Life of St. Maximus the Confessor

The life, deeds and exploits of our most glorious and blessed father and confessor Maxim, and about his two disciples Publication and notes by A.I. Sidorova When Heraclius received the scepter of Roman power, and Sergius took over the episcopal care of the queen of cities, 1 the affairs of the Church again fell into confusion and the heresy of the Monothelites, like some other Egyptian plague, began to cause confusion in the ranks of the Orthodox, having its beginning under the following circumstances. This Heraclius, after the famous, great and glorious victory over the Persians 2, the miraculous liberation of Jerusalem and Patriarch Zechariah and the restoration in its place of the Honorable and Life-Giving Tree of the Cross 3, having become proud, as it seems, in his heart, like Hezekiah, but not repenting like him, but, on the contrary, having been exposed to his illness and not using his medicine 4, fell into the greatest mistake, which in comparison with what he had done by the Persians against Christians was much worse and more destructive in that they caused death to the body, and this one to the soul 5 . When he was staying in Hierapolis in Syria, Athanasius, called the Patriarch of the Jacobites, a clever and cunning man, filled with the cunning innate to the Syrians, had conversations with the king about faith 6 . And the king gave him a promise that if he accepted the council that was held in Chalcedon, he would make him Patriarch of Antioch 7 . Athanasius hypocritically recognized the council, confessing two natures united in Christ. Then he asked the king about action and about two wills, whether they should be spoken of in Christ as two or one. Then the king, having heard new and unusual words, writes to Sergius, Bishop of Constantinople 8. He also invited Cyrus, Bishop of Phasida, and, having asked him, found him to agree with Sergius in the doctrine of one will and one action, 9 since Sergius, being a Syrian by birth and from Jacobite parents, 10 taught about one natural will and one action in Christ. The king, following the advice of both bishops - this was his mistake - writes to the Roman Archbishop John, who not only did not accept, but also anathematized their heresy 11. And Sophronius, Archbishop of Jerusalem, having learned this and having gathered the bishops under his control, anathematized the Monothelite teaching and sent a conciliar resolution to Sergius of Constantinople and John of Rome 12. Hearing about this, Heraclius was ashamed, but, on the one hand, he did not want to abolish his decisions, and on the other, he could not bear the shame. Then he, thinking of doing something great, issues a so-called edict, ordering not to profess one or two actions 13. Having read this, the supporters of the North reviled the Church of God in the baths and bazaars, saying; “First, the like-minded Chalcedonians of Nestorius 14 turned to the truth, came to their senses, uniting with us through [recognizing] one action in one nature of Christ, but now, having condemned what was good, they destroyed both, not confessing either one or two natures in Christ.” After the death of Sergius, the see of Constantinople was occupied by Pyrrhus, who wickedly retained what Sergius and Cyrus had determined 15. And after the death of Heraclius, his son Constantine 16 accepted the scepter. But Pyrrhus and Martine killed him with poison. The son of Martina enters the kingdom of Heraklon. However, the senate and the city expelled Pyrrhus from the city as a wicked man, along with Martine and her son. Constans, the son of Constantine, reigns, and Paul, also a heretic, is installed as Bishop of Constantinople. Meanwhile, Maximus, this true philosopher, basing the dogmas of [Christian] philosophy both in practice and on theory 18, occupied a leading position in the royal palace, as the chief over the royal scribes 19, and everywhere he had good fame, primarily carrying the fear of God in his chest before everyone and, according to the word of the psalmist, “seeing the Lord always before him” 20. When he saw that the chains of heretical evil teaching were stretched everywhere and that, thanks to the great labor and diligence of the fathers, the once barely abolished and killed heresy of the Monophysites 21, thanks to the carelessness and negligence of the rulers, was again renewed, strengthened and even proclaimed in writing in the narthex of the Great Church of Constantinople 22 - then, leaving the royal palace and renouncing the whole world, he entered monastic life and in the Chrysopolis monastery he puts on monastic robes, where, thanks to his inaccessibly high virtue, he becomes the abbot and leader of the brethren there 23. But, seeing how the reigning city and the regions subordinate to it are covered by the declared heresy, and having learned that only the oldest of the cities, Rome, is clean from such heretical abomination, moved by divine zeal, he comes here 24. And while living there, he sent out divinely wise letters everywhere, especially to Sicilian bishops and monks, and others, both priests and laity, strengthening those who were hesitant, and encouraging those who were firm and strong in piety to the same zeal. Thus living and multiplying his talent, he, together with Pope John of Rome, convened a council and anathematized the heresy of the Monothelites. After John died, Theodore was appointed bishop of Rome 25. Then Saint Maximus retired to Africa and there, wanting to strengthen the faithful, he met with Pyrrhus, even entered into a conversation with him and convinced him to unite with the Catholic Church 26. Pyrrhus, convinced, professes the immaculate and right faith, and then is sent by His Holiness Maximus to Theodore the Pope. Having presented the pope with a written statement of Orthodoxy, Pyrrhus was received by him and entered into communion with the Church. But, having left Rome and arrived in Ravenna, he again, like a dog, returned to his vomit. Having learned about this, Theodore the Pope gathered the entirety of the Church, and at the tomb of the Supreme Apostle Peter, having demanded the Divine Cup and pouring a drop of the Life-giving Blood into ink, with his own hand he commits (i.e. writes) the deposition of Pyrrhus and his accomplices. After the death of Paul, the daring heretics elevated Pyrrhus, who again arrived in Constantinople, to the episcopal throne. And the royal city, to top all its troubles, again began to have Pyrrhus evil in its bosom. On the contrary, the oldest and prudent Rome, after the death of Theodore, receives the most holy bishop Martin 27. Then Maximus arrived [to Rome] from Africa and aroused zeal in Martin - a council of one hundred and fifty bishops was being assembled. Sergius, Pyrrhus, Cyrus and Paul, together with their dogmas, were anathematized, and the two wills and two actions of Christ God were clearly proclaimed, and the dogmas of truth were sent out throughout the entire universe. If anyone wants to know more precisely about this council, he can pick up a book detailing the definition of this council and learn the full power of the truth 28. After that, Blessed Maximus, living in Rome, compiled books against this pernicious and harmful heresy, denouncing its fight against God and its complete alienation from God. Like the second [apostle] Paul, he sent letters and essays filled with divine wisdom and knowledge throughout the entire earth, proclaiming, strengthening and confirming the honest and Orthodox faith. But not only this, but also spiritual instructions about a virtuous life, abstinence, piety, the fear of God and, generally speaking, about everything that a Christian should observe, he wisely taught and preached everywhere, having as associates in this Anastasius the presbyter and another Anastasius, his apocrisiary, two of the same name and like-minded [disciples], who became accomplices in all suffering for the sake of the truth of their reverend teacher Maxima. In the ninth year of his reign, Constans, the grandson of Heraclius, having learned what had happened in Rome, and being filled with rage, ordered both the most holy Martin and the greatest Maximus to be brought to Constantinople. After this was accomplished, Blessed Martin, after many tortures and insults that were committed on him by people who had no idea of ​​the divine judgment, was sent to the borders of Cherson, as the historical record reports about him 29. Many other Western bishops were punished. And on the day when His Holiness Maximus arrived in Constantinople with his disciples, two mandaters appeared with ten excuvitors, took them from the ship unclothed and without shoes, and, separating them from each other, guarded them in different rooms 30. The emperor left the entire trial over them to the then Sacellarius 31 and the Senate. And then, after a few days, they were taken to the palace and brought into a room where the senate and other people in large numbers had gathered. And they are brought before the leaders who were seated. Sacellarius turns to him, overcome with great anger and rage: The saint answers: “By the grace of Christ, the God of all, I am a Christian.” Says the sacellar: “This is not true.” The servant of Christ answered: “You say that I am not a Christian, but God says that I am and remain a Christian.” Sacellarius: “But if you are a Christian, then why,” he says, “do you hate the king?” “But how is this known? - answered the blessed one. “After all, hatred, like love, is a hidden disposition of the soul.” And the Sacellarius said: “From what you did, it became clear to everyone that you hate the king and his state, because you alone betrayed Egypt, Alexandria, Pentapolis, Trittol and Africa to the Saracens.” Saint: “But what is the proof of this?” And they immediately introduce John, who was the sacellar of Peter, the former military leader of Numidia Africanus, and he said: “Twenty-two years ago, the king’s grandfather ordered blessed Peter to take an army and go to Egypt against the Saracens, and he wrote to you, addressing himself as a servant of God, having confidence in you as a holy man, to advise him to go [on the campaign] - and you wrote to him (Peter) so that he should not do anything like this, since it is not pleasing to God to promote the state of the Romans during the reign of Heraclius and his family. The servant of God says: “If you are telling the truth, then you probably have both Peter’s letter to me and mine to him. Let [these letters] be presented, and I will be subject to the punishment specified by law.” And he says: “I don’t have a letter, and I don’t know if he wrote to you at all, but everyone in the camp was talking about it at that time.” The servant of God says to him: “If the whole camp was talking about this, why are you the only one informing on me? Have you ever seen me, or have I ever seen you? He says: “Never.” Then, turning to the Senate, the saint says: “If it is fair to present such accusers or witnesses, then judge, “for with the kind of judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you,” 32 says the God of all.” After this [the witness] they bring Sergius Maguda, who says: “Nine years ago, blessed Abba Thomas, coming from Rome, told me that Pope Theodore sent him to the [rebellious] patrician Gregory to tell him not to be afraid of anyone, for God’s servant Abba Maximus had such a dream: in the heavens in the east and west there were many angels, and the eastern ones were crying out: “Constantine Augustus, you are winning!”, and the western ones were crying out: “Gregory.” August, you win! – and the voice of the Western overpowered the voice of the Eastern” 33. At these words, the sacellar shouts: “God sent you, Abba, to this city to be burned!” And the servant of God said: “I thank God, who cleanses me from voluntary sins through involuntary punishment. But “woe to the world because of temptations, for temptations must come; woe to the man through whom temptation comes." 34 Indeed, it was not appropriate to say such words in the presence of Christians, but one cannot leave unpunished those who commit such things to please corruptible people, existing today and not existing tomorrow. After all, he should have said this during Gregory’s lifetime in order to prove his good intentions to the king. And justice demands, with which you will agree, that first of all the accuser must present the patrician Peter, and this one, on his part, must present Abba Thomas, and the latter must present the blessed Pope Theodore. And then, in the presence of everyone, I would begin to say to the patrician Peter: tell me, sir patrician, did you ever write to me what the sacellarius said, or did I write to you? And when he answered in the affirmative, I would be punished. In the same way, to the blessed pope: tell me, sir, have I ever told you a dream? And if he had exposed me, then he himself would have been subject to accusation, and not I, who saw [such a dream], for a dream is an involuntary matter, and the law punishes only arbitrary [actions] when they conflict with it.” At these words of the saint, Troilus 35 said to him: “You’re kidding, Abba! You don’t know where you are!” The saint said: “I’m not joking, but I mourn my life, which has survived to this day in order to experience such inventions.” Epiphanius the Patrik says: “God sees that he is doing well, joking about it if it is not true.” After this, the sacellarius again said with anger: “Everyone generally lies, and you alone speak the truth?” At these words, the saint began to cry and said in response: “By the permission of God, you have power over my life and death, but if these [witnesses] speak the truth, then Satan is God by nature, and if he is undoubtedly not like that, then they did not tell the truth. And may I not be worthy, together with Christians, to behold the appearance of the supreme God, Creator and Creator and Creator and Provider and Judge and Savior of all, if I have ever told about the dream itself or heard a story from another, except just now [heard] from Mr. Sergius, [this] well-wisher of the empire.” Then they bring in the third accuser, Theodore son of John, a former candidate 36, nicknamed Gila, the current son-in-law of Mr. Plato, a patrician, who declared: “When there was a conversation between us in Rome about the king, he mocked what was said, allowing mockery and ridicule.” The saint said to him: “Never, brother, have I spoken with you, only once - with the most reverend presbyter, Mr. Theocharist, brother of the exarch, regarding the reconciliation 37, having been summoned by a letter about him. And if I turn out to be a liar, I’m ready to bear the punishment.” After this, Gregory, the son of Photinov, is introduced, who says that: “I came to Abba Maxim’s cell in Rome, and in response to my words that the king is also a priest, Abba Anastasius, his disciple, said: I am not worthy to be a priest.” The saint immediately said to him: “Fear God, Mr. Gregory; after all, my colleague did not tell you anything at all about this in that conversation.” And, throwing himself to the ground, he said to the Senate: “Have patience with your servant - I will say everything as it was said, and let him expose me if I lie. My lord, this Gregory, having come to Rome, deigned to enter your servant’s cell. Seeing him, I, as is usual for me, threw myself to the ground, bowed, kissed him and, after we sat down, said: what is the reason for the desired coming of my master? He answered: our good and God-protected ruler, in concern for the peace of God’s holy Churches, turned to the godly pope, sending an offering to Saint Peter, exhorting him to unite with the primate of Constantinople. His pious Majesty deigned to send this through me, the humble one. And I said: glory to God, who made you worthy of such service. However, under what condition did his God-loving lordship command there to be unity, if, of course, you know? And you said: under the condition of [accepting] “Typos” 38. And I answered: this, I believe, cannot happen, for the Romans will not allow the luminous sayings of the holy fathers to be destroyed along with the sayings of wicked heretics, or for truth to be extinguished along with lies, or for light to be added to darkness. After all, we will have nothing worthy of worship if the destruction of God-taught words is accomplished 39. And you said: Typos does not destroy the sacred sayings, but silences them in order to create peace for us. And I answered: there is one and the same thing in the Divine Scripture - silence and destruction, for God said through David: “Speech is not the essence, lower than words, their voices are not heard” 40. So, according to Scripture, if speeches about God are not spoken or heard, then they do not exist at all. And you said: don’t lead me into the forest, I’m content with the holy symbol 41 . But how can you be content, I said, when you take Tipos? And what prevents you from accepting Tipos, you asked, and sticking to symbol 42? I replied that Typos was clearly destroying the symbol. You said: for the Lord's sake, how? Let us pronounce, I said, the symbol, and you will find out how it is destroyed by Typos. And you began to say: I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, everything visible and invisible. Wait, I said, a little and find out how [in the Typos] the Nicene faith is destroyed. After all, God would not be the Creator, being deprived of natural will and action, if, of course, by will and not by force he created heaven and earth, as David truly says in the Spirit: “The Lord created everything that the Lord pleased, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and in all the abysses.”43 If, for the sake of dispensation [of church affairs], saving faith is destroyed along with evil faith, then this kind of so-called “dispensation” 44 is a complete separation from God, and not unity. After all, tomorrow the vile Jews will say: let us make peace with each other and unite - we will destroy circumcision, and you baptism, and we will no longer be at enmity with each other 45. The Arians once proposed this in writing under Constantine the Great, saying: let us destroy the expressions “consubstantial” and “non-essential”, and the churches will unite among themselves. But our God-bearing fathers did not accept this; on the contrary, they preferred to be subjected to persecution and death rather than silence the expression, which clearly represents the one supreme deity of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. And the Great Constantine agreed with those [fathers] who proposed this, as is narrated by many who laboriously described the events of that time 46. And none of the kings was able with ambiguous speeches to convince the God-bearing fathers to unite with the heretics who were with them, but they used clear, precise and corresponding words to [each] dogma discussed, clearly stating that the business of priests, and not kings, is to examine and determine the saving dogmas of the Catholic Church. And you said: what? Isn’t every Christian king also a priest? I answered: no, because it does not belong to the altar and after the consecration of the bread does not offer it with the words: “Holy to holies.” He does not baptize, does not perform the sacrament of confirmation, does not ordain or appoint bishops, presbyters and deacons, does not consecrate churches, does not wear the signs of the priesthood - the omophorion and the gospel, since the crown and purple are the signs of the kingdom. And you said: how does the Scripture call Melchizedek a king and a priest? 47 I answered: the one by nature King, the God of all, who became the high priest for the sake of our salvation, one was a prototype - Melchizedek, but if, according to the order of Melchizedek, you call another king and priest, then dare to say the rest, namely: “Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither the beginning of days nor the end of life” 48. And, look, what evil arises from this: after all, the king will turn out to be another God incarnate, sacredly performing our salvation according to the order of Melchizedek, and not according to the order of Aaron. However, why do we need to go into long discussions. In the Holy Ascension (Eucharist) at the Holy Meal, after the bishops, deacons and the entire priestly rank. Tsars are mentioned together with the laity when the deacon says: “And in the faith of the deceased laity, Constantine, Constant and others,” he also remembers the living tsars after all those ordained.” At these words, Mina shouts: “By saying this, you divided the Church!” [Saint Maximus] says to him: “If he who speaks the words of the Holy Scriptures and the Holy Fathers divides the Church, then what does he do to the Church who destroys the dogmas of the saints, without which even the very existence of the Church is impossible?” And, turning to the exarch’s people, the sacellarium cried out, “Tell the exarch: will you really leave such a person alive when you have power!” And, having taken blessed Maximus out, they brought in his student, demanding that he make a denunciation against the teacher who allegedly insulted Pyrrhus. But in a quiet voice he answered the truth, that no one revered Pyrrhus as much as [Maximus] revered him. Then they order him to speak loudly. But since he did not allow himself to deviate from the reverent voice befitting monks, they gave the order to those present to beat him. They, subjecting him to [fist] blows, brought him to a half-dead state. Then, when they were sent to prison, Mina soon comes to the venerable elder and says to him in the presence of the leaders: “God cast you and brought you here, so that you receive [in retribution] what you did to others, misleading everyone with the dogmas of Origen” 49. The saint answered him in front of everyone: “Anathema to Origen and his dogmas and to everyone who is like-minded.” Then the patrician Epiphanius says: “The accusation you brought against him has been eliminated, Kir Abba 50 Mina, for even if he was an Origenist, then, since he anathematized [this false teaching], he freed himself from suspicion. And I already accept this as something that was not said about him.” And each of them was taken to the place where he was in custody. And the next day, Patrick Troilus and Sergius Eucrates, the guardian of the royal table, appeared to the servant of God and, sitting down, ordered him to sit down, addressing him with the following speech: “Tell us, Kir-Abba, the conversation between you and Pyrrhus, which took place in Africa and Rome, about dogmas, and with what arguments did you convince him to anathematize his own dogma [about unity of will in Christ] and agree with yours?” The monk explained to them everything in order, which his memory preserved, adding that “I do not have my own dogma, but I adhere to the general teaching of the Church, for I did not use a single new word so that I could talk about my own dogma.” Then, after his story, they say to him: “You have no communication with the throne of Constantinople?” He said: “I have no fellowship.” “For what reason do you not have communication?” - they tell him. And he answered: “They rejected the four holy councils 51 through the nine chapters 52 compiled in Alexandria and through the “Ektesis” compiled by Sergius in this city (Contantinople), as well as through the “Typos” then set forth in the sixth indictment. And since what they defined in the chapters they condemned in the Ektesis, and what they defined in the Ektesis they abolished in the Typos, they destroyed themselves just as many times. Condemned in this way by themselves and by the Romans, deposed and deprived of the priesthood in the eighth indictment 54, what kind of occult teaching can they perform, 55 or what Spirit can descend on the sacred rites performed by such [people]? And they say to him: “So what? You alone will be saved, and everyone will perish?” And he said: “The three youths did not blame anyone, who did not bow to the image when everyone bowed, for they were not concerned about the affairs of others [people], but also about not falling away from the truth themselves. So Daniel, thrown into the den of lions, did not condemn any of those who did not worship God according to the decree of Darius, but took care of himself and chose to die rather than fall away from God and be scourged by his conscience for breaking the divine laws 56. And God forbid that I condemn anyone or say that I alone will be saved, but, as much as I can, I would prefer to die than to have fear before my conscience for having in any way violated my faith in God.” They say to him: “And what can you do if the Romans enter into unity with the Byzantines, for yesterday the Roman apocrisarii came and tomorrow, Sunday, they will be in communion [at the Liturgy and Eucharist] with the patriarch - and it becomes clear to everyone that you have seduced the Romans, which is why they agreed with the locals with your removal from there” 57 . And the saint said: “Those who came, although they enter into communion, will not do anything reprehensible for the Roman throne, unless they brought a message to the patriarch, and I will never believe that the Romans entered into communion with those here, unless they confess that our Lord Jesus Christ and God, in accordance with each nature of which He [consists], in which He is and which are He 58, is by nature willing and acting for the sake of our salvation." And they say: “And if the Romans and the Byzantines do unite, then what will you do?” The saint replied: “If the whole universe begins to commune with the Patriarch, I will not commune with him. Through the Apostle, the Holy Spirit anathematized even the angels who introduced anything new and alien to the [evangelical and apostolic] preaching” 59 . And he says: “Is there any need at all to talk about two wills and actions in Christ?” He answered: “This is absolutely necessary if, of course, we want to think Orthodoxy in truth, for not one of the existing things exists without natural action. And the Holy Fathers clearly say that no nature exists and is not known without its essential action. If nature does not exist and is not known without the action that is essential and characterizes it, then how is it possible for Christ, who is truly God and truly man, to exist and be known without divine and human action? After all, a lion, according to the teachings of the fathers, who has lost the ability to roar is not a lion, and a dog that has the ability to bark is not a dog; and everything else, having lost what constitutes its nature, is no longer itself” 60. And they tell him: “We know that this is really so. However, [see] do not upset the king, who only for the sake of peace published this “Typos” and does not seek to abolish anything that is comprehended by thought regarding Christ, but for the peace of [everyone] prescribes silence about the words that are the cause of discord.” Then the servant of God, throwing himself to the ground, said with tears: “The good and pious ruler should not be upset at my insignificance, for I cannot offend God by keeping silent about what he commanded to say and confess. After all, if, according to the divine apostle, [the Lord] Himself appointed in the Church, firstly, apostles, secondly, prophets, thirdly, teachers, 61 then it is obvious that He Himself spoke through them. And so, through all the Holy Scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments, holy teachers and councils, we learn that God incarnate is willing and active in Divinity and humanity. And He is not deprived, except sin, of anything in which God is recognized and in which man is revealed by nature. And if he is perfect in both ways and has no deficiency, then he clearly distorts the whole mystery about him who does not confess that He is what He is, with all the properties inherent in Him, according to each of the natures in which He is and which are He.” After a short silence and talking with each other, they say: “How can you prove that the representatives of the throne of Constantinople reject the councils?” And he says to them: “It has already been shown in detail in my conversations in Rome with Mr. Gregory the Asicritus 62. And now, if you like, it will be proven. Order that your unworthy slave be given freedom, and I will give evidence from the books, since mine were taken away, and I will make it clear to everyone, without any verbal deceit.” And then, after many other conversations on both sides, they turned to evidence and reasoning from Scripture, nature and art, 63 having enjoyed which, they came into a cheerful mood and began to say to Maxim: “The Lord knows, Abba, that we have received great benefit and from now on we will annoy you [with our visits].” And Mr. Sergius says to him: “Many times I came to your cell in Vemvas and heard your teaching, and may God help you, do not worry, but you sadden everyone only because you force many to separate from communion with the local church.” But the saint said: “Who can say that I told him: do not have communion with the Church of the Byzantines?” Sergius answered: “The very fact that you yourself do not have communication serves as a great call to everyone not to have communication.” And the saint said: “My lord! There is nothing stronger than the reproof of conscience and nothing more daring than its approval.” When Cyrus Troilus heard that “Typos” was being anathematized throughout the West, he said to the saint: “Is it good that the opinion of our pious ruler [the king] is subjected to reproach?” The saint answered: “May God be patient with those who prompted the ruler [the king] to compile the “Typos” and recognized [it] and allowed it.” And Troilus says: “But who are those who prompted or allowed?” The servant of God answered: “The representatives of the church prompted, but the dignitaries allowed it. And this evil of the guilty is exacted from the innocent and pure from all heresy. But advise him to do what his grandfather [Heraclius] once did of pious memory. When he learned that some in the West were condemning him, by means of a decree he made himself free from church condemnation, writing that “Ektesis” does not belong to me, since I neither dictated it nor gave the order to compose it, but Patriarch Sergius, having composed it five years before my return from the East, when I arrived in this blessed city, begged me to publish it in my name with a signature - and I accepted his petition - now, having learned that some rebel against him, I make it known to everyone that he is not mine. He sent such a decree to blessed Pope John, who condemned “Ektesis” in his letters to Pyrrhus at that time. And since then, “Ektesis” has been considered everywhere as the work of Sergius 64. Let our current pious king do this, and his name will be completely clean from all censure.” When the monk said this, they shook their heads and fell silent, saying only this: “Everything is difficult and hopeless.” And after these words, having bowed to each other, they left with complete complacency. Then on another Saturday they were brought to the palace again. The disciple of the saint is brought in first. Then the two patriarchs met 65. They bring in Konstantin and Mina, the elder’s accusers, demanding that the student confirm their words. He fearlessly told the Senate: “Constantine is being introduced to the secretaries of the palace?! He is not a presbyter, not a monk, but a pimp, known to Africans and Romans, and what wives did he keep from there? Everyone knows and everyone perfectly understood his tricks, what he did to hide this, either saying that these are my sisters, or [claiming] that in order to prevent communication with the Church of Constantinople, I took them so that they would not be defiled by heretical communication. But also, if he did not have enough money for pleasure and he found a place where he was not known, then again [and there] he did the same thing for the sake of nasty acquisitions and dirty pleasures. And for those who want to lead an honorable life, it is a great shame to even meet him.” Then again, when asked whether he had anathematized, Tipos fearlessly said: “I not only anathematized, but also wrote a book.” And some dignitaries said to him: “So what? Don’t you admit that you did something wrong?” And he says: “God forbid that I should say that what I did well and according to church regulations has become bad.” After the saint’s disciple has given [appropriate answers] to many other questions, he is taken out of the secretary. Then the monk is brought in, and Troil the Patrick says to him: “Say, Abba, but be careful, tell everything in truth, and the Lord will have mercy on you, because if we turn to the [formal] investigation according to the law and it finds true at least one accusation against you, then the law will expose itself to death.” The saint said: “But I have already said and I say again that if anything of what is being said [about me] is true, then Satan is God. If he is not God, but an apostate, then the accusations against me are false and groundless. However, if you command me to do something, do it: by honoring God, I will not commit unrighteousness.” Troilus says to him: “Didn’t you anathematize Typos?” He said: “I often said that I anathematized him.” And Troilus says: “Did you anathematize Typos? He anathematized the king.” The servant of God answered: “I did not anathematize the king, but a charter alien to the church faith.” He said to him: “Where did you anathematize?” And the saint says: “Typos was anathematized at the Roman Council in the Church of the Savior and in the [Church of] the Virgin Mary.” Then the eparch says to him: “Are you in communion with the local church or are you not?” The monk noted: “I don’t stand in fellowship.” The saint said: “Because she rejected the councils.” He: “If she rejected the councils, why are 66 included in the diptychs?” And the saint says: “But what is the use of names when dogmas are rejected?” “And can you,” said [the bishop], “prove this?” And [Maxim] said: “If I receive permission and orders, then I can prove it very easily.” Then one cleric shouted: “God rewarded you in the same way that you did to Pyrrhus!” And when everyone fell silent, the sacellarius said to him: “Why do you love the Romans and hate the Greeks?” And in response, the saint said: “We have a commandment not to hate anyone: I love the Romans as fellow believers, and the Greeks as fellow tribesmen.”67 And the sacellarium says to him: “How old do you think you are?” The saint answered: “Seventy-five.” Sacellarius: “How many years has your disciple been with you?” When all this was said in the secretary, none of the patriarchs said anything at all. When talking about the Roman Council, Demosthenes shouts: “This council has no power, since Martin, who assembled it, was deposed!” And the servant of God says: “He was not deposed, but suffered persecution [and expulsion]. Was there such a conciliar and canonical definition in the Acts, which undoubtedly contained his deposition? However, even if canonically deposed, this cannot serve as a condemnation of what is defined Orthodoxy, according to the divine canons, with which what was written by St. Pope Theodore is consistent.” After listening to this, Troil the Patrick said: “You don’t know what you’re saying, Abba! The former was.” And since, after all sorts of threats, they could not deviate him from his rightful opinion, then, having drawn up a council, the representatives of the church convinced the king to condemn them to cruel and inhuman exile, dividing them from each other: the holy elder - to Visia, a fortress on the border of Thrace, and his disciple - to Perveris, which was the final border of the Roman kingdom - deprived of all means of livelihood, with a ban on approaching the sea, so as not to have mercy from the merciful. And thus they were left without clothing and food, having only hope in God. But who, beloved, can calculate the abyss of wisdom that God provided to his servant Maxim? The whole universe went around, appearing to us, the glorious and God-inspired words of his, another new Chrysostom. Who would not be surprised by his virtuous and godly life - abstinence, vigil, non-anger, purity, meekness and humility, mercy, as well as contemplation, full of wisdom and reason. After all, being in such a position and having reached extreme old age - they say that he was ninety years old - he did not weaken at all either in asceticism or activity, or in contemplation. But, having an outpouring of the Holy Spirit, he poured out rivers of dogma and interpreted difficult passages of Scripture, Old and New, in an allegorical and divine sense. In addition, he explained the speculations, structure and deanery of both the heavenly ranks and the earthly or hierarchical hierarchy and theology of the holy and God-bearing men, namely the divine Dionysius, as well as the difficult to comprehend in Gregory the Theologian for all who cannot understand, he himself explained speculatively. At the same time, he himself composed a very harmonious presentation of the divine liturgy, composing an explanation of each sacrament. What each study means: the entrance of the priests and sitting, teaching the world, reading the divine words, kissing, closing the gates and, generally speaking, the entire following of the divine liturgy, was clearly and divinely inspired, and the mysterious side of each [action] was revealed. He composed both ascetic and moral words in one hundred chapters, revealing [in them] to the ascetics his spiritual testament; dogmatic and teaching explanations in letters and much more, all filled with wisdom and divine grace for those capable of understanding [his creations]. A few days later, the so-called Patriarch Peter 68 announced to him [through messengers], as the blessed one himself says in a letter to his disciple Anastasius, the following: “Which church are you? Byzantine, Roman, Antioch, Alexandria or Jerusalem? All [these churches] and the dioceses under their control united [with each other]. So, if you, as you say, belong to the Catholic Church, then unite [with everyone], so that, introducing a new and strange path into life, 69 you will not be subjected to what you do not expect.” The blessed one answered the messengers worthy of his wisdom and piety, saying: “The God of all declared the right and saving confession of faith in Him to the Catholic Church, calling Peter blessed because he confessed Him 70. However, I want to find out the condition on which the unification of all churches took place - and if this is done well, I will not alienate myself.” They said to the monk: “Although we have no orders regarding this, we will nevertheless say that you have absolutely no excuse left. Two actions [in Christ], we say, because of the difference [of natures] and one because of their union.” The saint says: “Two, you say, due to the connection they became one, or is there another action besides them?” “No, they say, but two became one due to the connection.” “We have lost the subject,” said the saint, “by inventing for ourselves a baseless faith and a non-existent God. After all, if we merge two [actions] into one because of the connection and again divide them into two because of the difference, then there will no longer be unity, no duality of actions, since they will always be destroyed by each other and make the One to whom they are inherent naturally inactive and completely non-existent: for what does not have inherent movement by nature and is not subject to any form of change, then, according to the teaching of the fathers, is devoid of all essence as not having an action that essentially characterizes it. Therefore, I cannot speak and was not taught by the Holy Fathers to confess this. And do whatever pleases you who have the power.” “But listen,” they said, “it pleases the lord [the king] and the patriarch, by order of the Pope of Rome, to anathematize you for disobedience and subject you to the death they have determined.” The monk said: “Let that which was determined for me by God before every age be fulfilled and bring Him the glory that was determined before every age.” After the blessed one had defended himself so beautifully and properly, they left without success and reported everything to the one who had sent them. A few years later, the authorities again decided to subject the saint to a test, and so they sent Theodosius, bishop of Caesarea, the diocese of Bithynia, as well as Paul and Theodosius, the consuls, to his place of exile, where he was kept in custody, namely in Visia. They, having come to Blessed Maximus in the place where he was imprisoned, sat down and allowed him to sit down, and the Bishop of Visium was present with them. And Bishop Theodosius says to him: “How are you living, Mr. Abba Maxim?” The saint answered: “As God predetermined his providential decision for me before all ages, so I live.” Theodosius says: “But did God predetermine each of us before every age?” Maxim said: “If he foresaw, then without a doubt he predestined” 71. Theodosius: “What does it mean, ‘forethought and predestined’?” Maxim: “Foreknowledge concerns thoughts, words and deeds that are in our power, but predestination concerns events that are not in our control.” Theodosius: “What is in our power and what is not in our power?” And Maxim: “As it seems, my master, knowing everything, is talking to his servant for the sake of testing.” Theodosius: “I swear for the sake of the truth of God, I asked out of ignorance and desire to find out the difference between what is in our power and what is not in our power, and how one is under the foreknowledge of God, and the other under predestination.” Maxim: “Everything voluntary is in our power, namely: virtues and vices; and not in our power: subjecting us to various kinds of punishments and rewards that happen to us. Thus, neither the illness that punishes us nor the health that encourages us is in our power, but the causes that produce them [are in our power]. For example, intemperance is the cause of illness, just as abstinence is the cause of health, and keeping the commandments is the cause of the Kingdom of Heaven, just as their crime is the cause of eternal fire.” Theodosius says: “What then? Is this why you endure sorrow in this exile because you have done something worthy of this sorrow?” Maxim said: “I pray to God that in this sorrow He will make retribution for what I have sinned against Him through the crime of His justifying commandments.” But Theodosius says: “Isn’t grief sent to many for the sake of testing?” Saint Maximus said: “The test concerns the saints so that their disposition towards what is good by nature, through sorrow, is revealed in the lives of people, at the same time revealing in themselves virtues unknown to everyone, as was the case with Job and Joseph: the first was tested for the manifestation of the courage hidden [in him], and the second was tempted for the revelation of the chastity that sanctifies [him]. And each of the saints, involuntarily undergoing this in this age, endures this for the sake of some providential purposes [of God], so that through the weakness that is allowed to them [from God], they trample on the proud and apostate dragon, that is, the devil. For patience is a testing matter for each of the saints.” Theodosius: “I testify by the truth of God, you said it beautifully, and I recognize it as useful - I have always sought to talk with you about these subjects. But since both I and [these] gentlemen, my future [most excellent] patricians 72, came to you and traveled such a distance on another main matter, we persuade you to accept our proposals and [thus] bring joy to the whole universe." The saint said: “What are these, sir? And who am I and where do I come from, so that [my] consent to what is offered to me would bring joy to the universe?” And Theodosius again: “I testify by the truth of our Lord Jesus Christ that both I and [these] gentlemen, my future [excellent] patricians, will tell you, we heard this from the lips of our lord, the patriarch and the pious king.” Saint Maximus said: “Please, my lords, to say what you wish and what you have heard.” Theodosius: “The Tsar and the Patriarch asks through us to find out from you why you do not have communication with the throne of Constantinople.” The saint said: “Do you have a written order regarding this from the most pious king and from the patriarch?” And Theodosius: “You, sir, should not have distrust of us, for although I am insignificant, I am still considered a bishop, but [these] my gentlemen are members of the Senate, and we did not come to tempt you - God forbid [this]!” Saint Maximus said: “For whatever purpose you come to your servant, I will, without any hesitation, reveal the reason [why I have no communication with you]. However, if it is natural for others to ask me for what reason [I do not have this communication], but not for you, who know this reason better than me. After all, you all know the innovations that were in the sixth indictment of the last circle, which began in Alexandria, published by Cyrus - I don’t know how he became primate there - in nine chapters, confirmed by the throne of Constantinople, as well as other changes, additions and decreases made collectively by the primates of the Byzantine Church, I’m talking about Sergius, Pyrrhus and Paul - the whole universe knows about these innovations. For this reason, your servant, I have no fellowship with the Church of Constantinople. Let the obstacles placed by the named persons be removed, together with those who laid them, as God said: “and mark out the stones that are in the way” 73 - and let them go straight and straight, free from all thorns of heretical [error] the path of the Gospel - then I, having found this, as it was before, will go without any human admonition. But as long as the primates of Constantinople are proud of the obstacles they put in place and those who put them in place, no reasoning or measures will force me to be in communication with them.” And Theodosius says: “But what bad things do we profess, so that you should be separated from communication with us?” And the saint: “That, recognizing one action of the Divinity and humanity of God and our Savior Jesus Christ, you confuse the teaching of theology [about the Trinitarian Divinity] and the doctrine of the economy [about Christ as the incarnate Son of God] 74. After all, if you believe the holy fathers who say: those who have one action have one essence, then you make the Holy Trinity a quaternity, since His flesh becomes one in nature with the Word and is deprived of the identity that is related to us and to the One who gave birth to Him by nature. And also: by destroying [two] actions and affirming one will of His Divinity and humanity, you deprive Him of the distribution of goods. After all, if He did not have any action, according to those who decreed this, then it is clear that even if He wishes, He cannot have mercy, since the actions of goods are taken away from Him, unless, of course, without natural action, it is impossible for anything that exists to act or perform. Or in other words: you also make the flesh, thanks to the [single] will [in Christ], co-creator of all ages and what is in them, together with the Father and the Son and the Spirit; or rather, you make created by nature and newly created [flesh] a creator by nature or beginningless by will, if, of course, the divine will is without beginning, like [the will of] the beginningless Deity - which exceeds not only all madness, but also wickedness. For you say not only that there is one will [in Christ], but also that it is divine. And for the divine will no one can invent a temporary beginning or end, since this is also unusual for the divine nature, to which the will essentially belongs. In the same way, introducing another innovation, you completely take away all the characteristic signs and properties of the Divinity and humanity in Christ, decreeing by laws and typos not to talk about one or two wills or actions in Him, which is possible [only] for a non-existent object. Indeed, nothing that exists, if it is spiritual, is devoid of the desired ability and action: if it is sensual - of sensual action, if a plant - of plant and nutritional action, and if it is completely soulless and not involved in any life - the so-called action and inclination [to it] according to [its natural] state. And all such beings are perceived by the sensations of sensible [beings]. For their action is to be subject to sight - according to their appearance, hearing - according to sound, smell - according to a certain natural smell, taste - according to certain juices, and touch - according to hardness. And just as we call seeing the action of sight, so the action of the visible is being visible. And everything else [that] we see is accomplished in this way. If, therefore, nothing that exists is by no means devoid of all natural action, and our Lord and God - be merciful, Lord - has no natural will or action, according to each nature of which He [consists], in which He is, and which He is, then how can we be or be called pious, affirming that the God whom we worship has in no way [the capacity] for volition or action? After all, we clearly learn from the Holy Fathers, who say: that which has no power 75 does not exist, is not something, and it completely lacks any positive sign of existence 76.” Theodosius says: “What is done for the sake of ordering [the affairs of the Church], you should not accept as dogma in the proper sense of the word.” Saint Maximus said: “If the “Typos” and the law regarding church affairs, not to mention any will or action of the Lord, the denial of which means the non-existence of the one from whom they are taken away, is not the actual dogma of those who accept the (“Typos”), then for what reason did you hand me over to barbarous and godless peoples, depriving me of honor? For what reason am I condemned to live in Viziya, and my fellow servants - one in Pervris, and the other in Mesemvria? And Theodosius says: “By God, who will judge me, I testify that when the Typos was compiled, I said and now I say the same thing, that it was compiled badly and to the detriment of many. And the reason for its publication was the disputes of the Orthodox among themselves about wills and actions, and [so] in order to reconcile everyone with each other, some decided that these words should not be uttered.” Saint Maximus said: “What faithful 77 will accept a dispensation that suppresses such words as the God of all has commanded through the apostles and teachers and prophets? But let us consider, great sir, to what evil this issue under discussion leads. After all, if God appointed in the Church, firstly, apostles, secondly, prophets, thirdly, teachers for the perfection of saints 78, saying in the Gospel to the apostles, and through them [and] those after them: “What I say to you, I say to everyone” 79. And again: “He who receives you receives Me” 80 and “he who rejects you rejects Me” 81 then it is obvious that he who does not accept the apostles and prophets and teachers, but who rejects their words, rejects Christ himself. But let's consider something else. God, having chosen, raised up apostles and prophets and teachers to become saints, and the devil, having chosen, raised up false apostles and false prophets and false teachers against piety, so that both the ancient law and the new are subject to attack. And by false apostles, false prophets and false teachers I mean heretics whose words and thoughts are corrupt. So, he who receives the true apostles and prophets and teachers of God receives; but he who receives false apostles and false prophets and false teachers receives the devil. Therefore, whoever, in alliance with the damned and unclean heretics, casts out the saints, has clearly condemned God in alliance with the devil - accept me, who speaks the truth. If, in this way, examining the innovations that have appeared in our times, we find them to have reached the utmost degree of evil, then be careful lest, under the pretext of peace, we end up sick with the disease of apostasy and preaching what the divine Apostle said would be the forerunner of the coming of the Antichrist 82 . I told you this without hesitation, my gentlemen, so that you would spare yourselves and us. Do you command that I, having this written in the book of my heart, enter into fellowship with the church in which this is preached, and that I become a fellow member of those who really reject God, that is, supposedly reject the devil together with God? 83 Let [this] not happen to me from God, who became [man] like me for my sake, except through sin. - And, making a bow, he said: “If you command me to do anything to your servant, do it, but I will never be a fellow with those who accept it.” The bishop and those with him, amazed by these words of the saint, bowed their heads down and were silent for a long time. And after that, Bishop Theodosius, raising his head and fixing his gaze on Abba Maximus, said: “We guarantee you for our ruler the king, that if you enter into communion, he will bury “Typos”.” The saint says to him: “We have diverged too far from each other: what are we going to do with the term “one will,” which was conciliarly approved by Sergius, Pyrrhus and Paul to eliminate all action [in Christ]?” Theodosius said: “That decree has been destroyed and rejected.” The saint said: “Destroyed within stone walls, but not in rational souls: let them accept their condemnation, approved conciliarly in Rome through pious dogmas and canons, and [then] the mediastinum will be destroyed, and there will be no need to convince us.” Theodosius: “The Roman Council has no power, since it was without a royal order.” Maxim: “If the orders of the kings give meaning to the former councils, and not pious faith, then accept the former councils against the consubstantiality, since they took place by order of the kings. I mean precisely: the first - in Tire, the second - in Antioch, the third - in Seleucia, the fourth - in Constantinople under Eudoxius the Arian, the fifth - in Nika of Thracia, the sixth - in Sermia 84 and, after these, after a long time, the seventh - in Ephesus for the second time, over which Dioscorus presided 85. All these councils met by order of the kings, and, however, they were all condemned due to the godlessness of the dogmas approved at them. And why don’t you reject the council that deposed Paul of Samosata under the saints and blessed Dionysius the Pope of Rome, Dionysius of Alexandria and Gregory the Wonderworker, who presided over this council, since it was not on the orders of the king? 86 Which canon commands that only those councils be accepted that met by order of the tsar, or in general that all councils meet by order of the tsar? The pious canon of the Church recognizes as holy and accepted those councils that Orthodoxy has approved 87 . But, as my master knows and teaches others, the canon ordered that councils be held twice a year in each diocese, without mentioning the royal order, to preserve our saving faith and correct everything that relates to the divine essence of the Church.” Theodosius: “It is as you say: Orthodoxy affirms councils. However, don’t you accept the book of Mina, in which he set forth the dogma of the one will and one action of Christ?” Maxim: “God forbid! You do not accept, but reject all the teachers who were after the holy council in Chalcedon, who fought against the abominable heresy of the North. And how can I accept the book of Menas, which appeared after the council, in which he clearly defends Severus, Apollinaris, Macedonius, Arius and all kinds of heresy and with his dogmas accuses the council, or rather, completely rejects it? 88 Theodosius: “So what? Don’t you accept one action of authoritative fathers?” And Theodosius brought the forged passages they used from the writings of saints, such as Julius of Rome, the wonderworker Gregory, Athanasius, and read them. And Maximus said: “Let us fear God and do not dare to anger him by bringing heretical passages [as evidence]: after all, everyone knows that this is the work of the wicked Apollinaris 89 . If you have others, show them, because by bringing these you convince everyone that in reality you have renewed the evil of Apollinaris and his like-minded people.” And [the same Bishop Theodosius] cites two other passages under the name of supposedly Chrysostom, after reading which Abba Maxim said: “They belong to Nestorius, who suffered from the illness [of the doctrine of] the duality of persons in Christ” 90. And immediately, boiling with rage, Theodosius said: “Mr. Monk! Satan has spoken [this] through your mouth.” Maxim: “Do not be offended, my lord, by your servant.” And, taking it, he immediately showed him that these very sayings belonged to Nestorius and in what works [of him] they were found. Theodosius: “God knows, brother, the patriarch gave me these places. However, you called some sayings of Apollinaris, and others – Nestorius.” And, citing the passage of St. Cyril, which says: “Revealing one and akin action through both [natures],” he says: “What do you say to this?” 91. Maxim: “Some actually pointed out this saying, which was placed as an addition in the interpretation of the Gospel compiled from this holy father by Timothy Elur 92 . But let, in your opinion, it be his (the saying of St. Cyril). In this case, let us examine the meaning of our fathers’ words and find out the truth.” Theodosius: “I do not allow this to happen, for it is necessary to accept them as simple sayings.” Maxim: “Please tell me, what is the difference between simple sayings and sophisticated sayings?” Theodosius: “It is to make a decision as it is and not examine its meaning.” Maxim: “Obviously, you are introducing new and alien regulations to the Church regarding [authoritative] sayings. If, in your opinion, it is not necessary to examine the sayings of the Scriptures and the Fathers, then we will reject all Scripture, both the Old and the New [Testaments]. So I heard the words of David: “Blessed are those who search His testimonies; they will seek Him with all their hearts,” 93 so that no one can find God without searching. And again: “Give me understanding, and I will search for Your law and keep it with all my heart” 94. Thus, research leads to knowledge of the law, and knowledge motivates those worthy to desire to preserve it in the heart through the fulfillment of the holy commandments contained in it. And again: “Wonderful are Your testimonies; therefore my soul has searched them.” 95 Why does The Book of Solomon's Proverbs want us to examine parables, riddles, and dark sayings? 96 Why does the Lord, speaking in parables, want his disciples to understand [them], if he explains the meaning in parables? 97 Why does he command: “Search the Scriptures, as they testify of Me?” 98 Why does the head of the apostles Peter want to teach, speaking about the salvation that the prophets searched and sought? 99 Why does the divine Apostle Paul say: “If our gospel is hidden, it is closed to those who are perishing, whose God of this age has blinded the eyes of their understanding, so that the light of the knowledge of Christ should not shine upon them” 100 . It seems that you want to liken us to the Jews, who with simple words, as you say, that is, with just the letter, having filled their minds with rubbish, have fallen from the truth, having a veil over their hearts, so that they do not understand the Lord the Spirit, covered by the letter, as [the apostle] says: “The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.” Let my lord make sure that I will not allow a saying to be accepted without the meaning it contains, lest I become clearly a Jew.” And Theodosius: “We must speak about one hypostatic action of Christ.” Maxim: “Let us consider the evil that is born from here, and let us avoid this alien expression, for it belongs only to heretics, polytheists. After all, if we are talking about one hypostatic action of Christ, and the Son differs from the Father and the Spirit in hypostasis, and therefore also in hypostatic action, then we are forced to assign hypostatic actions to both the Son and the Father and the Spirit. But [in this case], in your opinion, the blessed Deity will have four actions: three, defining the Persons in which it exists, and one common, denoting the community in nature of the three Hypostases. And therefore, according to the fathers, if, of course, we accept their teaching, we will be subject to the disease of quadrtheism, for they declare every action to be natural, and not hypostatic. And if this is true, as it really is, then we will find ourselves speaking of four natures and four gods differing from each other both in hypostasis and in nature. Moreover, who can express in words or imagine in the mind a certain isolated action that is subsumed under any species and is by nature under the general definition of the species? After all, what is a general [property of objects] by nature is never a property of only something individual, for hypostatic characteristics, for example, a long or short nose, clear eyes, baldness and all that, are random properties that serve as the definition of objects that differ from each other in number. Thus, every person has the property of acting as something existing by nature [universal to humanity], and not as someone by hypostasis, according to that particular and general category that is represented in the mind and expressed in words. For example, the rational animal mortal refers to the general generic property of us, for we all participate in the same life, and the same rationality, and the same birth and death, also sitting and standing, speaking and silence, seeing, hearing, touching - in a word, it refers to the general concept of us, comprehended by thought. So, one should not innovate an expression that does not correspond either to Scripture, or to the fathers, or nature, but it must be considered alien and invented through the corruption [of people]. However, show me this expression from any father, and then we will again explore its meaning.” Theodosius: “What? Is it not at all fitting to speak of Christ as “one action”?” Maxim: “From Holy Scripture and the Holy Fathers we are not authorized to say anything of the kind, but we are commanded to believe and confess both the two natures in Christ, of which He is, and His [two] natural wills and [two] actions, simultaneous and corresponding to Him, as being by nature together God and man.” Theodosius: “So we also confess both natures and various actions, that is, both divine and human - and His Divinity [confess] as willing, and His humanity [confess] as willing, since His soul was not without will. But we don’t say “two,” so as not to represent Him as being at odds with Himself.” Maxim: “But do you imagine that when you say “two natures,” they are at war because of their number?” Maxim: “What? When number is used about natures, then it divides, but when it is spoken about wills and actions, it cannot divide?” Theodosius: “Without a doubt, in this case [also] produces division, and therefore the fathers, speaking about wills and actions, did not use numbers, avoiding division, but [said] other and other, divine and human, double, twofold. And as they spoke, so do I speak, and as they spoke, so do I speak.” Maxim: “For God’s sake, if someone tells you “one and another,” how much do you understand? Or “divine and human”, how much do you mean? Or “double and double,” how much do you mean?” Theodosius: “I know how to understand, but I don’t say two.” Then Abba Maxim, turning to the dignitaries, asked: “For the sake of the Lord [say]: if you hear one and one [action], or another and another, or twice two, or twice five, what do you mean, what will you answer to those who speak?” And they said: “Since you conjure us, then [we will answer that] by one and one [action] we mean two, and by another and another we mean two, and by twice two we mean four, and by twice five we mean ten.” And as if ashamed of their answer, Theodosius said: “What the fathers did not say, [that] I do not say.” But Abba Maximus, immediately taking the book of the Acts of the Holy Apostolic Council in Rome 102, showed [the statements of] the fathers, clearly speaking about the two wills and actions of our Savior and God Jesus Christ. Taking this book from him, consul Theodosius read all the sayings of the holy fathers. And then Bishop Theodosius said in response: “God knows, if this council had not anathematized famous persons, I would have accepted it more than any other person. But in order not to waste time here, if the fathers said anything, I say and immediately put it in writing: two natures, and two wills, and two actions: just enter into communion with us, and let there be unity.” Maxim: “Vladyka, I do not dare to accept written consent from you regarding the subject, being a simple monk, but since God inspired you to accept the sayings of the holy fathers. as [this] is required by the canon, then send [news] in writing about this to the Roman primate, that is, the king, the patriarch and his synod. Without this, I will not enter into fellowship while persons subject to anathema are mentioned at the holy offering [at the Eucharist], for I am afraid of the condemnation of anathema.” Theodosius: “God knows, neither I nor anyone else condemns you for this fear. But give us advice, for God’s sake, how this can be accomplished.” The saint says to him: “What advice can I give you regarding this? Go, find out if anything like this ever happened and if anyone was resolved after death from accusations regarding faith [and from the condemnation declared on him], and let both the king and the patriarch agree to imitate the condescension of God and draw up: one (the emperor) is a petitionary order, and the other (the patriarch) is a conciliar petition to the Pope. And of course, if there is an ecclesiastical example of this that allows this for the sake of the right profession of faith, I will agree with you on this.” And Theodosius: “This, without a doubt, will happen. But give me your word that if they send me, then you will go with me” 103. Saint Maximus said: “Lord! It will be more useful for you to take with you my fellow servant who is in Mesimvria than me, for he also knows the language [Latin], and everyone honors him worthily, as he has been punished for so many years for God and the right faith, which is held on the throne of Rome.” And Theodosius says: “We had various clashes with each other, and it is unpleasant for me to go with him.” Saint Maximus said: “Lord! If it pleases [you], let your desire be fulfilled, and when you order, I will follow with you.” And at the same time everyone stood up with joy and tears, bowed, and there was prayer. And each of them kissed the holy Gospels, the honorable cross, the icon of our God and Savior Jesus Christ and our Lady who gave birth to him. The Blessed Virgin Mary, placing her hands in confirmation of what was said. Then, after talking a little with each other about living a godly life and fulfilling the divine commandments, Theodosius [bishop] turned to Abba Maxim and said: “All temptations have been eliminated, and peace has come with the help of God, and there will be peace. But for the sake of the Lord, do not hide from me: will you in no way express yourself regarding one will and one action in Christ? Maxim: “It is never acceptable for me to say this. And I express the reason: since this saying is alien to the holy fathers - [to call] one will and [one] action of two [different] natures. And then: the one who says this encounters all sorts of other absurdities. Firstly: if I say “natural” in relation to one will or one action, I am afraid of a merger. Secondly: if I say “hypostasis,” I will separate the Son from the Father and the Spirit and find myself introducing three wills that do not coincide with each other, as well as hypostases. Thirdly: if I name one will and [one] action as one [of the persons of the Holy Trinity], then I will be forced to name, even if I did not want, both one will and [one] action and, as one, the Father and, as one, the Spirit - and it turns out that our reasoning will lead to polytheism. Fourthly: if I speak about [one] relative [will] 104, then I will introduce the division of persons [in Christ] of Nestorius. Fifthly: if I call the will “against nature,” then I will destroy the existence of the willer, for what is against nature leads to its destruction, “as the fathers say.” Theodosius: “Without any doubt, we must speak of the one will of our Savior because of the unity [of natures], as, in my opinion, Pyrrhus and Sergius wrote, having thought it out well.” Maxim: “With your permission, sir, I will say a few words about this. If, due to unity, the will of God and our Savior became one, as Pyrrhus, Sergius and Paul wrote, then, firstly, the Son will, according to them, be different from the Father, who has one will with the Son by nature, and not by unity, unless, of course, unity and nature are one and the same. Secondly: if, due to unity, one, in their opinion, the will of our Savior became, then it will have its cause, of course, unity, and not one or the other of the natures from which He is - and the will will obviously belong, according to their teaching, to relation, and not to nature, for true teaching knows nature, and not relation 105. Third: if because of unity, as they said, one will of our Savior arose, then by what will, in their opinion, was unity itself brought into being? After all, they, of course, will not say, caring for the truth and avoiding absurdity, that [it arose thanks to the will] that appeared due to this unity. Fourth: if due to the unity one will of the Savior arose, then it is obvious that before the unity He was either many-willed or completely weak-willed. And if he was many-willed, then, having been reduced to one will, he suffered a decrease in many [wills] and clearly underwent a state of change - a decrease in the many wills naturally inherent in Him. And if He was completely without will, then He showed unity to those above nature, for from unity He received a will that was absent in nature, and also appeared changeable, acquiring thanks to attitude that which is not inherent in Him by nature. Fifth: if, by reason of unity, the one will of our Savior arose, in accordance with each nature of which He is, then, thanks to the will, He became a created God, Who, by reason of the unity, remained by nature eternal, and thanks to the will He became a beginningless man, 106 remaining by nature created, which is impossible, not to say impious. Sixth: if due to unity one will of [two] natures arose, then why, for the same reason, did not one nature arise from [two] natures? Interrupting the flow of speech [of Saint Maximus] at this point, Bishop Theodosius said: “What, then, arose due to unity, if nothing of the kind arose thanks to it?” Maxim: “It (unity) revealed that the incorporeal one did not falsely become incarnate - He who by nature is God and the Creator of all things was clearly represented as having become by nature a man, not by changing nature or reducing anything belonging to nature, but by the true perception of an intelligent and animate flesh, that is, without the shortcomings of humanity, pure by nature from any ancestral guilt 107. And on the basis of the mutual communion [of deity with humanity] - which is truly amazing and amazing for everyone - [the unity of deity and humanity in Christ revealed] the same God who is perfect in humanity, who remains entirely in his [human] properties, and the same man who is perfect in divinity, who remains entirely in his [divine] properties. Because of unity, it was precisely the interpenetration of natures into each other and their inherent natural properties that arose, according to the teachings of our God-speaking fathers, but not change or transformation, 108 which is characteristic of those who maliciously transform unity into fusion and, as a result, indulge in diverse innovations and, due to the lack of firmness of their reason, are persecuted.” Having heard this, Bishop Theodosius and the rest of those who arrived with him seemed to accept these words. And again the same bishop said to the saint: “Create love, tell us: what does it mean that no one acts as someone by hypostasis, but as something by nature, for I did not understand these words, and they confuse me.” Maxim: “No one acts as someone by hypostasis, but as something by nature. For example: Peter and Paul act, but not “in the Petrine” and “Pavlovian” way, but in a human way, for both of them are people by their nature and by the general definition of nature, and not hypostatically according to individual personal qualities. Michael and Gabriel act in the same way, not “in the Michael way” and “in the Gabriel way,” but in the angelic way, for both of them are angels. And thus, in every nature, determined by a many number [of individuals], we contemplate a general, and not a single action. So, whoever speaks of hypostatic action imagines the very nature, which is one, to be infinite in its actions and the multitude of individuals included in it, and also [thinks of it] as different from itself. And if we recognize this as true, then together with the [essential] principle of all nature we will destroy the image of being in it” 109. After these words, while kissing them [each other], he said Theodosius consul: “Well, everything happened perfectly, but will the king agree to make an intercessory order?” The saint says: “Of course, he will do it if he wishes to be an imitator of Christ and endure humiliation with Him for the sake of the salvation common to all of us. He must bear in mind that if God, being a Savior by nature, did not save until he was subjected to voluntary humiliation, then how can a person, being by nature saved, be saved or saved without being subjected to humiliation? And Theodosius the consul says: “I hope, with God preserving my memory, I will tell him this speech, and he will agree.” And at the same time, having kissed each other, they departed in peace. The bishop gave Abba Maxim some money sent to him, a [monastic] surplice, and outer clothing. After their departure, on the eighth day of September of the present fifteenth indictment, the consul Paul again arrived in Visium to Saint Maximus, bringing an order that had the following content: “We command your glory to come to Visia and bring Maximus the monk with great honor and care, both because of [his] old age and weakness, and because he is from our ancestors 110, and he was [with them] in honor. And place it in the pious monastery of St. Theodore, located in Regia 111. And come and inform us. And we will send [to him] on our behalf two patricians who must convey to him our desire, who love us spiritually and are loved by us.” So, having brought the monk and placed him in the named monastery, this same consul went to notify [the king]. And the next day the patricians Epiphanius and Troilus came out to him with a large retinue and pomp, as well as Bishop Theodosius, and came to him in the catechumenate 112 of the church of this monastery. Having made the usual greeting, they sat down, forcing him to sit down too. And starting to speak to him, Troilus said: “The Lord of the universe commanded us to come to you and express to you the will of His God-protected Sovereignty. But first tell us, will you fulfill the king’s order or not?” The saint says: “Lord, I will listen to what His Pious Sovereignty has commanded, and [then] I will respond appropriately, since what answer can I give to something unknown to me?” Troilus insisted, saying: “I do not allow us to say anything unless you first say whether you will carry out or will not carry out the king’s orders.” And so, when the saint saw that they insisted even more on his slowness and looked more fiercely and answered more rudely, together with everyone who was with them, who were proud of worldly virtues, he said in response: “If you do not allow your servant to say what is pleasing to our lord and king, then here I am speaking before the listening God and the holy angels and all of you: whatever he commands me about any object that is destroyed and perishes along with this century, I will do it willingly.” Then Troilus immediately stood up and said: “Pray for me, I am leaving, for this [man] does nothing.” And since there was a very great disorder and great confusion and confusion, Bishop Theodosius said to them: “Tell him [the king’s] message and find out what he will say, since it is unwise to leave without saying or hearing anything.” Epiphanius Patricius said: “This is what the king announces to you through us, saying: since the whole East and West are corrupted by looking at you, and everyone rebels for your sake, not wanting to agree [with us] in the faith, then may God prompt you to enter into communication with us by accepting what we have published, the “Typos” - and we will personally go out to Halqa, and kiss you and give you our right hand, and with all honor and glory we will bring you into The Great Church, and together with us we will set up in the place where, according to custom, kings stand, and we will create a meeting together, and we will partake together of the most pure and life-giving Mysteries of the life-giving Body and Blood of Christ, and we will declare you our father - and there will be joy not only in our royal city, but throughout the entire universe, for we know for sure that when you enter into communion with the holy throne here, then everyone will unite with us, for your sake and your teachings are rejected from communication with us.” And, turning to the bishop, Saint Maximus said with tears: “Great sir, we are all awaiting the day of judgment - you know about what has been decreed and decided upon the holy Gospels and the Life-giving Cross and the icon of God and our Savior and the Most Pure Mother of God and the Ever-Virgin Mary who gave birth to him.” 113 And, lowering his face, the bishop said to him in the quietest voice: “But what can I do when something else has been decided upon by the most pious king.” And the saint said to him: “But why did you and those who were with you touch the Holy Gospels, if the fulfillment of what was said was not in your power? Truly, all the power of heaven will not force me to do this, for what would I answer, I do not say to God, but to my conscience, if for the sake of human glory, which in itself does not exist, I renounced the faith that saves those who love it? At these words, everyone stood up, a strong rage took possession of them, and they subjected him to pinches, blows and pushes, from head to toe, covering him with numerous and stinking spits, until they wet the clothes in which he was dressed. Then the bishop stood up and said: “This should not be done, but you should only listen to his answer and go and tell our good lord, for canonical matters are carried out in a different way.” And with difficulty the bishop persuaded them to calm down, and they sat down again, subjecting him to numerous insults and curses. Then Epiphanius, with great anger and rage and rudeness, says: “Answer, worst city devourer, considering us to be heretics, both our city and the king, did you say these words? In fact, we are more Christian than you and confess that our Lord and God has both a divine will and a human will, as well as a rational soul; and that every rational nature has both will and action, which originate in it, since movement is a property of life, and will is a property of the mind. And as those who lead we know Him not only by Divinity, but also by His humanity, and we do not deny His two wills and [two] actions.” In response, the servant of God said: “If you believe as much as the spiritual-intelligent natures (angels) and the Church of Christ, then why do you force me to enter into communion [with you] under the condition [of my acceptance], “Typos,” containing [in itself] only the denial of what you have confessed?” And Epiphanius said: “For the sake of the order [of church affairs], this was done so that there would be no harm to the people from these subtle theological reasonings.” In response, the saint said: “On the contrary, every person is sanctified through an accurate confession of faith, and not through the denial contained in the Typos.” And Troilus said: “In the palace I already told you that the Typos does not deny the statement about the two wills and actions of Christ, but ordered silence so that we all could calm down.” Saint Maximus said: “Silence of words is their denial, for through the prophet the Holy Spirit speaks: “Speech is not the essence, lower than words, and their voices are not heard 114.” Therefore, the unspoken word does not exist at all.” And Troilus said: “Have it in your heart as you wish, no one will forbid you.” Saint Maximus said: “But God did not limit all salvation to the heart, saying: whoever does not confess Me before men, neither will I confess him before My Father who is in heaven 115 . And the divine apostle teaches, saying: “With the heart one believes for righteousness, and with the mouth one confesses for salvation.” 116 So, if God, and the prophets, and the apostles of God command to confess the mystery in holy words - [a secret] great and terrible and saving for the whole world, then there is no need in any way to silence the word preaching it, so that there is no harm to the salvation of those who are silent.” Epiphanius said angrily: “Have you signed your name in the book?” 117 The saint replied: “Yes, I signed up.” Epiphanius: “And how dare you subscribe and anathematize those who confess and believe, as the rational natures (angels) and the Catholic Church [profess]? Believe me, according to my judgment, we will bring you into the city, put you bound in the square and bring actors and actresses, corrupt harlots and all the people, so that each and every one will hit and spit in your face.” In response to this, the saint of God said: “As you said, so be it, if we anathematize those who profess [two] natures, of which the Lord is, and two natural wills and [two] actions corresponding to Him as true God by nature and man. Read, lord, the deeds and the book, and if you find, as you say, do what you want, for I and my fellow servants and all who signed, have anathematized those who recognize, according to Arius and Apollinaris, one will and one action [and] those who do not confess our Lord and God in accordance with each [nature], of which, in which and which He is by nature rational and therefore, according to both [natures], leading and acting for our salvation." During these words of the saint, they said to each other: “If we go into reasoning with him, we will be left without food and drink, but we will get up, have breakfast and go - say what we heard, for this [man] sold himself to Satan.” And, getting up, they had breakfast and left with anger, and went to announce to the king on the eve of the Exaltation of the Honest and Life-Giving Cross. And the next day (at dawn) Theodosius the consul came out to Saint Maximus and took from him everything that he had, telling him on behalf of the king: "You did not want honor - it was taken away from you. Go to where you yourself condemned yourself to be worthy, together with your condemned disciples - the one in Mesimvria, and the one in Pervera, who was the notary of our blessed grandmother." patricians, Troilus and Epiphanius, said: “Of course we will bring two of your disciples, both those who are in Mesimvria and those who are in Pervera, and we will put them to the test - and we will see how they end up. However, know, Mr. Abba, that although we will receive little harm from the popular unrest, I swear by the Holy Trinity, we will have to join with you both the pope, now arrogant, and all the talkers there 118 and the rest of your students - and we will fuse you all, each one to his proper place, just as Martin was floated.” And having taken the monk, the same consul Theodosius handed him over to the soldiers, and they took him to Silivria 119. And we stayed there for two days. And one of the soldiers came and spread rumors in the fortress, saying that a monk had come here blaspheming the Mother of God. They did this in order to incite troops against Saint Maximus as a blasphemer of the Mother of God. Then, after two days, the warrior returned and took him to the fortress. And, by inspiration from God, the military commander or deputy military commander sent the leaders of the detachments close to him, as well as presbyters and deacons and pious guards of the standard. Seeing them, the saint of God stood up and bowed to them. They also answered him [with a bow] and sat down, [ordering him to sit down too]. And one of them, a very venerable elder, speaks to him with great reverence: “Father, since some have seduced us regarding your holiness, that you do not call our Lady the Most Holy Virgin “Theotokos,” we conjure you by the Holy and Consubstantial and Life-Giving Trinity to tell us the truth and remove this temptation from our hearts, so that we. those who are unjustly tempted, do not suffer harm.” Then, making a bow, the saint stood up and, stretching out his hands to him, said with tears: “Whoever does not recognize our Lady, All-praiseful and Most Holy, Most Pure and Honored by every rational nature, as having become truly by nature the Mother of God, who created heaven and earth and the sea and everything in them, let him be excommunicated and cursed from the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Consubstantial and Superessential Trinity, and all the heavenly Power, and the face of the holy apostles and prophets, and the countless host of holy martyrs, - and every spirit perfected in righteousness now and ever and to the endless ages of ages, amen.” Having heard this with great benefit for themselves and filled with reverence for this man, they prayed for him with tears, saying: “May God strengthen you, father, and may He make you worthy to complete this path without hindrance.” After these words, many soldiers gathered, and after listening to many wonderful words spoken, all those who came received great benefit. But one of the commander’s servants, seeing that a large army was gathering and was being edified and condemned by what was happening [to him], thinking God knows what, ordered to seize him and remove him two miles from the fortress, until those who were supposed to accompany him to Viziya had gathered and arrived. However, moved by divine love, the clergy walked two miles and came and greeted him. Then, having prayed for him and taken him with their own hands, they laid him on the animal and returned in peace to their places, and the saint was taken to his former place of imprisonment. And here’s what you need to know: in Regia, Troilus brought such an accusation against Abba Maximus that the consiliary (adviser) John wrote to him (Troilus) about the agreement they were supposed to have and that the outrage of your disciples then prevented it from being realized. But I think that the said consiliary John wrote not to Troilus, but to Menna the monk, and he told the courtiers. After all the oppression and refutations, those in power were unable to deviate him from the right faith, they, unable to bear the shame, after a short time again brought both the holy elder and his two disciples to Constantinople. Here, after many tortures and cruel tortures, the king 120 judged them (what did they have to endure?) and after anathematizing and cursing them, he handed them over to their superiors, saying this: “Oh Maxim! You, having clothed yourself in the dark robe of national curses, indulged in your favorite rebellion of Gehenna and shied away from canonical obedience to the illustrious and co-governing, honest and sacred Senate that helps us, who immediately after us will accept judgment and carry out punishment on you in accordance with political laws, as they determine, for such blasphemies and self-will of yours.” Then the judges, having taken them, pronounced the following sentence: “Since the present synod, with the assistance of the Almighty Christ our true God, canonically determined what is due against you, Maximus, Anastasius and Anastasius, - after all, duty required you to be subjected to more severe legal punishments according to your words and deeds - although you in this life will not receive a worthy [retribution] for such your crimes and blasphemies, - presenting you for the highest punishment to the Righteous Judge and thereby carrying out the exact fulfillment of the laws, since life is left to you, - We command the most glorious prefect present with us to immediately take you to his mayor’s praetorium, beat you on the back with sinews, and cut off your blasphemous tongues from the inside; then the crooked hands that served your blasphemous mind will be cut off with the sword and led with the removal of the most vile members, bypassing the twelve parts of this ruling city, and then exile you to permanent imprisonment, and, moreover, under constant guard in the country of Lazik, so that throughout your life you will mourn your blasphemous errors, with the curse that you invented on us being turned to yours. heads." Then the prefect, having taken them and subjected them to punishment, cut off their tongues and their honest hands and, having led them throughout the city, according to the order of the tyrant, sent these true confessors and martyrs of Christ to Lazica. While this was happening, Agathon, after the exile of St. Martin, received the high priesthood in Rome. He, driven by zeal for God, himself convened a sacred council and rejected the Monothelite heresy, declaring two wills and [two] actions 121. Divine fair and punitive justice sent the king, who had committed so many terrible deeds, to Syracuse in Sicily. The reason is this. After the murder of his brother Theodosius, he also aroused hatred of himself among the Byzantines because after many tortures he exiled Martin, the most holy Pope of Rome, to the borders of Cherson, and cut off the hands of the most wise and most orthodox Maximus, together with his disciples, and cut out the tongues because they did not recognize his heresy. It was for this reason that he was greatly hated by everyone, he became frightened and set out to transfer the kingdom to Rome. The Senate, having learned about this, prevented him from taking his wife and children. And he, having arrived in Sicily, stayed there for six years, because the Romans did not accept him as a heretic. While in this position, one day he entered the bathhouse called "Daphne". One of his servants, the son of Troilus, named Andrew, entered with him. When he began to rub himself with soap, Andrei, taking the gang, hit him on the head, and [the emperor] immediately gave up the ghost. And since he remained in the bathhouse for a long time, those outside ran in and found him dead. Having buried him, Mizizon the Armenian was made king, forcing him: he was very decent and handsome 122. Constantine, having heard about the death of his father, arrived in Sicily with a large fleet and, seizing Mizizon, killed him along with the murderers of his father and, having arranged Western affairs, returned to Constantinople and reigned together with Tiberius and Heraclius, his brothers. He, having convened an ecumenical council, proclaims two wills and [two] actions [in Christ], and anathematized those who thought or spoke contrary to this. But this [was] after 123. At the same time, the great martyr Maximus was sent into exile, 124 as Anastasius, presbyter and apocrisarius of ancient Rome, writes to Theodosius the presbyter, who lived in the holy city: “When they reached the country of the Christ-loving Laz, they immediately divided them from each other (the great Maxim himself and this one who writes this, and his namesake, but they did this) by order of the local commander, plundering all their property, so that absolutely nothing remained of what they had acquired from the Christ-loving people for necessary needs. And that divine man, I mean Saint Maximus, who could not sit on either a donkey or a stretcher, as he lay in a state of relaxation, was woven from twigs like a basket and placed in it, carried along the journey and left in a fortress called Schiomaris, located near the people called Alans. And the lord Abba Anastasius and the one who writes this, having mounted horses, they sent and imprisoned - one in a fortress called Skotoris, near Avasgia, and the other in a fortress called Bukolus, within the boundaries of the said Alans. Then, a few days later, they took him and blessed Anastasius from the named fortresses, and sent him to the fortress [of the country] called Suanis 125, already finally half-dead from the many tortures and torments to which he was subjected in Byzantium, as well as from the troubles and oppressions to which they were subjected here. Therefore, in the middle of the journey, as some say, he betrayed his blessed soul to God. I testify in this way that around the twenty-second or twenty-fourth day of July, blessed Anastasius rested in the Lord. For on the eighteenth day of the same month of July, we were both brought to a place called Mukorisin, and that blessed one was already, as I said, half dead, and from that time I never saw him, since they were immediately sent: he to the fortress [of the country] of Suani, and I to the fortress of [the country] called Thakuria, near Avasgia. The martyr of Christ, Saint Maximus, as they say, while under guard in the fortress to which he was taken, was rewarded with a miraculous vision that came to him from God. And calling some of those there, he told them that on the thirteenth day of August, the month of the present fifth indictment, on the seventh day of the week, the Lord would receive me - which is what happened. So, on the thirteenth day of August, on the seventh day of the week, according to his prophecy, by the favor of God, having been a little ill, he gave up his soul into the hands of God, rejoicing and having fun. And he was buried in a monastery called [the monastery] of St. Arsenius. Immediately, during the burial of his sacred and many-victorious body, three lights appeared from above on his grave, shining like unquenchable lamps, which to this day are seen by everyone, shining incessantly and bringing into great surprise those looking and hearing about such an extraordinary sight - to the glory of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, the one and indivisible Divinity, to whom all glory belongs now and ever. 126 The reign of Emperor Heraclius was 610–641, and Sergius was Patriarch of Constantinople from 610–638. Heraclius's struggle with the Persians was long and stubborn. Initially, the war was unsuccessful for the Byzantines: the Persians occupied Syria and Cilicia, crossed Asia Minor and reached the Bosporus. At the same time, in 614, Jerusalem was captured, and Christian shrines were robbed and destroyed. The invaders took the Cross of the Lord and church treasures to Persia, and among the many captives was the Patriarch of Jerusalem Zechariah. In 619, the Persians also captured Egypt. But in 622, Heraclius, having reorganized the army, went on the offensive, and several of his campaigns ended with the final defeat of the Persians in 628 (see: Kulakovsky Yu. History of Byzantium. T. GII. Kyiv, 1915, pp. 33–120; History of Byzantium. T. 1. M., 1967, p. 365–366). Heraclius attached deep religious significance to the fight against the Persians. Going to war, he took with him particles of the “life-giving Cross,” and the emperor’s army was accompanied everywhere by the image of the “miraculous Savior” (see: Grabar A. L’iconoclasme byzantin. Dossier archeologique. P., 1957, pp. 26–32; Moorhead J. Iconoclasm, the Cross and the Imperial Image. - Byzantion. 1985, t. 55, p. 174). The author of the Life refers to the Old Testament story about the Jewish king Hezekiah in 2 Kings. 20:1–11. Here the author widely uses, from the first centuries of Christianity, the widespread idea of ​​Christians as the “soul of the world.” It is clearly expressed, for example, in the “Epistle to Diognetus” (c. 130–140), which says: “As the soul is in the body, so are Christians in the world. The soul is spread throughout all members of the body, and Christians are spread throughout all the cities of the world. Although the soul dwells in the body, it is not of the body, and Christians live in the world, but are not of the world.” This idea reflects the Christocentrism of the worldview, which is a stable leitmotif in many works of Christian literature (see: Minnerath R. Les chretiens et le monde (Ier et IIe siecles). P., 1973, pp. 28–32). According to Anastasius Sinaita, the meeting took place in Antioch in 631. Athanasius arrived for negotiations with the emperor, accompanied by twelve bishops. According to Syrian sources, the negotiations ended in vain due to the intransigence of the Monophysite side (see: Histoire de l’Eglise depuis les origines jusqu’a nos jours. T. 5. P., 1938, pp. 115–116). Athanasius was already the Patriarch of Antioch, but the Jacobite Patriarch (“Jacobites” were the Syrian Monophysites). However, the fact is that at the Antioch department in the period 609–639. the Orthodox patriarch was absent. Thus, with the success of the union, Athanasius became the sole head of the Syrian Christians (see: Murphy F.-X., Scherwood P. Constantinople II et Constantinople III - Histoire des conciles oecumeniques T 3 P. 1973, p. 149). Here the author of the Life is either biased or ill-informed. The doctrine of one “will” and “energy” of Christ was an organic part of the Monophysite doctrine, which was most fully developed in the writings of Severus of Antioch. Probably only the Armenian Monophysites did not adhere to this doctrine (see: Sidorov A.I. “Monothelitian” union on the testimony of the “Narration of Armenian Affairs.” - Historical and Philological Journal. Yerevan, 1988, No. 3, pp. 162–170). Among some Orthodox theologians of the late 6th - early 7th centuries. the concept of the “single energy (day)” of Christ also became widespread. An example of this is Bishop Theodore of Faran, the first ideologist of monothelitism. It was on this tendency, bringing together Orthodox and Monothelites, that Sergius of Constantinople relied, from the very beginning of his patriarchate he conceived the union, and then began to actively implement it. Emperor Heraclius actively assisted the patriarch in this (see: Sidorov A.I. History of monothelist disputes in the depiction of Anastasius Sinaita and Pseudo-Anastasius Sinaita. - Byzantine Temporary. 1989, vol. 50, p. 93–105). Heraclius negotiated a union with Cyrus much earlier - in 626, when during one of his eastern campaigns he ended up in Lazika (see: Histoire de I'Eglise, t. 5, p. 114). Later (631) Cyrus became Patriarch of Alexandria and achieved a union with the Egyptian Monophysites (633). That Sergius was a Syrian and his parents belonged to the Monophysite church is an undoubted historical fact (see: Van Dieten J. L. Geschichte der Patriarchen von Sergios I bis Johannes VI (610–715). Amsterdam, 19712; p. 1). Historical inaccuracy: the pontificate of Pope John IV, who condemned monothelitism, occurs at a later date (640–6 42). At the time of the events narrated, Honorius I (625–638) was pope. At the end of 633 - beginning of 634, Patriarch Sergius sent him an official message calling on him to join the union. Honorius responded to Sergius with two messages in which he recognized the Monothelite teaching as orthodox (see: Grumel V. Les gestes des actses du patriarcat de Constantinople. Vol. 1. Istanbul, 1932, p. 117; Kreuzer G. Die Honoriusfrage in Mittelalter und in der Neuzeit. Stuttgart, 1975, pp. 12–57). Sophronius (550–639) was the most educated man of his time and enjoyed great authority in the then Christian world. He had a long-standing friendship with Maxim the Confessor, and there is reason to believe that he was Maxim’s spiritual father (see: Sidorov A.I. Some comments on the biography of Maxim the Confessor. - Byzantine Vremnik. 1986, vol. 47, pp. 116–1 18). While still a monk, Sophronius actively opposed the unionist measures of Sergius of Constantinople. Having become the Patriarch of Rusalim at the beginning of 634, Sophrony sent his “Conciliar Epistle” to Patriarch Sergius and Pope Honorius, which sets out the foundations of Orthodox diophelitism and rejects monothelitism. But among the highest hierarchs of the Byzantine church, Sophronius finds himself practically alone - even Arcadius of Cyprus, on whom he had high hopes, refuses to speak out against the union, based on considerations of church politics (see: Schönborn Chr. Sophrone de Jerusalem. Vie monastique et confession dog matiaue. P., 1972, pp. 78–97). We are talking about the “Ektesis” of 638, the authors of which were Sergius of Constantinople (who died soon) and Abbot Pyrrhus (the future patriarch). By prohibiting disputes about “actions” in Christ, this official document legitimized the doctrine of the “one will” in Christ (see: Murhy F.-X., Scherwood P. Constantinople ΙI et Constantinople III, p. 164). A common polemical technique of the Monophysites was to call the Orthodox “Nestorians.” Pyrrhus was patriarch (with a break) from December 20, 638 to September 29, 641 and from January 8, 654 to June 1, 654). Immediately after his enthronement, he issued a dogmatic decree confirming the provisions of the “Ektesis” (see: Grumel V. Les regestes des actes du patriarcat, pp. 118–1 19; Stratos A. N. Studies in 7th Century Byzantine Political History. L., 1983; VIII, pp. 11–19). Heraclius was married twice: from his first marriage he had a daughter, Evdokia II, son of Constantine. After the death of his wife, Irakli married his own niece Martina, who bore him nine children (four of them died at an early age). One of the sons from his marriage to Martina went down in history with the name “Heraklon”. As Kulakovsky says, “an incestuous marriage with Martina brought serious complications that darkened the last years of Irakli’s life, and caused a bloody coup after his death” (see: Kulakovsky Yu. History of Byzantium, vol. III, pp. 29–31). After the death of Heraclius on February 11, 641, royal power, according to his will, went to Constantine III (the son from his first marriage, who was 26 years old) and Heraklon (he was 15 years old), who became co-rulers. But Constantine III, suffering from a serious illness, died three months later. Heraklon became the sole sovereign, and in fact all affairs were run by Martina, whose closest associate was Patriarch Pyrrhus. However, the population of Constantinople hated Martina; the Senate aristocracy, the military elite and the Orthodox clergy stood in opposition to her. This led to the fact that at the end of September 641, Heraklon and Martina were deposed (her tongue was torn out, and his nose was cut off) and exiled to the island of Rhodes. The son of Constantine III, Constant II, became emperor (see: Ostrogorsky G. History of the Byzantine State. Oxf, 1956, pp. 100–102). Constans II reigned from 641 to 666, and Paul II was patriarch from 641 to 653. From its very origins, “Christianity contrasted the ancient cult of the word with the ideal of a concrete everyday matter... Early Christianity contrasted the simple wisdom of life, which grew in the depths of consciousness of the disadvantaged part of the population of the Roman Empire and enshrined in a number of biblical texts, with the sophisticated art of late antique philosophizing; philosophy of deeds - philosophy of words" (Bychkov V.V. Aesthetics of Late Antiquity. M., 1981, p. 92). But starting with the Greek apologists of the 2nd century. Christian doctrine already acts as the only “true philosophy”, organically combining the aspects of “theory” and “practice”. This tendency runs as a leitmotif in many of the works of Maximus the Confessor, whose entire ideological system is based on the synthesis of “knowledge” and “doing” (see: Balthasar H. U. Kosmische Liturgie. Maximus der Bekenner: Höhe und Krise des griechischen Weltbildes. Freiburg, 1941, pp. 336–340). In the hagiographic tradition, the position held by Maximus the Confessor is designated differently. But it is assumed that he was the first secretary of the emperor (see: Lackner W. Der Amtstitel Maximos des Bekenners – Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik. 1971, Bd. 20, pp. 63–66). Orthodox writers considered Monothelitism a new variety of Monophysitism. Some modern researchers are inclined to consider this heresy as “semi-dyophysitism and semi-monophysitism” (see: Iugie M. Theologia dogmatica Christianorum orientalium ab Ecclesia Catholica dissidentium. T.V.P., 1935, p. 449). Narthex is the outer courtyard or vestibule of a church. In the narthex of the church of St. Official orders of the authorities were exhibited in Sofia in Constantinople, including the “Ektesis” exhibited there. Historical inaccuracy: Maxim the Confessor was never an abbot, but remained a simple monk all his life. In general, there are many ambiguities regarding the early and mature periods of his life. According to the Syrian biography of Maximus the Confessor, from an early age he was brought up in one of the Palestinian monasteries (“Ancient Lavra”). The appearance of this new source, most likely containing a lot of reliable factual material, forces us to reconsider the traditional image of Maximus that has developed in the Greek hagiographic tradition (see our article “Some remarks on the biography of Maximus the Confessor” indicated in note 12). However, so far the enormous analytical work of bringing together all the evidence about the life of Maximus the Confessor has not yet been done. The true facts of his biography and their chronology are shrouded in a thick fog of historical ignorance. We can only be content with the speculative hypotheses of scientists. One of them, P. Sherwood, believes that Maximus stayed in the Chrysopolis monastery from 613/614 to 624/625 and then moved to the monastery of St. George in Cyzicus (see: Scherwood P. An Annotated Date-List of the Works of Maximus the Confessor. Roma, 1952, pp. 2–3). Another researcher, J. M. Garrigues, relying on evidence from Syrian biography, suggests that Maximus left Palestine during the Persian invasion in 614 and may have settled in Cyzicus. Here Anastasius, who had great connections with the Constantinople aristocracy, became his student in 617, and through him Maxim came into contact with the imperial court, establishing friendships with some of the highest Byzantine officials. Soon Maximus found himself in the Chrysopolis monastery (opposite Constantinople, on the eastern shore of the Bosporus) and remained here until about 626 (see: Garrigues J.-M. La Personne composee du Christ d’apres sairtt Maxime le Confesseur. - Revue Thomiste. 1974, t. 74, pp. 181–184). P. Sherwood points out that Maxim the Confessor, having left the monastery of St. George, took a trip to North Africa (with long stops in Cyprus and Crete), where he ended up in 628–630. From Africa in 646 Maxim1 left for Rome (see: Scherwood P. An Annotated Date-List, f. 5–18). But perhaps, before Africa, Maxim also visited Palestine, where he became close to Sophronius. In any case, it is very likely that he was in Rome twice: under Pope John IV (640–642), and then under Pope Martin (see further narrative). Theodore was pope from 642–649. The dispute with the ex-patriarch Pyrrhus took place in 646. A shorthand recording of it has been preserved, included in the collected works of Maximus the Confessor. Martin, a former Roman apocrisiary in Constantinople, was removed and ordained in 649, without the approval of Emperor Constans II (see: Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte. Bd. II, 1. Freiburg, 1976, p. 212). We are talking about the Lateran Council of 649; it was attended by 105 bishops (almost all Western) and 37 Greek monks (see: Sieben H. I. Die Konzilidee der alten Kirche. Paderborn, 1979, pp. 492–501). It was these religious monks, among whom was Maximus the Confessor, who determined the dogmatic decisions of the council, although they, of course, were prepared by the previous council under Pope John IV, and by the anti-Monothelitian position of Pope Theodore and Martin himself (see: Caspar E. Die Lateransynode von 649. – Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte. 1931, Bd. 51, pp. 114–118). The acts of the council are preserved in both Greek and Latin; their critical edition was recently carried out by the Austrian scientist R. Riedinger. According to this researcher, the acts of the Lateran Council themselves can be called “the theological work of Maximus the Confessor” (see: Riedinger R. Die Lateransynode von 649 und Maximos der Bekenner. – Maximus Confessor. Actes du Symposium sur Maxime le Confesseur. Friborg, 1982, pp. 111–101). Pope Martin (at that time seriously ill) was arrested in June 653 and brought to Constantinople. In December of the same year, his trial took place, to which the Byzantine government gave a purely political character, accusing the pope of treason. In March 654, Pope Martin was exiled to the Crimea, where he died on September 26, 655. The testimony of a contemporary describing the trial of Martin has been preserved (it was translated into German by H. Rahner; see: Abendländische Kirchenfreiheit. Dokumente über Kirche und Staat im frühen Christentum. Übertragen und eingeleiten von H. Rahner. 1943, pp. 293–294, 306–320). The exact date of the arrest of Maximus the Confessor and his disciples is unknown, but their trial probably took place in 655 (see: Scherwood P. An Annotated Date-List, p. 21). Sacellarius is a kind of “manager of affairs” of the emperor; was in charge of finances and at the same time conducted some legal cases. We are most likely talking about the Carthaginian exarch, who rebelled against the emperor, but soon (6/47) died in a battle with the Arabs (see: Kulrkovsky Yu. History of Byzantium, vol. III, pp. 198–199). A certain prefect Troilus also participated in the trial of Pope Martin. The candidate is an officer serving at court. Primikiriy is the head of a government agency. Given the strong opposition to the "Ectess" on the part of the Orthodox and wanting to pacify the Western churches, Emperor Constans II issued an official dogmatic document called "Typos" (648), which forbade all disputes regarding the "actions" and "wills" in Christ. According to V.V. Bolotov, it represented “a step back in the sense of monothelitism” (see: Bolotov V.V. Lectures on the history of the ancient church. T. 4. Pg., 1918, p. 483). But the half-hearted solution to the problem decreed by this document could not satisfy the warring parties. Therefore, the “Typos” itself became the object of new dogmatic clashes (see: Murphy F.-X.t Scherwood P. Constantinople II et Constantinople III, pp. 171–170). In the era of Christological disputes, the authoritative testimonies of the church fathers acquired great importance. Special collections of them were compiled (the so-called “florilegia”), and each of the warring parties constantly used these testimonies as the most important and indisputable document, and the authority of the patristic tradition was inextricably linked with the authority of Holy Scripture and ecumenical councils. About the dynamic correlation of all these levels of “authority” (to which was also added the authority of worship - “theological mystagogy”) in the worldview of Maximus the Confessor, see: Pelikan J. “Council or Father or Scripture”: The Concept of Authority in the Theology of Maximus Confessor. – The Heritage of the Early Church. Essays in Honor of G. V. Florovsky. Roma, 1973, p. 277–288. We are talking about the Nicene Creed, adopted at the first ecumenical council (325), and then corrected and supplemented at the second ecumenical council in Constantinople (381). Lit.: “speak symbol”; The “Niceno-Constantinopolitan symbol” was pronounced (and is now pronounced) aloud by all Orthodox Christians at every liturgy. Here Maximus the Confessor uses the concept ὀικονομία, which has an extremely wide semantic field. In addition to any theological meanings (for example, “Economy of salvation”) it also had the meaning of “relaxation in any canonical or dogmatic issues for the sake of preserving peace in the church or in the state.” It is this meaning of the term that Maximus the Confessor uses in this place, protesting against the fact that the fundamental tenets of Christian doctrine are sacrificed for the sake of opportunistic political goals. This phrase is not just an ordinary “topos” of anti-Jewish polemics. Relations between Christians and Jews, which had always been quite tense, in the 7th century. acquired a special poignancy. During the invasion of the Persians, the Jews took their side and staged uprisings in the rear of the Byzantine army (for example, the uprising in Antioch). Passions became especially heated in Palestine (where Maxim the Confessor was from and where he lived for a long time, judging by his Syrian biography). Of the 150–200 thousand Jewish population here, 26 thousand joined the Persian army (according to other sources - 36 thousand). During the capture of Jerusalem (613), when 34–90 thousand Christians died, the Jews organized a special fund into which each Jew contributed a certain amount according to his income. With money from this fund, captured Christians were ransomed from the Persians, who were immediately destroyed. But then the Jews came into conflict with the Persians, and in 617 the Persian authorities forbade them to live in Jerusalem. When the Byzantines retook Syria and Palestine, there was a surge in anti-Jewish sentiment. Heraclius himself was alien to any anti-Semitism (he, for example, saved the Jews of Edessa who were sentenced to death by his brother Theodore), but under the pressure of these sentiments, he renewed the decree of Emperor Hadrian of 136, prohibiting Jews from living within a radius of five kilometers from Jerusalem. In 634, Heraclius decreed the forced baptism of Jews. This measure led to sad results: the masses of Jews fled to the Arabs, becoming their natural allies and helpers, and greatly contributed to the success of the Arab conquest of many regions of Byzantium (see: Straios A. N. Byzantium in the Seventh Century. Vol. 1. Amsterdam, 1968 pp. 103–111, 305–307). Here Maxim the Confessor admits some inaccuracy. Emperor Constantine the Great initially tried to reconcile the Orthodox and Arians, considering their disputes an empty argument. Then, immediately before and during the Council of Nicaea, he took the side of the Orthodox and even, according to some sources, was the first to propose introducing the word “consubstantial” into the symbol of faith. After the council, when the anti-Nicene reaction prevailed, Constantine supported it. About all the complex zigzags of the Trinitarian disputes of the 4th century, in which theology and politics were closely intertwined. see: Spassky A. History of dogmatic movements in the era of ecumenical councils. T. 1. Sergiev Posad, 1914, p. 127 ff. On the attitude of Maximus the Confessor to Origenism, see our article “Some remarks on the biography of Maximus the Confessor” (pp. 118–124). Honorific title from κύριος - master and ἀββᾶς - father. Maximus the Confessor refers to the first four ecumenical councils. It is characteristic that he does not mention the fifth ecumenical council, held under Justinian in 55'3 and condemning Origenism and the so-called. "Three chapters." The reasons for Maximus's silence about this council are not entirely clear. Probably because it clearly showed the dictatorship of imperial power over the church, which caused sharp opposition to it in the Latin West. Cyrus, moved from the Phasid see to the Alexandrian see, concluded a union with the Egyptian Monophysites in 633. The dogmatic document on the basis of which this unification was accomplished was the so-called “formula of the union,” consisting of nine chapters and containing an explicit confession of the “single action” in Christ. This “union formula” mixes elements of Orthodoxy and Monophysitism (see: Lebedev A.P. Ecumenical Councils of the VI, VII and VIII centuries. St. Petersburg, 1904, pp. 83–84). However, the union carried out by Cyrus affected only a very small part of the Egyptian Monophysites (mainly Greeks), while the bulk of them, mainly Copts, did not agree to an alliance with the Byzantine church. As a result, Cyrus accepted open persecution and persecution of the rebellious, which, of course, had only negative consequences (see: Hardy E. R. Christian Egypt: Church and People. N. Y., 1952, pp. 185–186). Indict is one of the chronology schemes adopted in Byzantium, covering a period of 15 years (see: E. Bickerman. Chronology of the ancient world. M., 1975, pp. 73–74). Refers to the Lateran Council. The term “mystery” (“mystagogy”) in this case is identical to “divine service.” Maximus the Confessor has a special work called “Mystagogy”, dedicated to the interpretation of the liturgy. Maximus the Confessor refers to the famous biblical narrative in the Book of the Prophet Daniel (chap. 3-6). Shortly before the trial of Maximus the Confessor, a delegation of Pope Eugenius I arrived in Constantinople. Pyrrhus, who was then patriarch for the second time, offered them a new formula for compromise on a controversial dogmatic issue: if we consider Christ as a single hypostasis, then he has one will, and if we consider him in the aspect of two natures, then he has two wills. After the death of Eugene in June 657, his successor, Pope Vitalian, made peace with Constantinople (see: Histoire de l’Eglise, t 5, I 175–176). Here a specific Christological formula is used, characteristic only of Maximus the Confessor, which appears more than once in his works: ἑστίν. It consists of three elements: “of two natures” - an expression inherent in Cyril of Alexandria, “in two natures” - an essential element of the creed of the Council of Chalcedon, and “which are Christ’s - an expression belonging personally to Maximus the Confessor. This formula organically combines fidelity to tradition and innovation - a feature that generally distinguishes the worldview of Maximus the Confessor. In addition, the formula clearly shows the internal coherence of Trinitarian teaching and Christology - an idea constantly pursued by Maximus the Confessor (see: Piret P. Christologie et ibeologk trinitaire diez Maxime le Confesseur d’apres sa formule des natures “des quelles, en lesquelles et lesquelles est le Christ.” – Maximus Confessor. Actes da Symposium, pp. 215–222; Piret P. Le Christ et la Trinite selon Maxime le Confesseur P., 1983, pp. The correlation of “action” (“energy”) with “nature”, and not “person” (“hypostasis”) was one of the main provisions of the Christology of Maximus the Confessor and all Orthodox diopheliteism (see: Orlov I. Works of St. Maximus the Confessor on the disclosure of the dogmatic doctrine of two wills in Christ. St. Petersburg, 1888, p. 124). Asikrit – personal secretary; in this case, most likely the emperor's secretary. Greek text: τε καὶ δεωριας. This phrase reveals the very style and method of conducting theological debates in Byzantium. They were based on evidence from Holy Scripture, which was supported by arguments drawn from contemplation and observation of the phenomena of the physical world, and then reinforced by logical argumentation. Other sources are silent about the existence of this last doctrinal document of Heraclius. But there is no particular reason to doubt the testimony of the Life. Probably, a similar letter to Pope John IV was written by Heraclius shortly before his death, but was never issued as an official decree due to the death of the emperor. In the Georgian “Life of Maximus the Confessor” it is specified that these were the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Antioch. Diptychs are double tablets with the names of the living and the dead who were commemorated during the liturgy. Inclusion in diptychs served as evidence of the orthodoxy of a person, and exclusion from them served as recognition of his heresy. Participants of the councils were also included in the diptychs. The meaning of the question from here becomes clear: Maximus the Confessor claims that the Church of Constantinople rejected councils (probably meaning ecumenical councils), but they were included in diptychs and are commemorated every day. The meaning of Maximus’s answer becomes clear if we take into account the fact that during the trial almost the entire Greek Church officially professed Monothelitism. Peter was Patriarch of Constantinople from 654–666. It should be noted that for the Byzantine system of thinking, any “innovation” was a hallmark of heresy, the opposite of the immutability of divine truth (see: Pelikan I. The Christian Tradition. A History of the Development of Doctrine. Vol. 2. Chicago, 1974, p. 15). The emperor's envoys bore the honorary title of "consuls" ("ipates"), after which they were supposed to move to the rank of "patricians". Is. 62:10 ; in Russian translation: “remove the stones.” We provide a Church Slavonic translation that exactly corresponds to the Septuagint quoted by Maximus the Confessor. Maximus the Confessor, on the one hand, makes the usual distinction for Byzantine theology between the two main parts of Christian dogmatics - Trinitarian teaching (της θεολογίας λόγον) together with soteriology (της οκονομίις λόγον), and on the other hand, brings them into internal correspondence with each other. The term δύναμις is ambiguous; in a particular case it can mean both “ability” and “potency”. The concept of θίσις is difficult to translate adequately; modernizing, one could convey the thought like this: “It is accidental” (or: “does not have an internal structure”). The word πιστός has the meaning of both “believer” and “faithful.” “Typos,” prohibiting all disputes about “actions” and “wills” in Christ, took a supposedly neutral position, not formally taking the side of either the Monothelites or the Orthodox. It is precisely the senselessness of this kind of compromise in matters of principle that Maxim the Confessor emphasizes here. Of the councils named here, the first took place in 3E7, the second in 341, and the rest in the period 309–361. All of them marked different phases of the predominance of the anti-Nicene reaction over Orthodoxy. About this difficult period, when councils were convened endlessly and numerous dogmatic formulas were published, see: Spassky A. History of dogmatic movements, p. 271–410. We are talking about the so-called “robber council” of 449. Like the third ecumenical council (431), it took place in the city of Ephesus. It was attended by about 130 bishops and was presided over by the Alexandrian Patriarch Dioscorus, who revealed himself to be a power-hungry, rude and unscrupulous church politician. Inclined himself towards Monophysitism, Dioscorus made every effort to ensure that this doctrine prevailed at the said council, in which he succeeded. Recently, the opinion has been expressed that the violent measures applied by Dioscorus to the members of the council were clearly exaggerated in later tradition, and therefore it can hardly be called “robbery” in the proper sense of the word (about this council, see: Histoire de l’Eglise. T. 4. P., 1937, pp. 201–224; Camelot P. Th. Ephese et Chalcedoine. - Histoire des conciles oecumeniques. T. 2. P., 1961, pp. 105–111; Paul of Samosata, Bishop of Antioch, the most influential figure of his time, was condemned for the heresy of monarchianism at two councils held in Antioch in 264 and 266. Gregory the Wonderworker participated only in the first of them, but was not present at the second (see: Sagarda N.I. Saint Gregory the Wonderworker, Bishop of Neocaesarea. His life, works and theology. Pg., 1916, pp. 195–196). Actually, the deposition of Paul of Samosat took place only at the second council. According to generally accepted opinion, the leading role in this deposition was played by the party of supporters and followers of Origen, led by presbyter Malchio. However, doubts are also expressed about this generally accepted point of view: it is hardly possible to characterize all opponents of Paul of Samosate as “Origenists” (see: Bardy G. Paul de Samosate. Etude historique. Louvain, 1923, pp. 203–240; Loofs F. Paulus von Samosata. Eine Untersuchung zur altkirchlichen Literatur-und Dogmengeschichte. Leipzig, 1924, pp. 258–264; Declerck J. H. Deux nouveaux fragments a Paul de Samosate. – Byzantion. 1984, pp. 117–121; Sample R. L. The Christology of the Council of Antioch (268 C. E.) Reconsidered. 48, pp. 18–26). Lit. "the correctness of dogma." We are talking about a work attributed to the Patriarch of Constantinople Mina (536–552). Its falsification was proven at the sixth ecumenical council (see: Acts of the Ecumenical Councils in Russian translation. T. 6. Kazan, 1908, pp. 27–29). Maxim the Confessor did not yet know about this forgery. The work of Pseudo-Mina was one of the main patristic evidence on which the Monothelites relied; Patriarch Sergius also appealed to him when preparing the Monothelite Union (see: Eiert W. Der Ausgang der altkirchlichen Christologie. Berlin, 1957, pp. 220–221). Apollinaris of Laodicea (d. c. 390) was the predecessor of the Monophysites. His followers distributed the works of their teacher under the name of Gregory the Wonderworker, Athanasius of Alexandria, Popes Julius and Felix. The exposure of Apollinarian forgeries occurs mainly in the 6th century. – John of Scythopolis, Leontius of Byzantium and other Orthodox writers (see: A. Spassky. The historical fate of the works of Apollinaris of Laodicea. Sergiev Posad, 1895, pp. 90–263). Apollinaris was also the undoubted forerunner of the Monothelites, for the doctrine of the “single action” of Christ was an organic part of his system (Grillmeier A. Christ in the Christian Tradition. Vol. 1. L 1975, pp. 338–339). Nestorius (c. 381–4 51) belonged to a completely opposite camp than the Monophysites. Nevertheless, it was also characterized by the doctrine of the one will of Christ as a result of the mutual communication of the divine and human persons in Him (ibid., p. 513). Around the theological heritage of Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444), a fierce struggle unfolded between the Orthodox and Monophysites, for both warring parties recognized and highly valued his authority. Cyril's Christology was not unambiguous, underwent significant evolution during his lifetime, and was therefore subject to various interpretations. In particular, speaking about the “duality of action” in Christ, he also allowed such expressions as “the single life-giving action of Christ” (see: Rehrmann A. Die Christologie des hl. Cyrillus von Alexandrien. Hildesheim 1902, pp. 294–299). Timothy Elur (d. 477) - one of the extreme supporters of Cyril of Alexandria and the leaders of the Monophysites. After the murder of the Orthodox Alexandrian Patriarch Proterius by a group of fanatical Egyptian Monophysites (457), he took over his see. Then he was exiled by the Byzantine government, but after some time he was again returned to the Alexandrian throne. Timothy Aelurus was not a deep theologian, being rather a pamphleteer and propagandist of the Monophysite doctrine (see: Wigram IP. A. The Separation of the Monophysites. L., 1923, pp. 23–38; Ebied R. G.r Wickham L. R. Timothy Aelurus: Against the Definition of the Council of Chalcedon – After Chalcedon. Studies in Theology and Church History Offered to Professor A. Van Roey for His Seventieth Birthday Leuven, 1985, pp. See: Matt. 13:18; OK. 8:11. 2Kop. 4:3–4; Maximus the Confessor quotes this passage in a version slightly different from the generally accepted one. This refers to the acts (acts) of the Lateran Council. Theodosius implies a possible embassy to Rome. Maximus the Confessor uses here the adjective σχετικὴν, which in its Christological application denoted the purely moral or accidental unity of natures in Christ. Typically, Orthodox authors charged the Nestorians with the doctrine of “moral (relative) unity” in Christ (see: Lampe G. W. N. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxf., 1978, p. 1358). Here Maximus the Confessor, contrasting σχέσις and φύσις, again distinguishes Orthodox Christology from Nestorian. The adjective ἄναρχος (“beginningless, eternal”) in Greek patristics usually accompanied the concept of “God.” One of the main provisions of Orthodox Christology, which Maximus the Confessor emphasizes here, is that God the Word accepted the entire fullness of humanity, with the exception of sin, which originates in the transgression of the divine commandment by Adam and Eve. Maximus the Confessor here contrasts the term περιχώρηαις: (lit. convergence or “walking around”) with the concepts μεταχώρησις (lit. and “passing”) and μετάπτωαις (lit.: “change, fall, cessation”) in order to in order to more clearly highlight his thought about the closest interconnection of the properties of each nature of Christ without losing the characteristic and essential features of these natures. The term “perichoresis” is repeatedly used in the writings of Maximus the Confessor, who relied on the previous patristic tradition - Gregory the Theologian, Theodoret of Cyrus, etc. (see: Heinzer F. Gottes Sohn als Mensch. Die Struktur des Menschseins Christi bei Maximus Confessor. Freiburg, 1980, pp. 123–124). According to Maximus the Confessor, each nature has both a “logos” (essential principle, idea, meaning) and a “tropos” (the manner - in this case Maximus uses a similar expression πῶς είναι) of its being. The use of the pair of concepts “logos - tropos” in various semantic contexts is a constant leitmotif in his works (see: Dioi A. Le monde et l’Eglise selon Maxime le Confesseur. P., 1973, pp. 73–82). In relation to a specific place of conversation, this difference can be understood as follows: the act itself, for example, of walking or speaking belongs to the “logos” of human nature, and the individual characteristics of each person’s gait or speech belong to the “tropos” of this nature. Therefore, recognizing the essential action of nature as “hypostatic” (i.e., relating to an individual person) leads to fragmentation and ultimately to its destruction. Το ε͂̔ιναι ἀοτὸν προγονικὸν ἠμῶν – lit.: “our ancestor (or: ancestor”). M. Muretov suggests that this may indicate the relationship of Maximus the Confessor with the imperial house. But προγονικὸν can also mean “given to (our) ancestors,” that is, indicate Maximus’ service at the court of Heraclius. We are not talking about a famous city in Southern Italy (modern Reggio di Calabria), but about a city in Thrace 12 miles west of Constantinople. Catechumenium is the place where the instruction of the “catechumens” was carried out, that is, those about to be baptized. Maximus the Confessor reminds Theodosius of his recent oath promise. See: Matt. 10:32 ; Maxim the Confessor quotes freely. By ἑν τῷ λιβέλλω is probably meant a brief summary of the decisions of the Lateran Council. Judging by these words, these events occur in the fifteenth indict (from September 1, 656 to September 1, 607), that is, just before the election of Pope Vitalian (607–672). The threat of the patricians was very real, and, apparently, that is why the new pope established outwardly friendly relations with Constantinople, refraining from condemning the "Typos". When Emperor Constant II, who spent the last years of his life in the West, arrived in Rome (663), he was greeted with pomp by Vitalian. But after the death of this emperor, Pope Vitalian began to vigorously oppose monothelitism (see: De Vries W. Orient et Occident. Les Structures ecclesiales vues dans l’histoire des sept premiers conciles oecumeniques. P., 1974, pp. 196–197). If you believe this message from the Life, then it shows how great importance the Byzantine government attached to the renunciation of Orthodoxy by Maximus the Confessor and his disciples - the emperor himself carried out their trial. After Vitalian, Adeodate (672–676) and Don (676–678) were also popes; only after them did Agathon take the Roman see (678–681). He received a message from the new emperor Constantine IV Pogonatus (668–680), who decided to put an end to the church unrest and make peace with Rome. Having received the message of Constantine IV, Pope Agathon convened two councils in a row in Rome (691 and 680), which unanimously spoke out in favor of Orthodox diopheliteism (see: Kreuzer G. Die Honoriusfrage in Mittelalter und in der Neuzeit, pp. 74–81). After the death of Constant, the army proclaimed the Armenian of Media emperor, but he remained on the throne for only seven months. The sixth ecumenical council, which is discussed here, took place in Constantinople from November 7, 680 to September 16, 681. According to the generally accepted opinion, this last exile and the subsequent death of Maximus the Confessor occurred in 662. The Georgian “Life” says: “to the fortress of the Svan land.” The exact place of the last exile and death of Maximus the Confessor is difficult to establish. Thus, K. Kokolidzs, for example, believed that “under Lazika, Mingrelia and Alania, the Lives of St. Maxim, of course, is the same territory, namely the eastern, or more precisely northeastern, coast of the Black Sea, bordered from the south and east by the Rion River, and from the northeast by the main Caucasian ridge. The Georgian scientist considers the specific place of imprisonment of Maxim the Confessor to be the Muri fortress near the Tskhenis-Tskali River, on the border point between Lechkhum, Mingrelia and Svaneti (see: Kekelidze K. Information from Georgian sources about the teacher Maxim the Confessor. - A separate reprint from the Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy. Kyiv, 1912, p. 23–34). And Brilliantov suggests that the “Schemaris” of the Greek “Life of Maximus the Confessor” is identical to the “Uchimerium” mentioned by Procopius of Xephius, and is located somewhere in the Muri region (see: A. Brilliantov. About the place of death and burial of St. Maximus the Confessor. Pg., 1918, pp. 7–62).