116

PYRRHUS. Why then did the Fathers, whose words have been established as the law and canon of the Church, not say that the glory and the dishonor were common? For, he says, that is one thing, from which there is a community of glory; and another, from which there is [a community] of dishonor.

MAXIMUS. This was said by the holy Fathers in the mode of the communication of properties. But it is evident that the communication of properties is not of one, but of two, and of unequal [things]; by way of interchange, the things that naturally belong to each part of Christ, through the ineffable union having been made the properties of the other (297) without the change and confusion of one part into the other according to the natural principle. If, therefore, you say the will is common in the mode of the communication of properties, you will say not one, but two wills; and your cleverness has turned back on you to that very thing from which you strove to flee.

PYRRHUS. What then? Was not the flesh moved by the will of the Word united to it? MAXIMUS. You divide Christ, by speaking thus. For by His will Moses was moved,

and David, and as many as are receptive of the divine energy, have become so by the laying aside of human and fleshly properties. But we, following the holy Fathers, as in all things, so also in this, say that the very God of all, having become man unchangeably, not only, as the same God, willed what was suitable to his divinity, but also, as the same man, willed what was suitable to his humanity. For if beings came into being from non-beings, and possess a power that holds fast to being, not to non-being; and if the property of this [power] by nature is the impulse towards things that sustain it, and the aversion from things that corrupt it; then the supersubstantial Word, having been humanly substantiated, also possessed the power that holds fast to the being of His humanity; whose impulse and aversion He, by willing, showed through activity; the impulse, in that He made use of natural and blameless things to such an extent, that He was even considered by the unbelieving not to be God; the aversion, at the time of the passion, in that He voluntarily made the shrinking from death. What unfitting thing, then, has the Church of God done, along with His human and created nature, in also unfailingly confessing in Him the principles implanted in it demiurgically by Him, without which it is impossible for the nature to exist?

PYRRHUS. If cowardice is naturally present in us, and this is one of the reprehensible things, then according to you, reprehensible things, that is, sin, are naturally inherent in us.

MAXIMUS. Again you deceive yourself, not the truth, by means of homonymy. For there is both cowardice according to nature and contrary to nature; and cowardice according to nature is a power that holds fast to being by shrinking; but contrary to nature an irrational shrinking that holds fast to being; but contrary to nature, an irrational shrinking. The Lord, therefore, did not at all admit that which is contrary to nature, since it comes from a betrayal by the thoughts; but that which is according to nature, as being indicative of the power inherent in nature that lays claim to existence, He, willing it for our sakes as one who is good, accepted. For the natural aspects of the will are not antecedent in the Lord as they are in us; but just as, though truly hungry and thirsty, He was not hungry and thirsty in our manner, but in a manner beyond us—for it was voluntarily—so also, though truly afraid, He was afraid not in our manner, but beyond our manner. And, to speak generally, everything natural (300) without the change and confusion of one part into the other according to the natural principle. If, therefore, you say the will is common in the mode of the communication of properties, you will say not one, but two wills; and your cleverness has turned back on you to that very thing from which you strove to flee.

PYRRHUS. What then? Was not the flesh moved by the will of the Word united to it? MAXIMUS. You divide Christ, by speaking thus. For by His will Moses was moved,

and David, and as many as are receptive of the divine energy, by the laying aside of human and

116

ΠΥΡ. Τί οὖν οἱ Πατέρες, ὧν οἱ λόγοι νόμος καί κανών Ἐκκλησίας καθέστηκε, καί τήν δόξαν, καί τήν ὕβριν οὐκ εἶπον κοινήν; Ἕτερον γάρ, φησίν, ἐκεῖνο, ἐξ οὗ τῆς δόξης κοινόν· καί ἕτερον, ἐξ οὗ τό τῆς ὕβρεως.

ΜΑΞ. Τῷ τῆς ἀντιδόσεως τρόπῳ τοῦτο ἁγίοις εἴρηται Πατράσι. Πρόδηλον δέ ὡς ἡ ἀντίδοσις ἑνός οὐκ ἔστιν, ἀλλά δύο, καί ἀνίσων· κατ᾿ ἐπαλλαγήν, τά φυσικῶς ἑκατέρῳ μέρει τοῦ Χριστοῦ προσόντα, κατά τήν ἄῤῥητον ἕνωσιν θατέρων πεποιημένων (297) χωρίς τῆς θατέρου μέρους πρός τό ἕτερον κατά τόν φυσικόν λόγον μεταβολῆς καί συμφύρσεως. Εἰ οὖν τῷ τῆς ἀντιδόσεως τρόπῳ κοινόν λέγεις τό θέλημα, οὐχ ἕν, ἀλλά δύο λέξεις τά θελήματα· καί περιετράπη σοι πάλιν τό σοφόν εἰς ἐκεῖνο, ἐξ οὗ φυγεῖν ἐσπούδασας.

ΠΥΡ. Τί οὖν; Οὐ νεύματι τοῦ ἑνωθέντος αὐτῇ Λόγου ἡ σάρξ ἐκινεῖτο; ΜΑΞ. ∆ιαιρεῖς τόν Χριστόν, οὕτω λέγων. Νεύματι γάρ αὐτοῦ ἐκινεῖτο καί Μωϋσῆς,

καί ∆αβίδ, καί ὅσοι τῆς θείας ἐνεργείας χωρητικοί, τῇ ἀποθέσει τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων καί σαρκικῶν ἰδιωμάτων γεγόνασιν. Ἡμεῖς δέ τοῖς ἁγίοις Πατράσιν, ὡς ἐν ἅπασι, κἀν τούτῳ ἑπόμενοι, φαμέν, ὅτιπερ αὐτός ὁ τῶν ὅλων Θεός, ἀτρέπτως γενόμενος ἄνθρωπος, οὐ μόνον ὡς Θεός ὁ αὐτός καταλλήλων τῇ αὐτοῦ θεότητι ἤθελεν, ἀλλά καί ὡς ἄνθρωπος ὁ αὐτός καταλλήλως τῇ αὐτοῦ ἀνθρωπότητι. Εἰ γάρ ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων τά ὄντα γενόμενα, καί τοῦ ὄντος, οὐ τοῦ μή ὄντος ἔχουσι ἀνθεκτικήν δύναμιν· ταύτης δέ κατά φύσιν ἴδιον ἡ πρός τά συστατικά ὁρμή, καί πρός τά φθαρτικά ἀφορμή· ἄρα καί ὁ ὑπερούσιος Λόγος, ἀνθρωπικῶς οὐσιωθείς, ἔσχε καί τοῦ ὄντος τῆς αὐτοῦ ἀνθρωπότητος τήν ἀνθεκτικήν δύναμιν· ἧς τήν ὁρμήν καί ἀφορμήν θέλων δι᾿ ἐνεργείας ἔδειξε· τήν μέν ὁρμήν ἐν τῷ τοῖς φυσικοῖς καί ἀδιαβλήτοις τοσοῦτον χρήσασθαι, ὡς καί μή Θεόν τοῖς ἀπίστοις νομίζεσθαι· τήν δέ ἀφορμήν ἐν τῷ καιρῷ τοῦ πάθους, ἐκουσίως τήν πρός τόν θάνατον συστολήν ποιήσασθαι. Τί οὖν τῶν ἀπόπων ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ πέπραχεν Ἐκκλησία, μετά τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης αὐτοῦ καί κτιστῆς φύσεως, καί τούς δημιουργικῶς αὐτῇ παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐντεθέντας ἐν αὐτῷ ἀνελλιπῶς ὁμολογοῦσα λόγους, ὧν καί ἄνευ εἶναι τήν φύσιν ἀδύνατον;

ΠΥΡ. Εἰ φυσικῶς ἡμῖν πρόσεστιν ἡ δειλία, τῶν διαβεβλημένων δέ αὕτη, ἄρα καθ᾿ ὑμᾶς φυσικῶς ἡμῖν ἔγκειται τά διαβεβλημένα, ἤγουν ἡ ἁμαρτία.

ΜΑΞ. Πάλιν ἐκ τῆς ὁμωνυμίας ἑαυτόν, οὐ τήν ἀλήθειαν παραλογίζῃ. Ἔστι γάρ καί κατά φύσιν καί παρά φύσιν δειλία· καί κατά φύσιν μέν δειλία ἐστί, δύναμις κατά συστολήν τοῦ ὄντος ἀνθεκτική· παρά φύσιν δέ παράλογος συστολήν τοῦ ὄντος ἀνθεκτική· παρά φύσιν δέ, παράλογος συστολή. Τήν οὖν παρά φύσιν ὁ Κύριος, ἅτε δι᾿ ἐκ προδοσίας οὖσαν λογισμῶν, ὅλως οὐ προσήκατο· τήν δέ κατά φύσιν, ὡς τῆς ἐνυπαρχούσης τῇ φύσει ἀντιποιητικῆς τοῦ εἶναι δυνάμεως ἐνδεικτικήν, θέλων δι᾿ ἡμᾶς ὡς ἀγαθός, ἐδέξατο. Οὐ γάρ προσηγεῖται ἐν τῷ Κυρίῳ καθάπερ ἐν ἡμῖν, τῆς θελήσεως τά φυσικά· ἀλλ᾿ ὥσπερ πεινάσας ἀληθῶς, καί διψήσας, οὐ τρόπῳ τῷ καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς ἐπείνασεν καί ἐδίψησεν, ἀλλά τῷ ὑπέρ ἡμᾶς· ἑκουσίως γάρ · οὕτω καί δειλιάσας ἀληθῶς, οὐ καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς, ἀλλ᾿ ὑπέρ ἡμᾶς ἐδειλίασε. Καί καθόλου φάναι, πᾶν φυσικόν (300) χωρίς τῆς θατέρου μέρους πρός τό ἕτερον κατά τόν φυσικόν λόγον μεταβολῆς καί συμφύρσεως. Εἰ οὖν τῷ τῆς ἀντιδόσεως τρόπῳ κοινόν λέγεις τό θέλημα, οὐχ ἕν, ἀλλά δύο λέξεις τά θελήματα· καί περιετράπη σοι πάλιν τό σοφόν εἰς ἐκεῖνο, ἐξ οὗ φυγεῖν ἐσπούδασας.

ΠΥΡ. Τί οὖν; Οὐ νεύματι τοῦ ἑνωθέντος αὐτῇ Λόγου ἡ σάρξ ἐκινεῖτο; ΜΑΞ. ∆ιαιρεῖς τόν Χριστόν, οὕτω λέγων. Νεύματι γάρ αὐτοῦ ἐκινεῖτο καί Μωϋσῆς,

καί ∆αβίδ, καί ὅσοι τῆς θείας ἐνεργείας χωρητικοί, τῇ ἀποθέσει τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων καί