33

PYR. It has been shown by many proofs that man is by nature volitional. MAX. Since this has been clearly shown, let us consider, as above

we proposed, the absurdity of their proposition as well. PYR. Let us consider. MAX. If man is by nature volitional, as has been shown, 0305 and according to them

Christ had the human will by appropriation in a bare relation, it is necessary for them, if they are to adhere to their own principles, to say that our other natural things along with it—I mean, of the natural will—are also by a bare appropriation; and the theory and initiation of the whole economy will be found by them to be received according to appearance. Furthermore, if the decree of Sergius anathematized not those who speak of two wills in a certain way, but simply those who speak of two wills, and these men say two, even if erroneously, through appropriation; therefore the proponents of this concur in the anathema against themselves. And 15Γ_138 again, if, according to the proposition they maintain, persons are introduced along with the wills; therefore by saying two wills, even if erroneously, through appropriation, as has been said, they will also be saying the persons introduced with them, according to such a proposition. And who will bear the division of the one into two persons?

PYR. What then of the Fathers? Did they not say that the will that Christ configured in himself was ours?

MAX. Yes, ours. PYR. Therefore, they did not signify what belongs to him by nature through the human, but

what he took up by appropriation. MAX. Since they said that he had likewise assumed our nature,

therefore according to them he will be found to have the nature itself by a bare appropriation. For if that is true, this is also; but if this is false, so is that.

PYR. What then? By saying he configured ours in himself, did they signify what belongs to him by nature?

MAX. Yes. PYR. How do you say this? MAX. Since the same whole was God with the humanity, and the same whole

with the divinity; he, as man, in himself and through himself subjected the human to God the Father, giving himself to us as an excellent type and model for imitation, so that we too, looking to him as the pioneer of our salvation, might willingly subject our own to God, by no longer willing contrary to what he wills.

PYR. Those men did not say this with bad intention and some 0308 villainy, but wishing to declare the ultimate union.

MAX. If this is granted to the followers of Severus, would not they then with reason, as far as the given premise is concerned, also say: that "we do not say one nature with bad 15Γ_140 intention or some villainy, but because we wish, just like you, through the one will, to show the ultimate union through it"? For they will use their own weapons against them, in the way that David also did against Goliath. Behold, by saying one [and indeed one] will, they coincide with the same concepts and expressions of those men. But this one will, what do they want to call it? For they are obligated to give it a name.

PYR. They say this is gnomic. MAX. Therefore, it is either gnomic and derivative; and if derivative, the *gnome*, as

the prototype, will be a substance. PYR. The *gnome* is not a substance.

33

ΠΥΡ. ∆έδεικται διά πλειόνων φύσει θελητικός ὤν ὁ ἄνθρωπος. ΜΑΞ. Τούτου οὖν περιφανῶς δειχθέντος, διασκεψώμεθα, ὡς ἀνωτέρω

ὑπεθέμεθα, καί τῆς αὐτῶν προτάσεως τό ἄτοπον. ΠΥΡ. ∆ιασκεψώμεθα. ΜΑΞ. Εἰ φύσει θελητικός ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ὡς δέδεικται, 0305 κατ᾿ αὐτούς δέ

κατά τήν ἐν ψιλῇ σχέσει οἰκείωσιν τό ἀνθρώπινον θέλημα εἶχεν ὁ Χριστός, ἀνάγκη αὐτούς, εἴπερ ταῖς οἰκείαις ἀρχαῖς στοιχοῦσι, καί τά ἄλλα ἡμῖν φυσικά μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ· φημί δή τοῦ κατά φύσιν θελήματος· κατ᾿ οἰκείωσιν ψιλήν λέγειν· καί εὑρεθήσεται αὐτοῖς ἡ τῆς ὅλης οἰκονομίας θεωρία καί μύησις, κατά φαντασίαν λαμβανομένη. Ἔπειτα, εἰ ἡ ψῆφος Σεργίου, οὐ τούς πῶς, ἀλλά τούς ἁπλῶς δύο θελήματα εἰπόντας ἀνεθεμάτισε· λέγουσι δέ οὗτοι δύο, κἄν εἰ ἐσφαλμένως, διά τήν οἰκείωσιν· ἄρα οἱ ταύτης προϊστάμενοι, τῷ κατ᾿ αὐτῶν συνηγοροῦσιν ἀναθέματι. Καί 15Γ_138 πάλιν, εἰ, κατά τήν ὑπ᾿ αὐτῶν διεκδικουμένην πρότασιν, τοῖς θελήμασι πρόσωπα συνεισάγονται· ἄρα δύο θελήματα λέγοντες, καί εἰ ἐσφαλμένως, διά τήν οἰκείωσιν, ὡς εἴρηται, καί τά συνεισαγόμενα αὐτοῖς, κατά τήν τοιαύτην πρότασιν, λέξουσι πρόσωπα. Καί τίς οἴσει τήν εἰς δύο πρόσωπα τοῦ ἑνός κατατομήν;

ΠΥΡ. Τί οὖν οἱ Πατέρες; οὐχ ἡμέτερον εἶπον εἶναι, ὅπερ ὁ Χριστός ἐν ἑαυτῷ ἐτύπωσε θέλημα;

ΜΑΞ. Ναί, ἡμέτερον. ΠΥΡ. Οὐκοῦν οὐ τό προσόν αὐτῷ φύσει διά τοῦ ἀνθρωπίνου ἐσήμαναν, ἀλλ᾿

ὅπερ κατ᾿ οἰκείωσιν ἀνεδέξατο. ΜΑΞ. Ἐπειδή καί τήν ἡμετέραν φύσιν ὡσαύτως ἀνειληφέναι αὐτόν ἔφασιν,

ἄρα κατ᾿ αὐτούς καί αὐτήν τήν φύσιν κατ᾿ οἰκείωσιν ψιλήν ἔχων εὑρεθήσεται. Εἰ γάρ ἐκεῖνο ἀληθές, καί τοῦτο· εἰ δέ τοῦτο ψευδές, κἀκεῖνο.

ΠΥΡ. Τί οὖν; τό ἡμέτερον ἐν ἑαυτῷ τυπῶσαι εἰπόντες, τό αὐτῷ φύσει προσόν ἐσήμαναν;

ΜΑΞ. Ναί. ΠΥΡ. Πῶς τοῦτό φῆς; ΜΑΞ. Ἐπειδή ὁ αὐτός ὅλος ἦν Θεός μετά τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος, καί ὅλος ὁ αὐτός

μετά τῆς θεότητος· αὐτός, ὡς ἄνθρωπος, ἐν ἑαυτῷ καί δι᾿ ἑαυτοῦ τό ἀνθρώπινον ὑπέταξε τῷ Θεῷ καί Πατρί, τύπον ἡμῖν ἑαυτόν ἄριστον καί ὑπογραμμόν διδούς πρός μίμησιν, ἵνα καί ἡμεῖς πρός αὐτόν ὡς ἀρχηγόν τῆς ἡμῶν ἀφορῶντες σωτηρίας, τό ἡμέτερον ἑκουσίως προσχωρήσωμεν τῷ Θεῷ, ἐκ τοῦ μηκέτι θέλειν παρ᾿ ὅ αὐτός θέλει.

ΠΥΡ. Ἐκεῖνο οὐ προθέσει κακῇ καί πανουργίᾳ 0308 τινί τοῦτο εἶπον, ἀλλά βουλόμενοι τήν ἄκραν ἕνωσιν δηλῶσαι.

ΜΑξ. Εἰ τοῦτο τοῖς ἀπό Σεβήρου δοθῇ, οὐκ εὐλόγως λοιπόν, ὅσον πρός τό δοθέν λῆμμα, κἀκεῖνοι λέξουσιν· ὅτι οὐ κακῇ 15Γ_140 προθέσει, ἤ πανουργίᾳ τινί, μίαν λέγομεν φύσιν, ἀλλά βουλόμενοι, καθάπερ καί ὑμεῖς, διά τοῦ ἑνός θελήματος, τήν ἄκραν ἕνωσιν δι᾿ αὐτῆς δεῖξαι; Τοῖς γάρ αὐτῶν κατ᾿ αὐτῶν, ὅν τρόπον καί ∆αβίδ κατά τοῦ Γολιάθ, χρήσονται ὅπλοις. Ἰδού ἕν [καί γάρ ἕν] θέλημα λέγοντες, ταῖς αὐταῖς ἐκείνοις καί ἐννοίαις καί φωναῖς συμπίπτουσι. Πλήν τούτο τό ἕν θέλημα, τί βούλονται ὀνομάζειν; δίκαιοι γάρ εἰσι τούτου τήν προσηγορίαν δοῦναι.

ΠΥΡ. Γνωμικόν τοῦτό φασιν. ΜΑΞ. Οὐκοῦν, ἤ γνωμικόν καί παράγωγον· εἰ δέ παράγωγον, ἡ γνώμη, ὡς

πρωτότυπον, οὐσία ἔσται. ΠΥΡ. Οὐκ ἔστιν ἡ γνώμη οὐσία.