118

MAX. If one must confess only those things spoken synodically, then one must not speak of the "one incarnate nature of God the Word," which contains all the piety of the mystery, since it has not been pronounced synodically. Nevertheless, even so you will be forced to confess the wills along with the natures and their properties. For if you say that the things naturally present in the natures of Christ are their properties, and willing is naturally inherent in each of his natures, then you will be compelled to confess the wills along with the natures, with the other natural properties.

Moreover, if the synods anathematized both Apollinarius and Arius over the expression of one will, each of them having misused it for the establishment of his own heresy—the one, wishing to show through this that the flesh is consubstantial with the Word; the other, striving to introduce the Son as of a different substance from the Father—how is it possible for us to be pious, if we do not confess the expressions that are contrary to the heretics? And the Fifth Synod, to omit everything else, having decreed verbatim to accept all the writings of the holy Athanasius, and Basil, and the Gregories, and of certain other specifically approved [eminent] (301) teachers, in which the two wills also are found, has also handed down two wills.

PYR. And does it not seem to you that the term "natural will" offends the ears of the many?

MAX. Excluding the divine, how many kinds of life do you say there are among existing things? PYR. You say. MAX. There are three kinds of life. PYR. What are they? MAX. The vegetative, the sentient, the intellectual. PYR. That is so. MAX. And since each is distinguished from the others by some principle of its creation, what is the

distinguishing and particular principle of each kind? PYR. I ask you to say this as well. MAX. Proper to the vegetative is the nutritive, and augmentative, and generative motion; but to the

sentient, the motion according to impulse; and to the intellectual, the self-determining. PYR. You have presented as very clear and unconfused

the property of each kind of life. MAX. If the property of each [kind] has been shown to be clear and unconfused, I ask again,

whether the nutritive, and augmentative, and generative motion belongs by nature to the vegetative; and the motion according to impulse to the sentient.

PYR. By nature, undoubtedly. MAX. Therefore, the self-determining motion consequently belongs to the intellectual. PYR. And he who dogmatizes in accordance with his own principles will surely grant this. MAX. If, then, the self-determining motion belongs by nature to intellectual beings, then every

intellectual being is also by nature volitional. For the blessed Diadochus of Photice defined self-determination to be will. And if every intellectual being is also by nature volitional, and God the Word truly became flesh, animated rationally and intellectually, then, insofar as he is man, the same was essentially volitional. And if this is so, then the term natural will does not offend the ears of the pious, but those of the heretics.

PYR. I, for my part, have already been persuaded by what has been said that the wills in Christ are natural; and concerning this I seek no other proof. For no less than the divinely

118

ΜΑΞ. Εἰ τά συνοδικῶς καί μόνον εἰρημένα χρή ὁμολογεῖν, οὔτε τήν μίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου φύσιν σεσαρκωμένην, περιεκτικήν πάσης τῆς τοῦ μυστηρίου οὖσαν εὐσεβείας, χρή λέγειν, συνοδικῶς οὐκ ἐκπεφωνημένην. Πλήν ὅτι καί οὕτω ταῖς φύσεσι καί τοῖς αὐτῶν ἰδιώμασι καί τά θελήματα συνομολογεῖν βιασθήσεσθε. Εἰ γάρ τά φυσικῶς προσόντα ταῖς φύσεσι τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἰδιώματα αὐτῶν εἶναι λέγετε, φυσικῶς δέ ἑκατέρᾳ αὐτοῦ φύσει τό θέλειν ἐμπέφυκεν, ἄρα μετά τῶν ἄλλων φυσικῶν ἰδιωμάτων, καί τά θελήματα ταῖς φύσεσι συνομολογεῖν ἀναγκασθήσεσθε.

Ἄλλως τε δέ, εἰ αἱ σύνοδοι ἐπί τῇ τοῦ ἑνός θελήματος φωνῇ καί Ἀπολινάριον καί Ἄρειον ἀνεθεμάτισαν, ἑκατέρου αὐτῶν ταύτῃ πρός σύστασιν τῆς ἰδίας αἱρέσεως ἀποχρησαμένου· τοῦ μέν, ὁμοούσιον τῷ Λόγῳ διά τούτου τήν σάρκα βουλομένου δεῖξαι· τοῦ δέ, ἑτεροούσιον τόν Υἱόν πρός τόν Πατέρα εἰσαγαγεῖν ἀγωνιζωμένου, πῶς εὐσεβεῖν ἡμᾶς δυνατόν, τάς ἐναντίας τοῖς αἱρετικοῖς φωνάς οὐχ ὁμολογοῦντας; Ἡ δέ πέμπτη σύνοδος, ἵνα πάντα παραλίπω, θεσπίσασα αὐτολεξεί, Πάντα τά τῶν ἁγίων Ἀθανασίου, καί Βασιλείου, καί Γρηγορίων, καί ἄλλων τινῶν προσδιωρισμένως ἐγκρίτων [ἐκκρίτων] (301) διδασκάλων συντάγματα, ἐν οἷς καί τά δύο ἔγκεινται θελήματα, δέχεσθαι, καί δύο παραδεδώκασιν θελήματα.

ΠΥΡ. Καί οὐ δοκεῖ σοι, τάς τῶν πολλῶν πλήττειν ἀκοάς, τό φυσικόν θέλημα λεγόμενον;

ΜΑΞ. Ὑπεξαιρουμένης τῆς θείας, πόσα εἴδη ζωῆς ἐν τοῖς οὖσιν εἶναι λέγεις; ΠΥΡ. Αὐτός εἰπέ. ΜΑΞ. Τρία εἴδη ζωῆς εἰσιν. ΠΥΡ. Ποῖα ταῦτα; ΜΑΞ. Ἡ φυτική, ἡ αἰσθητική, ἡ νοερά. ΠΥΡ. Οὕτως ἔχει. ΜΑΞ. Ἐπειδή δέ ἕκαστον λόγῳ τινί δημιουργίας τῳν ἄλλων διακέκριται, τίς ὁ

διακριτικός καί ἰδιάζων ἑκάστου εἴδους λόγος; ΠΥΡ. Καί τοῦτο εἰπεῖν σε ἀξιῶ. ΜΑΞ. Τῆς μέν φυτικῆς ἴδιον ἡ θρεπτική, καί αὐξητική, καί γεννητική κίνησις· τῆς δέ

αἰσθητικῆς, ἡ καθ᾿ ὁρμήν κίνησις· τῆς δέ νοερᾶς, ἡ αὐτεξούσιος. ΠΥΡ. Πάνυ εὐκρινῆ καί ἀσύγχυτον τήν τῆς ἑκάστου εἴδους ζωῆς παρέστησας

ἰδιότητα. ΜΑΞ. Εἰ εὐκρινής καί ἀσύγχυτος ἡ ἑκάστου ἐδείχθη [εἴδους] ἰδιότητος, πάλιν ζητῶ,

εἰ κατά φύσιν πρόσεστι τῇ φυτικῇ ἡ θρεπτική, καί αὐξητική, καί γεννητική κίνησις· καί τῇ αἰσθητικῇ, ἡ καθ᾿ ὁρμήν.

ΠΥΡ. Κατά φύσιν ἀναμφιβόλως. ΜΑΞ. Οὐκοῦν καί τῇ νοερᾷ ἀκολούθως ἡ αὐτεξούσιος κίνησις. ΠΥΡ. Καί τοῦτο πάνως δώσει ὁ ἀκόλουθα ταῖς οἰκείαις ἀρχαῖς δογματίζων. ΜΑΞ. Εἰ οὖν κατά φύσιν πρόσεστι τοῖς νοεροῖς ἡ αὐτεξούσιος κίνησις, ἄρα πᾶν

νοερόν καί φύσει θελητικόν. Θέλησιν γάρ τό αὐτεξούσιον ὁ μακάριος ὡρίσατο ∆ιάδοχος ὁ Φωτικῆς εἶναι. Εἰ δέ πᾶν νερόν καί φύσει θελητικόν, γέγονε δέ ὁ Θεός Λόγος σάρξ ἀληθῶς καί λογικῶς τε καί νοερῶς ἐψυχωμένη, ἄρα καί καθ᾿ ὅ ἄνθρωπος, οὐσιωδῶς ὁ αὐτός ἦν θελητικός. Εἰ δέ τοῦτο, οὐκ ἄρα τάς τῶν εὐσεβῶν ἀκοάς πλήττει λεγόμενον τό φυσικόν θελημα, ἀλλά τάς τῶν αἱρετιζόντων.

ΠΥΡ. Ἐγώ μέν ἤδη ἐν τοῖς φθάσασι ἐπείσθην, φυσικά εἶναι τά ἐπί Χριστοῦ θελήματα· και περί τούτου ἑτέραν οὐκ ἐπιζητῶ ἀπόδειξιν. Οὐχ ἦττον γάρ τῶν θεωδῶς