41

did you not make mention of his divinity? We say that, first, the answer was given to the question; and then, also following the custom of scripture, as in all things, also in this; sometimes it speaks from his divinity; as when the Apostle says: Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God; and sometimes from his humanity, and only, as when the same says: The foolishness of God is stronger than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men."

PYRRHUS. My predecessor, paying attention to the wording, received this more simply. MAXIMUS. I speak the truth; nothing so set me against your predecessor as his inconsistency; that is, his shifting from one notion to another at different times, and not standing firm in any one way of thinking. Sometimes, accepting those who called this one will divine, 15Γ_170 he introduced that the Incarnate one was God alone; sometimes, [accepting] those who said it was deliberative, he introduced that he was a mere man, disposed (or constituted) deliberatively like us, and in no way different from Pyrrhus and Maximus; sometimes, saying it was hypostatic, with the difference of hypostases he also introduced the difference of wills in those who are consubstantial; sometimes, also accepting those who said it was authoritative, he introduced a relative union; for power, and authority, and such things are clearly movements of judgment, but not of nature; sometimes, taking up those who said it was of choice and of judgment, and making them masters of themselves, he introduced the Lord not only as a mere man, but also as changeable and sinful; since judgment is critical of opposites, and inquisitive of unknown things, and deliberative of uncertain things; sometimes, [accepting] those who said it was economic, 0332 he introduced that before the economy he was without a will, and whatever other absurdity follows from the argument; and he was carried away into countless other absurd notions, not having the truth as a foundation; which, if I should wish to commit to Writing with precision along with their absurdities, even the time to come would not suffice. But what need is there to propose documents and to rend the holy Church of God? He could not even grasp what is most common to all. For either, if we are to concede to you, they contain the dogmas of the councils, as you untruthfully have said, and we do not need your documents, since we accept and embrace these both before and now; or they do not contain the dogmas of the councils, and it is much more just to turn away from and to flee them. Since, therefore, the proposition of these documents is in either case unjust and unlawful, their annulment is for either reason just and canonical.

PYRRHUS. Sophronius, who a short while before became patriarch of Jerusalem, made us do this even against our intention, 15Γ_172 having raised the discussion concerning the energies at an inopportune time.

MAXIMUS. I am at a loss on all accounts as to what defense you expect to give, accusing the guiltless one so bitterly. For tell me, by the truth itself, when Sergius wrote to Theodore of Pharan, also sending the libellus of Menas, as he calls it, through the mediation of Sergius Makaronas the bishop of Arsinoe, urging him to say what he thought concerning the one energy and one will in the libellus, and he wrote back, accepting them, where then was Sophronius? Or when in Theodosiopolis he wrote to Paul the One-Eyed, a former Severian, sending him also the libellus of Menas, 0333 and the consent of the Pharanite and of himself? Or when he wrote to George, surnamed Arsas, who was a Paulianist, that testimonies be sent to him concerning their one energy, adding this also to the letter, that in these he also makes the union of the Church with them? But this letter the blessed John the Pope of Alexandria took by hand from

41

θεότητος αὐτοῦ μνήμην οὐκ ἐποιήσασθε; φαμέν, ὅτι πρῶτον μέν πρός τήν ἐρώτησιν ἡ ἀπόκρισις γέγονεν· ἔπειτα δέ, καί τῷ τῆς γραφῆς ἔθει, ὡς ἐν πᾶσι, καί ἐν τούτῳ ἑπόμενοι· ποτέ μέν ἀπό τῆς θεότητος αὐτοῦ διαλεγομένης· ὡς ὅταν λέγη ὁ Ἀπόστολος· Χριστός Θεοῦ δύναμις, καί Θεοῦ σοφία· ποτέ δέ ἀπό τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος αὐτοῦ, καί μόνον, ὡς ὅταν ὁ αὐτός λέγῃ· Τό μωρόν τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἰσχυρότερον τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐστίν· καί τό ἀσθενές τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἰσχυρότερον τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐστίν."

ΠΥΡ. Ἁπλούστερον ὁ πρό ἐμοῦ, τῇ λέξει προσεσχηκώς, τοῦτο ἐδέξατο. ΜΑΞ. Ἀλήθειαν λέγω· οὐδέν οὕτως ἀπεδιέθηκέ με πρός τόν πρό σοῦ, ὡς τό

παλίμβολον αὐτοῦ· ἤγουν τό ἄλλοτε εἰς ἄλλας αὐτόν μεταπίπτειν ἐννοίας, καί ἐν μηδενί βεβηκέναι φρονήματι. Ποτέ μέν τούς τοῦτο τό ἕν θέλημα θεῖον προσαγορεύοντας ἀποδεχόμενος, 15Γ_170 τό Θεόν μόνον εἶναι τόν σαρκωθέντα εἰσῆγε· ποτέ δέ, τούς βουλευτικόν αὐτό λέγοντας, ἄνθρωπον αὐτόν ψιλόν εἶναι εἰσῆγε, βουλευτικῶς καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς διατιθέμενον (διακείμενον), καί μηδέν διαφέροντα Πύῤῥου καί Μαξίμου· ποτέ δέ ὑποστατικόν αὐτό λέγων, τῇ διαφορᾷ τῶν ὑποστάσεων συνεισῆγε καί τό διάφορον τῶν θελημάτων ἐπί τῶν ὁμοουσίων· ποτέ δέ, καί τούς ἐξουσιαστικόν αὐτό λέγοντας ἀποδεχόμενος, σχετικήν εἰσῆγε τήν ἕνωσιν· ἐξουσία γάρ, καί αὐθεντία, καί τά τοιαῦτα, γνώμης προδήλως, ἀλλ' οὐ φύσεως ὑπάρχει κινήματα· ποτέ δέ, τούς προαιρετικόν καί γνωμικόν αὐτό λέγοντας προσλαμβανόμενος, καί κυρίους ἑαυτοῦ καθιστῶν, οὐ μόνον ψιλόν ἄνθρωπον εἰσῆγε τόν Κύριον, ἀλλά καί τρεπτόν καί ἁμαρτωλόν· εἴπερ ἡ γνώμη τῶν ἀντικειμένων ἐστί κριτική, καί τῶν ἀγνοουμένων ζητητική καί τῶν ἀδήλων βουλευτική· ποτέ δέ, τούς οἰκονομικόν αὐτό λέγοντας, 0332 τό, πρό τῆς οἰκονομίας ἀθέλητον αὐτόν εἶναι, καί εἴ τι ἕτερον ἕπεται τῷ λόγῳ ἄτοπον, εἰσῆγε· καί εἰς ἄλλας μυρίας ἀτόπους ἐξηνέχθη ὑπολήψεις, τήν ἀλήθειαν βάσιν οὐκ ἐσχηκώς· ἅς δι᾿ ἀκριβείας εἰ βουληθείην Γραφῇ παραδοῦναι μετά τῶν αὐτῶν ἀτόπων, οὐδέ ὁ μέλλων ἀρκέσει χρόνος. Τίς δέ ἀνάγκη χάρτας προθεῖναι καί σχίσαι τήν ἁγίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ Ἐκκλησίαν; Οὐδέ τό πᾶσι κοινότατον συνιδεῖν ἠδυνήθη. Ἤ γάρ, ἵνα παραχωρήσωμεν ὑμῖν, τά τῶν συνόδων ἔχουσι δόγματα, ὡς ὑμεῖς οὐκ ἀληθεύοντες ἔφητε, καί οὐ δεόμεθα τῶν ὑμετέρων χαρτῶν, ταύτας καί πρίν καί νῦν δεχόμενοι καί περιπτυσσόμενοι· ἤ οὐ τά τῶν συνόδων ἔχουσι, καί πολλῷ πλέον τούτους ἀποστρέφεσθαι καί φεύγειν δίκαιον. Τῆς οὖν τῶν αὐτῶν χαρτῶν προθέσεως καθ᾿ ἑκάτερον ἀδίκου καί παρανόμου οὔσης, καί ἡ αὐτῶν κατάλυσις δι᾿ ἑκάτερον δικαία καί κανονική καθέστηκεν.

ΠΥΡ. Σωφρόνιος, ὁ μικρῷ πρόσθεν πατριάρχης γενόμενος Ἱεροσαλύμων, τοῦτο ἡμᾶς καί παρά πρόθεσιν πρᾶξαι πεποίηκε, 15Γ_172 τόν περί ἐνεργειῶν λόγον οὐκ ἐν εὐθέτῳ καιρῷ κινήσας.

ΜΑΞ. Ἐγώ πάντοθεν ἀπορῶ, ποίαν ἐκδέχεσθε δοῦναι ἀπολογίαν, τόν ἀναίτιον οὕτω πικρῶς αἰτιώμενοι. Εἰπέ γάρ μοι, πρός τῆς ἀληθείας αὐτῆς, ὅτε Σέργιος ἔγραψε πρός τόν τῆς Φαράν Θεόδωρον, πέμψας καί ὅν φησι λίβελλον Μηνᾶ διά τῆς μεσιτείας Σεργίου τοῦ Μακαρωνᾶ τοῦ Ἀρσινόης ἐπισκόπου, προτρεπόμενος αὐτόν περί τῆς ἐν τῷ λιβέλλῳ μιᾶς ἐνεργείας καί ἑνός θελήματος τά δοκοῦντα εἰπεῖν, καί ἀντέγραψεν, ἀποδεχόμενος αὐτά, ποῦ οὖν τότε Σωφρόνιος; ἤ ἡνίκα ἐν Θεοδοσιουπόλει πρός Παῦλον τόν Μονόφθαλμον καί ἀπό Σεβηριτῶν ἔγραψε, πέμψας καί αὐτῷ λίβελλον Μηνᾶ, 0333 καί τήν τοῦ Φαρανίτου καί ἑαυτοῦ συγκατάθεσιν; ἤ ὅτε πρός Γεώργιον τόν ἐπίκλην Ἀρσᾶν, Παυλιανιστήν ὄντα, ἔγραψε, χρήσεις αὐτῷ πεμφθῆναι περί μιᾶς ἐνεργείας αὐτῶν, ἐνθέμενος καί τοῦτο τῇ ἐπιστολῇ ὅτι ἐν ταύταις, καί τήν πρός αὐτούς τῆς Ἐκκλησίας ποιεῖ ἕνωσιν; Ταύτην δέ τήν ἐπιστολήν ὁ μακάριος Ἰωάννης ὁ πάπας Ἀλεξανδρείας ἀφείλετο χειρί ἀπό