87

THEODORI BYZANTINI, MONOTHELITAE

THEODORI BYZANTINI, MONOTHELITAE QUAESTIONES CUM MAXIMI SOLUTIONIBUS.

The first difficulty of Theodore, deacon of Byzantium, rhetor, and synodical notary of Paul, Archbishop of Constantinople.

If, according to the same principle as the will, the Fathers also predicated ignorance of Christ, it is necessary for those who say the will is not to be considered in Christ by appropriation, to say that He is also ignorant. And how is He God, who does not know the future? But also to introduce Him as a mere man, according to the already condemned heresy of the Agnoetae. But if, shrinking from the absurdity of this, they say that the ignorance is by appropriation, just as also the abandonment, and the lack of submission, let them also speak of the will in a similar manner. For the Fathers joined ignorance with the will, preserving the same principle for it; as Athanasius says in his book against the Arians, and Gregory the Theologian in his first oration on the Son, and others in other writings.

A second difficulty from the same. If every word and expression not spoken by the Fathers (217) is manifestly established as an innovation, one of two things is necessary: either to show that the expression, 'to speak of natural wills in Christ,' belongs to the Fathers; or, being unable to show it, let them know that they are innovating their own teaching in the name of the Fathers. But if, understanding their other expressions with their own purpose in mind, they posit such a coining of terms. But if the second is blameworthy, then so is the first.

SANCTI MAXIMI SOLUTIONES

Of Maximus the monk to Marinus the presbyter, a solution of the difficulties proposed by Theodore the deacon and rhetor, first solution. p. 217

The questions from the rhetor, most holy and God-honored father, do not so much have the reasonableness

of a difficulty, as they demonstrate the unreasonableness of the difficulty; both from his falsehood, and from his contention for the overthrow of the divine incarnation of the Only-Begotten. For the Fathers did not predicate ignorance of Christ according to the same principle as the will, as he says. For who can show this, even if they not only fabricate things that in no way exist, as is their custom, but also boldly bring them forward against themselves? Or in this way would there be the same principle for ignorance and for will, bringing into identity things that are in every way properly incompatible with each other; since the one presents the removal of being, while the other presents the positing of being, which is manifestly impossible, just as there is not at all a state between them

87

THEODORI BYZANTINI, MONOTHELITAE

THEODORI BYZANTINI, MONOTHELITAE QUAESTIONES CUM MAXIMI SOLUTIONIBUS.

Πρώτη ἀπορία Θεοδώρου διακόνου Βυζαντίου ῥήτορος, καί συνοδικαρίου Παύλου ἀρχιεπισκόπου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως.

Εἰ κατ᾿ αὐτόν τῷ θελήματι λόγον, καί τήν ἄγνοιαν κατηγόρησαν οἱ Πατέρες ἐπί Χριστοῦ, ἀνάγκη τούς μή κατ᾿ οἰκείωσιν ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ θεωρεῖσθαι λέγοντας τό θέλημα, καί ἀγνοεῖν αὐτόν λέγειν. Καί πῶς Θεός, ὁ τά μέλλοντα μή εἰδώς; Ἀλλά καί ψιλόν αὐτόν εἰσάγειν ἄνθρωπον, κατά τήν ἤδη τῶν Ἀγνοητῶν κατακριθεῖσαν αἵρεσιν. Εἰ δέ τήν ἐντεῦθεν ἀτοπίαν ὑποστελλόμενοι, τήν ἄγνοιαν κατ᾿οἰκείωσιν λέγουσιν, ὥσπερ καί τήν ἐγκατάλειψιν, καί τήν ἀνυποταξίαν, κατά τόν ὅμοιον τρόπον καί τό θέλημα λεγέτωσαν. Τῷ γάρ θελήματι καί τήν ἄγνοιαν οἱ Πατέρες συνέταξαν, τόν αὐτόν αὐτῇ φυλάξαντες λόγον· ὥς φησιν Ἀθανάσιος μέν ἐν τῇ κατ' Ἀρειανῶν αὐτοῦ βίβλῳ, Γρηγόριος δέ ὁ Θεολόγος, ἐν τῷ περί Υἱοῦ πρώτῳ λόγῳ, καί ἄλλοι ἐν ἄλλοις συγγράμμασι.

Τοῦ αὐτοῦ δευτέρα ἀπορία. Εἰ πᾶσα λέξις καί φωνή μή τοῖς Πατράσιν εἰρημένη (217) καινοτομία προδήλως

καθέστηκεν, δυοῖν ἀνάγκη θάτερον, ἤ δεῖξαι τῶν Πατέρων οὖσαν φωνήν, τό φυσικά λέγειν ἐπί Χριστῷ θελήματα· ἤ δεῖξαι μή δυνάμενοι, ἴστωσαν τῷ τῶν Πατέρων ὀνόματι τήν ἑαυτῶν καινοτομοῦντες διδασκαλίαν. Εἰ δέ, τάς ἑτέρας αὐτῶν φωνάς πρός τόν ἴδιον νοοῦντες σκοπόν, τήν τοιαύτην τίθενται ὀνοματοποιΐαν. Εἰ δέ τό δεύτερον μεμπτόν, ἄρα καί τό πρῶτον.

SANCTI MAXIMI SOLUTIONES

Μαξίμου μοναχοῦ πρός Μαρῖνον πρεσβύτερον Ἐπίλυσις τῶν προτεταγμένων ἀποριῶν ὑπό Θεοδώρου διακόνου καί ῥήτορος, λύσις α´. Σελ. 217

Αἱ παρά τοῦ ῥήτορος πεύσεις, ἁγιώτατε καί θεοτίμητε πάτερ, οὐ μᾶλλον τό εὔλογον

ἔχουσι τῆς ἀπορίας, ἤ τό παράλογον ἐνδείκνυνται τῆς ἀπορίας· ἔκ τε τοῦ ψεύδους αὐτοῦ, καί τῆς ἐπ᾿ ἀνατροπῇ τῆς θείας τοῦ Μονογενοῦς σαρκώσεως ἕριδος. Οὐ γάρ ατά τόν αὐτόν τῷ θελήματι λόγον, ὥς φησι, καί τήν ἄγνοιαν ἐπί Χριστοῦ κατηγόρησαν οἱ Πατέρες. Τίς γάρ ὁ τοῦτο δεῖξαι δυνάμενος, εἰ καί οὗτοι τά μηδαμῶς ὄντα, καθώς ἔθος αὐτοῖς, οὐκ ἀναπλάττονται μόνο, ἀλλά καί τολμηρῶς καθ' ἑαυτῶν προκομίζουσιν; Ἤ οὕτω δ᾿ ἄν ἀγνοίας καί θελήματος ὁ αὐτός ἔσται λόγος, εἰς ταὐτόν ἄγων ἀλλήλοις τά πάντη κυρίως ἀσύμβατα· εἴπερ ἡ μέν, τήν τοῦ ὄντος ἀναίρεσιν· τό δέ, τήν τοῦ ὄντος θέσιν παρίστησιν, ὅ δή προδήλως ἀμήχανον, ὥς οὐδέ τό παράπαν ἀλλήλαις ἕξις ὑπάρχει