78

he glorifies, even if he pretends to say; for it is not possible that some are united while others are ever divided; but with one another to suffer the same as one another, whether union or division. If, then, rejecting division, he proclaims that the qualities of these natures are united with the natures, it is altogether necessary for him, being consistent with himself in all things, either to speak of one composite quality, just as also one composite nature, on account of the union, and he has been refuted for not recognizing even the difference in quality, but dogmatizing the confusion of both, I mean of substances 0256 and of qualities, or, if he grants different qualities and does not fear division, they would also say the natures are different, not being afraid, nor indeed making a pretext of the complete separation for the rejection and refusal of their confession. For if, according to him, the qualities, supposedly confessed by him, have not suffered separation on account of their difference, how will the natures be separated for the sake of confession and difference? But if he does not confess these, but supposedly confesses only the qualities, he is clearly eliminating the natures and dogmatizing Christ as a collection of qualities, just as we also know the natures of material things to exist; constituted, however, by the underlying matter, but not observed in qualities alone and bare, as that man describes Christ, and for this reason calls him a composite nature, meaning that one, and conceiving no other, which he fabricated and composed out of bare qualities. For of those things whose difference he asserts, of these clearly also is the union. For the difference is not of some things and the union of others, but of the same things, and not of others.

(15Α_340> Therefore, the madman proclaims Christ to be from qualities and qualities, and according to these he again shows him to be divided, since he dogmatizes not one composite quality in him on account of the union, but different qualities, if indeed this is for him the best definition of union. But if one law prevails for natures, and another again for qualities, it is the work of his diligence, or rather, more fittingly, his consternation, to show this to us, so that we may learn how according to the union he recognizes the two natures as one nature, but different qualities not as one quality; or for what reason he speaks of a difference of qualities, but does not speak of a difference of natures. And how have the qualities remained unconfused without difference, but the natures unconfused also without it? And how are the qualities not divided according to their difference, but the natures are divided according to it? Or how, not being divided, are they not confessed with the qualities? And why does he compose the natures, but not compose the qualities, and how, when these have not been united into one composite quality, does he fabricate that they are united into one composite nature? Let whoever is that man's impious lover and advocate clarify these things for us who are perplexed, so that by providing a solution for these things, he may also dissolve the censure, or, if he cannot do this justly, he may bear it away with him along with even greater condemnation, because he dared to say to the Fathers that he who is in all ways strange even to himself, is in agreement.

Let these things be said by me, God-honored master, in passing according to your command, for the refutation and abolition of him and of the defenders of his faction. But it would be for your God-minded intellect to train and teach the greater and more perfect things to those who are imperfect like me and infants, and 0257 to lead them to a more divine knowledge, so that you may appropriate to God through the true science of beings, of which the Logos Himself, Who is by nature beyond beings, has been established the cause, our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom also through prayers (15Α_342> may you not cease entrusting me the unworthy one, most holy and God-honored Father.

And again the divine Maximus.

78

δοξάζει, κἄν ὑποκρίνεται λέγειν· οὐ γάρ ἐνδέχεται, τάς μέν ἡνῶσθαι, τάς δέ διῃρεῖσθαι ποτ᾿ ἄν· ἀλλά σύν ἀλλήλαις ταυτόν ἀλλήλαις παθεῖν, εἴτε ἕνωσιν, εἴτε διαίρεσιν. Εἰ οὖν τήν διαίρεσιν ἀποβαλλόμενος ἡνῶσθαι διαγορεύει μετά τῶν φύσεων, καί τάς τούτων ποιότητας, ἀνάγκη πάντως αὐτόν ἑαυτῷ γε στοιχοῦντα διά πάντων, ἤ μίαν σύνθετον λέγειν ποιότητα, καθάπερ καί μίαν σύνθετον φύσιν, διά τήν ἕνωσιν, καί ἠλέγχθη μή δέ τήν ἐν ποιότητι γνωρίζων διαφοράν, ἀλλ᾿ ἀμφοῖν, οὐσιῶν τέ φημι 0256 καί ποιοτήτων δογματίζων τήν σύγχυσιν, ἤ διαφόρους διδούς τάς ποιότητας, καί οὐ δεδειώς τήν διαίρεσιν, διαφόρους καί τάς φύσεις εἴποιεν ἄν, οὐ δεδιττόμενος, οὔτε μήν προφασιζόμενος τήν διαμπάξ τομήν εἰς τήν τῆς αὐτῶν ὁμολογίας ἀποστροφήν καί παραίτησιν. Εἰ γάρ κατ᾿ αὐτόν οὐ πεπόνθασι διατομήν αἱ ποιότητες, πρός αὐτοῦ δῆθεν ὁμολογούμεναι, διά τήν διαφοράν, πῶς αἱ φύσεις τμηθήσονται τῆς ὁμολογίας χάριν καί διαφορᾶς; Εἰ δέ ταύτας μέν οὐχ ὁμολογεῖ, μόνας δέ δῆθεν ὁμολογεῖ τάς ποιότητας, δῆλός ἐστι τάς φύσεις ἐξαφανίζων, καί ποιοτήτων ἄθροισμα τόν Χριστόν δογματίζων, ὥσπερ καί τάς τῶν ὑλικῶν φύσεις οὔσας γνωρίζομεν· ὑποκειμένῳ μέντοι τῆς ὕλης συνισταμένας, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἐν μόναις ἐπιθεωρουμένας καί ψιλαῖς ταῖς ποιότησιν, ὡς ἐκεῖνός γε τόν Χριστόν διαγράφει, καί διά τοῦτο σύνθετον αὐτόν ὀνομάζει φύσιν, ἐκείνην δηλαδή, καί οὐκ ἄλλην νοῶν ἥν ἐκ ψιλῶν τῶν ποιοτήτων ἀνεπλάσατο καί συνέθηκεν. Ὧν γάρ εἶναι λέγει τήν διαφοράν, τούτων σαφῶς καί τήν ἕνωσιν. Οὐ γάρ ἄλλων ἡ διαφορά καί ἄλλων ἡ ἕνωσις, ἀλλά τῶν αὐτῶν, καί οὐκ ἄλλων.

(15Α_340> Οὐκοῦν ἐκ ποιοτήτων καί ποιότητας εἶναι διαγορεύει τόν Χριστόν ὁ παράφρων, καί κατ᾿ αὐτάς γε πάλιν διῃρημένον αὐτόν ἀποδείκνυσιν, ὡς οὐ μίαν σύνθετον διά τήν ἕνωσιν, ἀλλά διαφόρους ἐπ᾿ αὐτοῦ δογματίζων ποιότητας, εἴπερ ὅρος οὖτος αὐτῷ τῆς ἑνώσεως ἄριστος. Εἰ δέ ἄλλος μέν ἐπί φύσεων, ἄλλος δέ πάλιν ἐπικρατεῖ νόμος ἐπί τῶν ποιοτήτων, τῆς αὐτοῦ δεῖξαι τοῦτον ἡμῖν ἔργον ἐμμελείας, ἤ ἐκπληξίας, εἰπεῖν οἰκειότερον, ὡς ἄν μάθοιμεν πῶς κατά τήν ἕνωσιν μίαν μέν φύσιν τάς δύο γνωρίζει φύσεις, οὐ μίαν δέ ποιότητα διαφόρους ποιότητας· ἤ τίνι λόγῳ ποιοτήτων μέν λέγει, φύσεων δέ διαφοράν οὐ λέγει. Καί πῶς οὐκ ἀσύγχυτοι μέν δίχα διαφορᾶς μεμενήκασιν αἱ ποιότητες, ἀσύγχυτοι δέ καί δίχα ταύτης αἱ φύσεις; Πῶς τε κατά τήν διαφοράν αἱ ποιότητες οὐ διαιροῦνται, διαιροῦνται δέ κατ'αὐτήν αἱ φύσεις; Ἤ πῶς οὐ διαιρούμεναι μή ὁμολογοῦνται μετά τῶν ποιοτήτων; ∆ιατί δέ συντίθησι μέν τάς φύσεις, οὐ συντίθησι δέ τάς ποιότητας, καί πῶς τούτων οὐχ ἑνωθεισῶν εἰς μίαν ποιότητα σύνθετον, ἐκείνας εἰς μίαν σύνθετον ἑνῶσθαι τερατεύεται φύσιν; Ταῦτα διατρανώσαι διαποροῦσιν ἡμῖν, ὅστις ἐκείνου δυσσεβής ἐραστής καί συνήγορος, ἵνα τήν τούτων λύσιν ποιούμενος, συνδιαλύσῃ τήν μέμψιν, ἤ μή δυνάμενος ταύτην ἐνδίκως, ἐκείνῳ συναπενέγκηται μετά καί μείζονος τῆς κατακρίσεως, ὅτι τε σύμφωνον, τόν καί πρός ἑαυτόν ὄντα διά πάντων ἀλλόκοτον, εἰπεῖν τοῖς Πατράσιν τετόλμηκεν.

Ταῦτά μοι, θεοτίμητε δέσποτα, ἐν παραδρομῇ κατά τήν ὑμετέραν εἰρήσθω κέλευσιν, εἰς τήν ἐκείνου καί τῶν τῆς ἐκείνου συμμορίας ὑπασπιστῶν ἀνασκευήν καί κατάργησιν. Τῆς σῆς δ᾿ ἄν εἴη θεόφρονος διανοίας, τά μείζω, καί τελεώτερα τούς ἀτελεῖς κατ᾿ ἐμέ καί νηπίους ἐκπαιδεῦσαί τε καί διδάξαι, καί 0257 πρός γνῶσιν ἀγαγεῖν θειοτέραν, ἵν᾿ οἰκειώσῃς Θεῷ διά τῆς ἀληθοῦς ἐπιστήμης τῶν ὄντων, ὧν αὐτός ὁ ὑπέρ τά ὄντα φύσει Λόγος αἰτία καθέστηκε, Κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, ᾧ καί δι᾿ εὐχῶν (15Α_342> μή διαλείποις μέ παρατιθέμενος τόν ἀνάξιον, ἁγιώτατε καί θεοτίμητε Πάτερ.

Καί πάλιν ὁ θεῖος Μάξιμος.