與狄奧多西辯論 第 1 章 第 3/10 段

And on that same day, about the same hour of lamp-lighting, Troilus the patrician and Sergius Eukratas, the master of the imperial table, came to the elder, the servant of God; and having sat down, they bade him also to sit, and said to him:

"Tell us, lord abba, of the controversy over doctrines that took place between you and Pyrrhus in Africa and Rome;

and by what arguments you persuaded him to anathematize his own doctrine and agree with yours."

And he related to them everything in order, as much as his memory had preserved.

And he said this also, that: "I have no doctrine of my own, but only the common doctrine of the catholic Church."

"For I have not put forward any statement whatsoever that could be called my own doctrine."

And after the narration, they said to him:

"Why do you not commune with the see of Constantinople?"

"Because they cast out the four holy councils through the nine chapters that were drawn up in Alexandria;

and through the Ekthesis produced in this city by Sergius, and, consequently, through the Typos that was afterward set forth in the sixth indiction;

and what they had decreed by the Ekthesis, they annulled by the Typos;

and thereby they condemned themselves that many times over.

Those, then, who have been condemned by themselves, and by the Romans, and deposed by the council that afterward convened in the eighth indiction — what kind of sacred rite will they perform?

Or what spirit descends upon what is performed by such men?

"You alone are saved, and everyone else perishes?"

The three youths condemned no one when they did not worship the image, though all men worshiped it.

For they were not concerned with the affairs of others, but were concerned only that they themselves should not fall away from true piety.

and each chose to die rather than to fall away from God and be scourged by his own conscience for transgressing the laws of nature.

So may God not grant that I, too, condemn anyone, or say that I alone am saved.

But I choose to die rather than to have turmoil in my conscience, thinking that I had somehow erred concerning faith in God.

"And what will you do, now that the Romans are being united with the Byzantines?

For behold, the legates of Rome arrived yesterday, and tomorrow, the Lord's day, they will commune with the patriarch;

and it becomes clear to all that it was you who were leading the Romans astray;

indeed, once you were removed from there, they came to agreement with those here."

"As for those who have come — whatever precedent this may set for the see of Rome — even if they do commune, since they did not bring a letter to the patriarch, they accomplish nothing;

and I am not at all persuaded that the Romans are united with those here, unless they confess our Lord and God — according to each of the natures out of which, in which, and which He is — to be, by nature, possessed of will and possessed of operation for our salvation."

"But if the Romans do come to agreement with those here, what will you do?"

"The Holy Spirit, through the Apostle, anathematizes even angels who legislate anything contrary to the proclamation received."

"Is it altogether necessary that willings and energies be predicated of Christ?"

"It is altogether necessary, if indeed we wish to be truly orthodox."

"For nothing among existing things subsists without natural operation."

"For the holy Fathers plainly say:

that no nature whatsoever either exists, or is known, apart from its essential operation."

"And if a nature neither exists nor is known apart from the operation that essentially characterizes it, how is it possible for Christ to be, or to be known as, truly by nature both God and man, apart from the divine and the human operation?"

"For, according to the Fathers, a lion that has lost its ability to roar is not a lion;

and a dog that has lost its ability to bark is not a dog."

And anything whatsoever that has lost what naturally constitutes it is no longer what it was.

We know indeed that it was so.

But do not grieve the emperor, who made the Typos for the sake of peace alone, not for the abolition of anything conceived concerning Christ;

but arranging, for the sake of peace, (==) the silence of the utterances that cause division

And the servant of God, casting himself to the ground with tears—

The good and pious sovereign ought not to have been grieved on account of my lowliness.

For I cannot grieve God by keeping silent about the things which he himself commanded to be spoken and confessed.

For if, according to the divine Apostle, it is he who set in the Church, first apostles;

third, teachers—it is clear that it is he who spoke through these.

For of none of the things by which he is known as God, and of the things by which he is naturally recognized as man, apart from sin, would he (≡Γ_≡>) be deficient.

But if he is perfect according to each [nature], as being deficient in nothing according to either, then he who does not confess him to be what he is, together with all the natural properties belonging to him according to each—both those in which, and which, he is—plainly falsifies the whole mystery concerning him.

And having fallen silent for a little while, nodding to one another, they say:

‘How can you show that those of the throne of Constantinople reject the councils?’

‘This has already been shown in part through what I said in Rome to the lord Gregory, the asekretis;’

‘and now, if it seems fitting to the sovereign that this be demonstrated, let him command that permission be given to your unworthy servant, and I will make known concerning the books, that mine were taken away;’

‘and I will make this manifest to all, without any crookedness of words.’

And then, after many other things had been said, they turned to scriptural, natural, and technical exercises and speculations;

and being delighted by these, they became more cheerfully disposed;

‘The Lord knows, we have been benefited, and from now on we shall not trouble you.’

And the lord Sergius said to him: ‘Many times I came to your cell at Bebba, and I listened to your teaching;’

‘and Christ is able to help you;’

‘but in one thing alone you grieve everyone: that you cause many to be separated from communion with the Church here.’

‘Is there someone who says,’ said the servant of God, ‘that I said:’

‘Let no one commune with the Church of the Byzantines’?

The lord Sergius answered:

‘This very fact—that you yourself do not commune—is to all a loud voice not to commune.’

And (≡Γ_≡>) the servant of God said:

‘Nothing is more forceful than a conscience that accuses, and nothing more outspoken in its defense than this same conscience [when it acquits].’

And when the lord Troilus heard that the Typos was being anathematized throughout the whole West, he said to the servant of God: ‘It is a fine thing, that the reputation of our pious sovereign is being insulted!’

(==) The servant of God answered:

‘God will forgive those who induced the sovereign to make the Typos, and those who permitted it.’

‘Who are those who induced it, and who are those who permitted it?’

‘Those of the Church induced it, and the magistrates permitted it;’

‘and behold, the filth has been shaken off from those responsible onto him who is innocent and pure of every heresy.’

For he, perceiving that certain persons throughout the West were pouring reproach upon him, by a decree freed himself from the blame concerning the Church, writing: ‘The Ekthesis is not mine;’

‘for neither did I dictate it, nor did I command that it be made;’

‘but Sergius the patriarch, having composed it five years before I came up from the East, entreated me, when I had arrived at that most blessed city, that it be published in my name with my signature;’

‘and I accepted his entreaty.’

‘But now, knowing that certain persons contend against it, I make it clear to all that it is not mine.’

He made this decree in reply to the blessed Pope John, who had condemned the Ekthesis in what was then written to Pyrrhus.

And from that time it has been known everywhere as the Ekthesis of Sergius.

‘Our now piously reigning sovereign will do this as well, and his reputation will remain wholly untainted by any blame.’

(≡Γ_≡>) Then, shaking their heads, they fell silent, having said only this much;

When these and various other things had been said, having exchanged obeisance with one another, they departed with all cheerfulness.

And again, on the next Sabbath, they brought them up into the palace;

and they bring in first the disciple of the old man, the two patriarchs also having assembled;

and they bring Constantine and Menas, accusers of the old man, and demand that the disciple assent to what was being said against them.

And with all boldness the disciple said fearlessly to the senate:

‘Bring Constantine into the secretum of the palace.’

‘This man is neither a priest nor a monk, but a tribune of the theatre.’

‘He became known to the Africans and the Romans, for what sort of women he came there keeping.’

‘Everyone learned of his villainies, which he practiced in order to escape notice;’

‘at one time saying that they were his sisters;’

‘at another time, [saying]: “Because I would not commune with the Church of Constantinople, I took them with me, so that they might not be defiled by heretical communion.”’

‘But again, if his means of extravagance run short, and he finds a region that does not know him, he does the same things, for the sake of shameful gain and filthy pleasure.’

‘And it is a great shame even to associate with him, for those who wish to live in decorum.’

Then after this, when asked whether he had anathematized the Typos, he said fearlessly:

‘I not only anathematized it, but I also drew up a libellus.’

‘Do you not confess that you did wrong?’

the magistrates say to him

‘God forbid that I should say that what I did rightly, according to ecclesiastical law, was done wrongly.’

(≡Γ_≡>) And having been asked many other things, and having answered as God supplied him [to answer], he is led out of the secretum.

And they bring in the old man, and the lord Troilus says to him:

‘Speak, abba, look, speak the truth, and the sovereign will show you mercy;’

‘since if we proceed by lawful examination, and it is found that even one of the charges against you is true, the law will put you to death.’

‘And I have already said, and I say again, that if even one [of the charges] should be said to be true, then Satan too is God.’

‘But if he is not God, but an apostate, then the things charged against me are false and baseless.’

‘Nevertheless, whatever you command to be done, do it.’

‘In revering God, I am not wronged.’

‘Did you not anathematize the Typos?’

I have often said that I anathematized it.

He says to him: "You anathematized the Typos."

The servant of God answered:

"I did not anathematize the emperor, but a document alien to the orthodox and ecclesiastical faith,"

"which was anathematized," he replied, "by the synod of Rome, in the church of the Savior, and in that of the Theotokos."

Then the eparch says to him:

"Do you commune with the Church of those here, or do you not commune?"

[Maximus:] "Because it has cast out the councils."

[The eparch:] "If it has cast out the councils, how are they still mentioned in the diptychs?"

[Maximus:] "And what benefit is there in names, when the doctrines have been cast out?"

[The eparch:] "And can you," he said, "show this?"

[Maximus:] "If I receive permission, and you command it, I can show this very easily."

And when they had fallen silent, the sakellarios says to him:

The servant of God answered and said:

"We have a commandment not to hate anyone."

"I love the Romans, as fellow-believers;"

"and the Greeks, as those who share my language."

And again the sakellarios says to him:

"How many years do you say you are?"

"How many years has your disciple been with you?"

Then a certain cleric cried out:

"The Lord has repaid you for what you did to the blessed Pyrrhus."

To him he made no reply at all.

Yet for all that was said in the secretum, none of the patriarchs uttered a word.

[An interlocutor:] "The synod is not ratified, since the one who convened it has been deposed."

And the servant of God says:

"What synodal and canonical act took place concerning what was done, that securely establishes his deposition?"

"Yet even granting that he was canonically deposed, this creates no prejudice against those things ratified in orthodox fashion according to the divine canons;"

"with which also the writings of the sainted Pope Theodore agree."

And having heard these things, Troilus the patrician says:

"You do not know what you are saying, abba."

These are all that memory retains of what was set in motion and said;

and thus their affair came to such an end: they also dismissed the holy elder from the secretum, into custody.

And on the next day, which was a Sunday, the men of the Church, having held a council, persuaded the emperor to condemn them to this bitter and inhuman exile, separated from one another:

the holy elder to the fortress of Bizya in Thrace;

and his disciple to Perberis;

[thus did] the empire of the Romans [condemn them], unprovided for, naked, unfed, deprived of every means of livelihood;

not permitted to approach the sea, so that they might not receive care from the merciful.

And thus they are naked and unfed, having only the hope of God;

entreating all Christians, crying out this:

"Pray, for the Lord's sake, that God may perfect his mercy along with our lowliness, and teach us that those who sail with him experience the trial of a raging sea, the vessel being shaken by winds and waves, yet remaining unshaken."

"For he permits them to be tried by a great tempest, testing their disposition toward him, so that they may cry out with a loud voice:"

"Lord, save us, we are perishing;"

"and that they may learn to ascribe everything pertaining to their salvation to him alone;"

"and that they may not put confidence in themselves, and that they may obtain a great calm, when the wind and the waves have been stilled;"

"and he sends them out into the midst of wolves, and bids them enter through the narrow gate, and travel by the strait path;"

"and he sets before them hunger, and thirst, and nakedness, and bonds, and prisons, and forced marches, and scourges, and the cross, and nails and vinegar, and gall, and spittings, and blows on the face, and buffetings, and mockeries;"

"and suffering and manifold deaths;"

"of which the culmination is the all-radiant resurrection, bringing with it peace to those persecuted for his sake;"

"and joy, to those afflicted for his sake;"

"and ascension into the heavens, and access to the Paternal and supra-essential throne, and an inheritance that lies far above every rule and authority and power and dominion;"

"and above every name that is named, whether in this age or in the age to come."

May we all attain to this, through the prayers and intercessions of the all-hymned, all-venerable, and most glorious — truly by nature — Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary, and of the holy apostles, prophets, and martyrs.

THE DISPUTATION OF SAINT MAXIMUS WITH PYRRHUS. A RECORD OF THE DISPUTATION THAT TOOK PLACE concerning the matters raised about the ecclesiastical doctrines, in the presence of Gregory the most pious patrician, and of the most reverend bishops assembled with him, and of the other God-loving and illustrious men — between Pyrrhus, the former patriarch of Constantinople, and Maximus the most devout monk, in the month of July, in the third indiction.

Pyrrhus contending on behalf of the innovation introduced by himself, and by his predecessor before him in Byzantium;

while Maximus pleaded the cause of the patristic and apostolic teaching that had come down to us from above;

through the aforesaid most eminent man — I mean Gregory the most honored patrician — of the aforementioned men;

that is, Pyrrhus and Maximus, were brought face to face with one another.

Pyrrhus began the disputation with Maximus, speaking as follows:

[Pyrrhus:] "What evil have we done to you, lord abba Maximus — both I and he who was before me — that you so disparage us everywhere, giving everyone a heretical estimation of us?"

"And who has ever so honored or revered you — though your face was unknown to us by sight — as we have?"

This text is taken from the Patrologia, volume 76 (it was typed out by the mother of Father

Arsenios Meskos), collated against the text of the "TO VYZANTION" editions of the "GREGORIOS HO PALAMAS" series, Thessaloniki, PHILOKALIA OF THE NEPTIC AND ASCETIC [FATHERS], volume Γ.

[Maximus:] "Since God is listening, no one — to use your own words — has honored or revered me as you have;"

"but since you have now set aside the Christian doctrine, I judged it a fearful thing to prefer your favor toward me above the truth."

[Pyrrhus:] "What then have we affirmed, that we should be said to have set aside the mind of the Christians?"

[Maximus:] "By affirming one will of the Godhead of Christ and of his manhood;"

"and not only affirming it, but also, to the ruin of the whole body of the holy Church, having set it forth by means of a new Ekthesis."

[Pyrrhus:] "What then — does he who affirms one will of Christ seem to you to have deviated from the Christian teaching?"

[Maximus:] "For what is more impious than to say that the same one, by one and the same will, before the incarnation constituted all things out of nothing;"

to sustain and provide for all things, and to administer them unto salvation;

but after becoming man, to desire food and drink;

and to move from place to place, and to do all the other things that are free from every slander and blame;

through which he also showed the economy to be pure of all phantasy;

If then Christ is one, then, inasmuch as he is wholly one, he also willed as one; wholly one, then, is also his will:

To state something without first distinguishing the significations of what is stated is nothing other than to confound everything and to hasten to leave obscure the very matters under inquiry;

a thing alien to a learned man.

Christ, being one, is he God alone, or also man?

Evidently, God and man together.

Christ, then, being by nature both God and man, did he, as the very same one, will as God and man, or only as Christ?

But if Christ willed primarily as God and man, then evidently he, being the very same one, willed in a twofold manner and not in a single manner;

For if Christ is nothing other than his own natures, out of which and in which he exists —

then evidently, he willed appropriately to his own natures;

that is, as each is naturally disposed, he, being himself one, both willed and operated;

since neither of them is without will or without operation.

But if Christ willed and operated appropriately to his own natures, that is, as each is naturally disposed —

then his natural wills are also wholly two;

and equal in number to these are also the essential energies.

For just as the number of the natures of the same one Christ, when piously understood and spoken of, does not divide Christ, but presents the difference of the natures as preserved even in the union;

so too the number of the wills and energies essentially belonging to his natures —

for according to both his natures, as has been said, the same one was possessed of will and operative for our salvation —

but it indicates only their preservation and safety even in the union.

It is impossible that with the wills those who will are not co-introduced.

This indeed is the very absurdity found also in your own writings:

not by reason, but moved by authority, you made your declaration, taking Heraclius as your accomplice in this, because you also consented to his unlawful and illicit union, and ratified it by a blessing.

For if it be granted that the wills bring with them those who will, then certainly, by the reasonable converse, the wills will likewise be brought in together with those who will;

then, because of its one will, the hypostasis too is one — according to Sabellius;

and because of the three persons, the wills too are three;

and therefore three natures — according to Arius — if indeed, in accordance with the patristic definitions and canons, the difference of wills and of natures introduces a difference [of hypostases].

It is impossible for two wills to coexist with one another in one person without contrariety.

If it is not possible for two wills to exist in one and the same person without contrariety, then, according to you, it is possible with contrariety.

But if this is so, then in the meantime you have confessed the two to exist;

and we do not differ as to number, but only as to contrariety.

It remains, then, to inquire into the efficient cause of the conflict.

Is it the willing according to nature, or is it sin?

But if you should say it is the willing according to nature — and of this we know no other cause than God —

then, according to you, God is the author of the conflict.

But the incarnate God committed no sin, nor did he have any contrariety whatsoever in his natural wills.

For the cause not existing, evidently neither will the effect exist.

Yes — simply to will belongs to nature;

but the more eminent of the Fathers spoke of one will of God and of the saints;

then in that case there will likewise be one nature of the saints and of God.

And it was said above that one who is making an account concerning the truth must distinguish the significations of what is said, on account of the error arising from equivocation.

For I in turn will ask you this: did the saints who spoke of one will of God and of the saints say this with regard to God's essential and creative will, or with regard to the thing willed?

For the will of the one who wills is not the same as the thing willed, just as the visual faculty of the one who sees is not the same as the visible thing;

for the one belongs to him essentially, while the other happens to be external.

But if they spoke with regard to the essential will, they will be found not only introducing the saints as of the same nature and as fellow-creators with God, but also contradicting themselves, having asserted that things of different essence cannot have a common will.

But if with regard to the thing willed, then they spoke etiologically —

or, as some prefer to say, catachrestically — the Fathers termed the thing willed 'will';

and nothing absurd will follow for those who define simply willing as belonging to nature.

If we differ, both from ourselves and from one another, in our wills —

and now, not willing the same thing —

and this belongs to nature and to its characteristic principle, then we shall be found not only differing from one another in nature, but also changing it countless times.

The act of willing is not the same as the manner of willing —

just as neither is seeing the same as the manner of seeing.

For willing, like seeing, belongs to nature,

and belongs to all who are of the same nature and the same kind;

but the manner of willing, like the manner of seeing — that is, to will to walk and not to will to walk, and to look to the right or to the left, or upward or downward, or toward desire, or toward the understanding of the principles inherent in beings — is a mode of the use of willing and seeing, belonging only to the one who exercises it, and distinguishing him from others, according to what is commonly called difference.

And if we have nature bearing witness to this, then to will to eat, or not to will to eat —

or to will to walk, or not to will to walk —

is not an abolition of the natural capacity to will, but pertains to the manner of willing; that is, it is the coming-to-be and the ceasing-to-be of the things willed.

For neither, if we suppose that the things which came to be from God — being objects of his will — should cease to be, will his essential and creative will, which is conceived of prior to them, cease to be along with them.

If you call the will natural, and the natural is wholly also compelled, how is it not necessary — in calling the wills in Christ natural — to abolish every voluntary movement in him?

Not only does the divine and uncreated nature have nothing natural that is compelled, but neither does the intellectual and created nature.

For that which is rational by nature has, as a natural power, the rational appetency, which is also called the willing of the intellective soul;

according to which, willing, we reason;

and reasoning, willing, we deliberate.

And willing, we seek, and we consider and deliberate, and we judge, and we dispose ourselves, and we choose, and we incline, and we make use of things.

And since, according to nature, as has been said, there belongs to us the rational appetency — that is, to will and to reason —

and to deliberate, and to seek, and to consider, and to wish, and to judge, and to dispose ourselves, and to choose, and to incline, and to make use of things.

Then the natural properties of intelligent beings are not therefore under compulsion.

And how, even granting this, will not such a proposition be shown to be more absurd than every absurdity?

For if according to this thesis whatever is natural is altogether also compelled;

and God is by nature God, by nature good, by nature creator;

then God will be God, and good, and creator, by necessity;

which even to think, let alone to say, is the utmost blasphemy.

For who is it that imposes the necessity?

Consider also, if you please, dear friend, in this way too the blasphemy of such a proposition.

For if he who says the wills in Christ are natural thereby abolishes, as you claim, every voluntary movement in him, then it is necessary that things which will naturally have involuntary movement;

and things which do not will naturally have voluntary movement.

Then not only God, who is above all beings;

but also all intelligent and rational beings, being by nature capable of willing, will have involuntary movement;

while inanimate things, not being capable of willing, will have voluntary movement.

Except that the blessed Cyril, in the third chapter against the reproaches of Theodoret, has freed us from superfluous matters by expressly declaring that nothing natural in the intelligent nature is involuntary.

And this anyone who wishes may learn, by taking that chapter in hand.

Since it is necessary to accept gratefully whatever truths appear from examination;

and with great clarity the argument has shown that the wills in Christ are natural;

it is possible, just as we speak of a certain composite one out of the two natures, so also to speak of a certain composite one out of the two natural wills;

so that both those who speak of two wills, on account of the natural difference of the natures in Christ, and those who speak of one, on account of the extreme union, may no longer differ from one another for the sake of mere words;

since, as the great Gregory the Theologian says, truth for us lies not in names, but in things.

Do you see that you are led astray in this, from being utterly ignorant that compositions belong to things that exist in a hypostasis, and not to things that are contemplated as existing in another, and are not considered according to their own proper principle?

And this is the common opinion of all, both of the philosophers outside the Church and of the God-wise mystagogues of the Church.

But if you speak of a composition of the wills, you will be compelled also to speak of a composition of the other natural properties;

if indeed you wish to show the argument of your own doctrine to be coherent — that is, of the created and the uncreated, the infinite and the finite, the indeterminate and the determinate, the mortal and the immortal, the corruptible and the incorruptible — and you will be carried off into absurd suppositions.

And how will that which arises from the wills be called "will"?

For it is not possible for the composite to be named by the appellation of the things composed.

Or else in this way too that which arises from the natures will be called "nature," according to the ancient heretics.

And in addition to this, you again separate him from the Father in wills, having characterized him by a composite will as having a single composite nature.

Then, just as the natures had nothing in common with each other, so also their natural properties had nothing in common.

Nor did they have anything in common, save only the hypostasis common to those same natures.

For just as he was, without confusion, the same hypostasis of those same natural properties;

Why then did the Fathers, whose words have become the law and canon of the Church, not say that both the glory and the reproach were common?

For, he says, that from which the commonality of the glory derives is one thing;

and that from which the reproach derives is another.

This has been said by the holy Fathers according to the manner of exchange.

And it is evident that the exchange belongs not to one thing, but to two, and to unequal things;

by way of interchange — the properties naturally belonging to each part of Christ having been reciprocally attributed to one another according to the ineffable union — without any change or commingling of the one part into the other according to the natural principle.

If then you call the will "common" by the manner of exchange, you will speak of the wills not as one, but as two;

and your clever argument has again been overturned into that very thing from which you were eager to flee.

The flesh was not moved by a mere nod of the Word united to it.

But we, following the holy Fathers, as in all things, so also in this, say that the very God of all, having become man without change, not only, as God, willed suitably to his own divinity, but also, as man, the same one willed suitably to his own humanity.