Maximus Confessor, a leading champion of or- thodoxy in the Monothelite controversy (q. v.), was born at Constantinople in 580. At an early age he be- came private secretary to the emperor Heraclius, but, deciding for the ecclesiastic state, lie resigned this posi- tion, and in 630 entered the monastery of Chrysopolis (Scutari), near Constantinople, and in a short time be- came its abbot. The dangers which threatened the state at the time induced the emperor to attempt a reconciliation between the parties engaged in the jMono- physite controversy (q. v.), by means of a compromise, which declared that Christ had accomplished the work of redemption by one manifestation of his viW\ as the God-man, Qua ^eavSpiKij ivepyeiq). The patriarchs Sergius, of Constantinople, and Cyrus, of Alexandria, as heads of the contending parties, agreed in G33 to iniite on this formula, and many of the Monophysite faction returned to the Church ; but several of the or- thodox opposed the compromise strongly, as practically endorsing Monophysite A'iews. With a view to put an end to these troubles, the emperor in 639 published an edict, known as the Ecthesis (q. v.), which prohibited all controversies on the question whether in Christ were one or two operations, but which itself plainly incul- cated the doctrine of one will. Maximus, who had in the mean time removed to Africa, now entered the lists in defence of the orthodox view, and unequivocally re- sisted all attempts to undermine the faith of the Church. His course was favored by Gregorius (or Georgius), the prefect of North Africa, who sought an opportunity to renounce his allegiance to the Byzantine court ; and under his protection IMaximus exerted himself to the utmost to combat the many heresies which were then rife, manifesting a special zeal against the Monophysite Severians in Egypt and Crete, and against the Jlono- thelites. His discussion with Pj-rrhus, the patriarch of Constantinople, ^vho had fled to Gregorius on being charged with complicity in the murder of the emperor Constantine, was held in July, A.D. G45, and residted in the signal triumph of Maximus. The records of this disputation belong to the most interesting writings of the Monothelite controversy. In the following j-ear the bishops of Africa and the neighboring isles, influ- enced by Maximus, held a number of synods which con- demned Monothelitism, and called on Theodore, bishop of Rome, to support their views with his authority. Maximus now went to Rome, accompanied by Pyrrhus, who formally recanted his late opinions, and was recog- nised by the pope as the rightful patriarch of Constan- tinople ; and thus a coalition in the interests of ortho- doxy was formed which promised a complete triumph. But Maximus was the only disinterested party to the agreement, Gregorius fell in a battle with the Sara- cens in A,D. 647; Pyrrhus hastened to t.ake back his recantation, and to make his peace with the emperor; and the pope, disappointed in the hope of seeing his su- premacy recognised in the East as well as in the West,
MAXIMUS
918
MAXIMUS
f.nathcmatized him. Maximus was accaiii compelled to cunliiic liis labors to controversial writings. He was now recognised at the imperial court as the soul of the iipposition; and when he resisted the edict of Constaiis II, promulgated in A.D. 648, and known as the Tyjnis (q. v.), Grcgorius, an envoy of the Byzantine court, did not disdain to seek him in his cell, and attempt to shake his firmness. The monk, however, refused to make any concessions, since he regarded that edict as degrading Christ to the level of a being without will or energy, and denied the right of the emperor to inter- fere in dogmatic questions. On the accession of Martin I, Maximus, more than any others, induced that pope to convene the first synod of the Lateran (in 649); and there can be no doubt that he originated the resolu- tions there adopted, which condemned Monothelitism and the imperial edict. Thereafter Maximus entered a cloister, and we lose trace of the detailed record of his life. We meet him again when apprehended, under or- ders from Constantinople, perhaps at the same time as pope ]\Iartin I, and brought to trial in 665. The pro- ceedings (of which the records are quite full) show that the aim of the emperor was simjily to secure his ap- proval of the TiJTrof, as a measure in the interests of jieace; but the monk remained firm, and declared with tears that the only means of securing peace was the recall of that instrument. Hence the treatment he re- ceived became harsher; and when, af*ter his third trial, he still persisted in maintaining his views, a synod con- vened by the patriarchs of Constantinople and of An- tioch advised the emperor to banish him, and he was taken to the castle of Bizya, in Thrace, later to the monastjry of St. Theodore, near Khegium, and finally to Perberis. His exile was protracted more than a year, during ^vhich period frequent attempts were made by bishop Thoodosius of Cfesarea, and by special agents of the emperor to induce him to recant, but always with- out success. He was finally condemned to be scourged, and to lose his tongue and his right hand, that he might no longer be able either to speak or write, and afterwards to be incarcerated in the castle of Shemari, in the coun- try of the Lacians, where he died, Aug. 13, 662. His inriucnce, however, continued to be felt. A few years later the emperor Constans II fell a victim to the hatred lie had aroused chiefly by his persecution of this faith- ful champion of the Church, and in A.D. 680 the Church gave her sanction to the doctrines so heroically defend- ed by this monk in the first Trullan council (q. v.).