558

Vitalius that he had also taken a human soul; for he was the one who said that yes, Christ was a perfect man. Then after we had asked about soul and flesh, we then asked: Did Christ, when he came, take a mind? And he immediately denied it, saying, no. Then we to him: How then do you say that he became a perfect man? And he revealed his own reasoning, that we say he is a perfect man, if we make the divinity in place of the mind, and the flesh and the soul, so that he is a perfect man from flesh and soul and divinity in place of the mind. Therefore, when the contentiousness became known, and after we had discussed much about this and had established from scripture that one must confess that God the Word took all things perfectly, and perfectly administered the incarnation in His enfleshed presence, and possesses it in perfection, and after the resurrection from the dead has united it to Himself, and gloriously possesses it whole and spiritual and not another, united in Himself with His own divinity, that the whole perfection has constituted one divinity, and is seated in heaven at the right hand of the Father, on the throne of glory of His own eternal lordship and kingdom—we finally arose, having persuaded neither party because of the prevailing contentiousness. And it was understood by us from this that their argument was not for the sake of the mind, but that on the subject of the mind their opinion is something different. For at one time they did not confess that he had even taken a soul. And when we retorted and said, For what is the mind? Do you consider this to be a hypostasis in man? Is man therefore composed of many parts? Then by some it was considered to be the spirit which is always spoken of in the divine scripture in man. But when we showed that the mind is not the spirit, since the apostle clearly says "I will sing with the mind, I will sing with the spirit," from that point there were many arguments, but we were not able to persuade them as they were being contentious. 3.437 24. Then again, when some of us said, What then? Do you say that the mind is a hypostasis? And when some said it was not a hypostasis, since we had persuaded them that they should not consider it to be the so-called spirit of man, because of the saying "I will sing with the mind, and I will sing with the spirit," and they had nothing to say to this, we said: Therefore if the mind is not a hypostasis, but a movement of our whole hypostasis, and you say Christ is the mind in this respect, do you then imagine Christ to be without hypostasis and to have made his sojourn of the enfleshed presence only in word and appearance. Likewise they could not give an answer. And at that time the state of our life became very † sorrowful to us, because contentions were simply cast among the aforementioned and praiseworthy brothers, so that the aforementioned enemy of men, the devil, might always work divisions among us. And great, brothers, is the harm to the mind from such a cause. For if from the beginning no argument had been raised about this, it would have been very simple. For how did this innovation profit the world or benefit the church, or did it not rather do harm, creating hatred and strife? But since the argument was put forward, it has become fearful. For it is not for the improvement of our salvation; for it is a denial not only in this part which does not confess, but even in the smallest thing. For one must not deviate from the way of truth even in a trivial matter. Let us speak therefore also against this hypothesis, wishing not to step outside of our own life nor to abandon the rule of the holy church of God and of the confession. For this has never been said by any of the ancients, neither by prophet nor by apostle nor by evangelist, nor by any of the commentators up to these our own times, since the time when such a sophistical saying came forth from the aforementioned most learned man. For the man is trained in no ordinary learning, from the preliminary education of letters and from Greek teaching

558

Βιτάλιος καὶ ψυχὴν τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην εἰληφέναι· οὗτος γὰρ ἦν ὁ εἰπὼν ὅτι ναί, τέλειος ἄνθρωπος ἦν ὁ Χριστός. εἶτα μετὰ τὸ ἐρωτῆσαι ἡμᾶς περὶ ψυχῆς καὶ σαρκὸς τότε ἠρωτήσαμεν· νοῦν ἔλαβεν ἐλθὼν ὁ Χριστός; ὁ δὲ εὐθὺς ἠρνήσατο λέγων, οὐχί. εἶτα ἡμεῖς πρὸς αὐτόν· πῶς οὖν λέγεις τέλειον γεγονέναι ἄνθρωπον; ὁ δὲ τὸν λογισμὸν τὸν ἴδιον ἀπεκάλυπτε τῆς διανοίας, ὅτι τέλειον ἄνθρωπον λέγομεν εἶναι, εἰ τὴν θεότητα ποιήσομεν ἀντὶ τοῦ νοῦ καὶ τὴν σάρκα καὶ τὴν ψυχήν, ὡς εἶναι τέλειον ἄνθρωπον ἐκ σαρκὸς καὶ ψυχῆς καὶ θεότητος ἀντὶ τοῦ νοῦ. τῆς οὖν φιλονεικίας γνωσθείσης καὶ πολλὰ ἡμῶν περὶ τούτου διαλεχθέντων καὶ ἀπὸ γραφῆς συστησάντων, ὅτι χρὴ ὁμολογεῖν τὰ πάντα τελείως εἰληφότα τὸν θεὸν λόγον, τελείως τε οἰκονομηκέναι ἐν τῇ ἐνσάρκῳ παρουσίᾳ τὴν ἐνανθρώπησιν καὶ ἐν τελειότητι ἔχειν ταύτην καὶ μετὰ τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀνάστασιν συνηνωκέναι καὶ ἐνδόξως πνευματικὴν αὐτὴν ὅλην καὶ οὐκ ἄλλην σὺν τῇ ἰδίᾳ θεότητι ἐν ἑαυτῷ ἡνωμένην ἔχειν, τὴν ὅλην τελείωσιν μίαν θεότητα ἀποτετελεκέναι καὶ καθέζεσθαι ἐν οὐρανῷ ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ πατρός, ἐπὶ θρόνου δόξης τῆς αὐτοῦ ἀϊδίου κυριότητός τε καὶ βασιλείας, λοιπὸν ἀνέστημεν μὴ πεπεικότες ἀμφότερα τὰ μέρη διὰ τὴν προκειμένην φιλονεικίαν. νενόηται δὲ ἡμῖν ἀπὸ τούτου ὅτι οὐχ ἕνεκεν τοῦ νοῦ αὐτοῖς ὁ λόγος, ἀλλὰ ἐπὶ τοῦ νοῦ ἕτερόν ἐστι τὸ φρόνημα. ποτὲ γὰρ οὐχ ὡμολόγουν οὔτε ψυχὴν αὐτὸν εἰληφέναι. ἡμῶν δὲ ἀνθυποφερόντων καὶ λεγόντων, τί γάρ ἐστιν ὁ νοῦς; ὑπόστασιν τοῦτον νομίζετε εἶναι ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ; οὐκοῦν πολλοστός ἐστιν ὁ ἄνθρωπος; εἶτα παρά τισιν ἐνομίζετο εἶναι τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἀεὶ ἐν τῇ θείᾳ γραφῇ ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ᾀδόμενον. ὅτε δὲ ἐδείξαμεν ὡς οὐχ ὁ νοῦς ἐστι τὸ πνεῦμα, τοῦ ἀποστόλου σαφῶς λέγοντος «ψαλῶ τῷ νοΐ, ψαλῶ τῷ πνεύματι», ἐντεῦθεν πολλοὶ μὲν ἦσαν οἱ λόγοι, οὐκ ἠδυνήθημεν δὲ αὐτοὺς πεῖσαι φιλονεικοῦντας. 3.437 24. Εἶτα πάλιν τισὶν ἡμῶν λεγόντων, τί γάρ; ὑπόστασιν τὸν νοῦν εἶναι λέγετε; τινῶν δὲ αὐτὸν λεγόντων μὴ εἶναι ὑπόστασιν, ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡμᾶς πεπεικέναι αὐτοὺς ὅτι οὐ χρὴ νομίζειν αὐτὸν οὔτε τὸ καλούμενον ἀνθρώπου πνεῦμα, διὰ τὸ εἰπεῖν «ψαλῶ τῷ νοΐ, ψαλῶ καὶ τῷ πνεύματι», μὴ ἐχόντων αὐτῶν πρὸς τοῦτό τι λέγειν, ἐλέγομεν· οὐκοῦν εἰ οὐκ ἔστιν ὑπόστασις ὁ νοῦς, ἀλλὰ κίνησις τῆς ἡμῶν πάσης ὑποστάσεως, νοῦν δὲ λέγετε τὸν Χριστὸν κατὰ τοῦτο τὸ μέρος, ἆρα οὖν φαντάζεσθε ἀνυπόστατον εἶναι τὸν Χριστὸν καὶ μόνον ἕως λόγου καὶ δοκήσεως τὴν ἐνδημίαν τῆς ἐνσάρκου παρουσίας αὐτὸν πεποιηκότα. ὡσαύτως οὐκ εἶχον ἀποδοῦναι λόγον. καὶ πολλὴ ἡμῖν γέγονε τότε † λυπηρὰ ἡ τῆς ζωῆς κατάστασις, ὅτι ἐν τοῖς προειρημένοις ἀδελφοῖς καὶ ἐπαινετοῖς ἐβλήθησαν ἁπλῶς φιλονεικίαι, ἵνα διαστάσεις ἐν ἡμῖν πάντοτε ὁ προειρημένος τῶν ἀνθρώπων πολέμιος διάβολος ἐξεργάσηται. πολλὴ δέ ἐστι τῆς τοιαύτης αἰτίας, ἀδελφοί, ἡ κατ' ἔννοιαν βλάβη. εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἐξ ἀρχῆς περὶ τούτου οὐκ ἐκινήθη λόγος, ἁπλούστατον ἦν. τί γὰρ τοῦτο τὸν κόσμον ὤνησε τὸ καινοτόμημα ἢ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ὠφέλησεν ἢ οὐχὶ μᾶλλον ἔβλαψε, μῖσος καὶ στάσιν ἐργασάμενον; ἐπειδὴ δὲ ὁ λόγος προεβλήθη, φοβερὸς γέγονεν. οὐ γὰρ εἰς τὸ κρεῖσσον τῆς ἡμῶν σωτηρίας· ἄρνησις γάρ ἐστιν οὐ μόνον ἐν τούτῳ τῷ μέρει τῷ μὴ ὁμολογοῦντι, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν βραχυτάτῳ τινί. οὐ χρὴ γὰρ οὐδὲ κἂν ἐν τῷ τυχόντι παρεξέρχεσθαι τῆς ὁδοῦ τῆς ἀληθείας. λέξωμεν τοίνυν καὶ κατὰ ταύτης τῆς ὑποθέσεως, βουλόμενοι μὴ ἔξω τῆς ἑαυτῶν ζωῆς βαίνειν μηδὲ τὸν κανόνα καταλιμπάνειν τῆς ἁγίας θεοῦ ἐκκλησίας καὶ ὁμολογίας. οὐδενὶ γὰρ πώποτε τῶν παλαιῶν τοῦτο εἴρηται, οὔτε προφήτῃ οὔτε ἀποστόλῳ οὔτε εὐαγγελιστῇ, οὐ τινὶ τῶν ἐξηγητῶν ἕως τούτων τῶν ἡμετέρων χρόνων, ἐξ οὗ καιροῦ ἀπὸ τοῦ προειρημένου λογιωτάτου ἀνδρὸς τὸ τοιοῦτον σοφιστικὸν προῆλθε ῥῆμα. παιδείᾳ γὰρ οὐ τῇ τυχούσῃ ὁ ἀνὴρ ἐξήσκηται, ἀπὸ τῆς τῶν λόγων προπαιδεύσεώς τε καὶ Ἑλληνικῆς διδασκαλίας