129

of humility, rolling himself before his footsteps and instead of every supplication of his, offering to him the life-giving sufferings of Christ the God, so as not to renew the voice of heretics, which was well extinguished long ago by the holy Fathers who have gone before in this life, has he himself become the cause of such a scandal?

PYR. The argument has duly brought about the refutation of all that was proposed, and the inquiry concerning the wills is in no way lacking.

MAX. Since the inquiry concerning the wills has reached its end, do you wish that we also undertake the one concerning the energies?

PYR. Being ignorant of the argument that the wills are natural, in accordance with this I also accepted the one concerning the energies; and if anything was said by me, unwritten or written, it had this aim in view. But now that it is synecdochically confessed that to will is by nature and to energize is by nature, all things formerly inconsistent concerning this have been invalidated; and I consider it superfluous to raise any further argument at all concerning this.

MAX. What then? Since God, on account of our intention foreknown by Him, has called us to the knowledge of His truth, should we not examine what was said about this to certain people, either in writing or unwritten, because of those who, as is likely, having encountered or still encountering them unguardedly, are more susceptible?

PYR. If the examination has this in view, it is necessary. For to care for the safety of the more simple is an imitation of divine philanthropy.

MAX. If, then, this is an imitation of divine philanthropy, let us begin from here the examination concerning this.

PYR. Let us begin. MAX. In your writings I found, one energy of Christ, as of a whole, that you

dogmatized. If then there is one energy, as of a whole, and the whole is His hypostasis, then this one energy will be hypostatic; and of a different energy just as also of a hypostasis (336) from the Father and the Mother; since Christ is neither of them.

PYR. If you speak of energies because of the difference of the two natures in Christ, and not of one because of the uniqueness of the person, two energies of man will also be found, because of the essential difference of his soul and his body. And if this is so, there will be three energies of Christ, and not two.

MAX. The very things which you put forward for the abolition of the natural [energies], these are also proposed against the natures by those who fight against them. For this is your one and only charm, to be carried along with them in all things. Wherefore we also bring against you, as suffering from the same disease as they, the refutations brought by the Fathers against them: that, if because of the difference of the natures in Christ, you also with us say there are two natures, and not one because of the uniqueness of the person, in this way two natures of man will also be found, because of the essential difference of his soul and his body; and if this is so, there will be three natures of Christ, and not two. But if, because of the difference of the natures, while saying with us two natures, you do not say there are three natures in Christ; how, when we say there are two energies because of the difference of the natures, will three energies be inferred? For what you say with us to those who propose those things against the natures, this will also suffice for us against you concerning the energies; but in this way the argument has slapped you as an equal, showing the absurdity of the difficulty. But from a superior position we say that the one according to the species of man, and the one according to the substance of soul and body are not the same. For the one according to the species of man indicates the invariability in all the individuals under that nature;

129

ταπεινοφροσύνης, τοῖς ἴχνεσιν αὐτοῦ προκαλινδούμενος καί ἀντί πάσης ἱκετηρίας αὐτοῦ προσφέρων αὐτῷ τά ζωοποιά Χριστοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ παθήματα, ὥστε μή φωνήν αἱρετικῶν, καλῶς πάλαι ὑπό τῶν προωδευκότων τόν βίον ἁγίων Πατέρων σβεσθεῖσαν, ἀνανεώσασθαι, αὐτός αἴτιος τοῦ τοιούτου γέγονε σκανδάλου;

ΠΥΡ. Πάντων τῶν προταθέντων τήν ἀνατροπήν δεόντως ὁ λόγος ἐποιήσατο, καί οὐδέν ὅλως ἐλλείπει ἡ περί θελημάτων ζήτησις.

ΜΑΞ. Ἐπειδή ἡ περί θελημάτων ζήτησις πέρας εἴληφε, βούλει καί τήν περί ἐνεργειῶν ποιησώμεθα;

ΠΥΡ. Τόν περί τοῦ φυσικά εἶναι τά θελήματα λόγον ἀγνοήσας κατά τοῦτον καί τόν περί ἐνεργειῶν παρεδεξάμην· καί εἴ τι ἀγράφως, ἤ ἐγγράφως ἐῤῥέθη μοι, πρός τοῦτον ὁρᾷν τόν σκοπόν. Νυνί δέ τοῦ πεφυκέναι θέλειν, καί τοῦ πεφυκέναι ἐνεργεῖν συνεκδοχικῶς ὁμολογουμένων, πάντα τά περί τούτου πρώην μή συσταθέντα, ἠκύρωται· καί περιττόν ἡγοῦμαι, λοιπόν τινα ὅλως περί τούτου κινῆσαι λόγον.

ΜΑΞ. Τί οὖν; ἐπειδή ὁ Θεός, διά τήν προγνωσθεῖσαν αὐτῷ πρόθεσιν ἡμῶν, ἐκάλεσε πρός τήν τὴς ἀληθείας αὐτοῦ ἐπίγνωσιν, οὐ δεῖ τά περί τούτου ἐγγράφως, ἤ ἀγράφως πρός τινας εἰρημένα βασανίσαι, διά τού, ὡς εἰκός, ἀφυλάκτως αὐτοῖς περιτυχόντας, ἤ καί περιτηγχάνοντας εὐχερεστέρους;

ΠΥΡ. Εἰ τι προς τοῦτο ὁρᾷ ἡ βάσανος, ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστι. Τό γάρ φροντίσαι τῆς τῶν ἀκεραιοτέρων ἀσφαλείας, μίμησίς ἐστι θείας φιλανθρωπίας.

ΜΑΞ. Εἰ οὖν θείας φιλανθρωπίας ἐστί τοῦτο μίμησις, ἀρξώμεθα ἐντεῦθεν τῆς περί τούτου ἐξετάσεως.

ΠΥΡ. Ἀρξώμεθα. ΜΑΞ. Ἐν τοῖς σοῖς εὗρον συγγράμμασι, μίαν σε Χριστοῦ, ὡς ὅλου, ἐνέργειαν

δογματίσαντα. Εἰ οὖν μία, ὡς ὅλου ἔστιν ἐνέργεια, τό δέ ὅλον ἡ αὐτοῦ ἐστιν ὑπόστασις, ἄρα ἡ μία αὕτη ἐνέργεια ὑποστατική ἔσται· καί ἑτέρας ἐνεργείας ὥσπερ καί ὑποστάσεως (336) Πατρί τε καί Μητρί· εἴπερ οὐδέτερον αὐτῶν ὑπάρχει Χριστός.

ΠΥΡ. Εἰ διά τό διάφορον τῶν δύο ἐν Χριστῷ φύσεων λέγετε ἐνεργείας, καί οὐ διά τό μοναδικόν τοῦ προσώπου μίαν, δύο εὑρεθήσονται καί τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐνέργειαι, διά τό κατ᾿ οὐσίαν διάφορον τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτοῦ καί τοῦ σώματος. Εἰ δέ τοῦτο, τρεῖς ἔσονται τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐνέργειαι, καί οὐ δύο.

ΜΑΞ. Ἅπερ ὑμεῖς ἐπ᾿ ἀναιρέσει τῶν φυσικῶν προΐσχεσθε, ταῦτα καί κατά τῶν φύσεων οἱ πρός αὐτάς μαχόμενοι προτείνουσι. Τοῦτο γάρ ὑμῶν καί μόνον τό χάριεν, τό ἐκείνοις ἐν πᾶσι συμπεριάγεσθαι. Ὅθεν καί ἡμεῖς τούς παρά τῶν Πατέρων ἐκείνοις ἐπενεχθέντας ἐλέγχους, καί ὑμῖν, ὡς τά αὐτά αὐτοῖς νοσοῦσι προσάγομεν· ὅτι, εἰ διά τό διάφορον τῶν ἐν Χριστῷ φύσεων, δύο φύσεις καί αὐτοί μεθ᾿ ἡμῶν λέγετε, καί οὐ διά τό μοναδικόν τοῦ προσώπου μίαν, δύο εὐρεθήσονται οὕτω γε καί τοῦ ἀνθρώπου φύσεις, διά τό κατ᾿ οὐσίαν διάφορον τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτοῦ καί τοῦ σώματος· καί εἰ τοῦτο, τρεῖς ἔσονται τοῦ Χριστοῦ, καί οὐ δύο φύσεις. Εἰ δέ διά τό διάφορον τῶν φύσεων, δύο μεθ᾿ ἡμῶν λέγοντες φύσεις, τρεῖς οὐ λέγετε ἐπί Χριστοῦ φύσεις· πῶς ἡμῖν διά τό διάφορον τῶν φύσεων δύο λέγουσιν ἐνεργείας; αἱ τρεῖς συναχθήσονται ἐνέργειαι; Ἅ γάρ ὑμεῖς μεθ᾿ ἡμῶν πρός τούς ἐκεῖνα κατά τῶν φύσεων προτείνοντας λέγετε, ταῦτα καί ἡμῖν περί τῶν ἐνεργειῶν πρός ὑμᾶς ἀρκέσει· ἀλλ᾿ οὕτω μέν ὑμᾶς ἐκ τοῦ ἴσου ὁ λόγος ἀπεῤῥάπισε, δείξας τῆς ἀπορίας τό παράλογον. Ἐκ δέ τοῦ ὑπερέχοντός φαμεν, ὅτι οὐ ταυτόν τό κατ᾿ εἶδος τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἕν, καί τό κατ᾿ οὐσίαν ψυχῆς καί σώματος ἕν. Τό μέν γάρ κατ᾿ εἶδος τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἕν, τήν ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ὑπό τήν φύσιν ἀτόμοις ἀπαραλλαξίαν ἐνδείκνυται·