128

PYRRHUS. My predecessor, paying attention to the wording, received this more simply. MAXIMUS. I speak the truth: nothing so indisposed me toward your predecessor as his inconsistency; that is, his changing from one idea to another at different times, and not being established in any one thought. At one time, accepting those who called this one will divine, he introduced that the Incarnate was God alone; at another, [accepting] those who said it was deliberative, he introduced that he was a mere man, disposed (or constituted) deliberatively like us, and in no way different from Pyrrhus and Maximus; at another, saying it was hypostatic, he introduced along with the difference of hypostases also the difference of wills in those of the same substance; at another, also accepting those who said it was authoritative, he introduced a relative union; for authority, and sovereignty, and such things, are manifestly movements of judgment (gnome), but not of nature; at another, taking up those who said it was of choice and gnomic, and making them masters of themselves, he introduced that the Lord was not only a mere man, but also mutable and sinful; inasmuch as gnome is critical of opposites, and inquisitive of things unknown, and deliberative of things uncertain; at another, [accepting] those who said it was economic, (332) he introduced that before the economy he was without a will, and whatever other absurdity follows this statement; and he was carried away into countless other absurd opinions, not having the truth as a foundation; which, if I should wish to commit to writing with precision along with their absurdities, not even the time to come would suffice. What need is there to propose documents and to rend the holy Church of God? He could not even grasp what is most common to all. For either, if we grant you, they contain the dogmas of the councils, as you untruthfully said, and we do not need your documents, accepting and embracing these both before and now; or they do not contain the dogmas of the councils, and it is much more just to turn away from and flee these. Therefore, since the proposal of these same documents is in either case unjust and unlawful, their abrogation is for either reason just and canonical.

PYRRHUS. Sophronius, who a short while before became patriarch of Jerusalem, made us do this even against our intention, by stirring up the discussion concerning the energies at an inopportune time.

MAXIMUS. I am at a loss on every side, what defense you expect to give, accusing the innocent one so bitterly. For tell me, in the name of truth itself, when Sergius wrote to Theodore of Pharan, sending also what he calls the libellus of Menas through the mediation of Sergius Macaronas the bishop of Arsinoe, urging him to say what he thought concerning the one energy and one will in the libellus, and he wrote back, accepting them, where then was Sophronius? or when in Theodosiopolis he wrote to Paul the One-Eyed, one of the Severians, sending to him also the libellus of Menas, (333) and the consent of the Pharanite and of himself? or when he wrote to George surnamed Arsas, who was a Paulianist, that testimonies concerning their one energy be sent to him, inserting also in the letter that in these he makes the union of the Church with them? But this letter the blessed John, the Pope of Alexandria, took by hand from Arsas; whence also, wishing to effect his deposition because of it, he was prevented by the invasion of the Persians that then took place in Egypt. Or when he wrote to Cyrus of Phasis concerning one energy and two, having been asked by him, sending to him also the aforementioned libellus of Menas? What then? Since Sergius in many ways set forth his own disease in public, and corrupted the greater part of the Church, the blessed Sophronius admonished him with the reverence appropriate to his office

128

ΠΥΡ. Ἁπλούστερον ὁ πρό ἐμοῦ, τῇ λέξει προσεσχηκώς, τοῦτο ἐδέξατο. ΜΑΞ. Ἀλήθειαν λέγω· οὐδέν οὕτως ἀπεδιέθηκέ με πρός τόν πρό σοῦ, ὡς τό

παλίμβολον αὐτοῦ· ἤγουν τό ἄλλοτε εἰς ἄλλας αὐτόν μεταπίπτειν ἐννοίας, καί ἐν μηδενί βεβηκέναι φρονήματι. Ποτέ μέν τούς τοῦτο τό ἕν θέλημα θεῖον προσαγορεύοντας ἀποδεχόμενος, τό Θεόν μόνον εἶναι τόν σαρκωθέντα εἰσῆγε· ποτέ δέ, τούς βουλευτικόν αὐτό λέγοντας, ἄνθρωπον αὐτόν ψιλόν εἶναι εἰσῆγε, βουλευτικῶς καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς διατιθέμενον (διακείμενον), καί μηδέν διαφέροντα Πύῤῥου καί Μαξίμου· ποτέ δέ ὑποστατικόν αὐτό λέγων, τῇ διαφορᾷ τῶν ὑποστάσεων συνεισῆγε καί τό διάφορον τῶν θελημάτων ἐπί τῶν ὁμοουσίων· ποτέ δέ, καί τούς ἐξουσιαστικόν αὐτό λέγοντας ἀποδεχόμενος, σχετικήν εἰσῆγε τήν ἕνωσιν· ἐξουσία γάρ, καί αὐθεντία, καί τά τοιαῦτα, γνώμης προδήλως, ἀλλ'οὐ φύσεως ὑπάρχει κινήματα· ποτέ δέ, τούς προαιρετικόν καί γνωμικόν αὐτό λέγοντας προσλαμβανόμενος, καί κυρίους ἑαυτοῦ καθιστῶν, οὐ μόνον ψιλόν ἄνθρωπον εἰσῆγε τόν Κύριον, ἀλλα καί τρεπτόν καί ἁμαρτωλόν· εἴπερ ἡ γνώμη τῶν ἀντικειμένων ἐστί κριτική, καί τῶν ἀγνοουμένων ζητητική καί τῶν ἀδήλων βουλευτική· ποτέ δέ, τούς οἰκονομικόν αὐτό λέγοντας, (332) τό, πρό τῆς οἰκονομίας ἀθέλητον αὐτόν εἶναι, καί εἴ τι ἕτερον ἕπεται τῷ λόγῳ ἄτοπον, εἰσῆγε· καί εἰς ἄλλας μυρίας ἀτόπους ἐξηνέχθη ὑπολήψεις, τήν ἀλήθειαν βάσιν οὐκ ἐσχηκώς· ἅς δι᾿ ἀκριβείας εἰ βουληθείην Γραφῇ παραδοῦναι μετά τῶν αὐτῶν ἀτόπων, οὐδέ ὁ μέλλων ἀρκέσει χρόνος. Τίς δέ ἀνάγκη χάρτας προθεῖναι καί σχίσαι τήν ἁγίαν τοῦ θεοῦ Ἐκκλησίαν; Οὐδέ τό πᾶσι κοινότατον συνιδεῖν ἠδυνήθη. Ἤ γάρ, ἵνα παραχωρήσωμεν ὑμῖν, τά τῶν συνόδων ἔχουσι δόγματα, ὡς ὑμεῖς οὐκ ἀληθεύοντες ἔφητε, καί οὐ δεόμεθα τῶν ὑμετέρων χαρτῶν, ταύτας καί πρίν καί νῦν δεχόμενοι καί περιπτυσσόμενοι· ἤ οὐ τά τῶν συνόδων ἔχουσι, καί πολλῷ πλέον τούτους ἀποστρέφεσθαι καί φεύγειν δίκαιον. Τῆς οὖν τῶν αὐτῶν χαρτῶν προθέσεως καθ᾿ ἑκάτερον ἀδίκου καί παρανόμου οὔσης, καί ἡ αὐτῶν κατάλυσις δι᾿ ἑκάτερον δικαία καί κανονική καθέστηκεν.

ΠΥΡ. Σωφρόνιος, ὁ μικρῷ πρόσθεν πατριάρχης γενόμενος Ἱεροσαλύμων, τοῦτο ἡμᾶς καί παρά πρόθεσιν πρᾶξαι πεποιήκε, τόν περί ἐνεργειῶν λόγον οὐκ ἐν εὐθέτῳ καιρῷ κινήσας.

ΜΑΞ. Ἐγώ πάντοθεν ἀπορῶ, ποίαν ἐκδέχεσθε δοῦναι ἀπολογίαν, τόν ἀναίτιον οὕτω πικρῶς αἰτιώμενοι. Εἰπέ γάρ μοι, πρός τῆς ἀληθείας αὐτῆς, ὅτε Σέργιος ἔφραψε πρός τόν τῆς Φαράν Θεόδωρον, πέμψας καί ὅν φησι λίβελλον Μηνᾶ διά τῆς μεσιτείας Σεργίου τοῦ Μακαρωνᾶ τοῦ Ἀρσινόης ἐπισκόπου, προτρεπόμενος αὐτόν περί τῆς ἐν τῷ λιβέλλῳ μιᾶς ἐνεργείας καί ἑνός θελήματος τά δοκοῦντα εἰπεῖν, καί ἀντέγραψεν, ἀποδεχόμενος αὐτά, ποῦ οὖν τότε Σωφρόνιος; ἤ ἡνίκα ἐν Θεοδοσιουπόλει πρός Παῦλον τόν Μονόφθαλμον καί ἀπό Σεβηριτῶν ἔγραψε, πέμψας καί αὐτῷ λίβελλον Μηνᾶ, (333) καί τήν τοῦ Φαρανίτου καί ἑαυτοῦ συγκατάθεσιν; ἤ ὅτε πρός Γεώργιον τόν ἐπίκλην Ἀρσᾶν, Παυλιανιστήν ὄντα, ἔγραψε, χρήσεις αὐτῷ πεμφθῆναι περί μιᾶς ἐνεργείας αὐτῶν, ἐνθέμενος καί τοῦτο τῇ ἐπιστολῇ ὅτι ἐν ταύταις, καί τήν πρός αὐτούς τῆς Ἐκκλησίας ποιεῖ ἕνωσιν; Ταύτην δέ τήν ἐπιστολήν ὁ μακάριος Ἰωάννης ὁ πάπας Ἀλεξανδρείας ἀφείλετο χειρί ἀπό τοῦ Ἀρσᾶ· ὅθεν καί βουληθείς δι᾿ αὐτήν ποιῆσαι τήν καθαίρεσιν αὐτοῦ, ἐκωλύθη ἐκ τῆς ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ τηνικαῦτα γενομένης τῶν Περσῶν ἐπιδρομῆς. Ἤ ὅτε πρός Κῦρον τόν Φάσιδος ἐντέγραψε περί μιᾶς ἐνεργείας καί δύο, ἐρωτηθείς παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ, πέμψας καί αὐτῷ τόν ῥηθέντα λίβελλον Μηνᾶ; Τί οὖν; Ἐπειδή Σεργίου πολυτρόπως τήν οἰκείαν νόσον ἐν τῷ κοινῷ προθέντος, καί τό πλεῖστον τῆς Ἐκκλησίας λυμηναμένου, ὁ μακάριος Σωφρόνιος ὑπέμνησεν αὐτόν μετά τῆς πρεπούσης τῷ σχήματι αὐτοῦ