Часть первая, историческая

The sources from which we draw information about the life and work of Maximus the Confessor are the following ancient monuments, placed at the beginning of the first volume of his works 1: 1) A speech of praise to Maximus the Confessor, presenting a brief outline of his entire life 2; it was compiled by an author unknown to us at the request of some Nicholas, apparently an admirer of the works of Maximus the Confessor 3. Although its author admits at the very beginning of the word that he is not able to offer a complete and detailed outline of Maxim’s life, nevertheless, this monument is very valuable to us, because it is one of a kind. When discussing the circumstances of Maxim’s life, he should be treated with great caution. Firstly, this is far from complete, as the author himself directly admits, a biography: there are, as we will see later, significant gaps in it that have to be filled in with the data contained in Maxim’s letters. Secondly, it is mixed with Combefi’s comments, which in some places are not entirely successful, and in some places they do not at all agree with the historical truth: they should be treated with even greater caution than the comments themselves. 2) Two documents depicting in some detail the procedure for the trial of Maxim and his students, the two Anastasies, with all the circumstances surrounding this trial 4. The author of these documents, one must think, is Anastasius - a Roman apocrisiary, a student and accomplice in the suffering of Maximus 5. These documents were compiled during the events described in them, in hot pursuit 6 . The author of the biography had these documents at hand 7. 3) Letter from Anastasius, presbyter and Roman apocrisiary, to Theodosius, presbyter of Gangra 8, painting a sad picture of the last days of the life and death of Maximus. 4) And, finally, the “Memorable Record” (“Hypomnesticon”) of Theodosius, Bishop of Gangra 9, similar in content to the letter of Anastasius. However, the Hypomnesticon also contains a brief description of the last days of the life and death of both students Maxim and Martin, the Pope. In addition, some fragmentary information about Maxim’s life and work can be found in his letters to various people. Maximus the Confessor was born in 580 10 in Constantinople from rich and noble parents, distinguished by Christian piety 11 . Possessing rich means and a high position in the state, they gave their son an excellent education for that time. Young Maxim carefully studied grammar, rhetoric and other “free” (as the author of the biography puts it) sciences, which then, presumably, constituted the course of general education sciences 12. With particular zeal, young Maxim studied philosophy, thinking to find in it the meaning of life, the solution to the basic questions of knowledge about God, the world and man 13. The importance of studying philosophy was that it aroused in Maxim a thirst for knowledge and accustomed his mind to dialectically strict and correct thinking, which later, in polemics with the Monothelites, gave him a strong weapon for the fight. In relation to his upbringing, Maxim was strongly influenced by his predisposition to Christian piety. This feature of Maxim’s moral education clearly highlighted his entire character: Maxim considered modesty, the absence of proud conceit, and the consciousness of his insignificance to be the only valuable adornment of human life, surpassing all human glory. This modesty, combined with piety, was one of the reasons for the fact that even in his youth, Maxim preferred monastic solitude to a prominent, brilliant position at court. And it is known that the nobility of the family, extraordinary talents 14 and the brilliant education of Maxim at that time drew the attention of Emperor Heraclius to him, and Maxim was made the first secretary of the emperor. At court, as at home, during his upbringing, Maxim led the most modest and strict life. The noisy court life, which did not correspond to the turn of his mind and character, on the one hand, and the threat to the peace of the Church, the increasingly intensified monothelitism (in the form of monoergism) - on the other, did not please the intelligent and pious Maxim, as a result of which he left the court and settled in the Chrysopolis monastery 15, which lay on the opposite bank of Constantinople (now Scutari) and there accepted monasticism 16. Information about Maxim's life in the monastery is too brief and fragmentary. What is known is that, while living in the monastery, Maxim was distinguished by an exemplary austerity of life while striving for the implementation of the high ideal of monasticism that he himself outlined 17, which drew the amazed gaze of the brethren to him and was the reason that, after the death of the abbot, he was elected by the brethren as abbot of the Chrysopolis monastery 18, despite the fact that he did not have the degree of priesthood, remaining, according to his own admittedly, “a simple monk” 19. Maxim did not remain in monastic solitude for long. The same circumstance that led Maxim from the royal palace to the monastery prompted him to leave the walls of the monastery: the state of affairs of the Church forced him to change the role of a monastic hermit to the role of an open defender of Orthodoxy. The circumstances in which Maxim’s open polemic activity began were as follows. Monophysitism, condemned at the IV Ecumenical Council, continued to hold quite firmly even after the church condemnation even in the 6th and 7th centuries, having quite numerous adherents, especially in Syria and Egypt. At the beginning of the 7th century, the conditions of the church-political life of the Byzantine state developed in a manner quite favorable for Monophysitism, and it again declared itself under the cover of a modified doctrine, first in the form of monoergism, and then in the form of monothelitism. A circumstance that favored the revival of Monophysitism was the desire for the reunification of the Armenian Monophysites who had separated from the union with the Universal Church, 20 which, due to political considerations, had a strong impact on the then reigning Byzantine Emperor Heraclius. The fact is that in the first years of the reign of Heraclius (from 610), the Persians resumed the campaigns against the Byzantine Empire that had begun under the leadership of Phocas: they devastated the eastern provinces (Syria and Palestine), captured many prisoners, including the Patriarch of Jerusalem Zechariah (in 616), conquered Egypt (in 619), devastated Cappadocia, made their way to Chalcedon and threatened Constantinople itself. The Byzantine Emperor Heraclius wanted to make peace, but the Persian Shah Khosroes II decisively rejected this proposal. Then Heraclius set out on a campaign against the Persians on April 4, 622 21. At the beginning of the campaign, in 622, while staying in Armenia, having in mind the church unification of the eastern provinces, the emperor had the opportunity in Feodosiopolis to talk with the head of the local Monophysites, with the representative of the party of the North, Paul One-Eyed. The conversation raised the issue of “action” (ενεργεία) in Christ 22. As a condition for the reunification of the Monophysites with the ruling Church, the emperor proposed the formula “μία ενέργεια” [single action], inspired to the emperor by Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople. Sergius, as far as we know, was the first to come up with the idea of ​​using the doctrine of “μία ενέργεια” as a means appropriate to the goal to implement the union conceived in Constantinople. He also took the initiative in implementing union on the basis of monoergism. From the words of Maximus, spoken in response to Pyrrhus’s reproach for Sophronius’s untimely initiation of a dispute regarding action in Christ, 23 it is obvious that even before 619, Sergius had relations with Theodore of Parano and the Paulianist George, the so-called Arza, offering in his letters to them the doctrine of μία ενέργεια 24 as a means of reuniting the Monophysites with the Orthodox Church; and that Theodore of Faran came to full consent to Sergius’s proposal. From the words of Maxim it is equally clear that Sergius had this kind of communication during his stay in Feodosiopolis with the northerner Pavel One-Eyed, sending him the same message from Mina and a letter from Theodore of Faran in response to Sergius’ message. When Sergius was in Theodosiopolis and had relations with Paul there, it is not clear from the words of Maximus. It is known that during Heraclius’ stay in Armenia, Sergius was in the emperor’s retinue; at this time, it means that Sergius had relations with Paul and at the same time, if not earlier, he inspired the emperor with the conciliatory formula “μία ενέργεια.” And the emperor, thinking about union, naturally proposed it in a conversation with Paul 25. The fact that in his letter to Pope Honorius Sergius is completely silent about his very active participation in raising the issue of μία ενέργεια and attributes the initiative in this matter entirely to the emperor should be understood as a matter of simple prudence and cunning policy of Sergius. With the same goal - to achieve the reunification of the Monophysites - the emperor had negotiations during his stay in Colchis in 626 26 with Cyrus, bishop of Phasis. The emperor offered Cyrus the formula “μία ενέργεια” and asked the latter’s opinion about whether one or two actions (μίαν or δύο ενεργείας) should be recognized in Christ? Cyrus answered evasively. For advice on this issue, the emperor recommended that Cyrus turn to Sergius. This was in fact the beginning of the 27th Monothelite movement. We learn about the negotiations between the emperor and Cyrus from the letters of the emperor and Cyrus to Sergius and Sergius to Cyrus. Thus, even from Colchis, the emperor wrote to Sergius in Constantinople, asking him to speak out regarding the formula “μία ενέργεια” 28. At the same time, Sergius received a letter from Cyrus, in which the latter asked Sergius, μίαν or δύο ενεργείας should recognize in Christ. In a response letter to Cyrus, compiled, presumably, before the convening of that house council in 626 (the so-called “Pseudo-Synodus”), at which Sergius informed the fathers of the council about the emperor’s interviews with Paul and Cyrus, about the appeal of the emperor and Cyrus to him, Sergius, that he responded to the emperor and Cyrus 29. no definition of the Ecumenical Councils on the raised issue can be found, since this issue was not subject to conciliar discussion, but that some of the famous fathers, especially St. Cyril of Alexandria 30 taught that “in Christ, our true God, there is μία ζωοποιός ενέργεια (one life-giving action),” while “no one said that in Christ our God there are δύο ένέργειαι [two actions]" 31. In Sergius’ letter to Cyrus, the tendency is quite striking to give predominance to the teaching about one action in Christ. Saying that no definition of the Ecumenical Councils on the raised issue could be found, since this issue was not subject to church discussion, the Patriarch of Constantinople either deliberately ignored the definition of the Council of Chalcedon, which affirms the doctrine of two natures and the two actions resulting from this, or, as a monophysitist, he tacitly excluded the Council of Chalcedon from the category of Ecumenical Councils, which is less likely, since in this case he risked losing the importance of an impartial arbitrator in the eyes of Cyrus. Without a doubt, Sergius's message to Cyrus had the most decisive influence on the latter. At least, it is not clear from anywhere that upon receiving Sergius’s reply message, Cyrus hesitated or again turned to Sergius or anyone else for clarification on the issue raised. Thus, the formula “μια ενέργεια”, as a condition for the reunification of the Monophysites with the ruling Church, was accepted by Cyrus. All that remained was to begin the work of union. The circumstances of the state of external affairs of the Church apparently favored the implementation of the planned work. In 630, George, Patriarch of Alexandria, died; in his place, in certain forms 32, Cyrus, bishop of Phasis, was erected. Three patriarchal sees were now occupied by obvious supporters of Monophysite ideas and the union: Constantinople - by Sergius, Antioch - Athanasius and Alexandria - Cyrus. This latter did not hesitate long in carrying out the assignment entrusted to him. In 633, 33 Cyrus convened a council in Alexandria, at which the “9 conciliatory chapters” were published, which were to form the basis of the union. Despite this state of church affairs, which apparently favored the success of the work begun, the union did not take root. True, at the very first stages of the introduction of the union in Alexandria, Cyrus, with a special enthusiastic message 34, informed Sergius that in Alexandria whole thousands of Theodosian Monophysites 35 had accepted the union. But such a message from Cyrus himself completely loses its credit in view of the more reliable message found in the Chronicle of John of Nikiu, which says that the Monophysites called Cyrus “Chalcedonian” (“Cyrus, patriarche chalcedonien”) 36. This circumstance alone speaks more eloquently than any data that the union did not take root in Alexandria. It did not take root because it was based on principles that did not satisfy either one or the other of the parties being united. The content of Uniate chapters 37 is of a purely monoergistic nature, completely contrary to Orthodox teaching. In particular this must be said regarding the 7th chapter. In the latter, by the way, we read: “One and the same Christ and the Son accomplishes both what is proper to God and what is proper to man, according to the expression of St. Dionysius, by one godly act”, etc. ( ανθρώπινα μία θεανδρική ενεργεία ...) 38 . A little lower it was added that the separation of Divine and human actions only appears to our mind. From the whole presentation of both this member in particular and all in general, it is clear that Cyrus insists on the purely Monophysite Severian principle of unity (in the sense of μίας θεανδρικής ενεργείας [single godly action]), in which sense he interprets the above expression of Dionysius. From this it is obvious that the positive content of the Uniate chapters, contrary to the teachings of the Orthodox, could still satisfy the Monophysites. But the fact that they were completely silent about the Council of Chalcedon and thus did not completely deny its significance completely paralyzed in the eyes of a true Monophysite the significance of the tempting content of the Uniate chapters. Thus, the union itself did not contain anything that could attract the sympathy of one or the other of the parties it united. And to this was added another external circumstance, which completely undermined the already small credit of the union. At the very time when Cyrus intended to introduce a union in Alexandria, the learned Palestinian monk Sophronius happened to be here, who from that time on acted as the first defender of the Ecumenical doctrine of two actions in Christ. Cyrus offered Sophronius his “Libellus” 39 for consideration. Having read it, Sophronius, according to Maximus 40, humbly, with tears of bitterness and despair, asked, begged, demanded that the confession drawn up by Cyrus not be made public. In the very fact of protest on the part of Sophrony against the promulgation of the Uniate chapters authorized by Cyrus, for the first time the real impossibility of a union on such principles was reflected. Soon after the just described conflict between Sophronius and Cyrus, Sophronius appears in Constantinople 41 and here enters into negotiations with Sergius 42. Sergius takes Sophronius to promise not to raise a question in the future about either μία ενέργεια or δύο ένέργειαι. Sergius wrote something similar to Cyrus. Having become Patriarch of Jerusalem after the death of Modest 43 at the very end of 633 or at the beginning of 634, 44 Sophronius publishes a “District Epistle” 45 and sends it out from Jerusalem to all churches. In this letter, Sophronius quite decisively expresses and develops in some detail the position that in Christ there must be recognized “two actions” 46, due to the duality of natures invariably existing in one hypostasis of the Word - a position that is precisely opposite to the one that formed the basis of the union, namely, that in Christ one must recognize “one divine action, by virtue of personal unity.” Having learned about the contents of Sophronius's message 47, Sergius could, of course, no longer doubt that Sophronius was not only a bad ally in the cause of union, but also a direct enemy of it, and that open opposition on his part could completely destroy so successfully - according to Cyrus - the work of union begun in Alexandria. Not having enough strength in himself to fight Sophronius, Sergius addressed a special message to Pope Honorius 48, asking his opinion on the controversial issue raised and trying to win him over to his side in order to be able to oppose the authority of the newly installed Bishop of Jerusalem Sophronius with the great authority of the Pope. In his letter 49 to the pope, Sergius sets out the circumstances of the controversial issue; communicates his answer to Cyrus, enclosing a copy of the letter itself; talks about the successes of the union in Alexandria, undertaken by Cyrus; complains about opposition to these successes on the part of Sophrony, deliberately, one must assume, humiliating the latter through the statement that, despite the request of him, Sergius, and others 50 to confirm his opinion about the two actions in Christ with testimonies from the Fathers of the Church, Sophrony was not able to do this. He talks about the instructions he gave to Cyrus, which ordered him not to talk about one or two actions in Christ, but to instill in him to confess, according to the teaching of the Ecumenical Councils, that “every action proper to God and characteristic of man occurs inseparably from the One and the same incarnate God the Word..., to confess so for the sake of the fact that the expression” μία ένέργεια “, although it is used by some of the St. fathers, sounds strange in the ears of some, who assume that it is pronounced in the sense of the destruction of two natures... - let it not be! - just as the expression “δύο ένέργειαι” seduces many, as it is not used by any of the illustrious fathers, to follow which would also mean preferring two wills that are contrary to each other... and thus introducing two people who want the opposite, which is wicked. It is impossible for two wills that are contrary to each other to exist together in one subject... The teaching of the fathers clearly suggests that the flesh of the Lord never made its natural movement from its own impulse ( ορμής την φυσικήν κίνησιν ποιήσασθαι), contrary to the beckoning of the Word hypostatically united with it” 51. A parallel is further drawn between the relationship between the two natures of Christ and the relationship that exists between our soul and body. From the contents of the entire epistle one cannot help but see that Sergius quite skillfully, under the guise of twists of thought, develops in the essence of the matter the purely Monothelite principle of the unity of will in Christ. True, Sergius does not directly say that in Christ we must recognize “έν θέλημα” [one will]; but, all the same, he comes to the need to recognize this position as true in a negative way, when he asserts the impossibility of combining two wills in the person of the God-man, thinking of the two wills as nothing other than contrary to one another. That is, when introducing the term “θέλημα,” Sergius does not use only the formula (“έν θέλημα”), which, at the initiative of Honorius, became common in the language of the Monothelites, not quite fully expressing the essence of the Monothelite teaching. At the same time, it is worthy of attention that in the four (last) rather condensed provisions of Sergius’ epistle, the essence of the Monothelite teaching is expressed almost completely: its fundamental position, the main argument and the Monothelite view of the flesh of Christ. Subsequent representatives of monothelitism, as we will see later in a systematic review of the teachings of Maximus the Confessor, develop in essence the provisions outlined in the letter of Sergius. Based on the above, Sergius’ message should be recognized as a transitional stage from monoergism to monofelitism. Compromising the expression “μία ενέργεια”, since it still “sounds strange in the ears of some”, and not for a moment allowing the expression “δύο ένέργειαι”, Sergius moves from the concept “ενέργεια” to the concept “ θέλημα "in the belief that it is easier to reach agreement under the form of this term. So, addressing a special message to Pope Honorius, Sergius only pretends (flattering the inherent claim of all popes to prescribe the rules of faith of the Eastern Church) that he needs the decisive opinion of the pope on a controversial issue; but in fact, with sufficient decisiveness he declares his opinion on a question that is quasi perplexing to him, outlining a program for the answer he desires from the pope, and with all sorts of lies he tries to win the pope over to his side. So, firstly, Sergius tries to present the behavior of Sophrony in a rather unfavorable light for the latter, complaining that Sophrony preaches innovation and brings discord into the Church. Secondly, by juggling the very expressions (which we deliberately emphasized in the text), he tries to present the state of the controversial issue in such a light that the overwhelming majority stands for “μία ενέργεια”, that is, on the side of the union, and that the acceptance of the expression “δύο ένέργειαι”, as completely disagreeing with the teaching the illustrious fathers of the Church, would lead to a schism. Finally, thirdly, moving from the concept of “ενέργεια” to the concept of “θέλημα”, from the assumption of the expression “δύο ένέργειαι”, he builds a completely arbitrary conclusion, namely, that the recognition of two wills, necessarily opposite to one another, would necessarily lead to the recognition of two persons, opposing one another. Two wills are certainly thought of by Sergius as “opposite” to one another, since the flesh of Christ, according to him, did not have its own natural movement (will). And, therefore (this is how Sergius should have concluded), if we assume the existence of two wills in Christ, the flesh of Christ would have to be thought of as possessing an unnatural, i.e., sinful will, which, of course, would counteract the Divine will of Christ, which is ungodly. The maneuver that Sergius was counting on when turning to Honorius was quite successful for him. Honorius answered 52 Sergius as a pope. Considering himself competent in resolving the controversial issue, Honorius did not want to follow in the footsteps of the illustrious fathers of the Church and, without inquiring about the state of affairs in reality, decisively took the side of Sergius. Rejecting the question of two actions in Christ as an unanswered question, Honorius agrees with Sergius that it is better to confess “One active in the Divine and human nature.” Further, trying to renounce, like Sergius, the concept of “ένέργεια” and replacing it with the concept of “θέλημα”, Honorius, carried away by Sergius’s polemic against the possibility of allowing two mutually opposite wills in Christ, affirms positively that in Christ one should confess έν θέλημα. That is, the idea of ​​​​the unity of will in Christ, expressed only negatively in Sergius, Honorius puts into the positive formula “έν θέλημα”, and in this he takes a decisive step forward compared to Sergius. Simultaneously with writing the message to Sergius, Honorius, as an arbitrator, wrote messages to Sophronius and Cyrus. In both of these letters, Honorius convinces them, without using the new controversial expression “μία ή διπλή ένέργεια”, to preach with him that “Christ the Lord alone performed both Divine and human works in both natures” (τον ένα Χριστόν Κύρτον ένεργοΰντα τα θεία και τα ανθρώπινα έν έκατέραις ταΐς φύσεσι ) 53. All three messages were written by Honorius, no doubt with the aim of reconciling the disputing parties. Honorius, like Sergius, thought that, by compromising the expressions “μία ένέργεια” and “δύο ένέργειαι,” the disputing parties would converge in the confession of “One active in both natures.” This expression in itself is neither Orthodox nor non-Orthodox. But, considered as the basis, as the starting point of the Christological view, with strict consistency it could lead to a purely monoergistic position: “if the agent is simply one, then the action is one.” Thus, the position “One acting in both natures”, in the essence of the matter, is indifferent, in general it is monoergistic. Moreover, this provision (if it were actually indifferent) could serve, in extreme cases, only as a means to destroy the reason for disputes; Meanwhile, a positive means of reconciliation was required. According to Honorius, the formula “έν θέλημα”, which he used in his letter to Sergius, should have served as such a means; and this formula, more eloquently than the content of the entire message, exposed Honorius directly in monothelitism. It goes without saying that the goal of Honorius’ messages was not achieved: reconciliation could not take place under such conditions. Not only that, instead of pacifying the disputing parties with his messages and especially the use of the formula “έν θέλημα,” Honorius further inflamed the heated dispute. And although in his other letter to Sergius 54, written, it must be assumed, shortly after the writing of the first, Honorius is silent about the ill-fated “έν θέλημα” and, therefore, seems to take it back, but this circumstance could not finally wash away from Honorius the black stain imposed on him by the first letter and extinguish the flared up dispute. So, the Pope most decisively took the side of Sergius. Having received the (first) message of Honorius, Sergius, probably without hesitation, began to implement his new plan for the reunification of the Monophysites with the Orthodox, which he projected in his letter to the pope and was certainly approved by the latter. To this end, Sergius prompted Emperor Heraclius on his own behalf to issue in September 638 a decree of faith compiled by Sergius himself 55, known as “Ἐκθεσις της πίστεως” [Statement of Faith]. In this edict, Honorius’ formula “έν θέλημα” appears for the first time in the East. In accordance with the advice of Honorius, in the “Ectesis” it is forbidden to talk about one or two actions and is commanded to confess that in Christ our Lord έν θέλημα, since (the argument is the same as in the letter of Sergius to Honorius) “His rationally animated flesh separately and from its own impulse, contrary to the wave ( έναντίως τω νεύματί) of God the Word hypostatically united with her, never made its natural movement (desire), but when, how and how much the Word itself wanted” (αλλ όποτε, και οικαι οσην αύτός ό Θεός Λόγος ήβούλετο ) 56 . In the last quarter of 57 638, Sergius convened a council in Constantinople to approve the “Ektesis”, which consisted of a collection of signatures of those present at the council. The Roman apocrisiaries, who came to Constantinople for the approval (consecratio) of Severin, elected to replace the deceased Honorius, refused to sign the “Ectesis” (dogmaticam chartam), declaring that this was beyond their authority, and with the consent of the council, they took the charter to Rome for submission to the pope for consideration 58. Thus, the matter of selecting signatures was postponed indefinitely. Meanwhile, within a very short time after the convening of the council, namely at the beginning of December 638, Sergius died 59. Sergius's successor, Pyrrhus, from the very first moment of his accession to the patriarchal see 60 openly and decisively declared himself a supporter of the union proclaimed by Sergius 61. At the council (conciliabulum), convened, probably on the occasion of Pyrrhus’s accession to the patriarchal see and held under his chairmanship (as can be seen from the “Disputation of Maximus with Pyrrhus”) 62 “decreta ... and Sergio et Sugo Phasiano (i.e. Capitula IX and Ἐκθεσις) Pyrrhus corroboravit” 63 . Moreover, Pyrrhus not only reaffirmed the Ektesis, but also made sure that the absent bishops expressed their consent to accept it. In Alexandria, Cyrus received the Ectesis with great joy, glorifying God for giving his people such a wise king 64 . Despite such zeal for union by the Patriarchs of Constantinople, a new attempt to introduce a union (on the basis of monothelitism, the union of Sergius) was hardly more successful than the first (the union of Cyrus, on the basis of monoergism). On the one hand, there is no reason to think that the Monophysites would more willingly accept the union of Sergius than the union of Cyrus, although the proclamations of the principles of both - the teachings about μία ενέργεια and about έν θέλημα - they, of course, could not help but welcome as triumphs of their teaching. On the other hand, the Orthodox were so firm and strictly consistent in their confession of the Chalcedonian creed that they were too far from sacrificing the expression “δύο ένέργειαι” and from accepting the new formula “έν θέλημα”. We already know the nature of the relationship of orthodoxy in the person of Sophronius to the union of Cyrus. The same features of unconditional denial with an apologetic desire to prove the inconsistency of someone else’s and the legitimacy of one’s own views characterize the attitude of orthodoxy to the union of Sergius. The figures of Orthodoxy in this new (second) period in the history of the monothelitic movements are: in the West, successive popes one after another (Severin, Theodore, John IV and Martin), and in the East - Maximus the Confessor, who completely replaced Sophronius, whose beneficial influence on the course of church affairs was first interrupted due to the state of siege and the capture of Jerusalem in 638, and then should have completely ceased due to death him, which followed on March 11, 639 65. These were the circumstances, among which Maxim openly came out to defend the interests of Orthodoxy. The beginning of Maxim's polemical activity is in connection with the time of his removal from the monastery. It is known that Maxim did not remain in monastic seclusion for long. So, in 633 we find him already in Alexandria, where, in his own words 66, he moved with Sophronius. When exactly Maxim left the monastery, and what actually brought him to Alexandria, we do not find any information about this in Maxim’s biography: Maxim’s biographer is completely silent about Maxim’s journey to Alexandria and speaks only about his journey to Africa. And the letters of Maxim himself are generally extremely sparse in information concerning the circumstances of his external life. Nevertheless, partly from the contents of Maximus's letters, partly from certain features of the detailed character contained in them, it is possible to form some rough idea of ​​the circumstances of Maximus's journey. And, first of all, as for the reason for Maxim’s removal from the monastery, in this regard, the unique testimony of Maxim himself is extremely valuable. In a letter to Prester John, Maxim expresses his desire to return to his homeland, “if only the fear (caused by the invasion) of external enemies 67, out of fear of which, for the sake of preserving his life, he swam across such vast expanses of seas,” 68 was truly completely over. This letter was written in 643 or 644 from Africa 69, and in the place just given there should be an immediate indication of the formidable invasion of the Saracens (Arabs) into Egypt and the capture of Alexandria in 639, which brought terrible panic to the inhabitants and was accompanied by the resettlement of many from Egypt to the North African provinces. Maximus in this case, apparently, suffered the fate of these many and from Alexandria moved by sea to Africa. The closest thing, we repeat, here should be an indication of this circumstance from the life of Maxim. But nothing prevents us from seeing in the quoted words of Maximus an indication of the reason for his initial removal from the monastery to Egypt, especially since the time of the Saracen invasion of the provinces of Asia Minor coincides with the time of Maximus’ removal from the monastery: the Saracens began to threaten the integrity of the Eastern Empire, and specifically, first of all, Syria, from 631 70; In addition, Maximus’s removal from the monastery should also be dated approximately to this time. Of course, there could have been other kinds of motivations for Maxim: the strengthening of monothelitism, which did not give him peace in the palace, naturally prevented him from calming down in the monastery, and he was drawn to where the spread of the union was supposed to begin. Indeed, at first, after leaving the monastery, we find Maxim in Alexandria. The travel plan, based on some data contained in Maxim’s letters, can be imagined in this form. Whether Maxim had the intention of going directly to Alexandria, or whether such a thought came to his mind later, after leaving the monastery, is unknown. In any case, it must be assumed that he did not immediately find himself in Alexandria. There is reason to believe that upon his removal from the monastery, Maxim, first of all, visited Fr. Crete. Among Maxim's letters to Marin we find one dedicated to the memory of his stay on the island. Crete and about the interview that took place there with the false bishops of the Severians. This letter, as we will see later, was written relatively late, in 641–645, during Maximus’ stay within Africa. Based on the nature of the memory of this event itself, as a distant event 71, we can conclude that the said stay was relatively long before the time of writing the letter in which it is mentioned. And the subject of the dispute that took place during the said stay and was reproduced by Maxim from memory allows us to determine even more closely the time of the event itself. The fact that in this debate Maxim, according to his own memoirs, polemicizes only against the teachings of Severus and Nestorius and does not mention at all either the “Ectesis” of Sergius, or the “religious innovation” introduced in Alexandria, as he himself sometimes calls the union of Cyrus (while in the polemics of subsequent times, directed at least even against the North, Maximus never loses sight of either one or the other decree), leaves no room for doubt that the dispute with the Severians, and therefore the very stay on the island. Crete should be dated back to the time before the introduction of the union in Alexandria, which means 632 or the beginning of 633. With o. Crita Maximus headed to Alexandria 72, where we find him in 633 addressing, as noted above, Sophronius. From Maxim’s letter to Peter, which contains a mention of Sophronius’s protest against the publication of the Uniate chapters of Cyrus, it is not clear how Maxim behaved in the early stages of his stay in Alexandria in relation to the Union of Cyrus. But another letter of his to Peter sheds some light on the position that Maxim took regarding the union. Based on this other letter 73 it can be judged that at first Maximus declared himself an obvious supporter of Sophronius, whom he calls father and teacher 74, of course, first of all, his own. After Sophronius's protest was not respected by Cyrus, Maximus, like Sophronius, thought to find the support of the orthodox party in Constantinople. For this purpose, Maxim wrote to Constantinople to Senator Peter, asking him to provide assistance to Sophronius, who then came to Constantinople on purpose for this. Maxim arrived in Alexandria at the beginning of 633, or at least not later than the end of 632, and left in 639, and all this time, about six years, he spent, presumably, in Alexandria or in its environs, in general in Egypt. There is no doubt that Maxim came to Africa from Alexandria: this is sufficiently evidenced by the above-mentioned circumstance that forced him to move to Africa. It also says that this event happened no earlier than 639, and probably in this particular year. On the other hand, there is absolutely no reason to assume that after a more or less long stay in Alexandria, Maxim returned to the Chrysopolis monastery, as the case is usually presented, 75 and then came to Alexandria a second time: it would be more than unclear for what reasons and why Maxim came to Alexandria a second time. On the contrary, there is some evidence indirectly indicating that Maximus did not return to Chrysopolis after traveling to Alexandria. This should include, firstly, the above words of Pyrrhus: “we,” says Pyrrhus to himself and Sergius, “did not know you by sight”; It is unlikely that such a phenomenon would have been possible if Maxim had returned from Alexandria and lived in a monastery. Secondly, the same is supported by the fact that in a letter to Senator Peter, written from Africa, Maxim talks about the famous clash between Sophronius and Cyrus in Alexandria. If Maxim had returned from Alexandria to the monastery, he would, of course, have tried more than once to visit Peter in Constantinople, to whom he had previously addressed in writing for assistance. And it is impossible that during a personal meeting Maxim would not tell about this collision. Of course, it would be strange to present the matter in such a way that Maxim spent all six years in Alexandria itself: nothing prevented him from traveling around the outskirts of the city preaching denunciations of the “religious innovation that appeared in Alexandria.” But where exactly and in what way Maxim actually spent all these six years, nothing positive can be said about this. In addition to the above-mentioned letter to Senator Peter, only two letters have survived, the writing of which should be dated to the very end of this Alexandrian period. These are letters to Cosmas, a deacon of the Church of Alexandria, and another (recommendatory) to Peter (see, in section II: the time, place, purpose and reason for writing Maxim’s letters). But they explain absolutely nothing to us regarding Maximus’s stay and activities in Alexandria or in Egypt in general. True, one of them - to Peter - shows that Maxim was working at that time in the direction indicated by the controversy, delving into its very foundations; but this indication is too general and cannot be extended to the entire Alexandrian period. From the time of Maxim's resettlement to Africa, a new period of his life began - a period of open, continuous and lively activity, entirely aimed at combating the widespread evil of the Church, which threatened the entire East with serious danger. The fact is that until the 40s in the North African Church, monothelitism was known only by rumors; but from the year 40, the criminal propaganda of monofelitism began to penetrate here. It was brought here by immigrants from Egypt, forced to leave there due to the above circumstances, among whom there were, of course, many adherents of monothelitism. It is clear that amid this state of affairs in the North African Church, Maximus’s appearance and activity here could not have been more timely. The author’s words of praise to Maxim perfectly characterize Maxim’s activities in Africa during this time. “Entering a conversation with the African bishops,” says the biography of Maximus, “with his divine lips he confirmed them in the faith, instructed and admonished them how to avoid the treachery of their enemies and refute their sophistic speculations. This highly experienced man understood well that we need great art and skill in dialectics if we want to defeat our opponents and overthrow their arrogant pride, which tramples on true knowledge. Therefore, he aroused them (the Orthodox) in every possible way, inspired them, ignited in them the spirit of courage, and filled them with the spirit of jealousy. True, they (the bishops) exceeded him in rank, but in terms of wisdom they were much lower than him, not to mention the other high qualities of this man. And they willingly listened to his speeches, unquestioningly obeyed his convictions and advice, the benefits of which were so obvious... And not only the clergy and all the bishops, but also the people, and all the leaders - everyone felt some kind of irresistible attraction to him. All the inhabitants not only of Africa, but also of the islands nearby revered Maxim as their mentor, teacher and leader” 76. Maxim's activities during his stay in Africa were not limited to oral interviews with African bishops. At the same time, he conducted polemics in writing: from Africa, Maxim wrote most of his letters that have survived to this day. Following the development of monothelitism, as far as the circumstances of his external life and spatial distance from the centers of the monothelitism movement allowed him, in letters written during this time, Maxim polemicizes mainly against the main position of monothelitism itself, first formulated in the famous letter of Honorius. In addition to their direct interest - dogmatic (and from this side they are especially valuable) - the letters of the period under consideration, which can be called African based on the location of Maximus, are not uninteresting for us in the sense that in them and only in them we find some rather valuable biographical data regarding the place of Maximus’ activities during his stay in Africa, regarding the time of writing the letters, etc. Thus, from one letter to Marinus, presbyter of the Church of Cyprus (vol. II, col. 133 – 137), it is obvious that Maximus moved first in the Byzacen region (έν τω Βυζακίω), and then in proconsular Africa, and specifically in Carthage 77. In another letter to John Cubularius (col. 460 - 509) we find a direct indication of the time and reason for writing it 78. When comparing these two indications, we come to the following conclusion: before and during the writing of the mentioned letter to John Cubularius, Maximus lived in Carthage 79 . Consequently, Maximus' stay in Carthage falls to 641 years. And the stay in the Bi-zatsen region, on the basis of a letter to Marin, should be attributed to the immediately preceding time, i.e. either to the beginning of 641 or to the end of 640. And we know that it was around this last time that Maxim arrived in Africa. Consequently, after leaving Alexandria, Maxim appeared first of all in Bizacinia, and perhaps precisely in Adrumet, a seaside port city; then moved to Carthage. Paying attention to the fact that subsequently the bishops of three African provinces - Byzacinia, Numidia and Mauritania - at the councils held in these provinces, decisively spoke out against monothelitism, it can be assumed that after a stay in Carthage, more or less long, Maximus traveled through Numidia and Mauritania and from here returned to Carthage again. Maxim lived in Africa for about five years. His five-year stay here ended with a very significant fact, which was significant not only in the life of the African Church, but also in the entire history of Monothelite movements. This is the famous dispute between Maximus and the ex-patriarch Pyrrhus. The fact is that after a rather short period of control of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in October 641, 80 Pyrrhus had to relinquish his patriarchal title 81 and fled through Chalcedon 82 to Africa. The time of Pyrrhus' appearance in Africa is unknown. It is only known that in Africa Pyrrhus had several clashes with Maximus, after which a public dispute took place between them. This was in June 645. Although the place of such an important event is not mentioned anywhere, it can most likely be assumed that it took place in Carthage, the residence of the governor of Africa. Several bishops, Gregory the “εύσεβέστατος” patrician and many “noble and pious” men 83 were present at the debate. The subject of the 84 dispute was mainly the question of θέλημα as applied to Christ. Pyrrhus insisted on the need to recognize one will in Christ, due to the singularity of the hypostasis. Maxim, on the contrary, argued for the necessity of confessing two natural wills and actions, due to the duality of the natures of Christ. Breaking step by step the positions and objections of the enemy, Maxim did not leave a single objection of Pyrrhus unreflected, not a single position of his unjustified, and emerged from this dialectically subtle struggle as a triumphant winner. The dispute ended with Pyrrhus's public recognition of his and his predecessors' errors and the desire to be reconciled with the Universal Church. To fulfill his wish, Pyrrhus immediately asked Maximus that he, Pyrrhus, be allowed to personally appear before the Roman high priest and personally hand over to the latter an act of renunciation of his errors 85 . According to the wishes of Pyrrhus, in the same year 645 Maximus, together with Pyrrhus 86, went to Rome. Here, in front of the pope, publicly, in the presence of a large clergy and a large meeting of the people, Pyrrhus read the “Libellus” he himself had compiled, which anathematized monothelitism and “Ectesis”, after which he was accepted by the pope into church communion and restored to the rank of Patriarch of Constantinople 87 . As for Maxim himself, we find it absolutely difficult to say anything definite regarding the time of his stay this time in Rome, and, even more so, regarding his activities during this stay. Maxim's biographer is resolutely silent both about this journey of Maxim with Pyrrhus to Rome, and in general about the time and circumstances of Maxim's appearance and stay in Rome. What is certain is that in 645 or 646 Maximus was in Rome: in addition to a direct message about this made by Maximus himself or someone else on his behalf in the appendix to the acts of the dispute with Pyrrhus, we have an outside indication of Maximus’s stay in Rome during this time. In the acts of the trial of Maximus, we encounter, among other things, this kind of accusation brought against Maximus at the beginning of the trial in 655: 9 years ago (i.e., at the end of 645), through the oral transmission of a dream to Pope Theodore, Maximus aroused Gregory, prefect of Africa, to indignation against the empire 88. True, the accusation is false: Maxim rejected it, but the detail of the accusation that we noted is important for us. Based on this latter, we conclude that at the end of 645 or at the beginning of 646 Maximus was in Rome. How long Maxim stayed here this time is unknown. Judging by the fact that in 647 we again find Maximus in Africa 89, it is plausible to imagine the matter in such a way that after a rather short stay in Rome, Maximus returned to Africa to complete his long-term polemical activity there and to strengthen the actual triumph of orthodoxy over monothelitism, which was first reflected in Maximus’ victory over Pyrrhus. Such a consideration may find some justification for itself in the fact that, on the initiative of Maximus and, perhaps, in his personal presence, in the first half of 646 90 councils were formed in Africa from the bishops of Africa and neighboring islands 91 under the chairmanship of three provincial metropolitans (primarum sedium episcopi): Columbus of Numidia, Stephen of Byzacene and Reparatus of Mauritania 92. Monotheliteism was solemnly condemned as a heresy. Three conciliar epistles and a letter from Victor, Bishop of Carthage, read at the Lateran Council of 649, speak about these African councils. One of them, drawn up at a council of representatives of the three mentioned provinces, represents a collective request to Pope Theodore to take decisive measures against heresy 93. The other is a conciliar letter to the Patriarch of Constantinople Paul on behalf of the bishops of all Africa (excluding the proconsular province) with a statement about the termination of ecclesiastical communion of the African Church with the bishop of Constantinople, if the latter does not renounce heresy and does not tear down the “Ektesis” from the church doors 94. The third is a letter to Emperor Constance from the bishops of the Byzacene province with the same request as to Pope Theodore 95. This is how one part of the West, Africa, reacted to the religious innovation that came out of Constantinople. Let's take a quick look back and see how Rome reacted to Sergius's new attempt to introduce a union on the principles expressed in the Ectesis. It was noted above that apocrisiaries were sent from Rome from Rome to obtain imperial approval for the chosen one immediately after the death of Honorius Severinus. As a condition for the approval of the newly elected pope, they were then asked to sign the Ectesis. They refused to sign, and the Ectesis was sent to Rome to the newly elected Severinus. And since this latter did not give his signature to the “Ektesis”, the matter of approval dragged on for quite a long time. Imperial approval was received only on May 28, 640 96 with the promise given by the legates that the Ectesis would be accepted by the pope 97 . But the promise remained a promise. Having received approval, Severin issued a decree condemning monothelitism 98. 2 months and 4 days after the approval, on August 2, 640, Severin died and was buried on the 4th 99. Severin's successor, John IV, who ascended the papal throne on December 25, 640 after 4 months and 24 days of interpontificate 100, spoke out even more decisively against monothelitism, legitimized by the Ectesis. At the very beginning of his reign, in January 641, John IV convened a council in Rome, at which he rejected the “Ektesis” and anathematized the Monothelite false teaching 101. The pope immediately sent news of the rejection of “Ektesis” to Patriarch Pyrrhus, which prompted the dying Heraclius to lay aside the blame for the authorship of “Ektesis” on the deceased Sergius in a famous letter to John IV 102. Somewhat later, after the death of Heraclius, the pope sent a message to the young emperors, the sons of Heraclius, Constantine and Heraklion, offering in it the Orthodox teaching (about two wills and actions in Christ) and an apology for his predecessor Honorius 103. Emperor Constance responded to the message of John IV after the death of his father Constantine († May 29, 641), promising to tear down the “Ektesis” from the church doors and set it on fire 104. The next pope, Theodore (from November 24, 642 to May 14, 649), 105 no less decisively than his predecessor, declared himself an opponent of monothelitism. Upon receipt of the above-mentioned conciliar message from the three African metropolitans, Theodore wrote to Patriarch Paul in Constantinople about his bewilderment caused by the patriarch’s behavior in relation to “Ektesis”, since “Ektesis” - despite the promise of Emperor Constance to destroy it and Paul himself’s assurance that he adheres to the Orthodox way of thinking - actually continued to exist 106. Paul responded to Theodore's letter rather arrogantly. In brief, strictly defined and logically very consistent provisions, the epistle of Paul gives, in essence, a compendium of the doctrine of monothelitism. “Because of the inseparable union (of natures) in hypostasis,” says Paul, “we recognize only one will of our Lord, in order to avoid the need to think of two wills; one) because the rationally animated flesh of Christ, due to the closest connection with the Divinity, never made its natural movement from its own impulse, contrary to the wave of the Word hypostatically united with it, but ... ", etc. (exactly the same argument as in the letter of Sergius to Honorius). In conclusion, a reference to the famous saying of Christ: “I have come not to do my will, but the will of Him who sent Me” 107 . The pope responded to Paul's message by deposing him. If we add to what has been said about Rome’s attitude to the unique decree “Ectesis” that dominated the minds of the East that, in addition to Africa, councils were convened in other provinces of the West that condemned monothelitism, 108 then we will see that the entire West, although not suddenly, but decisively, spoke out against monothelitism, which Pope John IV declared somewhat prematurely. Such a decisive protest of almost the entire West against the unique attempts of the East on the principles of monothelitism, expressed in the “Ectesis”, repeatedly declared in the form of conciliar decrees and petitions presented to the emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople, could not, of course, remain without consequences, especially given such a critical position of the state in which the Byzantine Empire was placed at that time by the conquests of Egypt (in 640) and Africa (in 647 year) from Muslims. It was precisely as a result of this state of affairs of the Church and the state, in the form of pacification, mainly of the West and the agreement of the Western and Eastern Churches, that Emperor Constance abolished the “Ἐκθεσις” in 648, however, so that in its place he issued the so-called “Τύπος της πίστεως” [Model of Faith], compiled Patriarch Paul 109. Sergius's second successor, Paul, turned out to be more far-sighted and consistent in this case than his predecessor, the cunning and resourceful Sergius. More far-sighted - because Sergius gave his work a not entirely suitable form of symbol, and Paul - a more suitable form of an imperial edict; more consistently - because “Ektesis,” prohibiting the dispute about one or two energies, actually preached one will (monothelitism), and “Typos,” more consistently, along with “μία ενέργεια,” also rejected “εν θέλημα,” although it did not spare “δύο θέΑηματα", equally prohibiting both monothelitism and orthodox diophelitism. “Typos” threatens violators of its prohibition, as disobedient to the orders of the imperial edict, with severe punishments consistent with the rank and position of the violators 110. Equally prohibiting both monoergism and monothelitism, and diophelitism, “Typos” could claim impartiality and, apparently, should have contributed to the achievement of the purpose for which it was published. In fact, as having come from the hands of a champion of monothelitism, the same one who, not long before, had decisively and definitely spoken out for “the one will of our Lord,” “Typos” in its design represented the last rather subtle attempt of the monothelitic party through the suppression of orthodox diophelitism (since this latter was put on the same level with heresy) to give triumph to its false teaching. It is clear that with such imaginary impartiality, “Typos” did not achieve its intended goal, despite its threats. The cautious Pope Theodore responded to the publication of the Typos by excommunicating its author, Paul, without affecting the edict itself 111. Theodore's successor († May 14, 649) 112 Pope Martin I (from July 5, 649) 113 treated the "Typos" much more strictly than his predecessor. Pope Martin was one of the outstanding Orthodox figures of his time in the West: his name can rightly be placed along with the high zealots and courageous fighters of Orthodoxy in the East - Sophronius and Maximus. At the very first stages of his accession to the Roman episcopal see, on the advice of Maximus 114, who by that time had come 115 from Africa to Rome, Martin convened a large Lateran council in Rome, the sessions of which were opened on October 5, 649 116. During the convening of the council, the chamberlain of the royal court, Exarch of Italy Olympius, came to Rome with instructions to solicit the signature of the “Typos” and overthrow the pope 117. But the mission of Olympius had a completely opposite outcome, favorable for the pope, and the council took place. 150 bishops were present at the council. Abba Maximus was also present at the council, among 37 Greek abbas (who lived for a long time in Rome) who were admitted to the second meeting of the council. And the fact that the acts of the council do not mention Maxim at all is, according to the Greek historian Theophanes, completely in the order of things. It is known that the abbas and presbyters, although they were present at the councils, did not have the right to vote and did not have a handwritten signature under the council’s resolutions, and Maxim was a simple monk 118. After a preliminary consideration (in the first meeting) of the teaching of the Fathers of the Church about two wills and actions in Christ and (in the second meeting) of the heretical teaching about one will and action of Christ and after reading (in the third meeting) some letters of the leaders of monothelitism, starting with Theodore of Parano (at subsequent sessions), the council finally decided to profess the Orthodox teaching about two wills and actions in Christ and set out this definition in a special “symbol”. The Lateran "symbol" represents a simple repetition and transposition of the Chalcedonian symbol, from the words: "ενα και τον αύτόν ..." [of the Same] to the words: "... Ιησούν Χριστόν" [Jesus Christ]. What is new in it against the Chalcedonian symbol is only the following very important definition regarding the two wills and actions in Christ: “et duas ejusdem sicuti naturas unitas inconfuse, ita et duas naturales voluntates (i.e. credimus), divinam et humanam, et duas naturales operationes, divinam et humanam, in approbatione perfecta et indiminuta eundem veraciter esse perfectum Deum, et hominem perfectum, secundum veritatem eundem atque unum dominum nostrum et Deum Jesum Christum, utpote volentem et operantem divine et humane nostram salutem" 119. Monothelitism was condemned, its champions: Cyrus, Sergius, Pyrrhus and Paul (not a word about Honorius) were anathematized; Two imperial edicts were also rejected: “Ektesis” of Heraclius and “Typos” of Constance II. The acts of the council with a special encyclical from the pope were sent to all Christian countries (“ad omnes Christi fideles” [to all believers in Christ]). A copy of the council's acts, together with a special message on behalf of the pope and the entire council, was sent to the emperor with a demand to restore Orthodoxy 120. This was Pope Martin's response to the emperor's demand for the adoption of the Typos, presented by Exarch Olympius. Having received the message and acts of the council, the emperor angrily ordered Pope Martin and his adviser Abba Maximus to be brought from Rome. With this kind of order, on June 15, 653, the new exarch Calliope came to Rome with the Ravenna army. On June 17, according to Martin himself 121, he was arrested in the church of St. Constantine and was declared deposed, and on the 29th he was taken into custody on a ship and sent to Constantinople as a state criminal. Upon his arrival in Constantinople on September 17, Martin was kept in custody for three months, after which on December 20 he was interrogated (interrogations concerned the profession of faith, letters and delivery of money to the Saracens, attitude towards Olympius and treatment of Pyrrhus in Rome), excommunicated and imprisoned. The following year 654, around mid-March, he was exiled to Tauride Chersonesus, where he arrived on May 15. A year and 4 months later, Martin was no longer alive († September 16, 655) 122. At the same time as Martin 123, Maxim was taken into custody along with two of his students: Anastasius the monk and Anastasius, the former apocrisiary of the Roman Church under the Patriarch of Constantinople 124. The fate of Maximus upon his arrival in Constantinople 125 was even sadder than the fate of Martin: he had to endure unusually difficult and prolonged torture and torment. With all kinds of long-term promises, seductions, threats, torture and torment, they tried to force Maximus to recognize the “Typos” and, if not to renounce his religious beliefs, then at least a promise not to preach his thoughts, but to remain silent, as was ordered in the “Typos”. From the ship on which Maxim was brought to Constantinople, a detachment of rude soldiers dragged him, barefoot and half-naked, through the crowded streets of the city, after which he was imprisoned 126. Then, Maxim, as a political criminal 127, was put on trial. Maxim was accused of the following crimes, brought against him by his Monothelites enemies: a) secret relations with the Saracens, b) inciting the uprising of Gregory, the prefect of Africa, and c) in general, during his stay in Africa and Rome, showing contempt for the church and civil authorities of the empire. This contemptuous attitude towards the authorities was, among other things, the reason that the Lateran Council, on the initiative of Maximus, pronounced an anathema on the Patriarchs of Constantinople and the emperors themselves, d) Maximus is the cause of unrest in the Church and the resulting disorder in the state, e) Maximus forced Pyrrhus by force to renounce monothelitism, etc. In a word - a deliberate, hostile fabrication, which, of course, the government itself could not help but realize. And if the latter brought him to trial on de-jure charges of the aforementioned political crimes, then, de-facto, it only wanted, under pain of punishment for the crimes attributed to him, to force him to recognize “Typos” and renounce, even if only outwardly, Orthodoxy. And if Maxim had only shown the appearance that he accepted the "Typos", then, undoubtedly, royal favors and honors would have awaited him 128. From prison, Maxim, along with both of his students, was brought to the Senate for trial. The interrogation opened with a question from the sacellarius (fiscal): “Chistianus es?” [Are you a Christian?] – and reading Maxim’s guilt. Reproaching Maxim for hating the emperor, the fiscal declared that Maxim was the culprit of the Saracens' conquest of Egypt, Alexandria, Pentapolis and Africa. Then four accusers spoke in turn, whose accusations were as follows: a) Maximus, during the life of Heraclius, 22 years ago, contributed to the secession of Egypt, advising the prefect Peter of Numidia, contrary to the orders of Emperor Heraclius, not to undertake a campaign in Egypt 129; b) nine years ago, by transmitting a dream to Pope Theodore, Maximus excited Gregory, prefect of Africa, to revolt against the empire 130; c) Maximus mocked the emperor and d) Anastasius, Maximus’s student, said that “the emperor is not worthy to be a priest.” For the first three charges, Maxim did not plead guilty, and to the last charge he replied that indeed these words were spoken, but not by Anastasia, but by himself, and that he said this in the sense that “it is the business of priests, not emperors, to examine and determine the saving dogmas of faith” 131. Then Maxim and his students were taken to prison. On the same day, Maxim was brought into the courtroom for the second time. Abba Mina’s accusation of Maxim’s own adherence and his incitement of the people to Origenism was rejected by Maxim, pronouncing an anathema against Origen 132 . In the evening of the same day, Troilus the patrician and Sergius Eucrates, the head of the royal meal, came to Maxim in prison. They asked Maxim why he did not want to enter into communion with the Church of Constantinople. Therefore, the answer was that its leaders are heretics, which is evident, among other things, from the fact that they constantly change the formulas of the confession (IX members of Cyrus, “Ectesis” of Sergius, “Typos” of Paul). The ambassadors announced that tomorrow the Roman Church would enter into communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople. Maximus answered them that he did not attach any credibility to such a message, since communication is possible only under one condition: if the Church of Constantinople accepts the doctrine of two wills and actions in Christ. In conclusion, Maximus expressed regret that the emperor (Constance II) had succumbed to the influence of Bishop Paul and published the Typos; He also said that in order to protect his honor, Constance should do the same as Heraclius did regarding Ectesis 133. This ended the first interrogation. A few days after the first interrogation, on April 22, the day of Midsummer 134, a deputation from the Patriarch of Constantinople (Pyrrhus) came to Maximus in prison with a proposal to enter into communion with the Church of Constantinople under the condition of accepting the following conciliatory formula, through which the unity of all churches (Constantinople, Rome, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem) was allegedly achieved: “We confess in Christ two actions (δύο ενεργείας), because of the difference (of natures) and one action (και μιαν), because of the unity (of the person)" 135. Maxim decisively rejected this proposal, despite the fact that if he refused, he was threatened on behalf of the emperor and patriarch with excommunication and the death penalty. In the summer (alio sabbato) of 655, after the death of Pyrrhus, 136 Maximus and both disciples were again summoned to trial. This time, two patriarchs (Peter of Constantinople and Macedon of Antioch) were present during the interrogation, but they were silent the entire time. The accusers were the same as in one of the previous interrogations: Constantine and Abba Mina. To their accusation that Maximus anathematized the emperor, the accused firmly replied that he anathematized the imperial edict (“Typos”), but not the emperor himself 137 . After this interrogation, Maximus was exiled to Thrace and imprisoned here in the small fortress of Bisia. Two of Maximus' students were also exiled to Thrace. On August 24, 656 138, a deputation came here to the fortress to Maxim: on behalf of the Patriarch of Constantinople - Theodosius, Bishop of Caesarea Bithynia, and on behalf of the emperor - consuls Paul and Theodosius. To the question of Theodosius, the bishop: why is he withdrawing from communion with the Church of Constantinople, Maxim responded by pointing to the dominance of heresy in the Church of Constantinople and the heresy of the Patriarchs of Constantinople as the reason for such removal on his part. Having then subjected the content of the Monothelite teaching to a rather detailed examination, Maximus reveals the inconsistency of its principles, mainly from the side of those absurd conclusions that follow from them with irresistible consistency 139; pointed out the unfounded content of the “Typos” (Theodosius agreed with the latter); categorically, but with his characteristic humility, he declared that his communication with the Church of Constantinople under current conditions is unthinkable. The question of wills was raised again: Theodosius defended unity of will and referred to the evidence allegedly of Gregory the Wonderworker, Athanasius and Chrysostom. Maximus refuted the arguments of Theodosius, proving that the evidence cited by the latter belongs to Apollinaris and Nestorius. After a rather lengthy debate on the issue of wills in Christ, Bishop Theodosius confessed (I think he was only showing...) his error. He promised under oath to arrange the reunification of the heretics with the Church, and the consul Theodosius expressed confidence that the emperor would agree to this. The meeting of the deputies with Maxim ended with a touching farewell. Maxim even received financial support from Bishop Theodosius 140. It seemed that the restoration of peace to the Church was at hand. On September 8, 656, the consul Paul appeared to Maxim in the fortress, who, on behalf of the emperor, was given the order to transfer Maxim “with great honor and respect,” as the order said, to the monastery of St. Theodora near Constantinople 141. But Maxim’s situation with his transfer to the monastery, contrary to expectation, worsened. On September 13, a deputation came to him in the person of two patricians, Epiphanius and Troilus; Bishop Theodosius was with them. The delegation came to announce to Maxim the will of the emperor, which consisted in the hope that Maxim would accept the “Typos” and enter into communication with the Monothelitian party, upon fulfillment of which Maxim promised him royal favors 142 . “We are firmly convinced,” the order said at the end, “that if you enter into communication with us, then everyone who, for your sake and under your leadership, has fallen away from communication (with us) will join us” 143. In response to this flattering offer from the emperor, Maxim declared: “... all the heavenly powers will not convince me to do what you propose.” Irritated by Maximus’s immutable firmness, the patricians furiously attacked him and brutally beat him with curses. Bishop Theodosius could hardly stop their ardor and impudent treatment of Maximus 144. The next day, September 14, by the will of the emperor, Maxim was exiled a second time, first to Selemvria (a city in Thrace), and then to Pervera, and there he was imprisoned 145. The prisoner languished here for about five years. Finally, once again, and for the last time, Maxim was summoned from exile to Constantinople with the sole purpose, it seems, of pouring out tyrannical anger on the elderly sufferer. Upon arrival in Constantinople, Maxim was immediately brought to the trial chamber and punished with ox sinews, after which his tongue and right hand (an organ and instrument of polemics) were cut off and, exhausted and disfigured, he was led through all quarters of the city for general ridicule. After all this, Maxim was exiled to Colchis, the country of the Laz (on the Black Sea coast). Both of Maxim’s students were also exiled here. Maxim was imprisoned in the Shemari fortress and here soon, on August 13, 662, he died peacefully 146. Maxim the Confessor is canonized by the Church. The bloody, inhuman measures of persecution that fell on the heads of the brave fighters of Orthodoxy finally, apparently, suppressed any protest against monothelitism: no one dared to openly raise their voice in defense of Orthodoxy; Orthodoxy in the East was apparently completely suppressed. The immediate consequence of this state of church affairs was the division of the Eastern and Western churches: the latter contained as orthodox the doctrine of two natural wills and actions in Christ, while the former accepted the doctrine of one will and one action of Christ as such. How disastrously the domination of monothelitism affected the general course of church affairs, this is very eloquently evidenced by the following words of one contemporary of those events: “The hierarchs became heresiarchs and instead of peace they proclaimed strife to the people, they sowed tares in the church field instead of wheat; wine (truth) was mixed with water (heresy), and the neighbor was given a muddy mixture to drink; the wolf was mistaken for a lamb, the lamb for a wolf; lies were considered truth, and truth - lies, wickedness devoured piety. All the affairs of the Church have become confused." 147 Thus, the matter of reuniting the churches, undertaken according to purely political calculations of the emperor and carried out on grounds that were more political than ecclesiastical, led to completely opposite results. It is impossible to say with certainty whether the long-lasting Monothelite disputes, which took up two-thirds of the 7th century, would have ended soon if Emperor Constantine Pogonatus, realizing the inappropriateness of secular measures in resolving issues of faith, had not, under the influence of the West, come to the good idea of ​​“convening the eyes of the Church, the priests, to investigate the truth” 148 . In 680, in November, the VI Ecumenical Council was held in Constantinople, at which representatives of the East and West carefully considered, finally decided and strictly formulated the doctrine of two natural wills and two natural actions in Christ, and monothelitism with all its leaders and followers was subjected to church anathema. The conciliar definitions of faith were based on two epistles of Agathon. How the cathedral honored the memory and works of the great champion of Orthodoxy, St. Maximus the Confessor, we will talk about this in the final section. From the presented sketch of the life of St. Maximus the Confessor shows that almost his entire life, after moving away from the imperial court, he spent mainly in the fight against the false teaching of the Monothelites that was contemporary to him. He conducted his polemics in two ways: orally and in writing. So we saw that he had oral debates with the false bishops of the Monophysite faction of the North on the island. Cyprus, with ex-patriarch Pyrrhus in Carthage and with Theodosius, bishop of Caesarea Bithynia, in Thrace. A written monument to the polemical works of St. Maxim is represented by the many letters that have reached us, written by him at different times to different persons. All polemical works of this kind by Maximus the Confessor have as their main subject an explanation of the dogmatic teaching about two wills in Christ. The starting points in explaining this teaching for St. Father was served by the following two principles, which constitute the essence of the Chalcedonian definition of faith: one - there are two natures in Christ; the other is that with two natures in Christ there is one hypostasis. The general development of these two principles in the polemical works of St. The maxim is presented in the following form. First of all, he tries to establish the position (one of the principles of diophelytism proper) that will (θέλημα) constitutes the essential determination of nature (φύσις), and not of person (ύπόστασις), as the monothelytes thought. Coming from the first principle and asserting, contrary to the opinion of the North, the integrity of both natures of Christ and by combining them, Maxim develops (against the monothelites and monoergists) the idea that in Christ we must recognize two wills (δύο θελήματα) and two actions (δύο ένέργειαι ). He bases the validity of his understanding on the sayings of St. Scripture and on the testimony of all recognized authorities of the Church (mainly Dionysius the Areopagite, Gregory the Theologian and Cyril of Alexandria, to whom the Monothelites especially often referred), everywhere indicating the true meaning of their expressions. Moving from the first principle to the second and asking himself the question of how it is possible for the existence of two natures in one person, St. Maxim points out the need to distinguish between φύσις and ύπόστασις, confused by Monothelites, and answers the question posed by the proposition that in Christ σύνθετος ύπόστασις [complex hypostasis] - the hypostasis of God the Word, serving as a hypostasis and for the humanity of Christ. And the solution to the insoluble difficulty from the point of view of monothelitism, represented by the existence of two wills and actions in one person of the God-man, is found in the indication that the decisive principle in the God-man is His Divine will, which, by virtue of the very nature of sinless humanity, is followed in everything by His human will. The consequence of this relation of natural duality to the personal unity of the God-man is that Maximus explains under the form of the concepts “περιχώρησις” [perichorisis, interpenetration], “άντίδοσις” [exchange (of properties)] and “ θέωσις » [deification] of the human will of Christ. This is, in the most essential and general terms, the content of all of Maximus’s conversations and letters in general, devoted to the disclosure of the doctrine of two wills in Christ, which (conversations and letters) regarding content and tone can rightly be called the general dogmatic-polemical works of Maximus the Confessor. All the dogmatic and polemical works of St. father regarding the content can be conveniently divided into two groups on the basis that in some of them the doctrine is revealed exclusively about two natures in Christ and the polemic is directed against monophysitism (the first group), and in others - mainly the doctrine about two wills and actions in Christ and the polemic is conducted against monoergism and monothelitism (the second group). The first group of Maximus's dogmatic and polemical works consists of his letters: to John the Cubular, to Senator Peter, to Deacon Cosmas, to Julian the Scholastic and some others. They reveal the doctrine exclusively of two natures in Christ and the polemic is directed against the Monothelites in general, and in particular against the North. a) Maxim wrote several letters to a certain famous 149 Peter: at least we can indicate three such letters. But for us only one of them is important 150, dogmatic-polemical, directed against the teachings of the North and having as its subject the duality of natures in Christ (t. II, col. 509 - 533). Judging, on the one hand, by the fact that Sophronius appears to be in Constantinople 151 and is simply called Abba (which means he was not yet a bishop at that time), and on the other, by the fact that at the end of the letter (col. 533) there is a brief recommendation of Sophronius, the time of writing of this letter can most likely be attributed to the year 633. The place of writing, according to the time of writing, should be Alexandria. The content of the letter is the development of the following provisions. Number is not the beginning of division or connection; along with the qualitative difference in the natures of Christ before their union, it is necessary to confess the natural duality after the union (col. 513 - 516). Christ is not one complex nature, but a single (μοναδική) complex hypostasis (σύνθετος ύπόστασις), uniting in himself two perfect natures, which remain such even after the union (col. 517 - 525). The expression “μία σύνθετος ύπόστασις” [one complex hypostasis] has a relative meaning and is strictly Orthodox; and the expression “μία σύνθετος φύσις” [one complex nature] contains a heretical thought about some real mixture of natures - a thought that is completely inconsistent with the mystery of the incarnation (col. 525 - 532). b) The letter to Cosmas, deacon of the Alexandrian Church (t. II, col. 544 - 580), consists of separate treatises of a purely dogmatic nature, from the so-called “dogmatic chapters” on nature and hypostasis. Judging by the fact that this letter serves as an answer to Cosmas’s questions, proposed to Maxim (orally) even before the writing of that letter of recommendation to Peter, which mentions this very circumstance (col. 537), its writing should be dated back to the time before 640 or to the very beginning of 640. The place of writing must have been Alexandria. c) Letters to John cubicular 152 have been preserved in a sufficient number (8 in number). Of interest to us, and quite significant interest, is only one of the eight 153 - “On the dogmas of the Orthodox Church,” directed against the teachings of the North 154. This one is interesting in its content: it reveals more fully than other letters of this group the two above-mentioned principles of the Chalcedonian creed and refutes some objections from the North. The reason for writing this message is a letter from Augusta Martina addressed to the prefect of Africa with an order to persecute the sectarians of the Northern faction living in monasteries (col. 460 - 64). Contents – presentation of the “Orthodox confession” (έκθεσις της ορθής ομολογίας). The need to recognize two perfect natures in Christ (col. 465 - 468), and by the union of those who invariably abid in Him, unfused, but also inseparable. The distinction between the concepts of “διαφορά” [distinction] and “διαίρεσις” [separation], according to the teaching of Cyril of Alexandria and other Church Fathers (col. 469 – 472). The duality of natures does not violate personal unity, because in general number is not the beginning of division, but only an expression of the qualitative difference of countable objects ( δηΛοτικός, άΛΛ᾿ ού της διαιρέσεως) clarification of this general position using the example of a “two-color and five-color stone” (col. 473 – 476). Certification of the validity of the position on the number by the testimony of Cyril of Alexandria; explanation and conclusion from this evidence (col. 477 – 480). The consistency of the expression “έν δύο” [Β two] (in relation to the natures of Christ) with the recognition of “one nature of God the Word incarnate” with a correct, alien to the error of Nestorius, understanding of the duality of natures (col. 481 – 484). The two qualitatively different natures of Christ constitute a complex hypostasis, but not a complex nature, as Severus thinks (col. 485 – 493). A brief refutation North's objections to the expression "έν δύο". The absence of contradiction in the statement of unity and duality, due to the difference in meaning in the sayings "έν" [one] και "δύο" [two]. Analysis of the sayings of Gregory the Theologian that are suitable here ("έν έξ άμφοϊν, και δι ένός αμφότερα "[one of both, and both through one]) and Cyril of Alexandria (“Ώ στε τα δύο μηκέτι μέν είναι δύο, δι άμφοϊν δέ τό έν άποτεΛείσθαι ζώον "[So two are no longer two, but from two one living being is made]) (col. 492 - 496). Advice to treat the teachings of heretics with wise caution and caution (col. 497). A brief explanation of the meaning of some expressions regarding Christ: the expressions of Athanasius the Great “one nature of God the Word incarnate” (conclusions from it: the interaction of natures and the communication of properties, the recognition of the two births of Christ and the confession of the Virgin Mary in the proper and true sense of the Mother of God); Romans, XIÏ 2; books of Job, X: 21, 22, etc. (col. 500 – 509). According to a clear indication in the message itself, the message in question was written in November of the XV Indiction, during the reign of patrician Martina 155, wife of Emperor Heraclius, which corresponds to the year 641. The content of a rather short letter to Julian 156, the scholastic of Alexandria, on the incarnation of the Son of God consists of the following, little developed, provisions. The purpose of the incarnation in relation to human nature is its renewal. The reality and integrity of Christ's human nature before, during and after the incarnation. The immutability of the Divinity of Christ in the act of incarnation. The unfused, inseparable and unchanging presence of both natures of Christ in personal union. Reference to the Fathers of the Church: an expression (Cyril of Alexandria) regarding the correct understanding on the part of the Catholic Church of the immutability of the human nature of Christ in personal union with the Divinity. This letter was written in connection with some request of Julian and Christopemtus, addressed through Maximus to George, Prefect of Africa 157. Based on the consideration that, according to the words (given in the note) at the end of the letter, Maxim conveyed the said request to the prefect, and he promised to fulfill it, one can unmistakably conclude that the letter was sent during Maxim’s stay in Carthage. d) Also included here, in the first group of dogmatic-polemical works of Maximus, is a small letter to the hermits who fell away from the Catholic Church in Alexandria, written on behalf of George, prefect of Africa (col. 584 - 589). The content of the dogmatic part of the letter is partly similar to the content of the letter to Julian. In affirming the duality of natures in Christ, what is developed here is mainly the idea of the qualitative difference between the Divine and human natures of Christ, invariably abiding in Christ and through union: φύσεων και μετά την ένωσιν άσυγχύτως τε και αδιαιρέτως έν Χριστώ σωζομένων ..." [the difference in the natures of which Christ consists, and which, even after their union, are preserved in Christ unfused and indivisible], etc. (col. 588; compare: 586). The letter is written on behalf of George, Prefect of Africa, in response to the request mentioned above. From this we conclude that it was written in Carthage somewhat later than the letter to Julian, with whom it has the indicated connection; therefore, not earlier than 641, but not later: the letter was written during the joint reign of two emperors in the Byzantine Empire 158. Will we see here an indication of the joint governance of the state of Heraclius the Elder with his son Constantine, which ended with the death of Heraclius on February 11, 641, or the too short-lived (lasting only 130 days) joint reign of Constantine with Heraklion, which ended with the death of Constantine on May 29, 641, or, finally, the reign of Heraklion with his mother Martina, which lasted only 6 months, in any case we will have to recognize the writing of the letter as contemporary to the year 641. The second group of dogmatic and polemical works of Maxim. a) Among all the dogmatic-polemical works of Maximus, the first place after the “Disputation with Pyrrhus” is occupied, undoubtedly, by the dogmatically excellent message “On the Two Wills of Christ our God” (col. 184 - 208). Its primary importance in dogmatic terms is determined by the fact that in it Maxim, as a skilled polemicist, strikes his opponent, as they say, not in the eyebrow, but right in the eye: touching on the very foundations of monothelitism, Maxim very skillfully exposes the failure of monothelitism as a doctrine at its very root. All of Maxim’s reasoning is imprinted with the character of strictly scientific, philosophical thought; all the arguments for and against breathe the irresistible power of logic. In this message, as nowhere else, the whole of Maxim is reflected - a highly educated man, a great theologian thinker and a very skillful polemicist. To our greatest regret, we cannot say more or less positively about this message, either to whom it is addressed, or when and where it was written. Regarding the first question, we are inclined to share the opinion of Photius, who attributes the writing of this epistle to Stephen the abbot 159, if by this Stephen he meant the famous Stephen, Bishop of Dor. Without knowing how Photius argues for his opinion, we find some reason to agree with him in the fact that another letter, directly addressed to Stephen, Bishop of Dor, without connection with the present letter, would seem to be something like the crown of a building without a base or body. And the present message, with all the logic and relative convincingness from the point of view of the human mind of the reasoning contained in it, may seem unconvincing to anyone who, in a matter of such high dogmatic importance, wants to rely on one or another church authority, which is given in the letter to Stephen, Bishop of Dor. Putting the two indicated epistles in this relation, we will have to attribute the writing of the one under consideration to an earlier time than the writing of another epistle to the same person: to the time before 645, when Stephen was not yet in the rank of bishop, but was, which is not incredible, an abbot, so it is permissible to think with Photius that the epistle in question was written to “Stephen the abbot.” Contents of the message. Refutation of the fundamental error of monothelitism - the confusion of natural will as a force of desire with the direction of the will and with the object of desire and the distinction between these three terms (col. 185 - 188). The need to recognize the position regarding the number of wills, arising from the recognition of their differences (otherness) (col. 189). The deification of the human nature of Christ does not deprive it of its inherent being, and therefore of will: the analogy with a sword red-hot in fire (col. 189 – 192). The distinction between the concepts of “natural will” and “spontaneous inclination” (τό γνωμικόν θέλημα) and the establishment of the position on the dissimilarity of difference with the opposite (col. 192 – 193). Refutation of the Monothelite opinion that the human will of Christ is revealed only during suffering (col. 196). Statement and clarification of the main position: action is a property of nature, not a person, and the resulting need to recognize, due to the duality of natures, two natural actions (col. 197 – 201). Compatibility of natural difference with the unity of person with the relative complexity of this latter (col. 201 – 204). Explanation of the concepts “τό μή άνυπόστατον” [not impersonal] (in relation to nature) and “τό μή άνούσιον” [not immaterial] (in relation to a person); based on it is the meaning of the confession of the natures of Christ as “truly existing” (μή ανυπόστατοι) and active (μή άνεργήτοι) [not inactive], the conclusion from this confession to the existence not of hypostases or agents, but of essential determinations of natures (col. 204 – 205). Clarification of the meaning of the patristic saying, which speaks of the recognition in Christ “πασαν θείαν και άνθρωπίνην ένέργειαν” [of every divine and human action] (col. 208). b) The so-called “dogmatic” epistle to Stephen; Bishop Dorsky. Its content. The need to think about the human nature of Christ with all its essential definitions: free will and action (col. 156-157). Evidence from the Gospel and from the Fathers of the Church, certifying the inherent in Christ of both the Divine and human will (col. 157–165) and two natural actions (col. 165–168). Opinions of the leaders of heresy about one will and one action in Christ (col. 169 – 173). An indication of the true meaning of the sayings of some Church Fathers, falsely interpreted by heretics (col. 176), and the real authorities on which the Ectesis relies (180). Written from Rome (as expressly stated in the inscription of the epistle, col. 156), therefore not earlier than the end of 645; on the other hand, until the time of the Lateran Council of 649, since at this council Stefan Dorsky himself was personally present and participated in the condemnation of Ektesis and its editor and publisher. However, the final time limit for writing the epistle in question can be further limited: it was written before the publication of the Typos, since there is no mention of this latter in it. So, it was written in 646 - 648. c) Letters to Marin. There are several letters to Marin of a purely dogmatic nature. One of them bears the following inscription: “Dogmatic epistle to Marin, deacon (προς Μαρίνον διάκονον), on Fr. Cyprus” (col. 69 – 89). Since in the inscriptions of other letters to Marinus the latter is called a presbyter, and not a deacon, Combefi and some others are inclined to assume that the present letter is addressed to Marinus a presbyter, and not a deacon 160. As a basis for such an assumption, they point to the following expression found in the message itself: τό έργον, ώς "[For nothing depicts the work of your priesthood so much as...] etc. 161. True, the concept “ίερωσύνη” [priesthood] most closely means “priestly rank” and serves to designate the second degree of priesthood (presbyter), but, understood in a broad sense, it embraces all three degrees of the priesthood, therefore, the diaconal rank. So the said expression in itself does not provide sufficient grounds for the exclusivity of understanding it in one sense or another. The preference for understanding it in the first of these senses is weakened by another expression at the beginning of the epistle: “πανάγιε Θεού θεράπον” [all-holy servant of God] 162. And as for the fact that the other epistles are addressed to Marin the presbyter, and not the deacon, its power is completely paralyzed by the simple consideration, also given by Combefi 163, that nothing prevented Marin from becoming a deacon and successively a presbyter. Remaining in the opinion that this epistle was written to Marinus when he was still a deacon, on the issue of time, and at the same time about the place of writing of the epistle in question, we can at least say that it was written earlier than other letters to Marinus, which is confirmed by one brief remark of another letter to Marinus, written from Carthage in 644 - 645. Regardless of the other messages, we can only say that it was written after 635, during the height of the controversy. Consequently, quite wide boundaries have to be allocated to the time of writing this message: 635 - 644 years. Contents of the message. Along with the Divine nature and will in Christ, it is necessary to confess the human natural will, in accordance with His human nature (col. 77 - 80). The agreement of the human will of Christ in its manifestations with His Divine will (col. 80 – 81). The extremes resulting from the rejection of the human will in Christ (col. 81). Sayings of Dionysius and Cyril regarding the two actions in Christ (col. 84 – 89). Another letter from the time of writing to presbyter Marinus presents a brief discussion on the doctrines raised in the definitions of the Roman Council (the council of 641, shortly before the death of Heraclius, chaired by Pope John IV) about the procession of the Holy Spirit and the incarnation of God the Word (col. 133 - 137) and a discussion on the reading of the work of Theodore of Faran “on essence and nature, on hypostasis and face and the rest chapters" 164. Unfortunately, only fragments of it have survived. Regarding this message, we had occasion to say that it is valuable in relation to biographical data concerning the circumstances of Maxim’s life. In addition, it is also valuable because with its help we can determine, at least comparatively, the time of writing the messages to Marin, which are very important for us. So, from it we learn: a) that this message was written in response to the message of Marinus from Carthage, therefore - in 641; b) that it is not the first letter to Marinus written, but that before him Maxim wrote to Marinus, and this latter approved the words and teachings of Maximus 165 (in this last message one can see an indication of the famous letter to Marinus the deacon); c) that the message to Marin, representing a psychological outline of the soul and its manifestations, was written after the present message 166. The third letter to Marin, the content of which includes a depiction of the volitional (col. 9 - 20) and mental (col. 20 - 21) processes and the development of two provisions: about the impossibility of allowing after the resurrection one will of God and the saints, given the same object of will (col. 21 - 27) and about the impossibility of recognizing in Christ one will, whatever it may be (col. 27 - 37) - it is unknown exactly when it was written. Based on the instructions in the second letter, we can only say that it was written after the second one was sent. But whether the writing of the third followed the sending of the second soon, or whether there was a more or less significant period of time between the writing of both, whether it was therefore written from Carthage or from some other place, and whether the third letter to Marinus should be recognized as the third in terms of the time of writing - all such and similar questions remain open to us. Nothing definite can be said about the time and place of writing about another letter to Marin, the fourth in a row. Its content consists of two treatises: one on the actions and wills in Christ (col. 39 - 45) and the other on the teaching of the Church Fathers about the two natural wills in Christ. Adjacent to it is a discussion about the memory of being on the island. Crete and about the interview of Maximus with the false Severian bishops that took place there (col. 45 – 49). However, regarding the time of writing the third and fourth letters to Marinus, one can perhaps accept it as reliable that they were written before the time of the dispute with Pyrrhus, since in neither one nor the other there is even a hint of it. This would hardly have been possible if they had been written after this, undoubtedly, very major event in the history of the polemical activity of St. Maxima. The fifth letter to Marinus (col. 228 – 245) represents an apology written in defense of Anastasius Sinaita, Gregory the Theologian and Pope Honorius. In the work of Anastasius, Archbishop of Antioch, “Κατά του Διαιτητού” (i.e. against Nestorius, the “separator”) the expression “διό μίαν μέν την” is found "[That's why we are talking about one action in Christ], which the Monothelites cited as a justification for their own teaching. Restoring the holistic image of Anastasius’ teaching about action in Christ, Maximus explains that Anastasius recognizes both one, due to the communion of natures, and two actions in Christ, due to the significant difference in natural properties (col. 232 – 233). From Gregory the Theologian his well-known saying about the resistance of the human will to the Divine will is interpreted in comparison with another of his sayings, speaking about the absence of such resistance (col. 233 - 237). The apology in defense of Honorius is especially lengthy: the famous letter of Honorius to Sergius is analyzed in some detail. We will have a judgment about Maximus’s attitude towards Honorius and his response message ahead. The following circumstance indicated in the letter itself can help determine the time of writing the apology: Abbot John, later Pope John IV, who took part, according to Maximus 167, in the compilation and writing of Honorius’s response letter to Sergius, was not yet pope at the time of writing the apology. Consequently, the apology was written, on the one hand, before the accession of John IV to the Roman episcopal see, i.e., before 641, on the other, undoubtedly, after the death of Honorius, i.e., after 638. This means that the apology was written in 639 or 640. d) “Copy of a letter from St. Maximus to the Most Holy Bishop Mister Nikander, about two actions in Christ περί τοΰ έν άγίοις Μαξίμου , περί των δύο έν Χριστώ ένεργειών ). One of the letters bears such an inscription, which occupies not the last place among Maxim’s dogmatic and polemical works. The name “Nikander” (Νίκαηδρος), which appears in the inscription of the letter, is more plausible to take in the common sense: in the meaning of “victor” (of the enemies of the Church), a brave defender (of the interests of Orthodoxy). Some features in the content of the letter (the severity of one’s own situation, caused by deprivation of liberty, living in a foreign, distant side under the cover of a “quiet haven” - the Catholic Church, etc.) make one see in this bishop a hierarch of the Roman Church, meanwhile, in the Roman Church in the time of Maximus there was no bishop with that name. Undoubtedly, this means that the bishop to whom this letter is addressed is the Pope and, as one can guess from the initial words of the letter, Martin. In the opening words: “Αύτός,… φερωνύμως έχων μετά τής ανδρείας, τήν κατά πάντων… πολεμούντων έχθρων ίερωτάτην νίκην "[He, together with courage, having (himself) the significant name of the most sacred victory against all warring enemies] (col. 89) - with the same right it is permissible to see an indication of the name "Martin", as in the name "Nikandr". It is quite possible that the original publisher of this letter, based on the words just given, put a second name in the inscription of the letter instead of the first. In the description of the addressee’s personality, contained in the above words, one can see an indication of the condemnation of monothelitism at the Lateran Council of 649. In Maximus's prayer that God would reveal the right outcome of the matter 169, one can see an allusion to the imperial order to overthrow Martin. In a word, everything suggests that this letter was written to Papa Martin. According to this conclusion, the writing of the letter should be attributed to the time period from 649 to 653 years. The content of the dogmatic part of the letter consists of the development of the following provisions. The human nature of Christ, after being united with the Divine, did not lose its natural properties (col. 93). Because of the duality of natures in Christ, one must confess two wills and two actions (col. 96). Reasonable beings are naturally endowed with the ability of fully conscious action and volition (col. 97). Inconsistencies in the mental representation of one will in Christ. The true meaning of the patristic sayings, falsely interpreted by heretics: Dionysius the Areopagite - “ή Θεανδρική ενέργεια” [divine action] (col. 100); Cyril of Alexandria – “μία (και) συγγενής δι᾿ άμφοίν έπιδεδειγμένη ενέργεια” [one and similar action, which is through both] (the meaning of the word “συγγενής” according to its meaning and use among the Fathers of the Church) (col. 101–105). The novelty and absurdity of the opinion of one activity in Christ (col. 108-109). f) A short letter to George 170, presbyter and abbot (col. 56 - 61), it is absolutely unknown when and where it was written. There is no data whatsoever that could serve to determine the time and place of writing of this letter, either in it itself or in other letters. In the whole letter (in fact, in its dogmatic part), the idea is developed about how true and perfect the human nature of Christ is. It is developed using the following provisions. The humanity perceived by the Savior, by its very nature in everything except sin (an indication of the image of the birth of Christ according to humanity), is similar to what we bear (αλλά ταύτόν, - i.e. τό κατά τον Σωτήρα - i.e. Save-television humanity is the same (as ours) in essence and not at all different..., with the exception of sin]). The perfect humanity of Christ, sinless by its very nature, did not have (in itself) anything contrary (αύτός δε πάσης κατά φύσιν ελεύθερος ών άμαρτίας,... ουδέν έναντίον είχεν [He, being by nature free from all sin,... had nothing contrary]) especially since it was completely deified (ταύτην, i.e. ούσίαν, μετ᾿ έκείνων άπάντων έθέωσε [this, i.e. essence, along with all those deified]). The human natural will of Christ was also similar to ours in everything; differs from the latter only in its direction - supernatural ( τοπούμενον δέ θεϊκώς ύπέρ ή μας [and His will, being in the exact sense of the word natural, like ours, is located divinely above (what is usual for) us]). Col. 60. The image of the birth of Christ according to humanity should not serve as an obstacle to identifying the human nature of Christ with ours, just as the hypostatic difference of the Son does not violate His consubstantiality with God the Father. Analysis of the saying of Gregory the Theologian about the opposition of human will to the Divine will (col. 60–61). f) The last letter written was to the Sicilians (col. 112 – 132). In terms of the subject and purpose of writing, it has a close affinity with the letters of Maximus to Anastasius the monk (t. I, col. 132–133) and Anastasius to the Calarian (in Sardinia) monks (t. I, col. 133–136). The subject and purpose of writing all three are exactly the same: rejection and refutation of the new Monothelite opinion, proposed to Maxim at the second interrogation as a conciliatory formula, about two and one wills and actions in Christ. Such a close connection of the letter in question with the two named letters gives an indisputable right to compare them regarding the time of writing. Maximus' letter to Anastasius was written after the famous second interrogation of Maximus, which took place in 655, on April 22. And the letter to the Sicilians was written, it must be assumed, also after the second interrogation: the subject and purpose of writing the letter, as such, were appropriate precisely at this time or generally during the trial of Maxim, when he was forced to defend himself against the charges brought against him. And in a letter to the Sicilians, he defends himself from fictitious accusations of solidarity with the Monothelites regarding the new unique formula 171 and of friendly attitude towards Pyrrhus 172. Maxim is not justified here in numerous other accusations, one must assume, simply because he did not attach any importance to accusations of a purely political nature, caring only about protecting the Orthodox confession, preached and defended by him, from arbitrary distortions on the part of heretics. Anastasius’s letter to the Kalarians was written, as Anastasius directly stated in the preface to his letter 173, at the request of Maximus, conveyed in a letter to Anastasius. Consequently, the letter to the Kalarians was also written after the time of the second interrogation. Meanwhile, the subject and purpose of writing it are completely identical with the subject and purpose of writing a letter to the Sicilians: what Maxim wrote about through Anastasius to the Calarians is what, one must think, he personally wrote to the Sicilians at the same time. So, the connection of the letter to the Sicilians with two other letters gives reason to think that it was written no earlier than the second quarter of 655. On the other hand, it was written no later than 661, since since the last call to Constantinople Maxim had no physical ability to speak or write. According to the time of writing, the place of writing should be considered either Constantinople or places of exile in Thrace, and not the island of Sicily itself, as Combefi believes based on the very inscription of the letter 174. The contents of the letter are as follows. It is impossible to attribute to Christ three wills and three actions, that is, two and together one will, two and together one action (col. IZ). Recognition of one action in Christ leads to the denial of the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father and the Mother and to the transformation of a created human being into a creative, miraculous one (col. 116, 117). The objection of the Monothelites, based on the recognition of the personal unity of the two natures of Christ, the resolution of this objection from the point of view of monothelitism (one action of Christ as a whole) and from the point of view of Orthodoxy: the communion of properties and the deification of the human nature of Christ (col. 117, 120). Explanation of the meaning of the expression of St. Cyril regarding the “average” or “general” sayings of Holy Scripture as applied to Christ (col. 121–124). The true meaning of Cyril’s expression “μιαν τε και συγγενή δι᾿άμφοίν έπιδεικνύς τήν ενέργεια ν” [one and showing similar action through both] and the meaning of the word “συγγενής” (col. 124 – 125). The uncertainty and unfoundedness of the Monothelite opinion about one action of Christ as a whole, and about two natural actions (col. 125 - 128). The meaning of Maximus’s approving attitude towards Pyrrhus, expressed in the former’s reply letter to the latter (col. 129–132). Concluding the review of the dogmatic-polemical letters of 175 Maxim, we note one formal feature common to all of them, characterizing his attitude towards the addressees. In all letters, the attitude towards the persons to whom they are addressed is outlined by the following features: everywhere, in all letters of St. Maxim praises the high qualities (mainly piety and mental maturity) of the persons to whom he addresses (which is how letters usually begin), and humbly confesses his insignificance 176. The usual image in Maxim's language of such an attitude towards these persons is the attitude of a student and a servant (slave) to a teacher and master 177. The letters end (usually) with a request to pray for him and a glorification of the Most Holy Trinity 178 . The letters examined do not exhaust the entire range of written dogmatic and polemical works of St. Maxim on the explanation of the dogmatic doctrine of two wills in Christ. In addition to letters, there are many separate, mostly rather small treatises devoted to the disclosure of one or another of the dogmatic provisions (most of them are polemical in nature) or the clarification and definition of one or another of the philosophical and psychological concepts affected by the Christological teaching about two wills in Christ. These are treatises of a dogmatic-polemical nature: a) against those who insist on recognizing one energy in Christ “κατ᾿ έπικράτειαν” [by superiority]; b) against those who recognize one action of the Divinity and humanity of Christ by analogy with one action of the producer and instrument of action; c) against those who affirm one complex action in Christ (col. 64); d) interpretation of Art. 39 Chapter XXVI Gospel of Matthew (col. 65 – 69); e) 10 chapters “on the two natures of Christ,” against Arius, Nestorius, Sabellius and Eutyches (col. 145 – 149); f) a treatise on “οτι αδύνατον εν θέλημα Λέγειν επί Χριστού” [that it is impossible to talk about one will in relation to Christ] (col. 268 – 269); g) 10 chapters about the two wills of Christ - a treatise written to the Orthodox (col. 269 - 273). Philosophical and psychological nature: a) "Όροι διάφοροι " [various definitions] (definition of the concepts " ούσία " [essence] and " φύσις τό ένυπόστατον " [nature (this is) hypostatic] – » όμοούσιον « [consubstantial] – » ένούσιον « [essential, that-in-essence] – » όμοϋπόστατον « [single-hypostatic, identical in hypostases], "ουσιώδης ένωσις " [essential unity] and others (col. 149 - 153); b) "Περί όρων διαστολών " [On the limits of differences] (col. 212); c) » Όροι ενώσεων « [Limits of connections] (col. 216), » Κεφάλαια περ᾿ ουσίας και φύσεως , υποστάσεως τε και προσώπου "[Chapters on essence and nature, hypostasis and person] (col. 260 - 264) and d) treatise "περί ψυχής " [on the soul]: on being, essence, nature and immortality of the soul (col. 351 - 361). One of the letters related to them in content can also be included here, it is unknown when and where it was written, to Theodore, presbyter of Matsara (a seaside city in Sicily), "Περί ποιότητος, ιδιότητος, και διαφοράς “[On quality, peculiarity and difference] (col. 245 – 257). Regarding the time and place of writing, as well as the purpose of these treatises, we remain completely in the dark: were they intended for someone or should they be looked at as the notes of St. Maxims compiled by him personally for himself - we refrain from pronouncing any final verdict on this. Judging by the inscription of one of the treatises ("έγράφη δέ προς ορθοδόξους " [written for the Orthodox], col. 269), one can guess that other treatises had a similar purpose. But such a guess does not give a decisive right to such a generalization, the arbitrariness of which is revealed, among other things, from the fact that in the treatise bearing the above inscription, the appeal appears more than once ("εύλογη μέ vol" [blessed], col. 272, 273), let us say - impersonal, but, nevertheless, justifying the inscription. Meanwhile, in all other treatises even and such a general or any kind of treatment is not found anywhere. “The Dispute of Maximus with Pyrrhus”, in terms of the content and nature of Maximus’s reasoning contained in it - also, and in terms of the completeness and comprehensiveness of the Christological teaching he captures - also with more right than any of the letters examined, should be attributed to the dogmatic-polemical works of Maximus the Confessor. But, due to the same completeness and comprehensiveness, it cannot be attributed to either one or the other group of dogmatic-polemical works: more fully than each of the letters taken separately, it captures the content of both groups, maintaining the direction of the polemics of the letters of both groups. Due to the special importance of its content, and also in view of the fact that in a systematic review of the teachings of Maximus we will have to refer to it especially often, we will allow ourselves to present a more detailed analysis of its content than we did in relation to the letters considered, so that our readers will have the opportunity, without specifically becoming acquainted with the works of St. Maximus, to be convinced of the involuntary nature of our judgments and conclusions during a systematic review of the Christological teachings of Maximus the Confessor. Analysis of the content of “The Dispute between Maximus and Pyrrhus.” The public competition between Maximus and Pyrrhus opened with a question from the latter: “I and my predecessor (Sergius) have done anything bad to you, Mr. Abba Maximus, that you revile us so much, publicly attributing to us a heretical opinion?” Maximus replies that the reason for this lies in the rejection on the part of Pyrrhus and his predecessor Sergius of Orthodox teaching, in the affirmation of the one will of the Divinity and humanity of Christ ( τοΰ άνθρωπότητος αυτού δοξάσαντες [who taught about one will of the deity of Christ and His humanity]) and in imposing his invention on others through “Ektesis”. To Pyrrhus’s question why Maximus considers such a teaching about the will of Christ to be a false teaching, the latter responds by pointing to the confusion of the Divine creative will of Christ with the manifestations of His human will as the main reason for this (col. 288). Without (yet) directly responding to Pyrrhus’s position on the unity of the person (εις o Χριστός [one Christ]), which he put forward as the basis for the recognition of one will in Christ, Maxim contrasts the unity of the person with the duality of the natures of Christ and affirms the resulting necessity of recognizing two natural wills and actions in Christ, since none of the natures is devoid of will and action ( ειουδέτερα αύτών αθέλητος έστιν , ή άνενέργητος ). Pyrrhus’s objection that two wills also presuppose two willers is refuted by Maximus through the reverse sequence that in such a situation it would be necessary, by virtue of the unity of will in the Holy Trinity, to recognize, together with Sabellius, one hypostasis in It, or by virtue of the Trinity of Persons, three wills, and therefore three natures (Arianism) (col. 289). To Pyrrhus’s objection that the coexistence of two wills in one person is unthinkable without their mutual opposition, Maximus responds by pointing out the absence of a reason that would produce a struggle between the two wills. It is impossible to look for the reasons for this opposition in the very nature of wills, because by nature they are placed by the Creator outside the conditions of struggle; It could not have arisen in Christ as a result of sin, because Christ is free from all sin. Pyrrhus objects to the conceivability of a natural will in Christ that with such an understanding one would have to assume that God and the saints have one nature (μία φύσις), since according to the teaching of the Church Fathers they (quasi) have one will (έν θέλημα). Having reproached Pyrrhus for confusing the concepts of “will” and “object of the will,” Maximus explains that, speaking about the one will of God and the saints, the Church Fathers mean the object of the will, and not the natural will, which is different for different entities (τά έτερούσια). From this last statement, Pyrrhus makes a hasty conclusion about the variety of will and nature, depending on the individual (col. 292). Maxim exposes the fallacy of this conclusion through the distinction between the concepts “τό θέλειν” [to desire] and “τό πώς θέλειν” [to desire in some way]. The direction of the will changes, depending on the individual, but the ability of the will is unchanged: it is equally inherent in all people, as τοίς όμογενέσι και όμοφυέσι [only-begotten and one-natural]. In response to another objection of Pyrrhus against the conceivability of natural will, directed against the very concept of “natural”, inseparably conceivable, in Pyrrhus’s opinion, with the predicate of necessity, the denial of freedom (and the resulting conclusion in relation to the “natural” wills of Christ, the affirmation of which is tantamount to the denial of any free movement in Him) - Maximus first shows the falsity of the very initial position on which Pyrrhus bases his objection, and then exposes its absurdity also comes from the conclusions that necessarily follow from it, summing them up in the following general position. If everything natural has the character of necessity, compulsion, then not only God, absolute will, but also everything endowed with reason, as possessing natural will, is not free in its will, and everything unreasonable, not having the ability of will, will have a free, unconstrained desire (col. 293). Yielding to Maximus and admitting with him two natural wills in Christ, Pyrrhus invites Maximus to recognize at the same time one will of Christ, in the same sense in which one speaks of one complex hypostasis of Christ. Decisively rejecting Pyrrhus's proposal, St. the father presents three arguments against the conceivability of this kind of unity of will, reducing them to the following general position: the supposed union of two wills, like natures, is unthinkable, because there is nothing in common between them except hypostasis. And the community of glory and humiliation, which the Fathers of the Church speak about, is explained by τω της άντιδόσεως τρόπω [the image of the exchange (of properties)], the existence of which presupposes behind itself the duality of natures and wills (col. 296). Without insisting on the need to recognize one complex will, Pyrrhus again goes to the principle he expressed at the beginning, touching on the question of will as principium movens, and asks: “was not the movement (i.e., desire) of the flesh determined by the wave (i.e., will) of the Word united with it?” Having pointed out the unsuitability of Nestorius’s point of view on the face of Christ, from which only Pyrrhus’s objection can be understood, Maximus proves that the human nature of Christ made its natural movements from its own impulse, and refers to the existence in Christ of an innate power of self-preservation, an indicator of which is, for example, the feeling of fear of death (col. 297). For the second time, Pyrrhus makes an attempt to involve Maximus in a compromise: pretending that the disagreement between them boils down, in the essence of the matter, “to a subtle and for the majority incomprehensible way of expression,” Pyrrhus invites Maximus, leaving behind controversial expressions, to confess the One and the Same, perfect in Divinity and perfect in humanity. Maxim answers him with a reference to the Fathers of the Church and councils, which commanded to recognize not only two natures, but also the properties of each nature, and therefore two wills, since, in the opinion of even the opponents themselves, will constitutes an essential property of nature. Maximus also indicates some incentive for the recognition of two wills in the antithesis of the false teaching of Apollinaris and Arius (col. 300). Again Pyrrhus returns to the concept of “natural” will, which he himself is not averse to recognizing, but he is seduced by “public opinion”, which does not allow the existence of “natural” will. Coming from a comparison of the distinctive properties of the three kinds of organic life, Maximus establishes the indisputable position that the distinctive property of the nature of rational beings is free will or, in general, the ability of will (ή αύτεξούσιος κίνησις [autocratic movement]), from which it naturally follows that in Christ we must confess two natural wills. Pyrrhus agrees that in Christ there are natural wills and refuses to merge them into one ( … και ότι ού δυνατόν εις εν θέλημα ποτε συμπεσεϊν άλλήλοις [I... was convinced that the wills of Christ are natural... and that it is impossible for them to ever unite into one will] (col. 301)). But, although he says that he is highly convinced (εγώ μεν ήδη έν τοίς φθάσασι έπείσθην) that there are natural wills in Christ, he does not give unconditional consent to recognize the position of the enemy. Firstly, he carefully avoids using the expression “δύο”, and secondly, he still hesitates, he is confused by the negative opinion of the “Byzantines” regarding the reality of the human will of Christ, according to which Christ appropriated the human will to Himself only relatively (κατ᾿ οίκείωσιν) [by appropriation]. Proceeding to refute this last opinion, Maxim returns to his previously established position about will as an essential property of human nature, arguing it in the present case in more detail. The argument consists of four arguments based on the concepts of a) innateness, b) rationality, c) commonality with all people and d) from the view of man as the image of God. Having convinced his opponent that the will is innate to man (col. 304), Maximus shows the absurdity of the opinion of the “Byzantines” (i.e., Monothelites) in terms of the conclusion that inevitably follows from it: the incarnation of Christ is a fiction, not a reality. The opinion of the Church Fathers about the subordination of the human will of Christ to the Divine will does not benefit the Monothelites: it has a moral meaning (col. 305). In response to Pyrrhus’ remark that in order to establish the highest unity of the will, the Byzantines teach about “θέλημα γνωμικόν”, Maximus explains that about “θέλημα γνωμικόν”, as an arbitrary inclination of the will, preceded by the search for means to achieve the intended goal, hesitation and determination to choose between “yes” and “no”, there can be no question in application to the human nature of Christ (col. 308), because human nature in general, by its very being and through participation in the Divine, and even more so the human nature of Christ the God-man, had an exclusive inclination towards good and an aversion from evil. To Pyrrhus’s question about the reason for the unequal virtue in people, despite its innate nature, Maximus responds by pointing out the difference in people’s lifestyles (col. 309). Pyrrhus shares Maximus' verdict regarding "θέλημα γνωμικόν". Leaving aside for a moment and making a remark about the various meanings associated with the word “γνώμη” in St. Scripture and the Fathers of the Church, Maxim again turns to the teaching of the Byzantines, considering it this time from the point of view of the goal pursued by him. It is impossible to agree with the position that in Christ there is “one” will, because such a will cannot be called either Divine, or angelic (in the sense of mediatorial), or human. Contrary to the opinion of the Byzantines (έπιτηδειότητι προσειναι, i.e. τό θέλημα, ήμΐν φάσιν), it cannot be considered our personal property, since the assumption of such a will in Christ leads to the Nestorian view of the face of Christ (gradual moral improvement), shared by the Monothelites; it cannot be called “θέλημα ύποστατικόν” [hypostatic will] or “θέλημα παρά φύσιν” [will contrary to nature, unnatural will] (col. 312 – 313). The existence of “one” will in Christ cannot be allowed also because one will forces one nature to think, and there cannot be a will common to both natures. Pyrrhus recognizes Maximus’s arguments as quite convincing; he would only like to know how right the Byzantines were in referring to the teaching of the Church Fathers. Maxim responds by indicating the true meaning, arbitrarily distorted by the Monothelites, of those sayings of the Church Fathers, which opponents usually refer to. These are the following sayings: Gregory the Theologian - “That γαρ εκείνου θέλειν ούδεν ύπεναντίον τω Θεώ , θεοωθέν όλον “[For His will is in no way contrary to God, completely deified] (col. 316); Gregory of Nyssa - “Ή ψυχή θέλει, το σώμα άπτεται δι᾿άμφοτέρων φεύγει τό πάθος "[The soul wills, the body touches, through both the illness goes away] (interpretation on Matthew VIIÏ 3; Mark I41; Luke V: 13); Athanasius the Great - "Νούς Κυρίου ούπω Κύριος, άλλ᾿ ή θέλησις, ή βούλησις, ή ενέργεια προς τι “[The mind of the Lord is not yet the Lord, but will, desire, action aimed at something]; πρώτης πλάσεως τήν άνθρώπου μορφήν έαυτώ άναστησάμενος επιδείξει σαρκός , δίχα δέ σαρκικών θελημάτων , και λογισμών άνθρωπίνων, έν είκόνι καινότητος. Ή γάρ θέλησις , θεότητος μόνης "[Born of a wife, from the first creation he restored to himself a human image, in taking on the flesh, but without carnal desires and human thoughts, in the image of renewal. For the will of only one deity]. Maxim concludes his analysis of the above sayings of the Fathers of the Church with the following words: “So, the God-wise teachers of the Church, in full agreement with the evangelists, apostles and prophets, taught that our Lord and God Jesus Christ, by both of His natures, wanted and worked for our salvation.” To certify that the teaching of the recognized authorities of the Church has a solid foundation in the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments and is in full agreement with it, Maximus cites, at the request of Pyrrhus, the following passages of Scripture: a) speaking about the manifestations of the “human will” of Christ (col. 317, 320): John. I43 and XVIIÏ 24; Matt. XXVIÏ 34; In. VIÏ 1; Mk. IX: 30; OK. VIÏ 24; Mk. VÏ 48; OK. XX: 8–9; Philip. IÏ 8; Ps. XXXIX: 7–9; Life I26. From the interpretation of the last place, Maxim draws the conclusion that man, as the image of the Divine (the absolutely free Supreme Being), is by nature endowed with free will (col. 321, 324). (Regarding the word “αύτεξουσιότης” [autocracy] Maximus casually notes that “αύτεξουσιότης”, like “φύσις”, have different degrees of perfection in God, angels and man). Christ, in his humanity, also possessed human natural will: its perception into the hypostatic unity of the Word was necessary for the complete removal of us from sin, as a consequence of the fall, the primary culprit of which was the free will of the first Adam. b) To certify the manifestations of the “Divine natural will” of Christ, two passages are cited: Matt. XXIIÏ 37 – 38 and John. V: 21 (col. 325). “This is the teaching (δόγμα) of the evangelists, apostles and prophets,” concludes Maximus, “certifying, as much as possible, that Christ by nature had the ability of will both as God and as man.” Pyrrhus fully shares this conclusion of Maximus, but he is confused by the treatise (Λίβελλον) of Menas on “one” will, received by Pope Vigilius, and the response letter of Honorius to Sergius. Leaving aside the message of Mina, since the messages about it from Sergius and Pyrrhus are contradictory, in his discussion regarding the nature of the message of Honorius, Maximus points to the well-known apology of John IV, which reveals that, responding to the message of Sergius, Honorius spoke about “έν θέλημα” not the Divinity and humanity of Christ together, but only humanity. In response to Pyrrhus’ remark that his predecessor, Sergius, took a simpler look at the message of Honorius, Maximus reproaches Sergius for inconstancy and variability in matters of faith (col. 328, 329), contrary to which the work (χάρτας, i.e. έκθεσις) of the latter was published and accepted by the Monothelites and caused the division of churches. Excusing Sergius and himself for the publication and adoption of Ectesis, Pyrrhus blames the church disorders on Sophronius, who untimely raised the question of actions. Pointing out the existence of Sophronius's previous speeches in the polemical field of written negotiations between Sergius and Theodore of Faran, Paul One-Eyed, the Paulineist Arza and Cyrus regarding the adoption of the unique formula "μιά ενεργεία", Maxim clearly makes his opponent understand that it is not Sophronius, but the resourceful Sergius, “who offered his own plague (i.e., false teaching) to society,” αίτιος τοΰ τοιούτου γέγονε σκανδάλου. After the question of wills, according to Pyrrhus himself, has been sufficiently exhausted and all his arguments have been overthrown, Maximus, without any particular desire on the part of his opponent, enters into a discussion about actions. Starting with the fact that Pyrrhus ascribes to Christ as a whole one action (μίαν ένέργειαν Χριστού, ώς όλου), Maximus explains that such one action is personal (ενέργεια ύποστατική), the admission of which is tantamount to dividing and distorting the face of Christ (col. 332 – 333). Pyrrhus objects, saying that if in discussing the actions in Christ we proceed from the concept of the difference of natures, then not two, but three natural actions will have to be attributed to Christ, on the basis that man consists of two unequal natures. Pointing out that those who reason in this way turn their own weapons against themselves, Maxim explains that the concept “man” is a generic concept (είδος), embracing the soul and body, and that when talking about the natural action of man, then of course [action corresponding to the species], and not κατ᾿ ούσίαν ψυχής καί σώματος [corresponding to the essence of the soul and body], which is why it is said not vaguely (άπροσδοιορίστως), not simply “ ένέργεια", but with the addition (άλλα προσεπάγοντες) "τού άνθρώπου "[person]. Another objection of Pyrrhus against the duality of natural actions (namely: the difference in actions presupposes the difference in persons) is essentially identical with a similar objection against the duality of wills. To refute the present objection, Maxim says the same thing that he said to refute the objection to the duality of wills, adding in the present case only the general proposition that the natural action of all people is exactly the same (the same thing), despite the infinite number of persons, individuals. In the interests of approaching human understanding of the possible coexistence of two actions in one person of the God-man, Maxim gives two analogies: one he borrows from ourselves (the unity of consciousness in a dual state), the other from the phenomenon of a red-hot sword (the combination of two properties in one object) (col. 336 - 337). Based on the principle that είς ήν about ενεργών [there was only one active (subject)] in Christ, Pyrrhus recognizes μίαν ένέργειαν Christ. Maximus proves the inappropriateness of Pyrrhus's original point of view and the falsity of his view. Action, like will, is a property of nature, and not of a person, hence in Christ - δύο ένέργειαι, due to the duality of natures. Recognizing ενέργεια as ύτιοστατική leads to absurdity and to a distortion of the face of the God-man. Pyrrhus objected that they would recognize the ενώσεως τρόπω [one action of the deity and humanity of Christ... in the sense of unity]. Maxim answered him that such a view leads to no less absurdity: to the denial of the power of creativity in Christ before union with the flesh and to the denial of the existence of God the Father and the Holy Spirit; Moreover, the fusion of two actions with completely opposite definitions is absolutely impossible. To Pyrrhus’s question whether Maximus agrees with those who recognize the product (τό αποτέλεσμα) of the deeds accomplished by Christ (έργων) as μια ένέργεια, Maximus replies that two natural actions, despite their combination in one person, produce not one, but double action. To clarify this position, here too he resorts to the analogy of a red-hot sword (col. 340 - 341). From the ground of speculation, Pyrrhus transfers the conversation to strictly ecclesiastical ground. Turning to the teaching of church authorities, he finds that the “pious opinion” of the enemy about two wills in Christ is contradicted by the teaching of Cyril of Alexandria, who expressed, among other things, this way: “Christ discovered μίαν συγγενή δι᾿άμφοϊν ένέργειαν" [one action akin through both]. Maximus explains that the above expression speaks “not of one natural action of the Divinity and humanity of Christ together, but of one Divine action, και άνευ σαρκός, και μετά σαρκός [both without flesh and with flesh], essentially inherent in God incarnate Word,” by virtue of which He accomplished what was characteristic of the Divine in a twofold way (δι᾿άμφοϊν): “not only άσωμάτως [incorporeally], through a creative wave,” but at the same time “σωματικώς [bodily], through the touch of his own flesh.” In the same way, in accomplishing through human natural action what is characteristic of man, at the same time, “God acting by nature” was expressed in Him. Agreeing with the fact that the above saying of St. Cyril does not at all contradict the recognition of two actions in Christ; Pyrrhus is perplexed as to how to understand this expression of Dionysius the Areopagite about Christ: “He revealed έν ήμίν καινήν τινα θεανδρικήν ένέργειαν ". Pointing out the impossibility of understanding godly action in the sense of “quantitatively new,” Maxim explains that, understood in the sense of “qualitatively new,” “new godly action” does not mean μίαν ένέργειαν, but “a new and inexplicable image of the discovery of the natural actions of Christ” (col. 344 – 345). To Pyrrhus's question whether "ή θεανδρική" does not mean "μίαν", i.e. ένέργειαν, Maximus replies that the descriptive expression "θεανδρική" indicates "τάς ένεργείας των άριθμουμένων [actions listed] (in this word) φύσεων [natures],” besides which (natural actions) it is impossible to think of any other, average action, one godly, not violating the equality of the Son with God the Father. In response to the unexpected remark of Pyrrhus that θεανδρακή ένέργεια is taken in the sense of “essentially new”, Maximus explains that such an understanding still leads to the denial of consubstantiality and equality (identity in relation to Divine action, manifested in creation, providence and in the performance of miracles) of the Son with the Father after the Incarnation, contrary to the clear evidence of a number of Gospel sayings: John. V: 17, 19, 21; In. X: 38, 25. The last explanation given by Pyrrhus in justification of the doctrine of one action, accepted “ούκ έπ᾿ αναιρέσει της ανθρωπινής ένεργείας · αλλ᾿ έπειδή άντιδιαστελλομένη τή θεία ένεργεια, πάθος Λέγεται (i.e. ανθρωπινή ένέργεια ) κατά τούτο “[not to the abolition of human action, but since, being opposed to divine action, it (i.e., human action) is therefore called suffering], Maxim exposes illogicality and arbitrariness. The being (ύπαρξις) of every thing is known or determined not through opposition (col. 348 – 349), and the Fathers of the Church called human action suffering (πάθος) not in the sense of its opposition to the Divine. Brought by Maximus's arguments to the realization that the doctrine of one action, accepted in any sense, is truly absurd, Pyrrhus no longer objected. We know how the public competition between Maximus and Pyrrhus ended. There are two objections to the authenticity of the “Disputation” in the form in which it has survived to our time: one concerns the nature of the presentation of the content of the “Disputation”, the other concerns the behavior of Pyrrhus in a conversation with Maximus. They point out, firstly, that the “Conversation between Maximus and Pyrrhus” in the acts that have survived to us represents more of a consistent presentation of Orthodox teaching than a resolution of the enemy’s objections; secondly, that in a dispute with Maximus, Pyrrhus shows too much compliance 179. The first objection, undoubtedly, has its basis in the fact that the conversation between Maximus and Pyrrhus was recorded by notaries and was probably described by them, and not by Maximus himself 180. It is quite plausible and very possible that the conversation was not reproduced (described) in its entirety, but with possible and quite appropriate abbreviations concerning the development of Pyrrhus’s positions, which can explain the comparative brevity of these latter. But it is unlikely that these abbreviations can be extended to Maxim’s provisions: they are quite lengthy and, moreover, for the most part represent a direct resolution of Pyrrhus’s objections, and not vice versa, as Hefele thinks. As for the other objection, it finds its solution partly in the supposed reduction of the provisions of Pyrrhus, and mainly in the behavior and position of Pyrrhus. Pyrrhus, like his predecessor Sergius, whom Maxim rightly reproached in a conversation with Pyrrhus “for variability and inconstancy of thought” 181 (and indirectly, it seems, Maxim sent this reproach to Pyrrhus himself), was not distinguished by either directness or firmness of conviction in matters of faith, as the entire subsequent history of his life eloquently demonstrates. Well understanding his position and, probably, having in mind, due to the expected political change, through compliance in a public competition to declare his correction and in this way achieve rapprochement with the Orthodox and, perhaps, even restoration to the patriarchal rank (which is justified by his journey to Rome), Pyrrhus, presumably, deliberately behaved compliantly in relation to Maximus. At least, the fact that after, as we have seen, Pyrrhus again returned to the very error in which he publicly confessed to Maxim and confessed to the pope, sufficiently suggests that Pyrrhus’ behavior in the conversation with Maxim was not sincere. Opera omnia S. Maximi Confessoris consists of two volumes, XC and XCI, Patrologiae Curs, compl. Migne, S. Gr., edit. F. Combefisi. T. I, col. 85, 90, 95, 133. During the second interrogation of Maxim, which took place in 655 in Constantinople, Maxim testified that he was 75 years old (T. I. col. 128 IG'); therefore he was born in 580. Compare Mansi, t. X, pag. 759. Nota S. Biniï “Litteris philosophicis atque theo-logicis egregie excultus (i.e. Maximus).” Op. Max., t. I, col. 1048 ß\ It is impossible to establish an exact date regarding the time of Maxim’s removal to the monastery. And if the unknown translator of “The Life of Maximus the Confessor,” published in the “Orthodox Interlocutor” for 1857, directly, without giving any reason, points to the year 631 as the year of removal to the monastery, then this testimony should be viewed as nothing other than more or less plausible. The approximate time of removal to the monastery can be judged by considering the following two circumstances. On the one hand, the circumstance that brought Maxim to the monastery, along with Maxim’s natural inclination to solitude, was, according to the biography (col. 72 Ε᾿), monothelitism that had intensified by that time, threatening the Church with serious disasters. And monothelitism occupied such a position only from 631, from the time of Cyrus’s elevation to the patriarchal see of Alexandria; up to this time it had not had much significance. Hence, Maximus’s removal to a monastery can hardly be attributed to a time before 631. On the other hand, in 633 we find Maxim already in Alexandria, where he did not appear immediately after leaving the monastery, as we will see later. Hence, entry into the monastery occurred no later than 632. When comparing the two bordering circumstances, it turns out that the removal from the court and entry into the monastery occurred in 631 or 632. Op. Max., t. I, col. 72 – 73 Ε᾿. Maximus reports some rather interesting features of the monastic ideal in “Κεφάλαια περί αγάπης” [Chapters on Love], t. And, col. 960 – 1072. See, for example, col. 1042 – 1044,1001 νδ᾿, 1014 πζ᾿ and πη᾿, 1057 μη᾿, 1029 μα᾿, 981 ρα᾿, 973 ξβ᾿, 1020 ιγ᾿, 1128 S, 1150, etc. When exactly Maxim became the abbot of the monastery, it is impossible to say anything definite about this due to the lack of any data. It cannot even be said that during his trip to Egypt Maxim was already an abba. What is certain is that Maximus was Abba before Pyrrhus, and this latter was his successor. This can be judged on the basis of the testimony of the biography itself, according to which Maxim became the abbot of the monastery “after the death of his predecessor.” By predecessor here one cannot mean Pyrrhus. In this case, the words addressed by Pyrrhus to Maxim at the beginning of the dispute are worthy of attention: “Who respected you as much as we do, without even knowing you in person?” If we do not assume that Maximus soon, even before the time of his trip to Alexandria, became the abba of the monastery, then it will be necessary to assume that the title of abba was assigned to him in his absence. At least, it is not visible from anywhere that Maxim returned to the monastery. This is where the above words of Pyrrhus become completely understandable. "ΨιΛός υπάρχων μοναχός " [being a simple monk], 1.1, col. 153 IZ'. Armenia switched to Monophysitism due to the national movement against Emperor Justinian I and in 536 submitted to Persian rule. See Ebrard, bnd. I, s. 278. Mansi, t. XI, p. 529 et sq. Harduin, p. 1311: Epistola Sergii ad Honorium. Compare: “Acts of the Ecumenical Councils”, vol. VI, pp. 366 et seq. Dispute between Maximus and Pyrrhus, t. II, col. 332 – 333. In discussing the legality of this formula, Sergius refers in this case, as in others, to the letter of his predecessor Patriarch Mina to Pope Vigilius (which, together with the letters, he sends to Theodore and Arza), representing the development of the teaching of Cyril of Alexandria about μία ενέργεια in Christ. The investigation into this treatise by Mina, carried out at the VI Ecumenical Council, sufficiently revealed the forgery of Sergius: it turned out that the author of such a treatise (with this kind of content) was by no means Mina. The opinion of Walch (Walch, b. IX, s. 19,102) is erroneous, according to which it was not the emperor to Paul, but, on the contrary, Paul who proposed the formula “μία ένέργεια” to the emperor. Although Paul was also not unaware of the doctrine of μία ένέργεια: as a follower of the North, he, of course, was well acquainted with the Christological view of the North, among the principles of which, as is well known (Gieseler, Partie. I, pag. 14 and 15; compare: Op. Max., t. II, col. 40 – 41, 44 – 45), it was like this: in Christ – “μία θεανδρική ενέργεια”. Pagi, t. I, R. 787; Hefele, s. 120. According to the Greek historian Theophanes, the Monothelite movement began somewhat later and under slightly different circumstances. He describes the beginning of the Monothelite movement in the following words: “In this year (621, corresponding to 629), during the emperor’s stay in Hierapolis, Athanasius, patriarch of the Syrian Jacobites, appeared to him. When discussing faith, the emperor promised Athanasius the Patriarchate of Antioch if he accepted the creeds of the Council of Chalcedon. Touching upon the question of two natures, Athanasius asked the emperor regarding actions and wills in Christ: one action and will or double ones (διπλά ή μοναδικά [double or single]) should be confessed in Christ? The very terms were news to the emperor, and he wrote about this to Sergius of Constantinople. He, having previously communicated with Cyrus, bishop of Phasis, answered in agreement with the latter’s opinion that he recognizes one natural will and one action (μίαν φυσικήν θέλησιν και μίαν ενέργεια ν), etc. Theophanis Chronograghia, p. 506. This entire story of Theophanes about the beginning of the Monothelite movement, shared by Combefi (in the preface to the “Works of Maximus the Confessor”, col. 76 - 77), Padji rightly considers false. On the one hand, it is reliably known that the emperor had negotiations about μία ενέργεια in 622 with the northerner Paul and in 626 with Cyrus. It is therefore impossible that in 629 this very formula was news to the emperor, and that he first heard his opinion about it through Sergius from Cyrus - the same Cyrus whom he himself had introduced to this formula three years earlier. The letter of Cyrus itself, in which, according to Theophanes, Cyrus told Sergius his opinion regarding the question raised by Athanasius, was written three years earlier in 629, namely in 626, and contains news only about the relations of the emperor with Paul. On the other hand, Padji considers the very fact of the emperor’s relations with Athanasius, as the patriarch of the Syrian Jacobites, impossible on the grounds that Athanasius, as the patriarch of the Jacobites, did not exist at all: at least, the author of the Chronici Orientalis Patriarcharum Jacobitarum does not know him at all. This last opinion of Paja stands alone and hardly carries any weight. There can hardly be any doubt that around that time there was such a patriarch - Athanasius, nicknamed Camelarius, patriarch of the Syrian Jacobites. Sophronius mentions him, calling him “Αθανάσιος ό Σύρος”. Information regarding the time of entry into the patriarchal see (according to some - in 595, according to others - in 604) and the duration of stay on it (according to some - 36 years, according to others - 44 years) are contradictory. What is certain is that he died in 631 (See Le Quien, t. II, pp. 1361 – 1363; cf. J. S. Assemanus, p. 334 et 102). In the list of Dionysius Salibey, bishop. Amidian (late 12th century) Athanasius Camelarius ranks 60th in the order of succession of the Antiochian patriarchs. See Seriem Dionysi Bar-Salibaei, in Assemani, p. 325. Theophanes Padzhi quite plausibly explains the entire story by the historian’s mistake: Theophanes, according to Padzhi, mixed the relations of the emperor with Paul and Cyrus with the relations of the emperor with Athanasius and arbitrarily transferred the events of 622 and 626 to 629. Pagi, t. II, p. 787. Mansi, t. XI, p. 529 Acts VI Century e., pp. 366 – 367. Mansi, t. X, p. 585 et sq. The last detail in Sergius’s message gives us the right to think that, without consulting the council’s opinion on the issue raised, Sergius, on his own behalf, informed the emperor and Cyrus of his own opinion, and then convened the council. Sergius probably has in mind here the following expression of Cyril of Alexandria, to which Pyrrhus also refers in his “Conversation with Maximus”: “Christ showed us μίαν συγγενή δι άμφοίν ένέργειαν [one akin action through both].” What basis did the Monophysites, and after them the Monothelites, have to connect their teaching with the teaching of the great Alexandrian teacher, we will have a more detailed judgment about this later, but in this case it will be enough to note that, despite the fact that the above expression does not at all contain the Monothelitian thought about the same action of both natures (and of all the places of Cyril of Alexandria it is undoubtedly the most important), Sergius, like Severus, Pyrrhus in others, I thought to find the teaching about μία ενέργεια precisely from Cyril of Alexandria, whom all Monophysites and Monothelites revered as their greatest patron (See Gieseler, Commentation., part. I, pp. 11 – 13). Mansi, t. XI, p. 525 – 528; Harduin, p. 1310 Acts VI Century e., pp. 362 – 64. See "Biography" of Maximus, 1.1, col. 77. According to a specific instruction found at the beginning of the unial decree, the union was promulgated in the (Alexander) month of Pauni VI indiction, which corresponds to the month of June 633. Mansi has t. XI, r. 562 – 563; in Harduin - r. 1339; Acts VI, V. p. pp. 397 et seq. Theodosians are another name for the Severians. The Severians, as is known (see Gieseler, Comment., part. I, pp. 11 – 15), were closer than the other party of Monophysites, the Julianists, to the teaching of Cyril of Alexandria about μια φύσις τοϋ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένη [one nature of the Word incarnate], which Severus more clearly than Cyril called complex (Θεανδρική). Coming precisely from this teaching of Cyril, the North came to the approval of the position (μία Θεανδρική ενέργεια), to which the essence of the conciliatory formula of Cyrus was reduced. This explains the circumstance why Cyrus mentions specifically the Theodosians, followers of the North. Chronique de Jean Eveque de Nikiou. Chapit. CXV. p. 442. Mansi has t. XI, p. 564 et sq.; Hardwin has p. 1339 sq.; Acts VI Century e., pp. 399 – 402. Mansi, p. 565; Harduin, p. 1341 Acts VI Century e., 401. Cyrus showed Sophronius his “Libellus,” of course, so that he would help him in spreading the union. There is nothing impossible in the assumption that Sophronius enjoyed the sympathies of the Orthodox of Egypt (in this case, it must be assumed that Sophronius had labored a lot in Egypt before the event described), and Cyrus valued his alliance. Op. Max., t. II, col. 143: excerpt from Maximus’ letter to Peter. Whether Sophronius came to Constantinople on his own initiative (in order, of course, to find support here for himself in the fight against the union), or whether Cyrus sent him here, to Sergius, one assumption does not interfere with the other. Before Sophronius departed for Constantinople, Maximus wrote one of the letters to Peter (t. II, col. 509 - 533), the end of which represents a brief recommendation of Sophronius. Baronius believes that before traveling to Constantinople, Sophronius wrote to Sergius, asking him about what he later bothered personally with Sergius. Baronia Paggi rightly considers such an opinion to be completely unfounded: it is incongruous with anything that a simple monk, in a letter to the patriarch of the capital, would dare to challenge the opinion that he defended and of which, moreover, he was the author. Pagi, Critica in Ann. Baronii, II, p. 800. To the reason expressed by Paji, we will add another of our own: Sophronius did not have time to write to Constantinople. His written appeal to Sergius could have taken place after the clash with Cyrus, meanwhile, soon after this event, Sophronius went to Constantinople. Without direct data, this can be judged by the fact that in May 633 Sophronius was in Alexandria, after which he traveled to Constantinople, and at the end of the same year he was already in Jerusalem. According to Baronius, Sophronius' predecessor was Modest, not Zechariah. See Paja – t. II, p. 801; compare the testimony of Muralta - p. 288. Indeed, Zechariah was taken into captivity by the Persians back in 616. According to Theophanes, the year 625 (corresponding to 633) was the first year of the bishopric of Sophronius. Theophanis Chronographia, p. 516. The content of Mansi’s “District Message” is t. XI, r. 451 et sq. Sophronius does not use the very formula “δύο ένέργειαι”, but what he says in the whole epistle about the action of each of Christ’s own natures comes down to affirming precisely the position that in Christ “δύο ένέργειαι”. True, based on the words of Sergius himself in a letter to Pope Honorius, the “District Epistle” of Sophronius at the time of writing the message of Sergius had not yet been received by the latter: “Sophronius, most venerable monk, now (τανύν), as we have heard (ώς έξ ακοής μονής μεμα $ ήκαμεν [as we only learned from hearing]), ordained primate of the city of Jerusalem νυέδεξάμεθα [for we have not yet received from him the conciliar acts adopted according to custom]), was in Alexandria at that time,” etc. Mansi, t. XI, p. 532. But its contents at that time were undoubtedly known to Sergius. Sergius’s words can be understood in such a way that he did not formally receive Sophronius’ message. Honorius ascended the papal throne, according to the instructions of Paggi (t. II, p. 772), on October 27, 625, according to the testimony of Muralta (t. I, p. 280) - October 30. 625 years. Both agree in their testimony that Honorius “consecratus fuit” after five days of “interregnum.” The difference of 3 days came from the fact that Paggi counts 5 days of interregnum from the day of the death of Honorius' predecessor Boniface V, which followed, according to Baronius, October 22; and Muralt, following the instructions of Anastasius the Librarian - from the day of burial, from October 25. It is somewhat more difficult to reconcile with the dates of Paggi and Muralta the date found in Mansi (t. X, pp. 574, 577, Nota Severini Binii). According to the instructions of Mansi, in agreement with the instructions of Baronius, Honorius assumed the papal see on May 13, 626, after 6 months and 18 days of interregnum (Ibid., p. 548). Taking into account the fact that the reign of Honorius, despite the indicated difference, is determined according to both Muralta and Mansi at 12 years, 11 months and 14 days (for Mansi, who follows Baronius, and not Anastasius the Librarian, at 17 days), the difference in the dates of Mansi and Muralta regarding the time of Honorius’s accession to the papal throne can be explained through the assumption that Muralta, like Paggi, takes time the election or appointment of Honorius to the papal see, which followed 5 days after the death of Boniface V, and Mansi - the time of confirmation (confirmatio), which followed 6 months and 18 days also after the death of his predecessor. The error in Mansi’s testimony in this case will only consist in the fact that, while indicating the time of Honorius’s approval, in the date of his reign Mansi indicates the time that has elapsed since the date not of approval, but of appointment. Contents of Mansi's message – t. XI, r. 529 sq., at Harduin - r. 1311 sq.; Acts VI Century e., pp. 366 – 374. When Sergius made (assuming that he really did) this kind of request to Sophronius, it is difficult to answer with certainty. It can be assumed that this circumstance took place either during Sophronius’ stay in Constantinople, or, more likely, after the said stay. In the latter case, we will have to assume that between Sophronius, on the one hand, and Sergius and Cyrus (who can be understood in the word “others”), on the other, there was correspondence on the issue of action. Some hint of the supposed correspondence can be found in Muralta (p. 288) in the following words: “Sophronius, elected after the death of Zechariah (?), negotiates with Sergius of Constantinople and John (i.e. Honorius) of Rome about the condemnation of the Monothelites.” Mansi, t. XI, p. 536; Harduin, p. 1316; Acts VI Century e., p. 371. “Epistola Honorii ad Sergium” in Mansi – t. XI, p. 538 – 543; Hardwin has p. 1319 – 1323; Acts VI Century e., pp. 374 – 380. Harduin, b. 1353; Acts VI Century e., p. 415. Leaving aside all controversial expressions and keeping silent about his “έν θέλημα”, Honorius teaches to preach instead of one action, one acting in both natures, and instead of two actions, two natures producing (acting) when united in one Person, what is characteristic of themselves. Harduin, b. 1353; Acts VI Century e., 414 – 415. The authorship of Sergius is eloquently evidenced by the following letter from Emperor Heraclius to Pope John IV (it was used, by the way, by Baronius), written by him shortly before his death, in January or early February 641. “Ectesis is not mine: I did not compile it and did not order it to be compiled. Sergius the Patriarch compiled it five years ago, before my return from the East; and when I returned to this prosperous (happy) city, he begged me to publish it under my signature, under my name, and I respected his persistent request...” The emperor returned from the East for the last time in 633, after the capture of Damascus by the Saracens (Elmacinus, Histor. Saracin.), and his letter was written in 641. Consequently, “Ectesis” was compiled in 635 and a little later signed by the emperor, but was not made public until news was received from Rome of the death of Honorius (t October 12, 638). See Paja – t. II, p. 821. The basis for assigning the time of convening the council to the last quarter of 638 is based on consideration of the following circumstances: on the one hand, the council was convened to approve the Ektesis, published in the month of September; moreover, the council was attended by Roman legates who came from Rome to confirm Severinus, who had been elected to the papal throne, and this election could not have happened earlier than half of October, since Honorius died on October 12; and on the other hand, on December 12 of the same year, Sergius was no longer alive. Letter from Maximus to Abba Thalassius. Mansi, t. X, p. 677. According to Pagi, the death of Sergius followed on December 8 or 9 (Pagi, t. II, p. 818); others place it on December 12 (Muralt, p. 291). Perhaps the first date indicates the day of death, and the second - the day of burial. Pyrrhus took the patriarchal see after one month of interpontificate, therefore in the first half of January 639. See Paja – t. II, p. 818. And before entering the patriarchal see, while still a monk of the Chrysopolis monastery, Pyrrhus was on the side of the union, which can be positively judged on the basis of Pyrrhus’ letter to Maxim: in it, Pyrrhus convinces Maxim to recognize “Ἐκθεσις”. True, Pyrrhus’ letter to Maximus has not survived, but its contents can be partly judged on the basis of Maximus’s response letter to Pyrrhus. See Op. Max., t. And, col. 589 – 597. In Epist. I. Agathonis papae (in Mansi - t. XI, p. 275) mentions the dogmatic treatise and the statement of "Ectesis" (dogmaticus tomus et confirmatio Ectheseos), compiled by Pyrrhus, which speaks of the one will of Christ. Op. Max., t. II, col. 352. Letter to Senator Peter. Op. Max., t. II, col. 143. By external enemies (φόβος Βαρβάρων αισθητών [fear of sensual barbarians]) Combefi means the Persians, when one of the chapters of the biography of Maxim (Z', col. 73), which treats the reasons for Maxim’s removal to Africa, is entitled as follows: ““Alia ex Maximi litteris (obviously, this refers to the passage from the letter to John) secessus causa in Africam.” Compare: Not. Combefis. Op. Max., t. col. back in 628. " Και κάλεσον προς εαυτόν ..., έιπερ αληθώς άπεστι πας φόβος Βαρβάρων, "[And call me to you... if all fear of the barbarians, the sensual ones, because of whom I, like a lover of life, have truly crossed such a distance across the sea, has truly receded]. T. II, col. 445. Compare: t. II. col. 433, note. 36. Theophanes dates the beginning of the war between the Saracens and the Byzantine Empire to 623 (Sept. Kalends), which corresponds to 631. Theaphanis Chronograph., p. 514 – 515; compare: Pagi, t. And, p. 793. Remembering my stay on the island. Crete, Maxim uses the following expression: “μέμνημαι γαρ κατά την Κρητών νήσον διάγων “[I remember how I lived on the island of the Cretans] etc. T. II, col. 49. There is nothing inconsistent in the assumption that on the way to Alexandria Maxim also visited Fr. Cyprus. The fact is that between Maxim and Marin, first a deacon and then a presbyter of the Church of Cyprus, there was quite a lively correspondence, suggesting their personal acquaintance. Without any definite data regarding this last circumstance, it is not implausible to explain it by the hypothesis expressed. "Αύτόθι... έχετε πατέρα τε και διδάσκαΛον κύριον άββάν Σωφρόνιον..." [Here... you you have the master Abba Sophronius as your father and teacher] col. 533. So, for example, Hefele, when he distinguishes two travels of Maxim: the first journey to Alexandria and the second to Africa. See: Hefele, b. III, s. 166. Biography of Maxim, 1.1, col. 81 – 84 ID. Op. Max., t. II. col. 137. The writing of this letter was prompted by the order of Augusta Martina, given to the Prefect of Africa, regarding the persecution of the Severians living in monasteries, received in Africa in November of the XV Indiction. Col. 460. Speaking about the receipt of a patrician order by the prefect of the “here” province (i.e., proconsular Africa), Maximus expresses himself as follows: “he came here (τά ενταύθα), etc. Pyrrhus took the patriarchal see in January 639, and resigned his patriarchal title at the end of October 641 (Pagi, p. 827). Consequently, he occupied the department for 2 years and more than 9 months, which is quite consistent with the date found in the chronicle of Nnkifor (2 years, 9 months and 5 days), here, however, not the only one: there is another date in which the numerical data of months and days are mixed. See: Le Quien, 1.1, p. 229. Some, e.g. Walch (Walch, b. IX, s. 187, 193), probably based on the testimony of the Greek historian Theophanes, who attributes the death of Emperor Constantine to the atrocity of his stepmother Martina, committed with the participation of Patriarch Pyrrhus (Theophanis Chronographia, p. 508,522; compare: Life of Maximus, 1.1, col. 84 IÉ), it is believed that the Senate deprived Pyrrhus of the patriarchal title precisely for his participation in the poisoning of the emperor. Theophan's testimony is shared by Kedrin, and Nicephorus, completely silent about this, attributes the death of Emperor Constantine to the natural outcome of a long illness (in Paja, ibid.). How reliable is the testimony of the historian Theophanes and how fair is the opinion based on it, we do not undertake to judge this. In general, it is plausible to imagine the matter in such a way that after the removal of Martina and her son Heraklion, Pyrrhus, as an adherent of the policies of these latter, was not pleasing to the Senate and the people, who demonstrated against him, and as a result of this he had to resign from the patriarchal title (See Muralta - p. 295). Paja has t. II, p. 824: testimony of the historian Nicephorus. Op. Max., t. II, col. 288. Content analysis we have to offer in its place. T.I, col. 352; compare: 1.1, col. 85. According to Anastasius the Librarian (b. 126), Maximus went to Rome with Pyrrhus in 646; compare: Schröckh, s. 419. According to Kave (p. 585), Maximus went to Rome in the same year in which the dispute took place. It is plausible that Anastasius indicated the year of Maximus’s arrival in Rome. Biography of Maxim, t. I, col. 85. How sincere Pyrrhus’s renunciation of his error was is eloquently evidenced by the fact that after leaving Rome on the way to Constantinople, in Ravenna, Pyrrhus betrayed Orthodoxy and again fell into monothelitism, which he had so recently and so willingly renounced. It seems that the fact of such a hasty betrayal of Orthodoxy is inexplicable apart from the following consideration: publicly renouncing monothelitism and accepting Orthodoxy, Pyrrhus, as dissatisfied with the Byzantine government, took the side of Prefect Gregory, the patron saint of the Orthodox, who had the intention of secession with Africa from the Byzantine Empire; and hoped to restore himself to the patriarchal rank, which he achieved through Rome. And when in 647 the plan of the consul Gregory was discovered, and it lost all political significance, Pyrrhus, adapting to the political trend, did not hesitate to once again join the ranks of the champions of monothelitism. Having learned about Pyrrhus' betrayal of Orthodoxy at the council of 648, the pope anathematized him. Cm. Mansi has t. X, r. 700 et sq., 878. Maximus's stay in Africa in 647 can be judged on the basis of one letter from Maximus to John Cubularius. The letter of recommendation to John Cubularius (col. 641 – 648) was written from Africa (“τον της χώρας ταύτης υπάρχον … [the eparch of this country]”; meanwhile, nowhere in the whole letter is this province named), and the reason for writing the letter leaves no space I doubt that it was written precisely in 647. According to Theophylact, who gave a short speech before reading the African conciliar epistles at the Lateran Council, the African (general) council was convened in the IV Indiction (646) (See Mansi - t. X, p. 918; Harduin - p. 731). And the time of Victor’s accession to the Carthaginian episcopal see, June 16 of the IV Indiction, allows us to determine even more closely the time of the convening of the council and forces us to attribute it to the first half of 646. Maxim's biographer delivers the story about the convening of African councils before reporting the fact of the dispute; meanwhile, there is no doubt that he is talking specifically about those very councils that were compiled in 646. Maxim's biographer, therefore, is not chronologically consistent everywhere. The biographer's remark that the councils in Africa were drawn up simultaneously with the convening of the council in Rome should be rejected as completely inconsistent with reality: there was no council in Rome at that time. Biography of Maxim, 1.1, col. 84 ID'. Proconsular Africa with the Primate of Carthage did not take part in the council, since Fortunatus of Carthage himself was a Monothelite and was not present at the council, and his successor Victor had not yet been elected. Hefele, b. III, s. 182. Mansi, t. X, p. 920 – 921; Harduin, p. 733 – 736. Mansi, t. X, p. 929 et sq.; Harduin, p. 742 et sq. Mansi, t. X, p. 925; Harduin, p. 737. Anastasius Bibliothecarius, p, 47; compare: Pagi, t. II, p. 814. This is how the state of affairs becomes clear on the basis of one letter from Maximus to Thalassius. Mansi has t. X, r. 677. This is evidenced by the following confession (professio), which Severinus’s successors were probably supposed to read upon their election: “Profitemur etiam cuncta decreta pontificum Apostolicae sedis, i. e. sanctae recordationis Severini, Ioannis, Theodori atque Martini custodire, qui adversus novas quaestiones in urbe regia exortas... cuncta zizaniorum scandala amputasse noscuntur, profitentes juxta duarum naturarum motum ita et duas naturales operationes, et quaecunque damnaverut, sub anathemate damnamus" (Hefele, b. Ill, s. 169). It is strange that Hefele attributes to Puggi the tendency to draw from this the conclusion that Severin rejected monothelitism at the council, while Puggi, based on the testimony of Garnerius, recognizes as more reliable that Severin issued only a decree and did not convene a council. See Pagi, t. II, p. 818. Anastasius Bibliothecarius, p. 47; compare: in Jaffe – p. 159; and Muralta - r. 291. In the same place, r. 47; compare: there and Muralta - r. 292. Pagi, 820. The acts of this council have not survived: they are spoken of by Theophanis Chronographia, p. 508, and Libellus Synodicus Mansi, t. X, p. 607). Hefele, b. Ill, s. 160, Pagi. t. II, p. 824. Muralt, 296, 298; Iaffe, 160, 161. The testimony of Anastasius the Librarian (p. 49) differs somewhat from the dates given by Muralta and Iaffe. Mansi has t. X, p. 1019 et sq.; Harduin, p. 815 – 822. These are: the Council of Orleans in Gaul in 638 or 639 and the Council of Cyprus in 643, at which a letter to Pope Theodore was compiled. For its content, see the acts of the Lateran Council at Mansi - t. X, r. 914, for Harduin - p. 728 – 730. Anastasius Bibliothecarius, p. 49. For the content of the “Typos”, see Mansi – t. X, r. 1029 – 1032; in Harduin - r. 824 – 825. See: Muralt, p. 298; 1aYayo, r. 161. According to Anastasius (p. 49), “episcopatus cessavit” is 52 days (from May 14 to July 5); compare the dates in Muralta (p. 298) and in Jaffe (p. 161). Theophanes says: “Maximus from Africa came to Rome and induced Pope Martin to convene a council,” etc. Theophanis Chronographia, p. 509. To the message of Theophanes Kave (p. 585) adds that Maximus was in a short relationship with Martin (familiariter usus), and that he was present at the Lateran Council. It is definitely unknown when Maximus finally left Africa and returned to Rome for the second time. In 647, as noted above, Maximus was still in Africa. But in the same year 647, it must be assumed that he left Africa, if his removal from here, like his removal from Alexandria, can be connected with the conquest of Africa by the Saracens, attributed by Baronius to 647. On the way to Rome, Maxim visited Fr. Sicily (Candia). There is no doubt that Maxim was on the island. Sicily and even lived here for some time, which is quite clear from his letter to the Sicilians. Although this letter does not indicate either directly or indirectly the time of Maxim’s stay on the island. Sicily, but based on the very content of the letter, the said stay is most naturally attributed to this time. The time of convening the council is indicated by Theophanes: in the 9th year of the reign of Constance in the VIII indiction. Theophanis Chronographia, p. 510; Compare: Paja has t. III, p. 5; in Jaffe - r. 161; at Muralta - r. 298. Mansi, t. X, p. 1150; Harduin, p. 919. Mansi, t. X, p. 790; Harduin, p. 933 sq. We learn about the time of Martin’s persecution from the letters of Martin himself: from his letter IX to Theodore. See: Paja – t. III, p. 5, 6. We borrowed this information from Muralta - r. 299 – 301; and in Jaffe - r. 163–164. Assemani, Italicae hisroriae scriptores, t. II, p. 149; I. cit. bei Hefele, b. Ill, s. 216. Op. Max., t. I, col. 85 – 88 IZ'. Of course, the information found in the “Historical Teaching on the Fathers of the Church” by the Right Reverend Philaret, which states that Maxim was taken into custody after Martin’s death (vol. III, p. 171), is erroneous. There is no need to attribute the arrival of Maximus to Constantinople, together with Assemani, to the year 653, to the time before Martin’s arrival here, and to postpone him, together with Paji and Kave, to 655. What is certain is that the trial against Maximus began in 655, when the verdict over Martin had already been pronounced. Assemani's opinion is apparently shared by Schreck (s. 432), saying: “almost simultaneously with Martin, also in 653, he was brought from Rome to Constantinople by Abba Maximus”; although he does not indicate whether Maxim's arrival occurred earlier or later than Martin's. The details of the proceedings eloquently indicate that Maxim, like Martin, was brought to trial as a political criminal: all crimes, with the exception of one, charged to Maxim, are of a purely political nature (crimen laesae majestatis). Only one accusation, brought to the Senate by Abba Mina, is in the nature of a purely ecclesiastical crime - the accusation that Maximus persuaded the people to Origenism; Yes, and it could be elevated to the level of a political crime. The acts of the trial of Maxim are completely silent about this interrogation. We learn about him from Maxim’s letter to his student, Anastasius the monk (Op. Max., t. I, col. 132). According to this letter, the real interrogation took place on the 18th day of the month, on the day of Midsummer (Μεσοπεντηκόστη, Media Pentecostes). Paying attention to the fact that Μεσοπεντηκόστη in 655 (and this year the interrogation in question took place) falls on April 22, we admit, together with Padji, that instead of “on the 18th day of the month” in Maximus’ letter one should read: “on the 22nd day of the month.” See: Hefele. b. III, s. 218. The Uniate formula of confessing “one and together two, that is, three actions” in Christ was proposed by the Constantinople presbyter Peter, later the Patriarch of Constantinople, successor of Pyrrhus (See: Hefele, b. III, s. 219). Indeed, this formula was accepted by the Roman apocrisiaries (see the letter of Anastasius the monk to the Calarian monks, Or. Max., 1.1, col. 135–136), but in Rome it was decisively rejected by Pope Eugenius I (from August 10, 654 to June 3, 657). By its design, Peter’s formula is not at all new: back in 645, in his “Conversation with Maximus,” Pyrrhus proposed to Maxim the provision of one in two wills as a conciliatory formula. The identity of Presbyter Peter hides the identity of Patriarch Pyrrhus. Pyrrhus died (approximately) at the beginning of the second quarter of 655 (according to Le Quien (p. 231) in May or June), after 4 months and 21 days of secondary reign. He was succeeded by Peter, also a Monothelite. Pagi, t. II, p. 301. The acceptance of one action in Christ leads to the fusion of the doctrine of the Trinity God with the doctrine of the incarnation of God the Word: with a monoergistic view of the face of the God-man, the human nature of Christ is thought to be homogeneous with His Divine nature and, therefore, different from the nature of His Divinity and humanity, so that instead of the Trinity there is a quaternity. From the point of view of moral Christology, the Monothelite teaching denies Christ’s ability to perform good deeds. In reasoning regarding the essential definitions and distinctive properties of the Divinity and humanity of Christ, the Monothelite view leads not only to their confusion (the absolute, creative will of the Divinity of Christ is transferred to His humanity), but even to their complete destruction in Christ, that is, to the denial of the very existence of the natures of Christ (Col. 141 - 144). – Acceptance of one personal will, as Theodosius would have wanted (col. 149), consistently leads to the need to think of four gods, different both in nature and in hypostasis; From here it follows that will and action constitute a distinctive feature of nature, and not of the person, which is why, together with the two natures of Christ, both Holy Scripture and the Fathers of the Church teach to confess two natural wills and two similar actions. And accepting two different wills and actions, άΛΛην και άΛΛην [other and other], as well as two different natures, it is necessary to recognize their number along with the difference: “δύο” (col. 152). T. I, col. 160 – 161 K D. T. I. col. 164 KE. These words, spoken, moreover, by an emperor hostile to Maxim, very aptly characterize the enormous significance and influence that Maxim had on the course of church affairs of that time. T. I, col. 164 – 165 ΚΘ᾿. Acts VI Century e., p. 546. The name "ίλΛούστριος", attached to Peter, indicates the importance of the post held by him. Combefi believes that he was a high-ranking person who held the position of senator (See: Op. Max., t. II. col. 509, Not. Combefisii). In full agreement with this kind of assumption of Combefi is the fact that Sophronius, who appeared in Constantinople on a very important matter, appears according to this letter to be in relations with this Peter. Pope Martin subsequently addressed this Peter with a special letter, recommending to him John, Bishop of Philadelphia, as his vicar (Mansi, t. X, p. 825). Another - επιστολή δογματική [dogmatic message] (more precisely - συστατική - recommendatory): defending the Orthodoxy of the deacon of the Alexandrian Church Cosmas, defrocked on suspicion of heresy (Op. Max., t. II, col. 534, Not. Combefisii), Maxim asks Peter to petition the “pope,” as he calls the Alexandrian bishop, for the restoration of Cosmas to the diaconate (col. 536). From the third letter to Peter only fragments have survived. It was written in the time of Pope Theodore (col. 143), therefore, in the period of time from 642 to 649 in response to some message from Peter about Pyrrhus, who is called Abba (col. 141). It is not incredible to imply by this message a message about the accession of Pyrrhus, Abba of the Chrysopolis monastery, to the episcopal see of Constantinople. "Αύτό $ ι … έχετε πατέρα τε και διδάσκαλον κύριον άββαν Σωφρόνιον "… col. 533. John Cubularius occupied one of the court positions and had great influence at court (col. 642, Not.). He was on friendly terms with Maxim; Maxim calls him, for example, like this: “Λίαν ήγαπημένε και πάντων μοι τιμιώτατε” [dearly beloved and most honest to me of all] (col. 648). From Maxim's letters to John it is clear that there was a lively correspondence between them: δεξάμενος, ηύχαρίστησα τω Θεώ επί τή τοιαύτη ύμών εις τό καλόν προθυμία "[Having received your honest writing about the Lord of mercy, I thanked God for your zeal for good] (col. 408). In another letter to John, Maxim says, to himself: “Χαίρω και ευφραίνομαι, δια πάσης επιστολής την ... λύπη ν “I rejoice and am glad, finding my blessed ruler in everything throughout the letter to those who grieve with sadness] (col. 413). Let us leave aside the other 7 letters to John Cubularius: 1) Recommendatory (col. 641 - 648), representing the defense and praise of George, prefect of Africa (in one place, col. 645, Maximus applies 19 different epithets to George in a row), suddenly recalled to Constantinople after the famous uprising. It was written in 647, from Africa. 2) About the three main Christian virtues (col. 392 - 408). 3) On sorrow for God (col. 413 – 426) and four more very short letters. Therefore, we leave them aside because for us they do not represent any interest: neither purely dogmatic, nor psychological, nor even in relation to the question of the circumstances of Maxim’s polemical activity. In the Codex of Photius, the addressee of this message is called not “κοιβικουλάριος”, but “φιλόσοφος” - an inscription that is not found anywhere in the works of Maximus; Usually, the present epistle is entitled as in the Combefi edition, namely: “to John cubicularius,” etc. Whether when reading Photius John the philosopher should be taken for another person different from John cubicularius, or not, in any case, we remain of the opinion that the addressee of this epistle is the same John cubicularius, a friend of Maximus, to whom the recommendation and other letters are addressed. See: col. 459, Not. Combefisi. It should be noted that at the time of writing the message itself, Martina, together with her young son Heraclius (the younger), had already been overthrown from the throne by the Senate in September 641. Although the title of the letter contains the name of one person, in fact the letter was written to two persons: to Julian and Christopemtus the scholastics (see the beginning of the letter, col. 580). "Περί δε ών γεγράφατέ μοι, τιμιώτατοι, άνήγαγον τω εύλογη μένω δούλω τοϋ Θεοϋ , τω πανεύφημω έπάρχω και τάς τιμίας ήμών συΛΛαβάς · “[What you wrote to me, most honest ones, I conveyed to the blessed servant of God, the all-praised eparch, and your precious words; and he willingly promised to fulfill any of your commands]; col. 584. From the comparison of these words with the title and content of the letter immediately following, it is obvious that the request concerned the hermits (άσκητρίας), who separated from the Catholic Church and, after moving to Africa, again turned to the Universal Church. " Πασι πανταχού ποτέ γράφειν ουκ ώκνουν πατριάρχαις και ... αύτοίς εύσευεστάτοις ημών βασιΛεϋσιν..." [I have never refused to write to all the [existing] patriarchs and... our most pious kings]; Col. 588; compare: col. 589. Op. Max., t. II, col. 72, Nota. Op. Max. t. II, col. 136. Op. Max., t. II, col. 133. Op. Max., t. II, col. 137. " Και προς αυτής τον ταύτην έν Λατίνοις ύπαγορεύσαντα , κατά κέλευσιν αύτοϋ κύριον άββαν Ιωάννην άγιώτατον σύμπονον “[And in connection with it he prescribed this among the Latins, by his command of the lord Abba John, the most holy assessor] etc. Col. 244. T. II, col. 92. In the expression "εις ... τήν καθολικήν έκκλησίαν " [to ... the Catholic Church] should mean the Catholic (Roman) Church, and not the Catholic Church in general, since Maximus was not outside the Church. This George is one person with George, the presbyter-abba, who is mentioned in the letters of Maximus “προς Κυρισίκιον έπίσκοτιον” [to Bishop Kirisikius] (col. 624) and to Bishop John (col. 625). "Γνωρίζω … ύμΐν, ώς ούδαμώς μοι πεφρόνηται πώποτε κατά την των έπηρεαζόντων έισηγησιν ή των αντίρροπων καί ύπόληψις "[I inform... you that I in no way ever thought to support, as the slanderers, countervailing and opposing dogmas suggest] (i.e., the new Monothelitian opinion). Col. 113. “Haec jussit (i.e. Maxim) mihi transcriber et nota facere sanctissimis vobis...” Col. 133. "Videtur pronomen indicare scriptam epistolam in ipsa Siciliae insula." T. II, col. 113. In addition to those discussed, there are also quite a few letters, very small in volume, to other persons. These are: 5 letters to Thalassius, presbyter and abbot (t. II, col. 445 - 448, 616 - 617,633 - 637), 8 to Abba Polychronius (t. II, col. 625 - 633): the largest of them is 28 lines of petite; one - to the Bishop of Cydonia (on the island of Candia) (col. 604 - 605), to the presbyter Stephen (col. 605 - 608), to Levxentius (col. 605), to the Abba-presbyter Conon (col. 613) and to Constantine the Sacellarius (col. 608 - 612); three letters to Bishop John (col. 424 – 432 and 624 – 625) and two letters “προς Κυρισίκιον έπίσκοπον” [to Bishop Kyrisikios] (col. 620 – 624). The person to whom the last two letters were written can be guessed (See Not. Combefisii, col. 619 – 620), there is also John Bishop of Cyzicus, to whom the penultimate three letters are addressed, and with whom Maximus was in correspondence. « Ακολούθως δε τή ύμετέρα επιστολή τήν περί εκάστου κεφάλου ποιησάμενος ίήτησιν κατεθέμην τω γράμματι “[Following your message, I carried out research on each section and outlined it in a letter] - an allusion to the letter about the incorporeality of the soul, col. 424 (letter to John, Archbishop of Cyzicus, t. II, col. 1065). It is very possible that “προς Κυρισίκιον” in the inscription of the letter was formed from “προς Κυζικινόν”. We do not enter into consideration of them, as well as the letters to George, prefect of Africa (“Word of exhortation in the form of a letter”), written on the occasion of the recall prefect to Constantinople during his stay there), because for us, in relation to the issue that concerns us, they are of no interest: their content has almost nothing in common with the content of Maximus’s dogmatic-polemical letters. In relation to the question of the circumstances of Maxim’s polemical activity, they contain neither direct data nor indirect indications. See, for example, the beginning of the letters: to Presbyter Marin (col. 9), to Presbyter George (col. 56 - 57), to Marin the deacon (col. 69), to Bishop “Nikander” (col. 89), to Marin, presbyter Fr. Cyprus (col. 133), to Stephen, Bishop of Dor (col. 156 and 184 - 185), to George, Prefect of Africa (col. 364), to Senator Peter (col. 509), to Deacon Cosmas (col. 544), to Julian, the scholastic (col. 580), to Pyrrhus, Abba-presbyter, (col. 589 – 592), to the presbyter Thalassia (col. 633) and the beginning of other letters. Only one of all the letters has an unusual beginning. This is a letter to the Sicilians. It begins with the words of Art. 165. Psalm CXVIII: “Ειρήνη πολλή άγαπώσι τον νόμον Σοΰ, και ούκ εστίν αύτοίς σκάνδαλον "[Peace be unto many who love Thy law, and there shall be no temptation for them] (col. 112). This beginning of the letter is reminiscent of the usual beginning of the apostolic epistles, especially the epistles of St. Paul, containing the good wishes of grace, peace and love. See, for example, the conciliar message of St. Jude (vv. 1 - 2), first (vv. 1 - 3) and second (vv. 1-2) epistles to the Corithians, epistles to the Galatians (vv. 1 - 3), to the Ephesians (vv. 1 - 2), first (vv. 1) and second (vv. 1 - 2) to the Thessalonians, to Timothy (vv. 1 - 2) and others. It is understandable why this one letter, to the Sicilians, represents a departure from the beginning common to all of Maxim’s letters and begins with an apostolic wish: the letter to the Sicilians was written during the persecution of Maxim for his apostolic work of preaching the teachings of Christ. It is very natural that at this time, with all the awareness of his lack of dignity, so inherent in Maxim, like all the apostles, Maxim could not help but recognize himself as a continuer of their work and in the troubled time of persecution he could not help but send the apostolic wish - increasing peace and moving away from temptation. Expressions applied to another person: “ό ευλογημένος μοΰ δεσπότης” [blessed is my lord] or simply “ό έμός δεσπότης” [my lord], “ κύριος μοΰ "[my lord] and the like; and in application to oneself: “δούλος” [slave] and “μαθητής” [student] – are quite common in the language of Maximus. See, for example, col. 113,141, 365, 419, 441, 449, 510, 533, 603, 608, 833, 638. See: col. 61, 89,112, 209, 257, 445, 449, etc. Op. Max., t. II, col. 285 – 286: vd. Monitum ad. S. Maximi Disputationem cum Pyrrho. Op. Max., t. II, col. 329.