Dispute in Viziya

The work “Dispute in Viziya” (17 chapters) is a record of a dispute about dogmas that occurred between St. Maximus the Confessor and Theodosius, Bishop of Caesarea Bithynia, in the presence of the consuls Paul and Theodosius, sent from Emperor Constans II and Patriarch Peter of Constantinople. The debate took place in August 656 in Viziya, where St. Maxim was in exile. The debate begins with a brilliant exposition by St. Maxim of the doctrine of predestination and foreknowledge of God. The monk explains that he cannot be in communion with the Church of Constantinople due to the innovations introduced by Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius, Pyrrhus and Paul of Constantinople: - monoenergism and monothelitism, i.e. confession of one energy (action) and one will in Christ. According to the monk, such a teaching leads to a confusion of the Divine and human nature of Christ and a denial of the fullness of His humanity; - the Pattern of Faith (Typos) issued by Emperor Constans II, prohibiting any discussion about the two wills or actions in Christ. A similar decision was made by Rev. Maxim as silence and, therefore, denial of truth. The monk consistently refutes the arguments of Bishop Theodosius and the consuls, using quotes from the Holy Scriptures, the holy fathers and the canons of the Church. He advocates diopheliteism and dioenergism. St. Maximus asserts that the Holy Scriptures and the Fathers teach of two natures, two wills and two actions in Christ, corresponding to His Divine and human nature. The denial of two wills and two actions leads to the denial of the fullness of Christ's humanity and the dispensation of grace. The monk emphasizes that the truth of councils is determined by the correctness of their dogmas, and not by imperial command. He gives examples of councils supported by emperors but condemned by the Church because of their heretical teachings. It is important to follow the canons of the Church, which call for regular councils to preserve the faith. St. Maximus agrees to reunite with the Church of Constantinople only on condition of condemnation of the Monothelite heresy and recognition of the decisions of the Lateran Council (649), which anathematized the Monothelites. He demands that the Monothelites be excluded from the diptychs. The dispute ends without agreement. A volume containing an account of the dogmas which were the subject of dispute between Saint Maximus and Theodosius, Bishop of Caesarea Bithynia, and the consuls who were with him. 1. The debate about the faith that is immaculate for us Christians and the invented innovation of our opponents, which took place between Abba Maximus and Theodosius, Bishop of Caesarea in Bithynia, I considered it necessary to make known to all of you who are in Orthodoxy, so that you, having the most accurate information about them, will all the more glorify the man-loving God, who gives the word by the opening of the mouth (Eph. 6:19) fearing Him, lest the enemies of the truth, uttering their usual slander against it, trouble your hearts. 2. So, on the twenty-fourth day of August of the month of the now past fourteenth indiction 1, the above-mentioned Bishop Theodosius, sent, as he said, on behalf of Peter, primate of Constantinople, and Paul and Theodosius - consuls 2, as they said, sent on behalf of the king, came to him to the place where he was in custody in exile, that is, to the camp in Viziya. They, having entered the place where he was imprisoned, sat down and allowed him to sit down, and the Bishop of Vizia was present with them. 3. And Bishop Theodosius says to him: “How are you living, Mr. Abba Maxim?” The saint answered: “As God predetermined His providential decision for me before all ages, so I live.” Theodosius says: “What are you saying? But did God predetermine each of us before every age?” Maximus said: “If he foreknew, then without a doubt he also predestined” (Rom. 8:29). Theodosius: “What does this mean – “foretold” and “predestined”?” Maxim: “Foreknowledge is (that which) concerns thoughts and words and deeds that are in our power, and predestination concerns events that are not in our power.” Theodosius: “What is in our power and what is not in our power?” Maxim: “It seems that my master, knowing everything, is talking to his servant for the sake of testing.” Theodosius: “For the sake, I swear, of the truth of God, I asked out of ignorance and desire to find out the difference between what is in our power and what is not in our power, and how one is under the foreknowledge of God, and the other under predestination.” Maxim: “Everything that is voluntary is in our power, namely virtues and vices, and it is not in our power to subject us to various kinds of punishments that happen to us or the opposite rewards. Thus, neither the illness that punishes us nor the health that approves is in our power, but the causes that produce them are in our power, for example, intemperance is the cause of illness, as abstinence is the cause of health, and keeping the commandments is the cause of the Kingdom of Heaven, as their crime is the cause of eternal fire." Theodosius says: “What then? Is this why you endure grief in this exile because you have done something worthy of this grief?” Maxim said: “I pray to God that in this sorrow He will make retribution for what I have sinned against Him through the crime of His justifying commandments.” But Theodosius says: “Isn’t grief sent to many for the sake of testing?” Saint Maximus said: “The test concerns the saints so that their disposition to what is good by nature, through sorrow, is revealed in the lives of people, at the same time revealing in themselves the virtues unknown to everyone, as was the case with Job and Joseph: the first was tested for the manifestation of the courage hidden in him, and the second was tempted for the revelation of his sanctifying chastity. And each of the saints, not voluntarily undergoing tribulations in this age, endures this because of some similar purposes 3 of God, so that through the weakness that God allows them to undergo, they trample on the proud and apostate dragon, that is, the devil, for patience is a test for each of the saints.” Theodosius: “I testify by the truth of God, you said it beautifully, and I recognize it as useful - I have always sought to talk with you about these subjects. But since I and these gentlemen, my future most excellent patricians, came to you and traveled such a distance on another main matter, we persuade you to accept our proposals and thereby bring joy to the whole universe.” The saint said: “What are these, sir! And who am I and where do I come from, so that my consent to what is offered to me would bring joy to the universe?” And Theodosius again: “I testify by the truth of our Lord Jesus Christ that both I and these gentlemen, my future most excellent patricians, will tell you - we heard this from the lips of our lord, the patriarch and the pious king.” Saint Maximus said: “Please, my lords, to say what you wish and what you have heard.” Theodosius: “The king and patriarch ask us to find out from you through us why you do not have communication with the throne of Constantinople?” The saint said: “Do you have a written order regarding this from the most pious king and from the patriarch?” And Theodosius: “You, sir, should not have distrust of us, for although I am insignificant, I am still considered a bishop, but these gentlemen of mine are members of the Senate, and we did not come to tempt you - God forbid this!” Saint Maximus said: “For whatever purpose you come to your servant, I will, without any hesitation, tell you the reason why I have no communication with you. However, if it is natural for others to ask me why I do not have this communication, it is not for you, who know this reason more accurately than I do. After all, you all know the innovations that were in the sixth indiction of the last circle - which began in Alexandria, published by Cyrus, I don’t know how he became primate there - Nine Chapters, confirmed by the throne of Constantinople, and other changes, additions and decreases made collectively by the primates of the Byzantine Church - I’m talking about Sergius, Pyrrhus and Paul - which innovations are known to the whole universe. For this reason, your servant, I have no fellowship with the Church of Constantinople. Let the obstacles placed by the named persons be removed, together with those who laid them, as God said: scatter the stones out of the way (Is. 62:10), and let them walk straight and straight (cf. Is. 40:4), free from all heretical thorns, along the path of the Gospel - then I too, having found this, as it was before, will go without any human admonition. But as long as the primates of Constantinople are proud of the obstacles they put in place and those who put them in place, no amount of reasoning or measures will force me to be in communication with them.” And Theodosius says: “But what bad things do we profess, so that you should be separated from communication with us?” And the saint: “That, recognizing one action of the Divinity and humanity of God and our Savior Jesus Christ, you confuse the teaching 4 of theology 5 and economy 6. After all, if you must believe the Holy Fathers, who say: those who have one action have one essence, then you make the Holy Trinity a quaternity, since His flesh becomes one in nature with the Word, and is deprived of the identity that is related to us and with the One who gave birth to Him by nature. And also, by destroying two actions and affirming one will of His Divinity and humanity, you deprive Him of the distribution of goods. After all, if He did not have any action, according to those who decreed this, then it is clear that even if He wishes, He cannot have mercy, with the action of goods being taken away from Him, unless, of course, without natural action, nothing in existence is capable of acting or performing. Otherwise, you make the flesh by will 7 the co-creator of all ages, and that which is in them, together with the Father and the Son and the Spirit, and the recently created flesh by nature, you make the creator by nature, or, more accurately, beginningless by will - if, of course, the Divine will is beginningless as the will of the beginningless Divinity, which exceeds not only all madness, but also wickedness, for you say not only that there is one will in Christ, but also that it is Divine, and for the Divine will no one can come up with a temporary beginning or end, since this is also unusual for the Divine nature, to which the will essentially belongs. Also, introducing another innovation, you completely take away all the characteristic signs and properties of the Divinity and humanity in Christ, decreeing by laws and typos not to talk about one or two wills or actions in Him, which is possible only for a non-existent object. In fact, nothing that exists, if it is spiritual, is devoid of desirable ability and action, and if it is sensuous, it lacks sensory action, if it is a plant, it lacks vegetative and nutritional action, if it is completely soulless and not involved in any life, the so-called state of action or suitability. And all such beings are subject to perception by the senses of sensory beings, for the action of such is to be subject to sight by their appearance, hearing by sound, smell by a certain natural evaporation, taste by certain juices, and touch by resistance. And just as we call the action of vision to see, so the action of the visible is to be visible, and everything else we see is accomplished in the same way. If, in this way, nothing that exists is at all devoid of any natural action, and our Lord and God - be merciful, Lord - does not have any natural desire of will or action, according to both 8, from what, in what and what He is, then how can we either be or be called pious, asserting that the God worshiped by us in no way has the ability of will or action? After all, we clearly learn from the holy fathers who say: “that which does not have any force of action does not exist, is not something, and does not have any position at all 9 of it 10.” Theodosius says: “You should not take what happens for house-building (oikonomia) 11 as an exact dogma.” Saint Maximus said: “If the Typos and the law, which determines not to speak of any will or action of the Lord, the taking of which means the non-existence of the One from whom they are taken, is not the actual dogma of those who accept the Typos, then for what reason have you handed me over to barbarous and godless peoples, depriving me of honor? For what reason am I condemned to live in Visia, and my fellow servants - one in Perveris, and the other in Mesemvria? And Theodosius says: “By God, who has me to judge, I testify that when the Typos was compiled, I said and now I say the same thing, that it was compiled badly and to the detriment of many, and the reason for its publication was the disputes of the Orthodox among themselves about wills and actions, and so, in order to reconcile everyone with each other, some decided that these words should not be uttered.” Saint Maximus said: “What faithful person will accept a dispensation that silences such words as God has vouchsafed to all to speak through the apostles and teachers and prophets? But let us consider, great sir, to what evil this subject reaches. After all, if God appointed in the Church, firstly, apostles, secondly, prophets, thirdly, teachers, for the perfection of the saints (Eph. 4:11), saying in the Gospel to the apostles, and through them to those after them: what I say to you, I say to everyone (Mark 13:37) and again: whoever receives you, accepts Me (Matthew 10:40), and: he who rejects you rejects Me (Matt. 10:40), and: Luke 10:16), then it is obvious and clear that he who does not accept the apostles, prophets and teachers, but rejects their words, rejects Christ Himself. But let's consider something else. God, having chosen, raised up apostles and prophets and teachers, in the perfection of the saints (Eph. 4:11), and the devil, having chosen, raised up false apostles and false prophets and false teachers against piety, so that both the ancient law and the new are subject to their attacks. And by false apostles and false prophets and false teachers I mean only heretics, whose words and thoughts are corrupt (Acts 20:30). So, he who receives the true apostles and prophets and teachers of God receives; so he who receives false apostles and false prophets and false teachers receives the devil. Therefore, whoever, in alliance with the damned and unclean heretics, casts out the saints, has clearly condemned God in alliance with the devil - accept me, who speaks the truth. If, in this way, examining the innovations that have appeared in our times, we find them to have reached the extreme degree of evil, then be careful lest, under the pretext of peace, we find ourselves suffering from apostasy and preaching, about which the Divine Apostle said (2 Thess. 2:3-4) that it would be the forerunner of the coming of the Antichrist. I told you this without hesitation, my gentlemen, so that you would spare yourselves and us. Do you command that I, having this written in the book of my heart, enter into communion with the Church in which this is preached, and that I become a fellow member of those who really reject God, that is, the supposedly devil in union with God is the union preached? May this not happen to me from God, who for my sake became a man like me, except for sin (Heb. 4:15, 9:8).” And making a bow, he said: “If you order anything to be done to your servant, do it: I will never be a fellow member with those who accept it.” 4. The bishop and those with him, amazed by these words of the saint, bowed their heads down and were silent for a long time. And after that, Bishop Theodosius, raising his head and fixing his gaze on Abba Maximus, said: “We guarantee you for our ruler the king, that if you enter into communion, he will bury Typos.” The saint says to him: “We have diverged too far from each other: what are we going to do with the term “one will,” which was conciliarly approved by Sergius and Pyrrhus and Paul to eliminate all action?” Theodosius said: “That record (decree) was destroyed and rejected.” The saint said: “Destroyed within stone walls, but not in rational souls: let them accept their condemnation, conciliarly approved in Rome 12 through pious dogmas and canons, and then the mediastinum will be destroyed (Eph. 2:14) and there will be no need to convince us.” Theodosius: “The Roman Council has no power, since it was without a royal order.” Maxim: “If the orders of the kings give meaning to the former councils, and not pious faith, then accept the former councils against the consubstantiality, since they took place by order of the kings. I mean precisely: the first - in Tire 13, the second - in Antioch 14, the third - in Seleucia 15, the fourth - in Constantinople under Eudoxia the Arian 16, the fifth - in Nike of Thracia 17, the sixth - in Sirmium 18 and, after these, a long time later, the seventh - in Ephesus 19 for the second time, over which Dioscorus presided. All these councils met by order of the kings, and yet, all of them were condemned due to the godlessness of the dogmas approved by them. And why don’t you reject the council that deposed Paul of Samosata under the saints and blessed Dionysius of Rome and Dionysius of Alexandria and Gregory the Wonderworker, who presided over this council 20, since it was not on the orders of the king? Which canon commands that only those councils be accepted that met by order of the tsar, or in general that all councils meet by order of the tsar? The pious canon of the Church recognizes those councils as holy and accepted which have been approved by the correctness of dogma. But as my master knows and teaches others, the canon commanded that councils be held twice a year in each diocese, 21 without making any mention of the royal order for the preservation of our saving faith and the correction of everything that relates to the Divine essence of the Church.” Theodosius: “It is as you say - the correctness of the dogmas is confirmed by the councils. However, don’t you accept the book of Mina 22, in which he expounded the dogma of one will and one action of Christ?” Maxim: “God forbid! You do not accept, but reject all the teachers who were after the holy council of Chalcedon, who fought against the abominable heresy of Severus. And how can I accept the book of Mina, which appeared after the council, in which he clearly defends Sevirus, and Apollinaris, and Macedon, and Arius, and all kinds of heresy, and accuses the council with his dogmas, or rather, completely rejects it? Theodosius: “So what? Don’t you accept one action of authoritative fathers?” And Theodosius brought the forged passages they used from the works of saints, such as: Julius of Rome, Gregory the Wonderworker, Athanasius, and read them. And Maxim said: “Let us fear God and do not dare to anger Him by bringing heretical passages as evidence: after all, everyone knows that this is the work of the wicked Apollinaris. If you have others, show them, because by bringing these, you more convincingly convince everyone that in reality you have renewed the evil of Apollinaris and his like-minded people.” And the same Bishop Theodosius cites, under the name of supposedly Chrysostom, two other passages, which Abba Maximus read, saying: “They belong to Nestorius, who suffered from the disease of the teaching of personal duality in Christ.” And immediately boiling with rage, Theodosius said: “Mr. Monk! Satan has spoken this through your mouth.” Maxim: “Do not be offended, my lord, by your servant.” And taking it, he immediately showed him that these very sayings belonged to Nestorius, and in what writings they were found. Theodosius: “God knows, brother, the patriarch gave me these places. However, you called some sayings of Apollinaris, others - Nestorius.” And citing the passage of St. Cyril, which says: “Showing one and similar action and through both natures,” he says: “What do you say to this?” Maxim: “Some actually pointed out this saying, which was placed as an addition in the interpretation of the Gospel compiled from this holy father by Timothy Elur. But let it be his 23 in your opinion. Let us examine, in this case, the meaning of our fathers’ words and find out the truth.” Theodosius: “I do not allow this to happen, for it is necessary to accept simple sayings.” Maxim: “Please tell me, what is the difference between simple sayings and artificial ones?” Theodosius: “It is to accept the saying as it is, and not examine its meaning.” Maxim: “Obviously, you are introducing new and alien laws to the Church regarding the sayings of Holy Scripture. If, in your opinion, it is not necessary to examine the sayings of Scripture and the fathers, then we will reject all Scripture, both ancient and new. So I heard the words of David: Blessed are those who try his testimonies, they will seek him with all their hearts (Ps. 119:2), so that no one can seek God without research. And one more thing: give me understanding, and I will try your law and keep it with all my heart (Ps. 119:34), thus, research leads to knowledge of the law and knowledge encourages those worthy to desire to preserve it in the heart by fulfilling the holy commandments contained in it. And again: Your testimony is wondrous: for this reason I try my soul (Ps. 119, 129). Why does the parable word want us to explore parables, riddles and dark sayings (Proverbs 1:6)? Why does the Lord, speaking in parables, want His disciples to understand them if He explains the meaning in parables (Matthew 13:8; Luke 8:11)? Why does he command: search the Scriptures as testifying about Me (John 5:39)? Why does the first of the apostles Peter want to teach, speaking about salvation, which the prophets explored and sought (1 Pet. 1:10)? Why does Paul, the Divine Apostle, say: If the Gospel is hidden, it is hidden among those who are perishing, in whom the god of this age has blinded the hearts and the eyes of their understanding, so that the light of the knowledge of God should not shine upon them (2 Cor. 4:3-4). It seems that you want to liken us to the Jews, who with simple words, as you say, that is, with just the letter, having covered their minds with some kind of rubbish, have fallen from the truth, having a veil in their hearts, so that they do not understand the Lord Spirit, hidden by the letter, as the apostle says: the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life (2 Cor. 3:16), so let my master make sure that I am not I will allow you to accept the saying without the meaning it contains, so as not to become clearly a Jew.” And Theodosius: “We must speak about one hypostatic action of Christ.” Maxim: “Let us consider the evil that comes from here, and leave this strange expression, for it belongs only to heretics, polytheists. After all, if we are talking about one hypostatic action of Christ, and the Son differs from the Father and the Spirit in hypostasis, and, consequently, in hypostatic action, then we are forced to assign hypostatic actions to both the Son and the Father and the Spirit. But in this case, in your opinion, the blessed Deity will have four actions: three that separate the persons in which it is, and one common, denoting community, according to the nature of three hypostases. And therefore, according to the fathers, if, of course, we accept their teaching, we will be subject to the disease of quadrtheism, for they declare every action to be natural, and not hypostatic. And if this is true, as indeed it is, then we will find ourselves speaking of four natures and four gods by nature, differing from each other both in hypostasis and in nature. Moreover, who can express in word or imagine in the mind an action that isolates something that is subsumed under any species and is by nature under the general definition of species? After all, what is a general property of objects by nature is never a property of only an individual something, for personal hypostatic characteristics, for example, a long nose, clear eyes, baldness and all that, are accidents that serve as the definition of objects that differ from each other in number. Thus, every person has the property of acting as someone who is something by universal human nature, and not as someone by hypostasis, according to both the particular and general categories that are represented in the mind and expressed in words. For example, “rational animal mortal” refers to the general generic property of us, for we all participate in the same life, and the same rationality, and the same flow and flow, also sitting and standing, speaking and silence, seeing, hearing, touching - which all relates to what is thought about us in general. So, one should not innovate a saying that does not correspond either to Scripture, or to the fathers, or to nature, but should be considered alien and invented through the corruption of people. However, show me this saying from some father, and then we will again examine its meaning from the one who spoke it.” Theodosius: “What? Is it not at all appropriate to say about Christ: “one action”? Maxim: “From Holy Scripture and the Holy Fathers we are not authorized to say anything of the kind, but we are commanded to believe and confess both the two natures in Christ, of which He is, and His two natural wills and two actions at the same time and according to Him, as being by nature together God and man.” Theodosius: “So we also confess nature and various actions, that is, both Divine and human, and we confess His Divinity as volitional, since His soul was not without will. But we do not say: “two,” so as not to present Him as at enmity with Himself.” Maxim: “But, when you say: “two natures,” do you imagine them to be at war because of their number?” Maxim: “What? When number is used about natures, then it divides, but when it is spoken about wills and actions, it cannot divide?” Theodosius: “Without a doubt, in this case it also makes a division, and the fathers did not use numbers about wills and actions, avoiding division, but said: one and another, Divine and human, double, twofold, and as they said, I say, and as they spoke, I say.” Maxim: “For the sake of the Lord, answer: if someone says to you: “one and another,” how much do you understand? Or “Divine and human” - how much do you mean? Or “double and double” - how much do you mean?” Theodosius: “I know how to understand,” he says, “but I don’t say two.” Then Abba Maxim, turning to the leaders, said: “For the sake of the Lord, tell me: if you hear one and one action, or another and another, or twice two, or twice five, what do you mean to answer those who speak?” And they said: “Since you conjure us, we will answer that by one and one action we mean two, and by another and another we mean two, and by twice two we mean four, and by twice five we mean ten.” And as if ashamed of their answer, Theodosius said: “What the fathers did not say, I do not say.” But Abba Maximus immediately, taking the book of the Acts of the Holy and Apostolic Council in Rome, showed the fathers clearly speaking about the two wills and actions of our Savior and God Jesus Christ, which, taking from him, Theodosius the consul read all the sayings of the holy fathers. And then Bishop Theodosius said in response: “God knows, if this council had not anathematized famous persons, I would have accepted it more than any other person. But in order not to waste time here, if the fathers said anything, I say and immediately put it in writing: two natures and two wills and two actions, just enter into communication with us and let there be unity.” Maxim: “Vladyka, I do not dare to accept written consent from you regarding such a subject, being a simple monk. But since God has inspired you to accept the sayings of the holy fathers, as the canon requires, then send a written message about this to the Roman primate, that is, the king, the patriarch and his synod. Without this, I will not enter into communication while persons subject to anathema are mentioned at the holy offering, for I am afraid of the condemnation of anathema." Theodosius: “God knows, neither I nor anyone else condemns you for this fear. But give us advice, for God’s sake, how this can be accomplished?” The saint says to him: “What advice can I give you regarding this? Go, find out if anything like this ever happened, and if anyone was resolved after death from accusations regarding faith and from the condemnation announced in it, and let both the king and the patriarch agree to be subject to the condescension of God, and draw up: one is an intercessory order, and the other is a conciliar petition to the Pope of Rome. And of course, if there is an ecclesiastical model that allows this for the sake of a right profession of faith, I will agree with you on this.” And Theodosius: “This will undoubtedly happen. But give me your word that if I am sent, you will go with me.” Saint Maximus said: “Lord! It will be more useful for you to take with you my fellow servant, who is in Mesemvria, than me, for he knows the Latin language, and everyone honors him worthily, as he has been punished for so many years for God and the right faith, which rests on his Roman throne.” And Theodosius says: “We had various clashes with each other, and it is unpleasant for me to go with him.” Saint Maximus said: “Lord! If it pleases you, let your desire be fulfilled, and when you order, I will follow with you.” And at the same time everyone stood up with joy and bowed with tears, and there was prayer. And each of them kissed the holy Gospels, the honorable cross, the icon of our God and Savior Jesus Christ and our Lady who gave birth to Him, the Most Holy Theotokos, placing their own hands in confirmation of what was said. 5. Then, after talking a little with each other about living a godly life and fulfilling the Divine commandments, Theodosius turned to Abba Maxim and said: “Now all temptations have been eliminated, and peace has come with the help of God, and there will be peace. But for the sake of the Lord, do not hide from me: will you in no way name one will and one action in Christ? Maxim: “It is never acceptable for me to say this. And I express the reason: since this saying is alien to the holy fathers - to call one will and one action of two different natures. And then, the one who says this meets all sorts of other absurdities directed directly against him. Firstly, if I say: natural one will or one action, I am afraid of merging. Secondly, if I say: “personal,” I will separate the Son from the Father and the Spirit, and I will find myself introducing three wills that are not similar to each other, as well as hypostases. Thirdly, if I name one will and one action as one of the persons of the Holy Trinity, then I will be forced to name, even if I did not want, one will and one action, both as one Father and as one Spirit, and it turns out that our speech will fall into polytheism. Fourthly, if I call one will pertaining to state and not to nature, then I will introduce Nestorius’s personal division. Fifthly: if I say “against nature,” then I will destroy the existence of the willer, for destruction for nature is what is against nature, as the fathers say.” Theodosius: “Without any doubt, we must call one will of our Savior because of unity, as Pyrrhus and Sergius, having thought it out well, in my opinion, wrote.” Maxim: “With your permission, Vladyka, I will say a few words about this. If, due to unity, the will of God and our Savior became one, as Pyrrhus, Sergius and Paul wrote, then firstly, the Son will, according to them, be of other wills with the Father, who has one will with the Son by nature, and not by unity, unless, of course, unity and nature are not the same thing. Second. If, by reason of unity, the will of our Savior became one, in their opinion, then its cause will, of course, be unity, and not one or the other of the natures from which He is, and the will, obviously, will belong, according to their teaching, to the state, and not to nature, for true teaching knows the nature, and not the state. Third. If, due to unity, one, in their opinion, became the will of our Savior, then what kind of will, in their opinion, was the unity itself? After all, they, of course, will not say, caring for the truth and avoiding absurdity, that it was a will that appeared because of it. Fourth. If, due to unity, one will of the Savior appeared, then it is obvious that before the unity He was either many-willed or completely without will, and if he was many-willed, then, having been reduced to one will, he suffered a reduction in many wills and clearly underwent a state of change - a reduction in the many wills naturally inherent in Him; if he was completely without will, then He showed unity to those superior to nature, from which He received a will for Himself, which nature did not have, and also appeared changeable, having acquired by state what was not inherent in him by nature. Fifth. If, by reason of unity, one will of our Savior, according to both, from which He is, the will appeared, then by will the same One became a created God, by reason of unity, remaining by nature eternal, and by will became a beginningless man, remaining by nature created, which is impossible, not to say, wicked. Sixth. If, due to unity, one will of two natures appeared, then why, for the same reason, did not one nature of two natures appear? 6. And interrupting the flow of Saint Maximus’s speech at this point, Bishop Theodosius said: “What appeared in this way because of unity, if nothing like that appeared because of it?” Maxim: “It revealed the unity that the incorporeal one, who by nature is God and the Creator of all things, clearly represented Him who by nature became a man, not by a change in nature or a decrease in anything belonging to nature, but by the true perception of mentally animated flesh, that is, without the shortcomings of humanity, pure by nature from any ancestral guilt, and on the basis of mutual communication, which is truly amazing and amazing for everyone, the unity of Divinity and humanity in Christ revealed the same God as perfect in humanity, Who remains entirely with His human properties, and Perfect in Divinity as the Same One, Who remains entirely not deprived of His Divine properties. Because of the unity, it was precisely the passage of natures into each other and their inherent natural properties, according to the teachings of our God-speaking fathers, but not the passing or transformation, which is characteristic of those who maliciously transform unity into fusion 24, and as a result of this go into diverse innovations, and, due to the lack of firmness of their minds, subject the pious to persecution.” 7. Having heard this, Bishop Theodosius and the rest of those who arrived with him seemed to accept these words. And again the same bishop said to the saint: “Create love, tell us: what does it mean that no one acts as someone by hypostasis, but as something by nature, for I did not understand these words and they confuse me.” Maxim: “No one acts as someone by hypostasis, but as something by nature. For example, Peter and Paul act, but not in the Petrine and Pauline way, but humanly, for both of them are people naturally according to the general definition of nature, and not hypostatically according to individual personal qualities. Also, Michael and Gabriel act, but not like Michael and Gabriel, but like angels. And thus in every nature, determined by a many number of objects, we contemplate a general, and not a single action. So, whoever speaks of hypostatic action represents the very nature, which is one, as infinite in actions and in the multitude of indivisible individuals suitable for it, distinguished from itself, which if we recognize as true, then together with all nature we will destroy the image of being in it.” 8. After these words, while kissing them, the consul Theodosius said: “Now, everything happened wonderfully, but will the king agree to make an intercessory order?” The saint says: “Of course, he will do it if he wishes to be an imitator of Christ and endure humiliation with Him 25 for the sake of the common salvation of us all. He must bear in mind that if God, being a savior by nature, did not save until he was subjected to voluntary humiliation, then how can man, being by nature a saver, be saved or saved without being subjected to humiliation? " And Theodosius the consul says: “I hope, with God preserving my memory, I will tell him this speech, and he will agree.” And at the same time, having kissed each other, they departed in peace. The bishop gave Abba Maxim some money sent to him, a monastic surplice and a srachitsa; and the surplice - the Bishop of Visium immediately brought it, but in Regia they took away not only some of the money given to him, but also everything else that he had from charity, along with the rest of his pitiful things and clothes. 9. After their departure, on the eighth day of September of the present fifteenth indiction, the consul Paul again arrived in Visium to Saint Maximus, bringing an order that had the following content: “We command your glory to come to Visia and bring Maximus the monk with great honor and care, both because of his old age and weakness, and because he is from our ancestors and he was honored by them. And place it in the pious monastery of St. Theodore, located in Regia. And come and inform us. And we will send to him on our behalf two patricians who must convey to him our desire, who love us spiritually and are loved by us. And come and announce his arrival to us.” So, having brought the monk and placed him in the named monastery, this same consul went to notify the king. 10. And the next day Epiphanius and Troilus the patricians came out to him with a large retinue and pomp, as well as Bishop Theodosius, and came to him in the catechumenate church of this monastery. Having made the usual greeting, they sat down, forcing him to sit down too. And starting a speech to him, Troilus said: “The Lord of the universe commanded us to come to you and express to us the will of His God-protected Sovereignty. But first tell us, will you fulfill the king’s order or not?” The saint says: “Lord, I will listen to what His pious Lordship has commanded, and then I will respond appropriately, since what answer can I give to something unknown to me?” Troilus insisted, saying: “It is not permissible that we should ever say that if you do not say first, you will or will not carry out the king’s order.” So, when the saint saw that they insisted even more on his slowness and looked more fiercely and responded more rudely, along with everyone who was with them, who themselves were proud of worldly virtues, in response he said to them: “If you do not allow your servant to say what is pleasing to our lord and king, then here I am speaking before the listening God, and the holy angels, and all of you: whatever he commands me about any object that is being destroyed and perishing along with this century, I will gladly do it." Then Troilus immediately stood up and said: “Pray for me, I am leaving, for this man does nothing.” And since there was a very great disorder and great confusion and confusion, Bishop Theodosius said to them: “Tell him the king’s answer and find out what he will say, since it is not prudent to leave without saying anything and without hearing anything.” Epiphanius the patrician said: “This is what the king announces to you through us, saying: since the whole East and West are corrupted, looking at you, and everyone rebels for your sake, not wanting to agree with us in the faith, then may God prompt you to enter into communication with us by accepting the Typos published by us, and we will personally go out to Halqa, and kiss you, and give you our right hand and introduce you with all honor and glory you into the Great Church, and together with us we will place you in the place where, according to custom, kings stand, and we will create the liturgy together and partake together of the most pure and life-giving Mysteries of the life-giving Body and Blood of Christ, and we will declare you our father, and there will be joy not only in our royal and Christ-loving city, but also in the entire universe, for we know for sure that when you enter into communion with the saint here throne, then everyone will unite with us, who, for the sake of you and your teaching, were cut off from communication with us." 11. And turning to the bishop, Saint Maxim said with tears: “Great sir, we are all awaiting the day of judgment, you know what has been decreed and decided over the holy Gospels and the Life-giving Cross and the icon of our God and Savior and the Most Pure Theotokos and the Ever-Virgin Mary who gave birth to Him.” And lowering his face, the bishop said to him in the quietest voice: “But what can I do when something else has been decided upon by the most pious king.” And the saint said to him: “But why did you touch the holy Gospels and those who were with you, if the fulfillment of what was said was not in your power? Truly, all the power of heaven will not force me to do this, for what would I answer - I do not say to God, but to my conscience - if for the sake of human glory, which in itself has no existence, I swore to renounce the faith that saves those who love it? " At these words, everyone stood up, a strong rage took possession of them, and they subjected him to pinches, blows and pushes, covering him from head to toe with numerous spits, from which a stench spread until they wet the clothes in which he was clothed. Then the bishop stood up and said: “It shouldn’t be this way, but listen only to his answer and go and tell our good lord, for canonical affairs are carried out in a different way.” 12. And as soon as the bishop convinced them to calm down, they sat down again, subjecting him to numerous insults and curses. Then Epiphanius, with great anger and rage and rudeness, says: “Tell me, worst city devourer: considering us to be heretics, both our city and our king, did you say these words? In fact, we are more Christians than you, and we confess that our Lord and God has both a Divine will and a human will and a rational soul, and that every rational nature has both will and action, since movement is a property of life and will is a property of the mind, and we know Him as volitional not only by Divinity, but also by humanity, and we do not deny His two wills and two actions.” In response, the servant of God said: “If you believe so, then how do you demand to enter into communion with you under the condition of accepting my Typos, which contains only the denial of what you have confessed?” 26 And Epiphanius said: “For the sake of economy (economy), this was done so that there would be no harm to the people from these subtle sayings.” In response, the saint said: “On the contrary, every person is sanctified through an accurate confession of faith, and not through the annihilation contained in the Typos.” And Troilus said: “In the palace I already told you that I did not destroy Typos, but ordered silence so that we could all reconcile.” Saint Maximus said: “The silencing of words is the destruction of words, for through the prophet the Holy Spirit speaks: Speeches are not the essence, lower than words, and their voices are not heard (Ps. 18:4). Therefore, the unspoken word does not exist at all.” And Troilus said: “Have it in your heart as you wish, no one will forbid you.” Saint Maximus said: “But God did not limit all salvation to the heart, saying: whoever does not confess Me before men, neither will I confess him before My Father who is in heaven (see: Matt. 10:32). And the Divine Apostle teaches, saying: with the heart he believes in the truth, but with his lips he confesses for salvation (Rom. 10:10). So, if God and the prophets of God and the apostles command to confess the mystery in holy words - a great and terrible mystery and saving for the whole world, then there is no need in any way to silence the word preaching it, so that there is no harm to the salvation of those who are silent.” Epiphanius said angrily: “Have you signed your name in the book?” 27 The saint replied: “Yes, I signed up.” Epiphanius: “And how dare you subscribe and anathematize those who confess and believe, as the angels and the Catholic Church profess rational natures? Believe me, according to my judgment, we will bring you into the City, place you bound in the square, and bring actors and actresses, corrupt harlots and all the people, so that each and every one will hit and spit in your face.” In response to this, the saint of God said: “As you said, so be it, if we anathematize those who profess two natures, of which the Lord is, and two natural wills and two actions corresponding to Him, as true God by nature and man. Read, sir, the deeds and the book, and if you find, as you say, do what you want, for both I and my fellow servants, and all who signed, have anathematized those who, according to Arius and Apollinaris, recognize one will and one action, and do not confess our Lord and God according to both, from what, in what, and that He is by nature rational, and therefore, according to both natures, possessing Divine and human the will and act of our salvation." During these words of the saint, they said to each other: “If we go into reasoning with him, we will be left without food and drink, but we will get up, have breakfast and go and say what we heard, for this man sold himself to Satan.” And getting up, they had breakfast and left with anger, and went to announce to the king, on the eve of the Exaltation of the Honorable and Life-Giving Cross. 13. And the next day, at dawn, Theodosius the consul came out to Saint Maximus and took from him everything that he had, telling him on behalf of the king that “you did not want honor - it was taken away from you” (Ps. 108:17), go to where you yourself condemned yourself to be worthy, having the condemnation of your disciples - who is in Mesemvria, and who is in Pervera, who was the notary of our blessed grandmother.” 28. Also, the patricians Troilus and Epiphanius said that “of course, we will bring two of your disciples, both the one who is in Mesemvria and the one who is in Pervera, and we will put them to the test, and we will see how they end up. However, know, Mr. Abba, that although we receive little harm from popular unrest, I swear by the Holy Trinity, we will have to join with you the pope, now arrogant, and all the talkers there, and the rest of your disciples, and we will fuse all of you, each in his proper place, just as Martin was melted.” And having taken the monk, the same consul Theodosius handed him over to the soldiers, and they took him to Silivria. 14. And we stayed there for two days. And one of the soldiers came and spread rumors in the fortress, saying that a monk had come here blaspheming the Mother of God. They did this in order to incite troops against Saint Maximus as a blasphemer of the Mother of God. Then, after two days, the warrior returned and led him into the fortress. And by inspiration from God, the military commander or locum tenens of the military commander sent the leaders of the detachments close to him, as well as presbyters and deacons and pious standard guards. Seeing them, the saint of God stood up and bowed to them. They also bowed to him and sat down, ordering him to sit down too 29 . And one of them, a very venerable elder, speaks to him with great reverence: “Father, since some have seduced us regarding your holiness, that you do not call our Lady the Most Holy Virgin Theotokos, we conjure you, by the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity, to tell us the truth, and to remove this temptation from our hearts, so that we, who are unjustly seduced, do not suffer harm.” Then, making a bow, the saint stood up and, stretching out his hands to him, said with tears: “Whoever does not call our Lady, all-praised and most holy, most pure and honored by every rational nature, as having become truly by nature the Mother of God, who created heaven and earth and the sea and all that is in them (Ex. 20:11; Ps. 145:6; Acts 4:24, etc.), he let there be anathema and catathema 30 from the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Consubstantial and Pre-Essential Trinity and all the heavenly Powers and the face of the holy apostles and prophets, and the countless host of holy martyrs, and every spirit perfect in righteousness, now and ever and to the endless ages of ages. Amen". Having heard this with great benefit for themselves and filled with reverence for this man, they prayed for him with tears, saying: “May God strengthen you, Father, and make you worthy to complete this journey without hindrance (2 Tim. 4:7).” After these words, many soldiers gathered, and after listening to many wonderful words spoken, all those who gathered received great benefit. But one of the commander’s servants, seeing that a lot of troops were gathering and edifying and condemning what was happening, thinking God knows what, ordered to seize him and remove him two miles from the fortress, until those guarding him gathered and came to Viziya. However, moved by divine love, the clergy walked two miles and came and greeted him. Then, having prayed for him and taken him with their own hands, they laid him on the animal and returned in peace to their places, and the saint was taken to his former place of imprisonment. 15. And here’s what you need to know: in Regia, Troilus brought such an accusation against Abba Maximus that the consiliary John wrote to him about the agreement they were supposed to have, and that the outrage of the disciples then prevented it from being realized. But I think that the said consiliary John wrote not to Troilus, but to Menna the monk, and he told the courtiers. 16. And after this they brought them to Constantinople, and carried out a case against them, and after they anathematized and cursed them, they brought in saints Maximus and blessed Anastasius, his disciple, and the most holy Pope Martin, and Saint Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, and all the Orthodox and like-minded people, they brought another blessed Anastasius, and, having given them over to anathemas and mockery, they handed over to the bosses, saying this: “Oh, Maxim! You, having clothed yourself in the dark robe of national curses, have given yourself over to your favorite party of Gehenna and have shied away from canonical obedience to the venerable and co-governing, honest and sacred synclite inherent in us, which immediately after us will take judgment on you and inflict punishment on you in accordance with political laws, as they determine for your blasphemies and self-will.” 17. (Then the judges, having taken them, pronounced the following sentence against them) “Since the present synod, with the assistance of the omnipotent Christ our true God, canonically determined what is due against you, Maximus, Anastasius and Anastasius, - after all, duty required you to be subjected to more severe legal punishments in accordance with your wicked words and deeds, although in this life you will not receive worthy retribution for such your crimes and blasphemies, having handed you over to the Righteous One for the highest punishment Judge (cf. 2 Tim. 4, 8) and thus weakening the exact execution of the laws, since life is left to you, we command the most glorious eparch present with us to immediately take you to his city-government praetorium, beat you on the back with sinews, and cut off the blasphemous tongues from the inside, then cut off the crooked hands that served your blasphemous mind with a sword, lead along with taking away the most vile members, bypassing the twelve parts of this sovereign city, send you to permanent imprisonment, and, moreover, under constant guard, in the country of Lazika throughout your life to mourn your blasphemous errors with the reversal of the curse you invented on us on your heads.” Then the eparch, having taken them and subjected them to punishment, cut off their tongues and their honest hands, and having circled them throughout the city, they sent them to Lazika. That is. August 24. 656 The text was probably written shortly after this by someone from the circle of St. Maxim, if not himself; as in the case of RM, the author could hardly have access to the transcript (cf. Brandes W. “Juristische” Krisenbewaltigung... S. 156,205). Consul, υ - an honorary title that gave the right to organize public games and feasts. The title "consul" in the imperial titulary was inherited from the Roman system of supreme power; was abolished by Leo VI (886–912). Literally: house-building, οίκονομίας. Allen: “...you are confusing the language of both theology and economics.” That is, about the Trinitarian Deity. That is, about Christ as the Incarnate Son of God. Due to unity of will in Christ. That is, according to Divinity and humanity. That is, a positive sign of being. Dionysius the Areopagite. D.N. 8.5. That is, the improvement of church life. At the Lateran Council. 649 B. 335, by order of Emperor Constantine. B. 341, by order of Emperor Constantius. B. 359, also by order of Constantius. The Council in Constantinople was convened in. 360 and confirmed the decisions of the Council of Rimini (359). Cathedral in Sirmium. 357 prohibited the use of the terms “consubstantial” and “similar in essence” as creating division in the Church. The so-called “robber council”, “Robbery of Ephesus”, 449. Paul of Samosata, who professed monarchism, was expelled at a number of councils between. 264 i. 268 for heresy and offenses against morality. Dionysius of Alexandria, invited to the first council (264), then refused to come due to illness and soon died. Gregory the Wonderworker took part in the first council, but died shortly after the council. According to the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius of Caesarea (7.7), Pope Dionysius (259/260–267/268) did not receive the letter of the Council of Antioch. 268, who condemned Paul of Samosata. The 5th rule of the Council of Nicea, but this rule was often repeated: it is the same rule. 20th Council of Antioch and. 19th of Chalcedon. Logos dogmatikos, attributed to Patriarch Mina of Constantinople (536–552). At the VI Ecumenical Council this attribution was recognized as false; however, some modern researchers dispute this opinion of the Council, considering Mina to be the author of the document. An allusion to Eutyches, the founder of Monophysitism and all its subsequent branches. Συνταπεινωθηναι and συγκενωθηναι - to humble yourself and become exhausted with God. Allen conveys the meaning more accurately: “If you believe in the same way as the intelligent angels and the Church of God, then how do you force me to unite with the Typos, which contains only the denial of what you have confessed?” This refers to Libellus (“little book”) of Maximus’ student Anastasius (see: RM. 10). The “little book” contains a condemnation of Typos. 648, and was presented at the Lateran Council. The signatures on this document include the names Maxima and Anastasia. He was presented to the Lateran Council by John, priest of the monastery of St. Savva, Theodore, priest of the Holy Lavra in Africa, Thalassius, priest of the Armenian monastery in Rome, called Renati, and George, priest of the Cilician monastery in Rome. The grandmother of Constans II was Eudokia, the first wife of Heraclius, but here they mean his second wife, Martina, who is taken to be the mother of both Heraclius, known as Constantine (son of Eudokia), and her own son Heraklon (Herakleon). Young Heraclius the Younger (under the name of Constantine) and Heraklon were emperors for a short time, c. 641, followed by September. 641 Constant. 11 succeeded his father Constantine. “Seeing those who came, the recommended Abba Maxim stood up and bowed (μετάνοιαν), and they bowed to him in response and, sitting down, asked him to sit down too.” That is, excommunicated and cursed. Greek, κατάθεμα, curse. “At the end of the trial, the Monk Maximus was exiled and imprisoned in Viziya, in Thrace. The Emperor and Patriarch still hope to use Saint Maximus for their own purposes and force him to accept the "Typos" ("Model"). Therefore, after him, Bishop Theodosius and two patricians, Troilius and Epiphanius, were sent as emissaries, who arranged a discussion with him in August–September 656, recorded and preserved under the title “Dispute in Vizium.” St. Maximus the Confessor is a mediator between East and West. Larcher Jean-Claude