122

MAX. It is necessary not to pass over this without remark, that the name 'gnome' has many forms and many meanings both in Holy Scripture and among the Holy Fathers, as is clear to those who read carefully. For sometimes they use it for counsel and advice; as when the Apostle says: *Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgement (gnome)*; sometimes for a plot, as when the blessed David says: *They have crafted a wicked 'gnome' against your people*; which another editor, clarifying, said, *They have crafted a wicked counsel against your people*; sometimes for a decree; as when Daniel, the great among the prophets, says of someone: *The shameless decree (gnome) went out from the face of the king*; sometimes for opinion, or faith, or thought, as when Gregory, surnamed the Theologian, explains in the first Oration on the Son: "Since to find fault is no great thing, for it is easy and for anyone who wishes; but to introduce one's own opinion (gnome) is the mark of a pious and intelligent man." And simply, so that I do not heap a crowd upon the discourse by going through everything one by one, having observed it, I found the name 'gnome' to have twenty-eight meanings in both Holy Scripture and the Holy Fathers; for it does not reveal the character of anything common or particular, but the speaker’s intention is regulated either by what is said before it, or by what follows. And for this reason it is impossible to define such a name by a single meaning alone.

PYR. For how is it possible for something that is said in many ways, to be definitive of some one thing?

MAX. Therefore, so that the shame of such a heresy may become more manifest, let us also examine such a proposition in another way.

PYR. If you please, let us examine it.

MAX. When they speak of one will, whether it be of choice or gnomic, or of authority, or if they should wish to call it something else—for we are not at variance over this—they will be forced to say that this is either divine, or angelic, or human. And in the first place, whichever of these they say it is, they will be calling it natural; (313) since each of them is indicative of a nature; and what they thought to escape through the method of division, they have been shown to establish through the method of analysis. Consequently, if they say it is divine, they have acknowledged Christ to be by nature God and God alone; if angelic, neither God nor man, but some angelic nature; if human, they have shown him to be a mere man and subject to another's authority.

PYR. When they fall into these absurdities, they say the will is neither natural nor gnomic; but they say it belongs to us by aptitude.

MAX. Does this aptitude belong to us according to nature, or not according to nature?

PYR. According to nature.

MAX. Therefore again, by analysis, they will be calling the will natural; and they have gained nothing from this circumlocution; and since aptitude produces the disposition and the readiness from learning, therefore, according to them, Christ had the disposition of the will, and its readiness, from learning and progress; and he progressed, being ignorant of the lessons before the learning. For what reason then do they reject Nestorius, while ardently clinging to his words and concepts? And that by saying one will, they are defending his positions, the *Ekthesis* advocated by them also testifies, having declared that Nestorius taught one will in the case of the two persons fabricated by him.

Furthermore, by rejecting that the will is natural, they will say it is either hypostatic or contrary to nature. But if they say it is hypostatic, the Son will thus have a different will from the Father. For the hypostatic is characteristic of the hypostasis alone. But if it is contrary to nature, the

122

ΜΑΞ. Χρή μηδέ τοῦτο παρελθεῖν ἀπαρασήμαντον, ὅτι πολύτροπον καί πολύσημον παρά τε τῇ ἁγίᾳ Γραφῇ καί τοῖς ἁγίοις Πατράσιν ἐστί τό τῆς γνώμης ὄνομα, ὡς τοῖς ἐπιμελῶς ἀναγινώσκουσι δῆλον ὑπάρχει. Ποτέ μέν γάρ ἐπί παραινέσεως καί ὑποθήκης αὐτό φέρουσιν· ὡς ὅταν λέγῃ ὁ Ἀπόστολος· Περί δέ τῶν παρθένων ἐπιταγήν Κυρίου οὐκ ἔχω· γνώμην δέ δίδωμι· ποτέ δέ ἐπιβουλῆς, ἡνίκα ὁ μακάριος ∆αβίδ· Ἐπί τόν λαόν σου κατεπανουργεύσαντο γνώμην· ὅπερ ἄλλος ἐκδότης σαφηνίζων, Ἐπί τόν λαόν σου, ἔφη, κατεπανουργεύσαντο βουλήν· ποτέ δέ ἐπί τῆς ψήφου· ὁπηνίκα ∆ανιήλ, ὁ ἐν προφήταις μέγας, λέγει περί τινος· Ἐξῆλθεν ἡ γνώμη ἡ ἀναιδής ἐκ προσώπου τοῦ βασιλέως· ποτέ δέ ἐπί δόξης, ἤ πίστεως ἤ φρονήματος, ἡνίκα Γρηγόριος ὁ τῆς θεολογίας ἐπώνυμος ἐν τῷ πρώτω Περί Υἱοῦ λόγῳ διέξεισιν· " Ἐπεί δέ τό μέν ἐπιτιμᾷν οὐ μέγα, ῥᾷστον γάρ, καί τοῦ βουλομένου παντός· τό δέ ἀντεισάγειν τήν ἑαυτοῦ γνώμην, ἀνδρός ἐστιν εὐσεβοῦς καί νοῦν ἔχοντος." Καί ἁπλῶς, ἵνα μή καθ᾿ ἕν τά πάντα διεξερχόμενος, ὄχλον ἐπισωρεύσω τῷ λόγῳ, κατά εἰκοσιοκτώ σημαινόμενα παρά τε τῇ ἁγίᾳ Γραφῇ καί τοῖς ἁγίοις Πατράσιν ἐπιτηρησάμενος, τό τῆς γνωμης εὗρον ὄνομα· οὐδέ γάρ κοινοῦ τινος ἤ ἰδικοῦ ἐμφαίνει χαρακτῆρα, ἀλλ᾿ ἤ ἐκ τῶν πρό αὐτοῦ λεγομένων, ἤ τῶν ἐφεξῆς, ἡ τοῦ λέγοντος κανονίζεται διάνοια. ∆ιά καί ἀδύνατον ἑνί καί μόνῳ σηναινομένῳ, τό τοιοῦτο ἀφορίσαι ὄνομα.

ΠΥΡ. Πῶς γάρ ἐνδέχεται τό πολλαχῶς λεγόμενον, ἑνός τινος εἶναι ἀποκληρωτικόν; ΜΑΞ. Ἵνα οὖν τό αἶσχος τῆς τοιαύτης αἱρέσεως φανερώτερον γένηται, καί ἑτέρως

τήν τοιαύτην διασκεψώμεθα πρότασιν. ΠΥΡ. Εἴ σοι φίλον, διασκεψώμεθα. ΜΑΞ. Ἕν θέλημα λέγοντες, εἴτε προαιρετικόν εἴτε γνωμικόν, εἴτε ἐξουσιαστικόν, εἰ

καί ἑτέρως πως αὐτό καλεῖν βούλοιντο· οὐ γάρ διαφερόμεθα περί τούτου· ἤ θεῖον, ἤ ἀγγελικόν, ἤ ἀνθρώπινον τοῦτο λέγειν βιασθήσονται. Καί προηγουμένως μέν, ὁπότερον τούτων αὐτό εἴπωσι, φυσικόν λέξουσιν· (313) εἴπερ ἑκάτερον αὐτῶν φύσεως ὑπάρχει δηλωτικόν· καί ὅπερ διά τῆς διαιρετικῆς μεθόδου φεύγειν ἔδοξαν, τοῦτο διά τῆς ἀναλυτικῆς συνιστῶντες ἐδείχθησαν. Ἐφεπομένως δέ, εἰ μέν θεῖον αὐτό λέξουσι, Θεόν καί μόνον φύσει ὄντα τόν Χριστόν ἐγνώρισαν· εἰ δέ ἀγγελικόν, οὔτε Θεόν οὔτε ἄνθρωπον, ἀλλ᾿ ἀγγελικήν τινα φύσιν· εἰ δέ ἀνθρώπινον, ψιλόν ἄνθρωπον καί ὑπεξούσιον αὐτόν ἔδειξαν.

ΠΥΡ. Ὁπηνίκα ταύταις περιπέσωσι ταῖς ἀτοπίαις, οὔτε φυσικόν οὔτε γνωμικόν λέγουσι τό θέλημα· ἀλλ' ἐπιτηδειότητι προσεῖναι ἡμῖν φασιν.

ΜΑΞ. Ἡ ἐπιτηδειότης αὕτη κατά φύσιν ἡμῖν πρόσεστιν, ἤ οὐ κατά φύσιν; ΠΥΡ. Κατά φύσιν. ΜΑΞ. Οὐκοῦν πάλιν, κατά ἀνάλυσιν, φυσικόν λέξουσι τό θέλημα· καί οὐδέν ἐκ τῆς

περιόδου ταύτης ἀπώναιντο· καί ἐπειδή ἡ ἐπιτηδειότης ἐκ μαθήσεως ποιεῖται τήν ἕξιν καί τήν προχείρησιν· ἀπό μαθήσεως ἄρα καί προκοπῆς ἔσχεν ὁ Χριστός κατ᾿ αὐτούς τήν ἕξιν τοῦ θελήματος, καί τήν προχείρησιν· καί προέκοπτεν, ἀγνοῶν πρό τῆς μαθήσεως τά μαθήματα. Τίνος οὖν χάριν τόν Νεστόριον ἀποστρέφονται, τῶν ἐκείνου θερμῶς ἀντεχόμενοι λέξεων καί ἐνννοιῶν; Ὅτι δέ ἕν θέλημα λέγοντες, τά ἐκείνου διεκδικοῦσι, καί ἡ παρ᾿ αὐτῶν συνηγορουμένη Ἔκθεσις μαρτυρεῖ, ἕν θέλημα ἀποφηναμένη τόν Νεστόριον πρεσβεύειν, ἐπί τῶν πλαττομένων αὐτῷ δύο προσώπων.

Ἔτι τέ τό, φυσικόν εἶναι θέλημα διωθούμενοι, ἤ ὑποστατικόν αὐτό, ἤ παρά φύσιν λέξουσιν. Ἀλλ᾿ εἰ μέν ὑποστατικόν αὐτό φήσουσιν, ἑτερόβουλος οὕτω γε ἔσται ὁ Υἱός τῷ Πατρί. Μόνης γάρ ὑποστάσεως χαρκτηριστικόν τό ὑποστατικόν. Εἰ δέ παρά φύσιν, τήν