37

PYR. The Father’s usage has been shown to be entirely consistent with the two wills; but it is necessary to show that Gregory, who adorned the Church of Nyssa 0317, is also in agreement with this. For they bring him forward as holding one will, from the Father’s saying concerning the Lord: The soul wills, the body touches; through both He flees the passion. For they say that the Father said the soul of the Lord wills by the divine will of the divinity united to it hypostatically.

MAX. Therefore, according to the same line of reasoning, he also said that the body touches by the divine touch, and according to them, the divinity will be tangible. For what they say about the soul of the Lord, another, transferring it from the same utterance to the body, leads them into the utmost error.

PYR. You have very concisely presented the blasphemy of such an interpretation. But what do we say about the usages they adduce from the great Athanasius? Of which this is one: "The mind of the Lord is not yet the Lord, but either a will, or a volition, or an energy toward something."

MAX. They propose this one, too, against themselves. Therefore, the true reason uses their own propositions in all things for their own refutation. For never may truth be so impoverished as to need its own weapons against its opponents. For if, according to the Father, "The mind of the Lord is not yet the Lord," His mind will be something altogether other 15Γ_154 than the Lord; that is, the mind of the Lord is not by nature Lord, that is, God; for it is believed to have become His hypostatically; and this is clear from his adding that it is either a will, or a volition, or an energy toward something; using as a rule for this the truly philosopher of philosophers, Clement, in the sixth book of the Stromata, who defined will as an appetitive mind; and volition as a rational appetite, or the will concerning something. And this divine teacher [says] an energy toward something 0320 because for all things divinely done by Him, He used the intellectual and rational soul united to Him hypostatically.

PYR. Truly, through the very things by which they think they are warring against piety, they have unknowingly endured refutation. But it is necessary to examine the other usage which they adduce from the Father, so as to leave them no pretext against the truth.

MAX. What is it? For I do not know. PYR. That in which that admirable man says: "He was born of a woman, from the

first formation raising up for Himself the form of man, in a manifestation of flesh, but without carnal wills and human reasonings, in an image of community. For the will is of the divinity alone."

MAX. Being self-interpreting, it has no need at all for help from reasonings.

PYR. And how is it ambiguous to them?

MAX. From much ignorance. Since, to whom is it not manifest, unless in every way the

vision of the soul has been impaired, that the Father discussed these things not concerning the natural principle, but concerning the mode of His existence according to the flesh, wishing to show that the incarnation is the work of the divine and sole will, the Father consenting, the Son Himself effecting it, and the Holy Spirit cooperating 15Γ_156, but not of carnal motion, and human reasonings, or of any marital sequence? For God of all, having become man, did not innovate the principle of nature; since He would not even have been a man, not having the complete and unalterable principle of nature in all things, but the mode, that is, the conception through seed, and the birth through corruption. Therefore, the God-minded teachers of the Church in no way denied the natural principles of the things united; but in accordance with the evangelists, and

37

ΠΥΡ. Πάνυ συμβαίνουσα ἐδείχθη ἡ χρῆσις τοῦ Πατρός τοῖς δύο θελήμασιν· ἀλλά χρή τούτῳ σύμφωνον δεῖξαι καί Γρηγόριον, τόν τήν Νυσσαέων 0317 φαιδρύναντα Ἐκκλησίαν. Ἕν γάρ αὐτόν φρονοῦντα παράγουσι θέλημα, ἐκ τοῦ εἰπεῖν τόν Πατέρα περί τοῦ Κυρίου· Ἡ ψυχή θέλει, τό σῶμα ἅπτεται· δι᾿ ἀμφοτέρων φεύγει τό πάθος. Φασί γάρ ὅτι τῷ θείῳ θελήματι τῆς ἡνωμένης αὐτῷ καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν θεότητος ἔφη ὁ Πατήρ, τήν ψυχήν τοῦ Κυρίου θέλειν.

ΜΑΞ. Οὐκοῦν κατά τόν αὐτόν εἰρμόν καί τό σῶμα τῇ θείᾳ ἀφῇ ἔφη ἅπτεσθαι, καί ἔσται κατ' αὐτούς καί ἁπτή ἡ θεότης. Ἅ γάρ αὐτοί περί τῆς ψυχῆς τοῦ Κυρίου λέγουσιν, ἕτερος ἐκ τῆς ἴσης ἐκφωνήσεως μετάγων περί τό σῶμα, εἰς ἐσχάτην αὐτούς ἀπάγει πλάνην.

ΠΥΡ. Πάνυ συνοπτικῶς τό βλάσφημον τῆς τοιαύτης ἐκδοχῆς παρέστησας. Τί δέ φαμεν καί περί τῶν παραγομένων αὐτοῖς ἀπό τοῦ μεγάλου Ἀθανασίου χρήσεων; Ὧν μία ἐστίν αὕτη· "Νοῦς Κυρίου οὔπω Κύριος, ἀλλ᾿ ἤ θέλησις, ἤ βούλησις, ἤ ἐνέργεια πρός τι."

ΜΑΞ. Καθ᾿ ἑαυτῶν καί ταύτην προβάλλονται. ∆ιό καί ὁ ἀληθής λόγος τοῖς αὐτῶν πρός ἀναίρεσιν τῶν αὐτῶν ἐν πᾶσι κέχρηται προβλήμασι. Μηδέ γάρ οὕτω ποτέ πτωχεύσειεν ἡ ἀλήθεια, ὥστε τῶν ἰδίων κατά τῶν ἀντιπάλων δεηθῆναι ὅπλων. Εἰ γάρ, κατά τόν Πατέρα, "Νοῦς Κυρίου, οὔπω Κύριος" ἄλλο πάντως 15Γ_154 παρά τόν Κύριον ἔσται ὁ νοῦς αὐτοῦ· τουτέστιν, οὐ φύσει Κύριος, ἤγουν Θεός, ὁ νοῦς τοῦ Κυρίου· καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν γάρ, αὐτοῦ γεγενῆσθαι πιστεύεται· καί τοῦτο δῆλον ἐκ τοῦ ἐπαγαγεῖν, ἤ θέλησιν, ἤ βούλησιν, ἤ ἐνέργειαν πρός τι, αὐτόν εἶναι· κανόνι χρώμενος πρός τοῦτο, τῷ ὄντι φιλοσόφῳ τῶν φιλοσόφων Κλήμεντι, ἐν τῷ ἕκτῳ τῶν Στρωματέων λόγῳ, τήν μέν θέλησιν, νοῦν εἶναι ὀρεκτικόν ὁρισαμένῳ· τήν δέ βούλησιν, εὔλογον ὄρεξιν, ἤ τήν περί τινος θέλησιν. Πρός τι δέ 0320 ἐνέργειαν ὁ θεῖος οὗτος διδάσκαλος διότι πρός πάντα θεοπρεπῶς παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ γενόμενα, τῇ καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν ἑνωθείσῃ αὐτῷ νοερᾷ καί λογικῇ ἐχρήσατο ψυχῇ.

ΠΥΡ. Τῷ ὄντι, δι᾿ ὧν ἀντιστρατεύεσθαι δοκοῦσι τῇ εὐσεβείᾳ, δι᾿ αὐτῶν τόν ἔλεγχον ὑπομείναντες ἠγνόησαν. Χρή δέ καί τήν ἑτέραν, ἥν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός παράγουσιν, ἐπεξεργάσασθαι χρῆσιν, πρός τό μηδεμίαν αὐτοῖς ὑπολιπεῖν πρόφασιν κατά τῆς ἀληθείας.

ΜΑΞ. Τίς αὕτη; ἀγνοῶ γάρ. ΠΥΡ. Ἧ φησιν ὁ θαυμαστός ἐκεῖνος ἀνήρ· "Ἐγεννήθη ἐκ γυναικός, ἐκ τῆς

πρώτης πλάσεως τήν ἀνθρώπου μορφήν ἑαυτῷ ἀναστησάμενος, ἐν ἐπιδείξει σαρκός, δίχα δέ σαρκικῶν θελημάτων, καί λογισμῶν ἀνθρωπίνων, ἐν εἰκόνι κοινότητος. Ἡ γάρ θέλησις, θεότητος μόνης."

ΜΑΞ. Αὐθερμήνευτος οὖσα, οὐ δεῖται ὅλως τῆς ἐκ λογισμῶν βοηθείας. ΠΥΡ. Καί πῶς τούτοις ἀμφίβολος τυγχάνει; ΜΑΞ. Ἐκ πολλῆς ἀμαθίας. Ἐπεί, τίνι οὐκ ἔστι καταφανές, εἰ μή πάντῃ τό τῆς

ψυχῆς πεπήρωται ὀπτικόν, ὅτι οὐ περί τοῦ φυσικοῦ λόγου, ἀλλά περί τοῦ τρόπου τῆς κατά σάρκα αὐτοῦ ὑπάρξεως, ταῦτα ὁ Πατήρ διεξῆλθεν, δεῖξαι βουλόμενος τήν σάρκωσιν ἔργον οὖσαν τῆς θείας καί μόνης θελήσεως, εὐδοκοῦντος μέν τοῦ Πατρός, αὐτουργοῦντος δέ τοῦ Υἱοῦ, καί συνεργοῦντος 15Γ_156 τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ σαρκικῆς κινήσεως, καί λογισμῶν ἀνθρωπίνων, εἴτου γαμικής ἀκολουθίας; Οὐ γάρ τόν τῆς φύσεως λόγον ἐκαινοτόμησε γενόμενος ἄνθρωπος τῶν ὅλων ὁ Θεός· ἐπεί οὐδέ ἄνθρωπος ἔτι ἦν, ἀνελλιπῆ καί ἀναλλοίωτον τόν ἐν πᾶσι τῆς φύσεως οὐκ ἔχων λόγον, ἀλλά τόν τρόπον, ἤγουν τήν διά σπορᾶς σύλληψιν, καί τήν διά φθορᾶς γέννησιν. Οὐκοῦν τούς φυσικούς τῶν ἑνωθέντων λόγους οὐδαμῶς ἠρνήσαντο οἱ θεόφρονες τῆς Ἐκκλησίας διδάσκαλοι· ἀλλά συμφώνως τοῖς εὐαγγελισταῖς, καί