123

they dogmatize a falling away of his essences, since what is contrary to nature is destructive of what is according to nature.

I would gladly ask them this also: does the God and Father of all will insofar as He is Father, or insofar as He is God? But if insofar as He is the Father, His will will be different from the will of the Son; for the Son is not the Father. But if insofar as He is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, then they will grant that the will belongs to the nature, that is, is natural.

Furthermore, if according to the Fathers, those whose will is one, (316) their essence is also one; but according to them, the will of Christ's divinity and of his humanity is one; therefore they say that the essence of these is one and the same. And how, being so impious, do they say that they follow the Fathers?

And again, if according to the same teachers, the will is not common to both, that is, to the essences, it is necessary for them either to not say that both natures of the same one have one will in common, or, by saying this, to openly fight against the patristic laws and decrees.

PYRRHUS. The argument has shown very clearly and concisely the impiety of our opponents, which is interwoven with every concept. But what do we say to the fact that they attempt to show this from the Fathers?

MAXIMUS. If they wish to call those who divide and those who confuse the supernatural economy "Fathers," we concede this to them. For they all held the opinion of one will, although their impiety was diametrically opposed. But if they mean the Fathers of the Church, we will in no way concede this to them. Let them then show a single one of those who are eminent and known to all, so that we too on the day of the judgment of our affairs, when accused by Christ our God, "For what reason did you accept a saying that wholly dissolves the mystery of my incarnation?" may have an excuse, that we revered the reputation of the Father in all things.

PYRRHUS. What then of the saying of Gregory the Theologian: "For his willing is not at all opposed to God, being wholly deified," is it not contrary to the two wills?

MAXIMUS. Not at all. On the contrary, it is indeed more indicative of the two wills than all the others.

PYRRHUS. How do you say this? MAXIMUS. Just as ignition introduces with itself that which is ignited and that which ignites, and chilling

that which is chilled and that which chills, and walking, that which walks and that which is walked upon, and sight, that which sees and that which is seen, and thought, that which thinks and that which is thought; for it is not possible to conceive or speak of the relation without the related terms; so it follows, so too that which is deified and that which deifies. And besides, if the deification of the will is contrary to the two wills according to them, the deification of the nature will also be contrary to the two natures. For on both the Father has set down the same principle of deification.

PYRRHUS. The Father's usage has been shown to be entirely consistent with the two wills; but it is necessary to show Gregory, who illumined the Church of the Nyssenes (317), to be in agreement with this. For they bring him forward as thinking 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 that the soul of the Lord wills by the divine will of the divinity hypostatically united to him.

MAXIMUS. Therefore, by the same line of reasoning, he also said that the body touches by the divine touch, and according to them the divinity will also be tangible. For what they say concerning the soul of the Lord,

123

ἔκπτωσιν τῶν αὐτοῦ δογματίζουσιν οὐσιῶν, εἴπερ φθαρτικά τῶν κατά φύσιν τά παρά φύσιν.

Ἡδέως δ᾿ ἄν αὐτούς καί τοῦτο ἐροίμην, ὅτι ὁ τῶν ὅλων Θεός καί Πατήρ, καθ᾿ ὅ Πατήρ θέλει, ἤ καθ᾿ ὅ Θεός; Ἀλλ᾿ εἰ μέν καθ᾿ ὅ ὁ Πατήρ, ἄλλο αὐτοῦ ἔσται παρά τό τοῦ Υἱοῦ θέλημα· οὐ γάρ Πατήρ ὁ Υἱός· εἰ δέ καθ᾿ ὅ Θεός· Θεός δέ Υἱός, Θεός καί τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον· ἄρα φύσεως εἶναι τό θέλημα δώσουσιν, ἤγουν φυσικόν.

Ἔτι, εἰ κατά τούς Πατέρας, ὧν τό θέλημα ἕν, (316) τούτων καί ἡ οὐσία μία ἐστί· κατ᾿ αὐτούς δέ, ἕν τό θέλημα τῆς θεότητος τοῦ Χριστοῦ καί τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος αὐτοῦ· ἄρα μίαν καί τήν αὐτήν τούτων λέγουσι τήν οὐσίαν. Καί πῶς οὕτω ἀσεβοῦντες, φασίν, ὅτιπερ τοῖς Πατράσιν ἕπονται;

Καί πάλιν, εἰ κατά τούς αὐτούς διδασκάλους, οὐκ ἔστι κοινόν ἀμφοτέρων, δηλαδή οὐσιῶν, τό θέλημα, ἀνάγκη αὐτούς ἤ ἄμφω τάς φύσεις τοῦ αὐτοῦ μή λέγειν κοινῶς ἔχειν ἕν θέλημα· ἤ τοῦτο λέγοντας, φανερῶς τοῖς πατρικοῖς ἀπομάχεσθαι νόμοις τε καί θεσπίσμασι.

ΠΥΡ. Λίαν σαφῶς, καί συντετμημένως ἔδειξεν λόγος τήν συμπεπλεγμένην πάσῃ ἐπινοίᾳ τῶν δι᾿ ἐναντίας ἀσέβειαν. Τί δέ λέγομεν, ὅτι καί ἐκ τῶν Πατέρων τοῦτο δεικνύειν ἐπιχειροῦσι;

ΜΑΞ. Εἰ μέν τούς διαιροῦντας, καί τούς συγχέοντας τήν ὑπερφυᾶ οἰκονομίαν, Πατέρας καλεῖν βούλονται, συγχωροῦμεν αὐτοῖς. Πάντες γάρ ἕν θέλημα ἐδόξασαν, καίτοι ἐκ διαμέτρου διεστηκότες τήν ἀσέβειαν. Εἰ δέ τούς τῆς Ἐκκλησίας, οὐδαμῶς τοῦτο συγχωρήσομεν αὐτοῖς. Ἐπεί δείξωσιν ἕνα μόνον τῶν ἐμφανῶν καί πᾶσι γνωρίμων, ὅπως καί ἡμεῖς ἐν ἡμέρᾳ τῆς τῶν ἡμετέρων διαγνώσεως, ἐγκαλούμενοι παρά Χριστοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὅτι τίνος χάριν ἀνεδέξασθε φωνήν, ὅλον λύουσαν τῆς ἐμῆς σαρκώσεως τό μυστήριον; ἔχομεν ἀπολογίαν, ὅτι τήν ἐν πᾶσιν αἰδεσθέντες τοῦ Πατρός ὑπόληψιν.

ΠΥΡ. Τί οὖν τό εἰρημένον τῷ Θεολόγῳ Γρηγορίῳ· "Τό γάρ ἐκείνου θέλειν οὐδέ ὑπεναντίον τῷ Θεῷ, θεωθέν ὅλον," οὐκ ἐναντίον τῶν δύο θελημάτων ἐστί;

ΜΑΞ. Οὐδαμῶς. Τοὐναντίον, τῶν δύο θελημάτων μέν οὖν, καί τῶν ἄλλων πάντων ἐκφαντικώτερον.

ΠΥΡ. Πῶς τοῦτό φης; ΜΑΞ. Ὥσπερ ἡ πύρωσις τό πυρωθέν καί τό πυρῶσαν ἑαυτῇ συνεισάγει, καί ἡ ψύξις

τό ψυχθέν καί τό ψύξαν, καί ἡ βάδισις τό βαδίζον καί βαδιζόμενον, καί ἡ ὅρασις τό ὁρῶν καί ὁρώμενον, καί νόησις τό νοοῦν καί νοούμενον· οὐ γάρ δυνατόν τήν σχέσιν ἄνευ τῶν σχετῶν νοεῖν ἤ λέγειν· οὕτω κατά τό ἀκόλουθον, καί τό θεωθέν καί τό θεῶσαν. Ἄλλως τε δέ, εἰ τοῦ θελήματος θέωσις ἐναντία ἐστί τῶν δύο θελημάτων κατ᾿ αὐτούς, καί ἡ τῆς φύσεως θέωσις ἐναντία ἔσται τῶν δύο φύσεων. Ἐπ᾿ ἀμφοτέρων γάρ τόν αὐτόν τῆς θεώσεως τέθεικεν ὁ Πατήρ λόγον.

ΠΥΡ. Πάνυ συμβαίνουσα ἐδείχθη ἡ χρῆσις του Πατρός τοῖς δύο θελήμασιν· ἀλλά χρή τούτῳ σύμφωνον δεῖξαι καί Γρηγόριον, τόν τήν Νυσσαέων (317) 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,