates of the Byzantine Church convinced the Emperor to send all three saints. prisoners to different places for imprisonment. Place of exile Rev. Maximus was appointed Bisia, a small fortress in Thrace; Anastasius, his disciple, was exiled to Pervera, a border fortress in Thrace, beyond which there was not even an inch of Roman possessions; another Anastasius, apocrisiary - to Mesemvria, also in Thrace, not far from Propontis. Barefoot and half-naked, without food and other necessary needs of life, they were sent to designated places, forbidding them even to come close to the sea, so that their difficult wandering would not be facilitated by the participation and help of compassionate people 158. The purpose that the government had in mind when imprisoning Rev. Maximus and his disciples, was to crush their firmness through the sorrows of severe loneliness and force them to enter into communion with the Church of Constantinople, and through them all the Orthodox in general, who more or less followed their example. But this calculation turned out to be incorrect. About a year teacher. Maxim courageously endured the hardship of exile with his students, not at all thinking of asking for mercy and mercy from his enemies. Looking at his suffering life, Orthodox Christians in all parts of the world stood firmly for Orthodoxy, in no way yielding to the prevailing heretics. Convinced of this, the government made a firm decision to either attract Rev. Maxim to his side, or destroy him. On August 24, 656, we arrived at St. To Maximus in Bisia, Theodosius, Bishop of Caesarea Bithynia, on behalf of the Patriarch of Constantinople, and Consuls Paul and Theodosius, on behalf of the Emperor. Having sworn to the teacher. Maxim that they were definitely sent by the Sovereign and the Patriarch himself, and whatever they said to him, they heard directly from the Sovereign and the Patriarch, they said: “accept what we offer you, and bring joy to the whole universe.” - “But who am I, and where do I come from, so that my permission to your proposal could please the whole world?” - answered St. Confessor, and asked those sent to explain to him more closely the subject and purpose of their embassy. “The Emperor and the Patriarch,” said Bishop Theodosius, “first of all want to know why you are moving away from communication with the throne of Constantinople.” Rev. Maximus, pointing to the innovations made in the Church by Cyrus, Sergius, Pyrrhus and Paul, said: “This is the reason why I do not enter into communion with the Church of Constantinople. Let these temptations be destroyed, he added, let the Church of Constantinople be the same as it was before, and I will willingly, without any outside admonition, begin to approach it. And as long as there are heresies and heretics Bishops in it, neither by word nor by any other means can I be persuaded to begin this communication.” - “But what’s so bad about our confession that you don’t want to have fellowship with us”? – asked Theodosius. In response to this, Rev. Maxim clearly and thoroughly revealed all the absurd consequences to which the doctrine of one will and one action leads, then, touching on the “typos”, he showed that this edict, by prohibiting talking about both one and two wills in Christ, denies the very existence of the Savior, taking away from Him the essential attributes of His Theanthropic nature. But Theodosius noted that this edict should not take on the character of a positive law, or a firm dogmatic definition, because it was issued at the request of circumstances, time and has the significance only of a temporary government measure. “If “typos” is not a positive law, answered the Rev. Maxim, on what basis did you exile me to this country of godless barbarians? Why am I condemned to live in Bisia, and my fellow servants - one in Pervera, and the other in Mesemvria? “I swear by God, my future Judge,” said Theodosius, and before, when the “typos” was compiled, I said, and now I say, that it was compiled badly and to the detriment of many. But there was only one reason for publishing it, to stop the disputes of Christians about wills and actions.” – “But which of the faithful can accept this decree, forbidding talking about what the Lord himself commanded to talk about through his Apostles, Prophets and teachers, whom he himself installed in his Church, and to whom he said: accept you, he accepts Me, and reject you, he rejects Me (Matthew 10:40)? Isn’t it clear after this that whoever rejects the words of the Apostles, Prophets and teachers rejects Christ himself. But look further. Just as God established in his Church apostles, prophets and teachers for the perfection of saints, so the devil has his false apostles, his false prophets and his false teachers. These are heretics who pervert Scripture and destroy human souls. Therefore, just as the one who accepts the first accepts God, so the one who accepts the latter accepts the devil. Therefore, whoever, together with the wicked heretics, rejects the saints (and such are the people who do not want to talk about either one or two wills in Christ, as the “typos” prescribes): he - be lenient with me, I am speaking the truth - he, along with the devil, rejects God. Therefore, see to it that, under the pretext of peace, we do not fall into complete apostasy from God, which, according to the Apostle, must precede the Antichrist. “I told you this, my lords,” added St. Confessor, without hesitation, with all boldness, so that you may spare both me and yourself. How do you want me, with these convictions deeply imprinted on my heart, to enter into communion with a Church that teaches the completely opposite? May the Lord preserve me from this!” Then, bending his knee, he said: “Do with me what you please, but I will never have fellowship with people who contain such a doctrine 159.” These words deeply affected the ambassadors. They sat in silence for a long time, with their eyes downcast. Finally, Theodosius said to Rev. To Maxim: “We guarantee the Emperor that he will destroy the “typos” if only you will accept communication.” “We are still far apart from each other,” answered the reverend. Maxim. For in addition to the “typos” there is also a definition of a single will, conciliarly approved by Sergius and Pyrrhus. It is true that it has been removed from church walls, but has not been removed from hearts. Let them accept, he added, the definitions of the Roman Council, which condemned, on the basis of the rules of the Church, all these innovations - and then the mediastinum of the fence will be destroyed, and there will be no more need to admonish us.” - Theodosius did not want to admit that the doctrine of a single will is contrary to the right faith and the teaching of the Fathers. To prove his opinion, he cited several names that, according to him, belonged to Julius of Rome, Gregory the Wonderworker, St. Athanasius and Chrysostom. But Rev. Maximus clearly proved that some of these testimonies belong to Apollinaris, others to Nestorius. Theodosius, having read the true words of the heretics, indicated to him by Maxim, said: “God sees, beloved brother, the Patriarch himself gave me these testimonies, and it turned out that they belong not to the Fathers, but to the heretics.” However, Theodosius even after this continued the dispute about two wills and actions. Finally, defeated by the irresistible force of the arguments of St. Maxim, he admitted his mistake. “What the Fathers did not say, I do not say, he said, what they asserted, I also affirm. In order not to waste precious time, I will now write a confession of faith in the sense that in Jesus Christ, with two natures, two wills and two kinds of activity must be recognized. “Only you enter into communication with us,” he added, “and let there be peace.” The Holy Confessor answered: “I, as a simple monk, do not dare accept any writing from you about such an important matter. If the Lord has really moved you to repentance, then let, in the name of the Patriarch and the Emperor, be sent, in accordance with the rules of the Church, a written statement of faith with a renunciation of heresy to the Roman Pontiff. Meanwhile, until this is fulfilled, I cannot enter into communion with the Church, in which the names of condemned people are remembered during the holy sacrifice, for I am afraid of condemnation and anathema.” Theodosius respected the pious fear of St. old man “But for God’s sake,” he continued, give us advice so that all this can end well.” “What advice can I give you?” answered the Rev. Maxim, in addition, that the Emperor and the Patriarch must send to the Bishop of Rome - one an admonishing message, the other a conciliar petition. And of course, the Pope will accept them into communion, if the rules of the Church do not prevent this.” “Let it be as you say,” said Theodosius; but give me your word that if I am sent to Rome, you will go with me. Rev. Maxim advised it was better to take his student Anastasius the Apocrisiary, since he knows the Latin language and is highly respected in Rome for his suffering for the faith; but since Theodosius reluctantly agreed to this, he made a promise that he himself would go with him wherever he wanted. After this, Rev. Maxim and Bishop Theodosius and their companions stood up. Tears of joy flowed from their eyes. They knelt down, offered up prayer to the Lord, kissed St. The Gospel, the cross, the icon of the Savior and the Blessed Virgin, then each of them, in confirmation of the truth of their words, touched the shrine with their hands 160. The conversation continued for some time after this. They talked about various subjects of faith and piety, especially about the mystery of the union of two natures in Jesus Christ and about two wills and actions. Rev. Maxim spoke about this so clearly and convincingly, resolved the questions proposed to him by Theodosius so forcefully and thoroughly that all the perplexities that still remained in the minds of his interlocutors disappeared, and the consul Theodosius, at the end of the conversation, said to St. To the Confessor: “I hope that the Emperor will be fully convinced when I convey your words to him. God only grant that they remain firmly in my memory.” Then, hugging each other, they parted. At farewell, Bishop Theodosius gave Rev. Maxim some money and two clothes, one of which was immediately received by the Bishop of Byzia, who was with him 161. It seemed that the peace of the Church, disrupted by heresy, would soon be restored. On September 8th of the same year, 656, consul Paul received a decree from the Emperor ordering him to go to Bisia and transfer St. Maximus to the monastery of St. Great Martyr Theodore, on the outskirts of Constantinople. The decree was written in such terms that, apparently, there was no doubt about the successful outcome of the matter. “We command your honor,” it said, to go to Bisia and transfer from there the monk Maximus with great honor and respect, both because of his old age and infirmities, and because he was once a friend and close associate of our ancestors,” etc. But subsequent circumstances showed that the Emperor either had no intention of abandoning the heresy at all, and rendered the venerable. Maxim received this honor only in order to more conveniently win him over to his side, or this was his intention, but only for a short time. In all likelihood, pride, stubbornness and false shame prevented him from admitting his error to the whole world. The Rev. had barely arrived. Maxim to the monastery of St. Theodore, how they immediately took away from him the money given to him by Theodosius, clothes and in general everything that he had from compassionate people. The next day after his arrival, September 13, two patricians, Epiphanius and Troilus, came to him with a magnificent retinue. Bishop Theodosius was with them. Troilus immediately announced to St. Maxim that they were sent to him by the Emperor himself to convey his will. “But tell us first,” he added, “whether you will fulfill the will of the Emperor or not.” Rev. Maxim asked that this will be announced to him in advance. The patricians insisted on their own, became angry, and threatened. Then St. The confessor said: “I declare to you in the presence of God and His holy Angels that if the Sovereign commands me anything regarding the affairs of this world, which will perish with him, I will willingly fulfill His will.” “You can’t do anything with this man,” said Troil and wanted to go back. There was noise and great confusion. Then Bishop Theodosius said to the patricians: “tell him the will of the Sovereign, and listen to his answer; for it is not good to leave without telling him anything and without hearing anything from him.” “This is what the Emperor ordered to announce to you,” Epiphanius said after this. “Since the whole West and in the East, those who are carried away into temptation, looking at you, create unrest and unrest, and do not want to have communion with us in the matter of faith: then may the Lord admonish you to accept the “typos” we have published and enter into communion with us. Then we will personally go to meet you, in front of everyone we will greet you, give you our hand, with honor and glory we will introduce you into the great church, place you in our Imperial place, together we will listen to the Liturgy and partake of the life-giving mysteries of the body and blood of Christ, then we will proclaim you our father - and there will be joy not only in this Christ-loving city of ours, but throughout the entire Christian world. For we are firmly convinced that when you enter into fellowship with us, all those who for your sake and under your leadership have fallen out of fellowship will join us.” 162 Rev. Maximus clearly saw after this that he had hoped in vain for reunification with the Church of the heretics, of which two consuls and Bishop Theodosius had recently sworn to him. Turning to Theodosius, he said with tears: “All of us, Vladyka, are awaiting the great day of judgment. You know what was recently said and promised before the Holy Gospel, the life-giving cross and the icons of the Savior and the Mother of God.” “What can I do when the Emperor wants something different?” answered Theodosius in a sad voice, with his eyes downcast. “Why did you touch the Gospel,” said St. with reproach and condolences. elder, - when it was not in your power to fulfill what you promised.” Then, turning to the patricians, he added: “In truth, all the powers of heaven will not convince me to do what you propose. For what answer will I give - I don’t say to God - but to my conscience, if, because of empty glory and human opinion, I reject the saving faith? - At these words, rage and fury took possession of the patricians. Like animals, they rushed at St. the old man, they dragged him along the floor, tormented him with their hands, trampled him with their feet, and spat on him from head to toe. Bishop Theodosius could hardly tame their fierce rage with his convictions. “You shouldn’t do this,” he said, you should just listen to his answer and report it to the Emperor.” But even after this the patricians did not stop blaspheming St. Confessor with the rudest curses, and as if forgetting about their barbaric act, unpardonable even for pagans, began to boast before him of their Christianity and Orthodoxy. “You consider us all heretics,” said the reverend. Maxim Epiphanius, calling him the most offensive names. “Know that we are more Christians than you, and more Orthodox than you. We recognize in Christ both the Divine and human will, because we understand no worse than you that every rational nature has the power of will and activity, thus we do not deny two wills and actions in Christ.” “If you believe, as the Church of God teaches,” the Rev. humbly objected. Maxim, why are you forcing me to accept a type that destroys this faith? “It does not destroy the faith,” answered the heretics, but only silences controversial expressions for the sake of the peace of the Church. Have whatever faith you want in your heart, no one forbids you.” “But salvation is ours,” objected the reverend. Maxim, depends not on heartfelt faith alone, but also on the confession of faith, for the Lord says: if anyone confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before my heavenly Father (Matthew 10:32), and the Apostle also teaches: he believes in the truth with his heart, but confesses with his lips for salvation (Rom. 10:10). But the patricians did not deign to respond to these words. They continued to curse and threaten. “In my opinion,” said Epiphanius, you should be brought to the city, and, standing in the square, gather all the jesters, farcical comedians, obscene ones, the entire city rabble in general, and force them to hit you on the cheeks and spit in your face.” - “Know, Mr. Abba, the patricians finally said: if the barbarians give us freedom and peace for a little while, we swear to St. Trinity, we will bring here the Pope (Eugene), who now proudly raises his brow, we will bring all your students and friends of Rome, and we will send each of you to a decent place, like Martin.” After this, the patricians went to listen to the all-night vigil, since all this took place on the eve of the erection of the honorable and life-giving cross 163. The next day (September 14) early in the morning I came to the Rev. The consul Theodosius told Maxim on behalf of the Emperor: “since you did not want honor, then there will be no honor for you. Go to the place you deserve with your students.” The holy elder was immediately taken by soldiers and taken to Selemvria (a city in Thrace). Here he lived for two days. During this time, one of the soldiers accompanying him, having gone to the army stationed not far from the city, spread a rumor throughout the camp that a monk would soon come here who did not recognize the Holy Virgin as the Mother of God. Returning, he led the Rev. Maxima straight to the camp. The God-fearing commander of the army sent St. Confessor of honorable people, elders and deacons. Seeing them, Rev. Maxim knelt down and greeted them in this position. They did too. Then everyone sat down. Then one venerable and very old old man meekly and respectfully asked the saint. Maxim: “We were told about your holiness, as if you did not recognize the Most Holy Virgin as the Mother of God. I conjure you, Holy and consubstantial and life-giving Trinity, to tell us the truth and remove temptation from our hearts.” After listening to these words, Rev. Maxim knelt down, then stood up and, raising his hands to the sky, solemnly said with tears: “Whoever does not confess the Most Holy Virgin as the true Mother of God, the Creator of heaven and earth, let him be anathema from the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, from all the powers of heaven, from the Apostles, Prophets, martyrs and all saints, amen!” Then those present said with tears: “May the Lord strengthen you, our father, to complete the race worthily.” After this, the soldiers surrounded the saint. Maxim and listened with zeal to his pious conversation. Seeing that the number of listeners of Rev. Maxima is constantly increasing and that some of them condemn the orders of the government; one of the praetor’s close associates ordered to lead St. the elder further to his destination. The clerics accompanied him on foot for two miles and, at parting, put him on a horse with their own hands. Rev. Maxim was brought to Pervera and imprisoned 164. The Rev. languished for about 5 years. Maxim is in this dungeon. Finally, in 662, he was again brought to Constantinople with both disciples, who had also been kept in prison until then. Here a heretical council was assembled, which anathematized them along with St. Sophrony, Martin and all the Orthodox. In addition, the council, with the consent of the Senate, decided on all three saints. Confessors have the following opinion: “After canonical condemnation has been pronounced over you, you should be handed over to the full severity of the laws for your wickedness, although, in truth, there is no punishment corresponding to your crimes. But by allowing the righteous Judge to punish you with dignity, we, by weakening the severity of the laws, give you life. We only determine that the prefect of this city should immediately take you to his Praetorium, punish you with ox sinews, cut off everyone’s tongue, the instrument of your blasphemy, and the right hand with which you wrote your blasphemous works. Mutilated in this way, you will be led through all 12 quarters of this city, then sent into lifelong imprisonment, so that there for the rest of your days you can mourn your sins.” – The definition was exactly fulfilled. The place of the last imprisonment of the Rev. Maxim and his students were in the country of Lazov (on the eastern shore of the Black Sea, now Abkhazia). They arrived there on June 8, 662 and were immediately separated. Since Rev. Maxim could neither stay on a horse nor sit in a cart due to extreme exhaustion: they were forced to carry him on a stretcher. He was imprisoned in the fortress of Shemari, near the country of the Alans. His disciples were imprisoned in other fortresses, from where they were taken after a short time and transferred to other places. Anastasy the monk, half dead from torture and exhausting wandering, was thrown into the Suaniya fortress, where he died on July 24 of the same year 662. He did not outlive his student and the reverend for long. Maxim. In the last days of his life, he was consoled by a heavenly vision, in which it was revealed to him that on August 15, on the Sabbath day, the Lord would take him into his blessed rest. The holy elder announced this revelation to those who were with him, and on August 15, 662, he peacefully rested from the labors of his many-sorrowful life. Three wonderful lamps burned at night over St. the grave of St. Confessor. All the inhabitants of that place saw them. Another student, Rev. Maxim, Anastasius the Apocrisiary outlived his fellow prisoners by 4 years. For a long time he was taken from fortress to fortress throughout the Lazov country, until finally they were placed in the Fuzume fortress, near the Caucasus Mountains. Here he wrote many essays. Died October 11, 666 165. Spirit Rev. Maxima continued to live in the Church. His works did not perish. The Sixth Ecumenical Council (680) worthily honored the Confessor and anathematized the heretics and their teaching. The Monk Maxim did not have the degree of priesthood, although he was for some time abbot of the Chrysopolis monastery. He himself calls himself ψιλὸς μονάχος. See creative work. Rev. Max. published CombeF. Volume. 1. page 55. See canon of St. Maximus 12 Aug. Song 9 of the Light; and I cried stichera to the Lord. Τρίτος ϑεολόγος: this is what St. calls. Maxim, an unknown author of an incriminating word against the Constantinopolitans, is placed in the 1st volume. Creation teacher Max. page 85. Maximus, corresponding to the Greek μέγιςος, means greatest. To match the name of St. Maximus, with his personal qualities and his life, is indicated by the Venerable’s disciple Anastasius the Apocrisiary in his letter to Theodosius, the presbyter of Gangra, and then by many others. Therefore, St. Demetrius of Rostov begins the life of St. Maxim with these words: “By the great name and life of Maxim, grow the great city of Constantinople.” See Chet. min. 21 January. See the canon of Rev. Maxim 12 Aug. Song 3rd Sedal. See the canon of Rev. Maxim 12 Aug. Song 9. Note. Monuments of antiquity, which preserved for us information about the life of St. Maxim, placed at the beginning of the first volume of his works. They are the following: 1) A word of praise from Rev. Maxim, containing a brief outline of his entire life (See Works. Rev. Max. Vol. 1 pp. 1–28). It was compiled by a person unknown to us at the request of a certain Bishop Nicholas, an admirer of the works of the teacher. Maxim (See ibid. p. 28). The compiler of the word admits at the very beginning that, like before him, no one left a complete image of the life and deeds of the venerable. Maxim, and he considers himself unable to depict in all its fullness and grandeur the exploits of the famous champion of Orthodoxy, but will touch only on some of his deeds. But, despite its incompleteness, this word constitutes a very important source for the biography of the teacher. Maxim: without him we would know nothing about the first half of the life of this saint. Father. 2) Two documents detailing the procedure for the trial of St. Maxim and his students with all the circumstances surrounding the trial (See ibid. pp. 29–66). These are invaluable for the biography of Rev. Maxim's monuments belong to his disciple and accomplice of suffering - Anastasius, the Apocrisiary of Rome (ibid., pp. 15 and 20), and were written by him in the year of the events themselves (ibid., pp. 44 and 59) according to the living traces of the events (p. 40). Maxim had these notes at hand when he wrote his word (ibid., pp. 15 and 20). 3) Letter from Anastasius, Apocrisiary of Rome to Theodosius the Presbyter of Gangra (pp. 67–70). It describes the last days of the life of the teacher. Maxim and his death with all its circumstances. Finally 4) Hypomnesticon, or memorial record of Theodosius Bishop of Gangra (pp. 80–84). It also talks about the time and circumstances of the death of the teacher. Maxim, in addition, about the last days of his life and the death of both of his disciples - Anastasiev, as well as St. Martin of the Pope. – Moreover, information about some events in the life of Professor Maxim can be borrowed from his works, especially from his letters. From these sources, St. Dimitri Rostovsky collected briefly, as he himself says, the life of St. Maximus the Confessor and Martyr, placed in Chetminei under the 21st day of Genvar. When compiling the proposed biography, in addition to the above sources and the life written by St. Demetrius, brief information about St. Maxim, placed in two handwritten prologues of the Solovetsky Library under numbers 697 and 702, written in two columns and belonging to the 16th century. During the second interrogation in Constantinople, which took place in 655, the teacher. Maxim said that he is 75 years old. See His work, volume 1, page 40. Praise. words of Rev. Max. (in the 1st volume of his works) ch. 2, pp. 2 and 3. See Creation. Rev. Maxima vol. I page 444. Praise. teacher's word Max. Ch. 3 pages 3 and 4. Pokhv. word rev. Poppy. Ch. 3 page 4. Creation Rev. Max. volume 1 page 440. See praise. teacher's word Maxima ch. 1 page 4. See also chapters 5 and 6, pages 4, 5, 6. Creation Rev. Max. volume 1 page 441. Creation Rev. Max. volume 1 page 450. Ibid pages 406, 432 and 433. Creation Rev. Max. volume 1 page 396. Ibid pp. 451, 455, etc. Creation Rev. Max. Volume 1 pp. 455 and 438. See praise. teacher's word Max. Ch. 5, page 5. Praise, word from Rev. Max. Ch. 5,6 p.5 and 6 art. Creation teacher Max. volume 1 page 397. Creation Rev. Max. volume 1 page 4. This can be seen from the messages of St. Maxim and his other creations, which were almost all written as a result of intense requests from various people. Creation Rev. Max. volume 1 page 500. Ibid volume 2 pp. 347–348. Acts of the Saints (published 1737) volume 3 p. 123 ch. 24, 25, 26 and 27. Acts of the Saints, vol. 3, ch. 24 p. 123. Creation teacher Max. volume 2 page 24. Last to Peter in volume 2 p. 75. Creation Rev. Max. volume 2 p. 306. Epistle to John the Postelnic in volume 2 p. 264. The words of Theodore of Paran. See Garduina "Acts of the Councils" volume 3. pp. 1344, 1346; especially the letter of Sergius to Honorius, ibid pp. 1311–1318. According to the testimony of Theophanes and Kedrin, Sergius was born in Syria, where there were then many Monophysites, and was descended from Jacobite parents (a branch of the Monophysite heresy). Sergius forwarded to the eastern Bishops some message from Mina (one of his predecessors) to Pope Vigilius, which allegedly spoke of one will and one action in Jesus Christ, and hypocritically asked them for advice on how to think about this expression of Mina (see Works. Rev. Max. Volume 2, pp. 183-184). The Sixth Ecumenical Council recognized this message as fraudulent. See Creation. St. Maxima, volume 2, pp. 183–184. See Harduin in the “Acts of the Councils” for an excerpt from a letter from Theodore of Paranoia to Sergius, Bishop of Arsinoe. pp. 1343–1345. See Kedrin Acts of the Churches. and citizen in Slavic translation of the ed. 1794 part 1. l. 158–166. See Renodota East. Jacobite. Patriarchs in Alexandria ed. 1713. Page 163–164. See the letters of Cyrus, Bishop of Phazid to Sergius and Sergius to Cyrus in Harduin in the Acts of the Council. pp. 1310 and 1338. sp. Creation Rev. Maxima, volume 2. p. 183. Arkady, despite the emperor's ban, preached Orthodox teaching until the end of his life, as testified by the Monk Maximus in Stephen of Doria. Guard. Acts Sob. volume 3. page 1338. See Kedrin Acts of the Churches. and citizen in glory translation ed. 1794 part 1. l. 166. See Acts of this council in Binia, volume 4. page 577. At the same time, it should be noted that Cyrus distorted the text of St. Dionysius the Areopagite: instead of the words: καιυήν τίνα ἐνεργείαν, which we read from St. Dionysius, he put: μίαν ἐνεργείαν, which gives a completely different meaning. See Garduina Acts of the Councils. volume 3. page 1342. See the second letter of Cyrus to Sergius in Harduin in Acts. Sob. vol. 3. p. 1339. See Chronograph. Feofan. page 274. See Harduin in the Acts of the Councils, the second letter of Cyrus to Sergius, p. 1339. See also there. pp. 1311–1318. See Creation. Rev. Max. volume 2. page 75. See Creation. Rev. Max. vol. 2. p. 183. Sn. Epistle of Sergius to Honorius in Harduinus in the Acts of the Council. vol. 3, pp. 1314–1315. See Kedrin Acts of the Churches. in civil to the Slavs translation part 1. l. 166 per rev. Message of St. Sophronius is placed in Harduin in the 3rd volume, pp. 1258–1295. For the Russian translation of this message, see Christ. Readings of 1840, part IV. pp. 204, 322. See Creation. Rev. Maxima, volume 1; page 38. See Garduina ibid. p. 1346. See Kedrin Acts of the Church. and citizen in glory lane The last thing St. SoFronius regarding the Monothelitian heresy had the following order. Having summoned Bishop Stephen of Doria, the first of the Bishops subordinate to him, he brought him to Golgotha, and there, at the site of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, commanded him the following: “Remember that you will give an answer to the Crucified One in this holy place, when He comes in glory to judge the living and the dead, if you are careless and neglect the danger in which His saint is now located. faith. Do what I myself cannot do due to the Saracen invasion. If necessary, go around the universe, try to overcome all obstacles, just to reach Rome; open there before St. men, in absolute truth, everything that is happening in our countries, and do not stop begging until they give the final decision to defeat the enemies of the faith and completely reject the newly introduced teaching” (see Garduina Acts. Sob. vol. 3. p. 714.). This embassy had very important consequences, as we will see below. Pyrrhus' letter did not reach us. The contents of it can only be concluded from the letter of reply to him from the Prime Minister. Maxima. See his Creation. vol. 2, pp. 344–346. See Creation. Rev. Max. volume 2 p. 346. Creation Rev. Max. volume 2. page 264. Detailed information about the works of Rev. Maxim is no longer here. Only from the letters he later wrote from Africa to various people in the East can one see that he labored a lot in defense of Orthodoxy. See Garduina Acts. Sob. vol. 3, pp. 800, 801, 810. The throne of the Jerusalem Church remained idle at this time. Other Patriarchal thrones were occupied by heretics. See praise. word rev. Max. Volume 1 of his works. page XI. Ch. 14. See Garduina Acts. Cathedral. vol. 3. p. 714. See Creation. Rev. Max. volume 2. pp. 361, 363 in 250. See Garduina volume 3. pp. 712 etc. See Anast. Library at Sirmon's. volume 3. p.295. See praise. word rev. Max. in volume 1 of his Work. Chapter 14. page XI. and XII. See praise. words Rev. Max. in 1 volume. his Creation. Ch. 14. page XII. See Creation. Rev. Max. volume. 2. pages 310 and 311. See Creation. Rev. Max. volume. 2. page 250. See Creation. Rev. Max. volume. 2. page 362. See Creation. Rev. Max. volume. 2. page 245. Creation Rev. Max. volume 2. page 313. sn. 306. Heraclius, shortly before his death, in a letter to Pope John IV, publicly announced that the author of the new statement of faith was not he, but Sergius. See Creation. Ave. Max. vol. 1. page XXXVIII. See Creation. Rev. Maxima, vol. 2, p. 707. See Creation. Rev. Max. volume 2. page 195. See Gard. Acts Cathedral. Volume 3. Page 803. Sn. Baron. Letop. Volume XI. page 331. See Baron. Leton. Volume XI. page 340. See Baron. Leton. Volume XI. pp. 360, 361, 371, 374 et seq. See Letop. Baron, volume XI. p. 370. Sn. Pokhv. word rev. Max. in volume 1 his works. p.13. Ch. 16. See Approval. Church Said. 23. See Creation. Rev. Max. volume 1. page 55 ch. 17. See Acts of the Saints (1737 ed.), volume 3, under 13 Augustus, pp. 123–125. See Creation. Rev. Max. Volume 2. pp. 59–69. See Gard. Acts Sob. volume 3, pp. 614–618. See Gard, ibid. p. 714. See Gard, ibid. pp. 734 et seq. See Gard Dejan. Cathedral, volume 3. p. 824. See Acts. Holy volume 3. August 13, p. 123. n. Chronograph Feof. page 276. See Gard. Acts Sob. volume 3, pp. 922–926. See Gard. Acts Sob. volume 3, pp. 684–685. Creation Rev. Max. vol. 1. pp. 16, 17. Sn. pp. 29 and 30. Creation Rev. Max. vol. 1, pp. 16, 29 and 30. Creation Rev. Max. vol. 1. pp. 36, 37, 38. Creation Rev. Max. vol. 1. pp. 23, 24, 37. sn. 60. Creation Rev. Max. vol. 1. pp. 18 and 24. Creation Rev. Max. vol. 1. p. 456. Creation Rev. Max. vol. 1. pp. 36 and 62. Creation Rev. Max. vol. 1, pp. 60–61. Creation Rev. Max. vol. 1. p. 61. sn. pp. 264, 313 and 306. Creation Rev. Max. vol. 2. p. 367. Sacellarium (from sacculus - bag) is also a treasury guard, treasurer. There were two of them: Imperial and Patriarchal. Creation Rev. Max. vol. 1. pp. 14, 15. Creation Rev. Max. vol. 1. p. 29. sn. 16. Creation Rev. Max. vol. 1. pp. 29, 30. sn. 15 and 16. Creation Rev. Max. vol. 1, pp. 21–30. n. 16. Creation Rev. Max, vol. 1, pp. 31–34. n. 17. For an explanation of the real meaning of these words, see below. Creation Rev. Max. vol. 1, pp. 25–38. Approved church, said. 23, sheet 165 per reverse. See 14th note. Rev. Maximus on the 4th chapter of St. Dionysus. Areop. about the church, hierarch, n. creativity Rev. Max vol. 2. p. 58. Creation Rev. Max. vol. 2, pp. 351, 352. Creation Rev. Max. vol. 2. p. 58. Creation Rev. Max. vol. 2. p. 361. Creation Rev. Max. vol. 2. p. 124. Creation Rev. Max. vol. 2. p. 364. See 30th note. Rev. Max. to the 5th chapter of the church. hierarchy of St. Dion. Areop. See 32nd note. on the same chapter. Creation Rev. Max. vol. 1. p. 33. Creation Rev. Max. vol. 1. p. 37. Creation Rev. Max. vol. 2. p. 346. Creation Rev. Max. vol. 1. p. 34. These were Paul and Pyrrhus. The latter still bore the title of Patriarch, and after Paul's death he occupied his place for about 4 months. Creation Rev. Max. vol. 1, pp. 38–40. Creation Rev. Max. vol. 1. Page 40–62. Creation Rev. Max, vol. 1 pp. 42–44. Letop. Baron. vol. XI. page 455. Creation Rev. Max vol. 1 pp. 41–42. Creation Rev. Max. vol. 1 pp. 44–50. Creation Rev. Max. vol. 1, pp. 50–56. Creation Rev. Max. vol. 1, pp. 56–59. Creation Rev. Max. vol. 1. Page 59–61. Creation Rev. Max. vol. 1, pp. 61–63. Creation Rev. Poppy. vol. 1, pp. 63–64. Creation Rev. Max. vol. 1, pp. 64–69. sn.80–83.