101

and of greater condemnation, because he, being in every way alien even to himself, has dared to say to the Fathers something harmonious.

Let these things be said by me in passing, O God-honored master, according to your command, for the refutation and abolition of him and of the champions of his faction. But it would be for your God-minded intellect to train and teach greater and more perfect things to the imperfect and childlike like me, and (257) to lead us to a more divine knowledge, so that you may bring us into fellowship with God through the true knowledge of existing things, of which the Logos himself, who is by nature beyond beings, our Lord Jesus Christ, is the cause, to whom may you not cease, through your prayers, to commend me, the unworthy one, O most holy and God-honored Father.

And again the divine Maximus. How then could anyone ever have the power to represent the holy synod at Chalcedon—which both sees and proclaims these things so reverently and at the same time so resoundingly—as mocking the definition of the Nicenes, even if he were the most resourceful of all in inventing, through falsehood, things that do not exist against the true and real (faith)?

But if you revile and blame it, as on the one hand keeping this [creed] securely, but on the other hand perhaps introducing a second definition, what then is this second definition introduced by it? The confession, he says, of the expression 'of two natures' and 'in two natures.' For the definition of the Nicenes does not have this; but it was clearly introduced by the Fathers at Chalcedon, not having been known or named by anyone before.

That you cannot demonstrate this either is clear; for by many of the holy Fathers before it, the expression was both judged and proclaimed as pious; and the writings of those who proclaimed it bear witness, being more full of light and more brilliant than any sunbeam, even if you are ignorant through lack of education, or pretend to be ignorant for the sake of slander, and of a foolish accusation against the pious Fathers and their dogmas. And even if there were no precedent, whereas in fact, as I said, there is a great deal, what would prevent so many saints (or rather, all of Christendom, for this is properly what the most holy synod of the orthodox Fathers is) from authoritatively putting this forth, and legislating against the Eutychian faction?

And after some things he says: For what reason, and how, do you accuse the holy synod at Chalcedon, although it clearly made use of patristic expressions, and revile and mock it here and there, both in writing and unwritten, as one that introduces another definition of faith?

Do not judge by appearance, for the sake of God who said it, but judge a righteous judgment. What is your accusation against the Fathers at Chalcedon on one and the same subject, and what is the proclamation of those who came before?

For if it is possible to accuse the synod at Chalcedon of another definition of faith on account of the expressions laid down in its definition besides those of Nicaea, it will certainly follow that for the same reason one must also make this claim against Cyril and the one hundred and fifty. But if it cannot be made against them, how it can be against that synod, I cannot comprehend.

But I urge you to demonstrate your rage and objection based on unproven points; if indeed, perhaps, being thus sufficiently put to shame, you might shrink from the madness of such a great construction of falsehood against the truth.

(260) Since Gregory, the advocate of theology, will by no means escape your charge against the Chalcedonians; but he will fall under it to the greatest degree according to your law, by articulating beforehand what was said deficiently in the Nicene [creed] concerning the Holy Spirit; "because," he says, "this question was not yet being raised at that time;" knowing the Spirit with the Father and the Son, and writing to Cledonius to think and teach thus.

101

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 (257) 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 μή διαλείποις μέ παρατιθέμενος τόν ἀνάξιον, ἁγιώτατε καί θεοτίμητε Πάτερ.

Καί πάλιν ὁ θεῖος Μάξιμος. Πῶς οὖν τήν οὕτω ταῦτα σεβασμίως ἅμα καί διαπρυσίως ὁρῶσαν τε καί

διαγορεύουσαν ἁγίαν ἐν Χαλκηδόνι σύνοδον, ὡς διαπεμπομένην τόν τῆς Νικαέων ὅρον παραστῆσαι, τίς ἄν ἰσχύσειε πώποτε, κἄν πάντων ᾖ ποριμώματος εἰς ἐξεύρεσιν τῶν διά ψεύδους, τά μή ὄντα κατά τῆς ἀληθοῦς καί ὄντως (πίστεως) πλαττομένων; Εἰ δέ καί ὡς τοῦτο μέν τηροῦσαν βεβαίως, ὡς δεύτερον δέ τυχόν ἐπεισάγουσαν ὅρον διαλοιδορεῖτε, καί μέμφεσθε, τίς οὖτος καθέστηκεν ὁ ὑπ᾿ αὐτῆς ἐπεισαγόμενος δεύτερος ὅρος; Ἡ ὁμολογία, φησί, τῶν δύο φύσεων καί ἐν δύο φύσεσι φωνῆς. Οὐ γάρ ἔχει ταύτην ὁ τῆς Νικαέων ὅρος· εἰσήχθη δέ προδήλως ὑπό τῶν ἐν Χαλκηδόνι Πατέρων, οὐ πρότερον γνωρισθεῖσα ἤ ὀνομασθεῖσα παρά τινος.

Ὅτι μέν οὐδέ τοῦτο δύνασθε παραστῆσαι δῆλον· πολλοῖς γάρ τῶν πρό αὐτῆς ἁγίων Πατέρων, ὡς εὐσεβής ἡ φωνή καί ἐκρίθη καί ἀνηγορεύθη· καί μαρτυροῦσι τῶν ταύτην κηρυξάντων οἱ λόγοι, πάσης ὄντες ἡλιακῆς ἀκτῖνος φωτοειδέστατοι καί λαμπρότεροι, κἄν ὑμεῖς ἀγνοεῖτε δι᾿ ἀπαιδευσίαν, ἤ ἀγνοεῖν προσποιεῖσθε διά λοιδορίαν, καί τῶν εὐσεβῶν Πατέρων τε καί δογμάτων ἀνόητον ἔγκλησιν. Εἰ δέ καί μηδέν ἦν, ὁπότε πλεῖστον, ὡς ἔφην, καθέστηκε, τί τό κωλύον ἁγίους τοσούτους (μᾶλλον δέ τόν ἅπαντα Χριστιανισμόν· τοῦτο γάρ κυρίως ἐστίν ἡ τῶν ὀρθοδόξων Πατέρων ἁγιωτάτῃ σύνοδος) ἐξουσιαστικῶς ταύτην προέσθαι, καί νομοθετεῖν κατά τῆς Εὐτυχοῦς συναιρέσεως;

Καί μετά τινά φησι· Τίνι λόγῳ, καί πῶς τήν ἐν Χαλκηδόνι ἁγίαν σύνοδον, καίτοι πατρικαῖς προδήλως ἀποχρησαμένην φωναῖς, αἰτιᾶσθε, καί ὡς ἄλλον πίστεως ὅρον εἰσάγουσαν, τῇδε κἀκεῖσε καί ἐγγράφως καί ἀγράφως διαλοιδορεῖτε καί διασκόπτετε; Μή καθ᾿ ὄψιν κρίνετε , διά τόν εἰπόντα Θεόν, ἀλλά τήν δικαίαν κρίσιν κρίνατε. Τίς ἡ ἐπί τῆς αὐτῆς καί μιᾶς ὑποθέσεως τῶν ἐν Χαλκηδόνι Πατέρων ἔγκλησις ὑμῶν, καί τίς ἡ τῶν προλαβόντων ἀνάῤῥησις; Εἰ γάρ ἔστι κατά τῆς ἐν τῇ Χαλκηδόνι ἄλλον αἰτιᾶσθαι πίστεως ὅρον διά τάς ἐγκειμένας τῷ ὅρῳ τῆς Νικαέων φωνάς, τοῦτό γε πάντως ἕψεται λέγειν διά τήν αὐτήν αἰτίαν καί κατά Κυρίλλου καί τῶν ἑκατόν πεντήκοντα. Εἰ δέ κατ' αὐτῶν οὐκ ἔστι, πῶς κατ᾿ ἐκείνης, συνιδεῖν οὐκ ἔχω. Παριστᾷν δέ προτρέπομαι τήν ὑμῶν ἐπί τοῖς ἀναποδείκτοις λύσσαν καί ἔνστασιν· εἴ γε κἄν ἄρα οὕτως ἱκανῶς αἰσχυνθέντες, συσταλῆτε τῆς ἀπονοίας τῆς τοσαύτης κατά τῆς ἀληθείας ψεύδους συστάσεως. (260) Ἐπεί καί Γρηγόριος ὁ τῆς θεολογίας συνήγορος, οὐδέν τι μᾶλλον ἐκφεύξεται τῆς ὑμῶν κατά τῆς Χαλκηδονέων ἐνοχῆς· πλεῖστον δέ ὅσον ὑποπεσεῖται ταύτῃ παρά τόν ὑμέτερον νόμον, προδιαρθρῶν τό ἐλλιπῶς εἰρημένον τῆς ἐν Νικαίᾳ περί τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος· "διά τό μηδέ κινεῖσθαι, φησί, τό τηνικαῦτα τοῦτο τό ζήτημα·" μετά τοῦ Πατρός καί Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα γινώσκων, καί Κληδονίῳ γράφων οὕτω νοεῖν καί διδάσκειν.