102

But you seem to me to imitate the condition of defective sight, which, not being strong enough to recover and partake of the sun's radiance, blames the sun itself for being dim, not its own weakness; you yourselves are sick because of the confusion, and you slander those who sufficiently refute this confusion as impious and inconsistent with the truth of the natures of the saved in Christ, as if they were not common luminaries, nor revealers of the truth. For if it is possible to speak the truth about the truth, all the Fathers chosen by God at Nicaea, and every synod of orthodox and holy men, did not introduce another definition of faith at all through the introduction of their own words, as you declare, raving exceedingly and being altogether mad; but they firmly ratified that very one decreed by the three hundred and eighteen holy Fathers as the first and only one, clarifying it, and as it were, explaining and elaborating on it, for the sake of those who badly understood and misinterpreted it and its doctrines into their own impiety.

For example, when Eunomius and Macedonius wished to corrupt the doctrine of the theology contained in it, the doctrine contained in it, the one hundred and fifty Fathers did not permit it through their own words and dogmas. So too, the blessed Cyril did not allow Nestorius, who was contriving to divide the economy; just as, then, the venerable Fathers at Chalcedon prevented Eutyches, who wished to confuse it. Why then, for the sake of the good, along with those synods, I say, do you not also accept this one, for the same and equal good; or, reviling this one as haters of the good, do you also revile those others along with it? which you are indeed doing in practice, though you are cautious in your words, so that by pretenses of piety, supposedly venerating those synods against this one, you may through this one also destroy those others, bringing the same accusation against them for the same action. Who then will endure such audacity of yours against piety and the pious? etc.

BY THE SAME MAXIMUS

Chapters concerning substance and nature, hypostasis and person. p. 260 That substance indeed signifies the form and the nature, that which (261) is in itself, whereas hypostasis

indicates the particular of the substance. That substance and what is in substance are not the same; just as neither are hypostasis and what is in hypostasis, even if

both are contemplated in each other, but are different things. For what is in substance is that which is contemplated in the nature, and does not exist in itself; whereas what is in hypostasis signifies that which is in a hypostasis, and is not subsisting in itself by itself; that is, that which has not come together into one thing from incomplete parts, but is contemplated from a complete and an incomplete, in a union without confusion.

That hypostasis defines a person by its characteristic properties. But what is in hypostasis signifies an accident not existing in itself; but that which has its being in another, and is not contemplated in itself, nor subsists in itself, but is always contemplated in connection with the hypostasis, like the qualities, both those called essential and non-essential; which are not substance, nor in themselves, but subsist in the substance, and without it have no being.

That just as no other of the qualities, that is, essential and non-essential, is a substance, or a thing subsisting in itself, but they always possess their characteristic property in connection with the substance, like color in a body, and knowledge in a soul; for it is not possible to say that color appears without a body, or that knowledge is actualized without a soul; so neither is what is in hypostasis

102

Ἀλλ᾿ ἐοίκατέ μοι τῆς σαθρᾶς ὄψεως, οὐχ ἱκανούσης πρός ἡλιακῆς αἴγλης ἀνάνευσιν καί μετάληψιν, τήν αὐτήν ὡς ἀμυδράν αἰτιωμένης, οὐ τήν οἰκείαν ἀδράνειαν, ἐκμιμήσασθαι τό πάθος· αὐτοί τά καί νοσηλευόμενοι διά τήν σύγχυσιν, καί τούς ταύτην ὡς ἀσεβῆ καί ἀνάρμοστον πρός τήν ἐν Χριστῷ τῶν σωζομένων ἀλήθειαν φύσεων ἱκανῶς ἐξελέγχοντας, ὡς οὐ φωστῆρας κοινούς, οὐδέ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐκφάντορας ἐκδιαβάλλοντες. Εἰ γάρ ἔστι τἀληθῇ περί ἀληθείας εἰπεῖν, πάντες, οἵ τε κατά τήν Νικαέων θεόκριτοι Πατέρες, καί πᾶσα σύνοδος ὀρθοδόξων καί ἁγίων ἀνδρῶν, οὐκ ἄλλον πίστεως ὅρον διά τῆς ἐπεισαγωγῆς τῶν οἰκείων ῥημάτων παντελῶς ἐπεισήγαγον, ὡς ὑμεῖς ἀποφαίνεσθε, πλεῖστον παραληροῦντες. καί τό ὅλον μαινόμενοι· ἀλλ᾿ αὐτόν ὡς πρῶτον καί μόνον τῶν ἐκ τῶν ἁγίων τριακοσίων δέκα καί ὀκτώ Πατέρων νομοθετηθέντα βεβαίως ἐκύρωσαν, τρανοῦντες αὐτόν, καί οἷον ἐπεξηγούμενοι καί ἐπεξεργαζόμενοι, διά τούς ἐκεῖνον καί τά ἐκείνου δόγματα πρός τήν οἰκείαν κακῶς ἐκλαμβάνοντας καί παρεξηγουμένους δυσσέβειαν.

Αὐτίκα γοῦν τόν τῆς θεολογίας ἐν αὐτῷ κείμενον λόγον ἐν αὐτῷ κείμενον λόγον παραβλάψαι βεβουλημένους Εὐνόμιόν τε καί Μακεδόνιον, οἱ ἑκατόν πεντήκοντα Πατέρες οὐ συνεχώρησαν διά τῶν οἰκείων φωνῶν καί δογμάτων. Οὕτω δέ καί τόν τῆς οἰκονομίας Νεστόριον διαιρεῖν μηχνώμενον, ὁ μακάριος οὐκ εἴασε Κύριλλος· ὥσπερ οὖν καί Εὐτυχέα συγχεῖν ἐθελήσαντα διεκώλυσαν οἱ ἐν Χαλκηδόνι τίμιοι Πατέρες. Πῶς οὖν ὑπέρ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ σύν ἐκείναις, φημή δέ ταῖς συνόδοις, καί ταύτην οὐκ ἀποδέχεσθε, διά τό αὐτό καί ἴσον καλόν· ἤ ταύτην ὡς μισόκαλοι διαλοιδοροῦντες συνδιαλοιδορεῖτε κἀκείνας; ὅ δή μάλιστα ποιοῦντες τοῖς πράγμασιν, εὐλαβεῖσθε τοῖς ῥήμασιν, ἵν᾿ εὐσεβείας πλάσμασιν ἐκεῖνας δῆθεν κατά ταύτης σεμνύναντες, διά ταύτης κἀκείνας λυμήνησθε, τό ἴσον αὐταῖς διά τήν ἴσην πρᾶξιν ἐπιφέροντες ἔγκλημα. Τίς οὖν ὑμῶν τήν τοσαύτην ὑποίσοι κατά τῆς εὐσεβείας καί τῶν εὐσεβούντων αὐθάδειαν; κ. τ. ἑ.

ΤΟΥ ΑΥΤΟΥ ΜΑΞΙΜΟΥ

Κεφάλαια περ᾿ οὐσίας καί φύσεως, ὑποστάσεως τε καί προσώπου. Σελ. 260 Ὅτι οὐσία μέν τό εἶδος καί τήν φύσιν, ὅπερ (261) ἐστί καθ᾿ ἑαυτήν, δηλοῖ, ὑπόστασις

δέ, τόν τινα τῆς οὐσίας ἐμφαίνει. Ὅτι οὐσία καί ἐνούσιον, οὐ ταὐτόν· ὥσπερ οὐδέ ὑπόστασις καί ἐνυπόστατον, εἰ καί

ἐν ἀλλήλοις ἄμφω θεωρεῖται, ἀλλ᾿ ἄλλο καί ἄλλο. Ἐνούσιον μέν γάρ ἐστι, τό ἐν τῇ φύσει θεωρούμενον, καί οὐ καθ᾿ ἑαυτό ὑπάρχον· ἐνυπόστατον δέ, αὐτό τό ἐν ὑποστάσει ὄν, καί οὐκ ἐν ἑαυτῷ καθ᾿ ἑαυτό τυγχάνον, δηλοῖ· τουτέστι, τό μή ἐξ ἀτελῶν μερῶν εἰς ἕν τι συνελθόν, ἀλλ᾿ ἐκ τελείου καί ἀτελοῦς, ἐν τῇ κατά σύγχυσιν συνόδῳ θεωρούμενον.

Ὅτι ἡ μέν ὑπόστασις πρόσωπον ἀφορίζει τοῖς χαρακτηριστικοῖς ἰδιώμασι. Τό δέ ἐνυπόστατον, τό μή ὄν καθ᾿ ἑαυτό συμβεβηκός δηλοῖ· ἀλλ᾿ ὅπερ ἐν ἑτέρῳ ἔχει τό εἶναι, καί οὐκ ἐν ἑαυτῷ θεωρεῖται, οὐδέ ἔστι καθ᾿ ἑαυτό ὑφεστός, ἀλλά περί τήν ὑπόστασιν πάντοτε θεωρούμενον, ὥσπερ αἱ ποιότητες, αἵ τε οὐσιώδεις καί ἐπουσιώδεις καλούμεναι· αἵτινες οὐκ εἰσίν οὐσία, οὐδέ καθ᾿ ἑαυτά, ἐλλ' ἐν τῇ οὐσίᾳ τυγχάνουσι, καί δίχα ταύτης τό εἶναι οὐκ ἔχουσιν.

Ὅτι ὥσπερ οὐδ᾿ ἑτέρα τῶν ποιοτήτων, ἤγουν οὐσιωδῶν καί ἐπουσιωδῶν, ἐστίν οὐσία, ἤ πρᾶγμα ὑφεστώς καθ᾿ ἑαυτό, ἀλλ' ἀεί περί τήν οὐσίαν τό χαρακτηριστικόν κέκτηνται, ὥσπερ χρῶμα ἐν σώματι, καί ἐπιστήμη ἐν ψυχῇ· οὐδέ γάρ ἔστιν εἰπεῖν χρῶμα δίχα σώματος φαίνεσθαι, ἤ ἐπιστήμην δίχα ψυχῆς ἐνεργεῖσθαι· οὕτως οὐδέ ἐνυπόστατον