Maximus the Confessor, Life

reason knows union. If on account of the union, as they said, there has come to be one will of our Savior, by what will do they say the union itself has come to be? For surely they would not say, if they care for truth and flee what is absurd, by that [will] which came into being because of it. If on account of the union there has come to be one will of the Savior, it is clear that before the union, He was either of many wills or completely without will. And if He was of many wills, He underwent a reduction of the many, being sent toward one will, and openly received the suffering of change, the reduction of the many wills naturally present in Him. But if He was altogether without will, he has declared the union to be something superior to nature, from which He obtained a will which nature lacked; and again He has declared Him mutable (He has appeared), having acquired by relation what was not present in Him by nature. If on account of the union there came to be one will of our Savior according to one of the [natures] from which He is, then God has become recent in will, the same one who on account of the union remains eternal in nature; and a man without beginning in will, while remaining recent in nature, which is impossible, not to say impious. If on account of the union one will of the natures has come to be, why for the same reason has not one nature of the natures come to be?

21. And interrupting the flow of the argument at these points, Theodosius the bishop said: What

then has happened on account of the union, if none of these things has happened on account of it? MAX. It showed without falsehood that God who is by nature without flesh had become flesh; and it presented manifestly the creator of all things having become by nature man, not by a change of nature, or by a reduction of anything of the nature, but by a true assumption of flesh intelligently ensouled, that is, of a complete humanity, clean by nature of all ancestral blame. And by the logic of interchange, the truly marvelous and astonishing thing to all, is that the same one is wholly God in human things, remaining completely within His own properties; and wholly man in divine things, remaining completely without falling away from His own. For there is a perichoresis of the natures and of their natural properties into each other, according to the teaching of our God-bearing Fathers; but not a transposition or a reduction has happened because of the union, which is a characteristic of those who maliciously make the union a confusion, and for this reason are mired in manifold innovations, and because of the lack of stability in their own argument, persecute the pious.

22. (160) Hearing these things, Theodosius the bishop, together with the rest of those with him

who were present, seemed to accept what was said. And again the same bishop says to Abba Maximus: Do us the charity: what is it that you said to us, that "no one acts as a 'who' (the hypostasis), but as a 'what' (the nature)"? For what was said eludes my understanding. MAX. No one acts as a 'who' (the hypostasis), but as a 'what' (the nature); for example, Peter and Paul act, but not in a Petrine or Pauline way, but in a human way; for both are men naturally according to the common and definitive principle of nature (but not hypostatically according to their particular quality. Likewise Michael and Gabriel act), but not in a Michaelic or Gabrielic way, but in an angelic way; for both are angels. And so in the case of every nature, predicated of many in number, we observe a common, and not an individual, energy. Therefore, the one who speaks of a hypostatic energy introduces the nature itself, being one, as having become infinite in its energies; and, according to the multitude of individuals comprised under it, as differing from itself; which if we accept as being correct, we corrupt along with every nature the principle of its mode of being.

ἕνωσιν ἐπίσταται λόγος. Εἰ διά τήν ἕνωσιν ὡς ἔφασαν, μία τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν γεγένηται θέλησις, ποίᾳ θελήσει φασίν αὐτήν γεγενῆσθαι τήν ἕνωσιν. Οὐ γάρ δήπου τῇ δι᾿ αὐτήν γενομένῃ φαῖεν ἄν ἀληθείας φροντίζοντες, καί τό παράλογον φεύγοντες. Εἰ διά τήν ἕνωσιν μία τοῦ Σωτῆρος γεγένηται θέλησις, δῆλον ὅτι πρό τῆς ἑνώσεως, ἤ πολυθελής ἦν ἤ παντελῶς ἀθελής. Καί εἰ μέν πολυθελής ἦν, μείωσιν τῶν πολλῶν, πρός μίαν σταλείς, ὑπέμεινε, θέλησιν, καί τροπῆς προφανῶς ἐδέξατο πάθος, τήν τῶν προσουσῶν αὐτῷ φυσικῶς πολλῶν θελήσεων μείωσιν. Εἰ δέ πάνταπασιν ἦν ἀθελής, κρείττονα τῆς φύσεως ἀπέφηνεν οὖσαν τήν ἕνωσιν, ἐξ ἧς ἐπορίσατο θέλησιν, ἥν ἡ φύσις ἠπόρησε· καί πάλιν τρεπτός ἀπέφηνε (ἐπέφηνε), τό μή τῇ φύσει προσόν αὐτῷ, σχέσει κτησάμενος. Εἰ διά τήν ἕνωσιν μία τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν καθ᾿ ἕτερον τῶν ἐξ ὧν ἐστι γέγονε θέλησις, πρόσφατος γέγονε θελήσει Θεός, ὁ αὐτός διά τήν ἕνωσιν τῇ φύσει μένων ἀΐδιος, καί ἄναρχος ἄνθρωπος τῇ θελήσει, μένων τῇ φύσει πρόσφατος, ὅπερ ἀδύνατον, ἵνα μή λέγω δυσσεβές. Εἰ διά τήν ἕνωσιν μία τῶν φύσεων γέγονε θέλησις, τί δήποτε διά τήν αὐτήν αἰτίαν μία τῶν φύσεων οὐ γέγονε φύσις.

ΚΑ'. Καί διακόψας ἐπί τούτοις τήν τοῦ λόγου φοράν Θεοδόσιος ὁ ἐπίσκοπος, εἶπε· Τί

τοίνυν διά τήν ἕνωσιν γέγονε, εἰ μηδέν τούτων γεγένηται δι᾿ αὐτήν; ΜΑΞ. Ἔνσαρκον ἔδειξεν ἀψευδῶς γεγονότα τόν ἄσαρκον αὐτόν φύσει Θεόν· καί τόν τῶν ὅλων δημιουργόν, φύσει γενόμενον ἄνθρωπον ἀριδήλως παρέστησεν, οὐ τροπῇ φύσεως, ἤ μειώσει τινός τῶν τῆς φύσεως, ἀλλ᾿ ἀληθεῖ προσλήψει νοερῶς ἐψυχωμένης σαρκός, ἤγουν ἀνελλιποῦς ἀνθρωπότητος, παντός προπατορικοῦ καθαρᾶς κατά φύσιν ἐγκλήματος. Καί τῷ κατ᾿ ἐπαλλαγήν λόγῳ, τό θαυμάσιον ὄντως καί πᾶσι κατάπληκτον, ὅλον ἐν τοῖς ἀνθρωπίνοις Θεόν τόν αὐτόν ὁλοκλήρως μένοντα τῶν ἰδίων ἐντός· ὅλον ἐν τοῖς θείοις ἄνθρωπον, ὁλοκλήρως μένοντα τῶν ἰδίων ἀνέκπτωτον. Περιχώρησις γάρ εἰς ἀλλήλας τῶν φύσεων καί τῶν αὐταῖς προσόντων φυσικῶν, κατά τήν τῶν θεηγόρων Πατέρων ἡμῶν διδασκαλίαν· ἀλλ᾿ οὐ μεταχώρησις, ἤ μείωσις διά τήν ἕνωσιν γέγονεν, ὅπερ ἴδιόν ἐστι τῶν σύγχυσιν κακούργως ποιουμένων τήν ἕνωσιν, καί διά τοῦτο τοῖς καινισμοῖς πολυτρόπως ἐμφυρομένων, καί δι᾿ ἀπορίαν τοῦ κατ᾿ αὐτούς λόγου σταθηρότητος διωκόντων τούς εὐσεβεῖς.

ΚΒ΄. (160) Ὧν ἀκούσας Θεοδόσιος ὁ ἐπίσκοπος, ἔδοξε μετά τῶν λοιπῶν τῶν σύν αὐτῷ

παραγενομένων, τό λεχθέν ἀποδέχεσθαι. Καί πάλιν ὁ αὐτός ἐπίσκοπος πρός τόν ἀββᾶν Μάξιμόν φησιν· Ποίησον ἀγάπην· τί ἐστιν ὅπερ εἶπας ἡμῖν, ὅτι οὐδείς ὥς τις τήν ὑπόστασιν, ἀλλ᾿ ὥς τι τήν φύσιν ἐνεργεῖ; προΐεται γάρ μοι νοήσαντι τό λεχθέν. ΜΑΞ. Οὐδείς ὥς τις τήν ὑπόστασιν ἐνεργεῖ, ἀλλ᾿ ὥς τι τήν φύσιν · οἷον, Πέτρος καί Παῦλος ἐνεργοῦσιν · ἀλλ᾿ οὐ Πετρικῶς καί Παυλικῶς, ἀλλ᾿ ἀνθρωπικῶς· ἄμφω γάρ ἄνθρωποι φυσικῶς κατά τόν κοινόν καί ὁριστικόν τῆς φύσεως λόγον (ἀλλά οὐχ ὑποστατικῶς κατά τόν ἰδίως ποῖον. Ὡσαύτως Μιχαήλ καί Γαβριήλ ἐνεργοῦσιν), ἀλλ᾿ οὐχί Μιχαηλικῶς καί Γαβριηλικῶς, ἀλλά ἀγγελικῶς· ἄμφω γάρ ἄγγελοι. Καί οὕτως ἐπί πάσης φύσεως, πολλῶν τῷ ἀριθμῷ κατηγορουμένης, κοινήν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχί μόνην τήν ἐνέργειαν θεωροῦμεν. Οὐκοῦν ὁ λέγων ὑποστατικήν ἐνέργειαν, αὐτήν τήν φύσιν μίαν οὖσαν, ἄπειρον ταῖς ἐνεργείαις εἰσάγει γεγενημένην· καί κατά τό πλῆθος τῶν ὑπ᾿ αὐτήν ἀγομένων ἀτόμων, ἑαυτῆς διαφέρουσαν· ὅπερ εἰ δεξόμεθα καλῶς ἔχειν, πάση φύσει τόν ἐπ᾿ αὐτῇ τοῦ πῶς εἶναι λόγον συνδιαφθείρομεν.