{"slug":"khazarzar-maximus-confessor-pg-91a-6","id":"greek:khazarzar:khazarzar-maximus-confessor-pg-91a-6","title":"PG_91A_6","title_source":"PG_91A_6","author":"Maximus Confessor","genre":"treatise","date":null,"tradition":"greek","coverage":"not-located","coverage_claim":{"status":"not-located","text":"No English translation could be identified: a language model asked twice could not name one, though it could not rule one out either. That is not proof that none exists — translations in dissertations, recent books and other modern languages are easily missed."},"publication":{"status":"machine-draft","reviewed_by":null,"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4.1-flash:floor","provider":"Baidu","generated":"2026-11-15T19:11:53Z","cost_usd":0.025819},"source":{"registry_id":"greek:khazarzar:khazarzar-maximus-confessor-pg-91a-6","work_id":"khazarzar-maximus-confessor-pg-91a-6","edition":"khazarzar","language":"","license":null,"url":null},"stats":{"passages":232,"english_words":61268,"coptic_letters":0,"source_letters":239988,"commentary_units":0,"commentary_kinds":0,"derived_notes":4,"ambiguities":0,"work_notes":0,"external_links":0,"timeline":0},"summary":{},"links":[],"checks":{"work":"khazarzar-maximus-confessor-pg-91a-6","status":"warn","blocking":[],"warnings":[{"code":"ratio-warn","i":2,"ratio":0.059}],"stats":{"passages":232,"translated":232,"commentary_passages":0,"commentary_units":0,"english_words":61268,"source_letters":240988,"commentary_kinds":0},"model":"deepseek/deepseek-v4.1-flash:floor"},"work_notes":[],"derived_work_notes":[{"kind":"coverage","severity":"info","text":"No English translation could be identified: a language model asked twice could not name one, though it could not rule one out either. That is not proof that none exists — translations in dissertations, recent books and other modern languages are easily missed."},{"kind":"limit","severity":"caution","text":"The English is a machine draft produced passage by passage from the transcribed Greek; no human has verified it. The commentary is model-written and cites only keys the pipeline could resolve."},{"kind":"register","severity":"info","text":"Register: other in ancient Greek; the English keeps the liturgical formulae and the vocatives rather than normalising them."},{"kind":"structure","severity":"info","text":"Passages: 232 narrative."},{"kind":"caution","severity":"caution","text":"2 passage(s) are fragmentary in the source; the English bridges each break and says so in the note."},{"kind":"scripture","severity":"info","text":"1 scriptural phrase match(es) noted: John 1:14."},{"kind":"source","severity":"info","text":"Source edition: khazarzar."}],"derived_structure":{"narrative":232},"term_index":[],"citations":{},"segments":[{"i":1,"ref":"p1","source":"ΑΠΑΝΤΑ, ΜΑΞΙΜΟΥ τοῦ ΟΜΟΛΟΓΗΤΟΥ * ος Τόμος Α ΜΙΚΡΑ ΘΕΟΛΟΓΙΚΑ ΚΑΙ ΠΟΛΕΜΙΚΑ ος Τόμος Α ΜΙΚΡΑ ΘΕΟΛΟΓΙΚΑ ΚΑΙ ΠΟΛΕΜΙΚΑ * ΠΡΟΣ ΜΑΡΙΝΟΝ ΤΟΝ ΟΣΙΩΤΑΤΟΝ ΠΡΕΣΒΥΤΕΡΟΝ Σκοπόν θέμενος σαυτῷ τήν πανύμνητον πρός τόν Θεόν στείλασθαι φιλίαν, θεοτίμητε Πάτερ, εὐτάκτως πρός αὐτήν διανύεις τόν δρόμον. Λόγῳ μέν πρός ἀρετῆς γένεσιν τήν τῶν ὄντων φύσιν περιγράφων(1) νῷ δέ, πρός ἀπλανοῦς ἑνώσεως (γνώσεως) σύστασιν, παντός αἰῶνος καί χρόνου περιορίζων τήν κίνησιν· αἷς θερμότερος ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ συνεισέρχεται πόθος· τῇ τε ἀπειρίᾳ συμπαρεκτείνων σου τοῦ ποθοῦντος τήν κίνησιν· καί τῷ ἀκαταλήπτῳ τοῦ ποθουμένου, τήν ἔφεσίν σοι ποιῶν ἀκατάληπτον· ἧς τέλος αὐτός ἐστιν ὁ Θεός· πόθου τοῖς ἀξίοις γινόμενος πλήρωσις, ὡς ἀπόλαυσις ἀγαθῶν αὐθυπόστατος· ἧς μόνην τήν πεῖραν οἶδε κατάληψιν ὁ λόγος, οἷα σαφῶς ὑπέρ νόησιν τυγχάνουσαν, ἕνωσιν, ὡς μηδενί τύπῳ νοερῷ καθοτιοῦν ὑποπιπτούσης. Διά τοῦτο, τοῦ μέν λόγου σοι γέγονε πρόσωπον(2) ὁ βίος· τοῦ δέ βίου φύσις, ὁ λόγος· τόν καινόν ἀληθῶς κατά Χριστόν ὑπογράφοντες ἄνθρωπον· εὐμιμήτως φέροντα τοῦ κτίσαντος Θεοῦ τήν εἰκόνα καί τήν ὁμοίωσιν· ἅστινας ὑποληπτέον νῦν τήν ἀλήθειαν καί τήν ἀγαθότητα· τήν μέν θεωρίας, τήν δέ, πράξεως τέλος ὑπάρχουσαν· καί τήν μέν, ψεύδους, τήν δέ, πονηρίας ἀντίπαλον.","english":"ALL THE WORKS OF MAXIMUS THE CONFESSOR * Volume One: SMALL THEOLOGICAL AND POLEMICAL WORKS * Volume One: SMALL THEOLOGICAL AND POLEMICAL WORKS * TO MARINUS THE MOST HOLY PRIEST\n\nHaving set before yourself the goal of sending to God the all-praised friendship, O God-honored Father, you complete the course toward it in good order. By reason, indeed, you circumscribe the nature of beings toward the generation of virtue, and by the intellect, toward the establishment of unerring union (knowledge), you set limits to the motion of every age and time; by these things the longing for God enters in more warmly; and you extend the motion of your longing along with the boundless, and by the incomprehensibility of the object of longing you make your desire incomprehensible; the end of which is God himself, becoming the fulfillment of longing for those who are worthy, as a self-subsistent enjoyment of good things; of which the word knows only experience as comprehension, as being clearly beyond thought—union, since it falls under no intellectual form in any way whatsoever. For this reason, your life has become the person of the word, and the word the nature of life, portraying truly the new man according to Christ, bearing in an imitable way the image and likeness of God the Creator; which one must now understand as truth and goodness—the one being the end of contemplation, the other of action; and the one the adversary of falsehood, the other of wickedness.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":2,"ref":"p2","source":"Ἐντεῦθεν σοι τῇ κατορθώσει τῶν ἀρετῶν, ἡ τῶν θείων συνήφθη δογμάτων κατάληψις· τῷ τε πλήθει τῆς γνώσεως, καί τῇ δυνάμει συνεχομένη τῆς ἀποδείξεως· καθ᾿ ἥν, τό πρός τινων οὐκ ἠκριβωμένως περί *\n\nΤό ἔργο τοῦ ἁγίου Μαξίμου χωρίστηκε σέ τόμους καί ἀναγράφονται οἱ σελίδες σύμφωνα μέ τή σειρά \"ΓΡΗΓΟΡΙΟΣ Ο ΠΑΛΑΜΑΣ\" τῶν ἐκδόσεων \"ΤΟ ΒΥΖΑΝΤΙΟΝ\" Θεσσαλονίκη 1992, ΦΙΛΟΚΑΛΙΑ ΤΩΝ ΝΗΠΤΙΚΩΝ ΚΑΙ ΑΣΚΗΤΙΚΩΝ, γιά νά μπορεῖ εὔκολα ὁ ἀναγνώστης νά συμβουλεύεται μετάφραση. Τό κείμενο προέρχεται ἀπό τρεῖς πηγές: 1) ἀπό τήν ἠλεκτρονική βιβλιοθήκη ἑλληνικῶν κειμένων,, ( :// ), 2) κείμενα πού δέν περιλαμβάνονται στό ἀπό τήν πατρολογία τοῦ, τόμος ος καί ος (τά δακτυλογράφησε ἡ μητέρα τοῦ π. Ἀρσενίου Μέσκου), καί 3) τά σχόλια στά ἔργα τοῦ ἁγίου Διονυσίου τοῦ Ἀρεοπαγίτη ἀπό τίς ἐκδόσεις ΒΥΖΑΝΤΙΟ, τό κείμενο περάστηκε ἀπό σκάνερ, ἀκολούθησε ὀπτική ἀναγνώριση χαρακτήρων καί ἔλεγχος. Τόμος καί σελίδα γιά τίς ἐκδόσεις ΒΥΖΑΝΤΙΟ ἀναγράφονται μέ τόν ἀκόλουθο τρόπο:, δηλαδή ἀκολουθεῖ ἡ δέκατη σελίδα τοῦ Β τόμου. Ἐπίσης ὑπάρχει καί ἔνδειξη γιά τήν σελίδα τῆς πατρολογίας ὅταν τό κείμενο προέρχεται ἀπό ἐκεῖ.","english":"From this point, for you, the grasp of the divine doctrines has been joined to the successful practice of the virtues, and, held together both by the abundance of knowledge and by the power of demonstration; according to which, the matter that has been inaccurately treated by certain people concerning *","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[{"kind":"check","severity":"info","code":"ratio-warn","text":"Automatic check: the English/source length ratio is outside the usual band for Coptic — a sign that something was dropped or added, not proof that it was."}]},{"i":3,"ref":"p3","source":"* Τό κείμενο προέρχεται ἀπό τήν πατρολογία τοῦ, τόμος ος (τό δακτυλογράφησε ἡ μητέρα τοῦ π. Ἀρσενίου Μέσκου), σέ ἀντιπαράθεση μέ τό κείμενο τῶν ἐκδόσεων \"ΤΟ ΒΥΖΑΝΤΙΟΝ\" τῆς σειρᾶς \"ΓΡΗΓΟΡΙΟΣ Ο ΠΑΛΑΜΑΣ\" Θεσσαλονίκη 1992, ΦΙΛΟΚΑΛΙΑ ΤΩΝ ΝΗΠΤΙΚΩΝ ΚΑΙ ΑΣΚΗΤΙΚΩΝ, τόμος Α.\n\nθελημάτων προταθέν διαγνούς, καί παρωσάμενος, ταυτόν ἀλλήλοις εἶναι φαμένων θέλημα καί βούλησιν, καί βουλήν, καί προαίρεσιν καί γνώμην· ἐξουσίαν τε καί δόξαν καί φρόνησιν, μόνοις ἀλλήλων, διαφέροντα τοῖς ὀνόμᾳσι· τοῦ τε Θεοῦ καί τῶν ἁγίων ἕν θέλημα γενήσεσθαι· καί διά τοῦτο βεβαιουμένων τόν Χριστόν ἕν θέλημα προαιρετικόν ἔχειν καί διατεινομένων· οὐκ ἠρκέσθης σαυτῷ πρός τήν τοῦ καλῶς κριθέντος βεβαίωσιν, διά τήν σύντροφον πτωχείαν τοῦ πνεύματος· ἀλλά κἀμέ τόν ἰδιωτείᾳ συντεθραμμένον σύμψηφον λαβεῖν τῶν ἐγνωσμένων σοι καλῶς κατηξίωσας. Ὅπερ ποιήσων ἥκω· κἄν προπετές· τῷ τῆς εὐπειθείας μισθῷ νενικημένος. Ἑκάστου δέ τούτων καθ᾿ εἱρμόν τήν γραφήν ποιήσομαι σύντομον, καί οἷον ὁριστικήν· οὐκ ἐμούς ἐγχαράττων λόγους· πῶς γάρ, ὁ τούτων πενόμενος, ἀλλά τούς περί τούτων ἄλλοις πονηθέντας ἐρανισάμενος· ἴνα γνῶμεν ὡς ἀμφοῖν· διαφέρουσιν ἀλλήτων ταῦτα· λέγω δέ κλήσει καί πράγματι. ΠΕΡΙ ΦΥΣΙΚΟΥ ΘΕΛΗΜΑΤΟΣ, ΗΓΟΥΝ ΘΕΛΗΣΕΩΣ Θέλημα γάρ εἶναι φυσικόν, ἤγουν θέλησιν, δύναμιν τοῦ κατά φύσιν ὄντος ὀρεκτικήν· καί τῶν οὐσιωδῶς τῇ φύσει προσόντων συνεκτικήν πάντων ἰδιωμάτων. Τούτῳ γάρ συνεχομένη φυσικῶς ἡ οὐσία, τοῦ τε εἶναι καί ζῇν καί κινεῖσθαι κατ᾿ αἴσθησίν τε καί νοῦν ὀρέγεται, τῆς οἰκείας ἐφιεμένη φυσικῆς καί πλήρους ὀντότητος.","english":"Having discerned and set aside the wills that were proposed, and those who say that will and volition, and counsel, and choice and opinion, and authority and glory and prudence, are the same as one another, differing from one another only in their names; and that there will be one will of God and of the saints; and who on this account maintain and insist that Christ has one will of choice—you were not satisfied with yourself for the confirmation of what had been rightly judged, because of your innate poverty of spirit, but you deemed me worthy, who have been raised in ignorance, to be taken as a fellow-voter for the things you have rightly known. This I have come to do, even if it be rash, conquered by the reward of obedience. And I will make the treatment of each of these in order brief, and as it were definitive, not engraving words of my own—for how could I, who am poor in these things?—but gathering what others have labored over concerning these things, so that we may know how these differ from one another in both—I mean in name and in reality. CONCERNING NATURAL WILL, THAT IS, VOLITION For natural will, that is, volition, is a power of the one who exists according to nature, desiring, and holding together all the properties that belong essentially to nature. For by this the essence, held together naturally, desires to be and to live and to be moved according to sense and intellect, striving after its own natural and complete being.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":4,"ref":"p4","source":"Θελητική γάρ ἑαυτῆς, καί τῶν ὅσα σύστασιν αὐτῆς ποιεῖσθαι πέφυκε, καθέστηκεν ἡ φύσις· τῷ τοῦ εἶναι αὐτῆς λόγῳ, καθ᾿ ὅν ἔστι τε καί γέγονεν ὀρεκτικῶς ἐπηρτημένη. Διόπερ ἕτεροι τοῦτο τό φυσικόν ὁριζόμενοι· θέλημά φασιν εἶναι, ὄρεξιν λογικήν τε καί ζωτικήν· τήν δέ προαίρεσιν, ὄρεξιν βουλευτικήν τῶν ἐφ᾿ ἡμῖν. Οὐκ ἔστιν οὖν προαίρεσις ἡ θέλησις· εἴπερ ἡ μέν θέλησις ἁπλῆ τις ὄρεξίς ἐστι, λογική τε καί ζωτική· ἡ δέ προαίρεσις, ὀρέξεως καί βουλῆς καί κρίσεως σύνοδος. Ὀρεγόμενοι γάρ πρότερον βουλευόμεθα· καί βουλευσάμενοι, κρίνομεν· καί κρίναντες, προαιρούμεθα τοῦ χείρονος τό δειχθέν ἐκ τῆς κρίσεως κρεῖττον· καί ἡ μέν, μόνον ἤρτηται τῶν φυσικῶν· ἡ δέ, μόνων τῶν ἐφ᾿ ἡμῖν, καί δι᾿ ἡμῶν γίνεσθαι δυναμένων. Οὐκ ἔστιν οὖν θέλησις ἡ προαίρεσις. ΠΕΡΙ ΒΟΥΛΗΣΕΩΣ Ἀλλ᾿ οὔτε βούλησίς ἐστιν ἡ προαίρεσις. Βούλησις μέν γάρ ἐστιν ὄρεξις φανταστική τῶν ἐφ᾿ ἡμῖν καί οὐκ ἐφ᾿ ἡμῖν· τουτέστι μόνῃ τῇ διανοίᾳ μορφουμένη. Ἡ δέ ὄρεξις φανταστική, μόνης ἐστί τῆς διανοητικῆς δυνάμεως ἄνευ τοῦ βουλευτικοῦ λόγου τῶν ἐφ᾿ ἡμῖν· ἤ ποιά φυσική θέλησις. Ἡ δέ προαίρεσις, ὄρεξις βουλευτική τῶν ἐφ᾿ ἡμῖν πρακτῶν. Ἤρκει μεν οὖν καί μόνος ὁ τῆς ὑπογραφῆς λόγος, δείξας τήν τούτων διαφοράν, παῦσαι φιλονεικίας τούς περιττῶς φιλολογοῦντας· καί τοῖς καλῶς ἐγνωσμἐνοις, οὐκ οἶδ᾿ ὅπως εὐφήμως εἰπεῖν, σαφῶς ἀντιλέγοντας. Ἐπειδή δέ ποθοῦσί πως οἱ φιλοπευστοῦντες διά πλειόνων ἐπιστῆναι τοῖς ζητουμένοις, ἐροῦμεν καί ἄλλως. Φασίν οἱ περί τούτων διειληφότες. Οὐ πᾶσιν οἷς ἁρμόζει τό προαιρεῖσθαι, πάντως ἁρμόζειν καί τό βούλεσθαι.","english":"For the nature is volitional of itself, and of all things that naturally contribute to its constitution; by the principle of its being, according to which it exists and has come to be, it is attached in a desiring manner. Therefore others, defining this natural [principle], say that will is a rational and living desire; but choice is a deliberative desire of things within our power. Will, then, is not choice; since will is a simple desire, rational and living, whereas choice is a concurrence of desire and counsel and judgment. For we first desire, then deliberate; and having deliberated, we judge; and having judged, we choose the better shown by the judgment in preference to the worse. And the one depends only on natural things, while the other depends only on things within our power and able to come about through us. Choice, then, is not will. CONCERNING VOLITION But neither is choice volition. For volition is an imaginative desire of things within our power and not within our power, that is, one formed by the mind alone. But imaginative desire belongs to the intellectual faculty alone, without the deliberative principle of things within our power; or it is a certain natural will. But choice is a deliberative desire of practical things within our power. The account of the definition alone was sufficient to show the difference between these things and to put an end to the contentiousness of those who dispute superfluously and who, I know not how to say it reverently, clearly contradict what has been well understood. But since those who love inquiry somehow desire to stand upon the matters sought through more [arguments], we shall speak in another way as well. Those who have distinguished these matters say: Not to all to whom choosing belongs does willing also belong in every case.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":5,"ref":"p5","source":"Βούλεσθαι μέν γάρ ὑγιαίνειν καί πλουτεῖν καί ἀθανατισθῆναι φαμεν· προαιρεῖσθαι δέ πλουτεῖν καί ὑγιαίνειν καί ἀθανατισθῆναι, οὐ λέγομεν· ἐπειδή ἡ μέν βούλησις, καί ἐπί τῶν δυνατῶν καί ἐπί τῶν ἀδυνάτων ἐστίν· ἡ δέ προαίρεσις, ἐπί μόνων δυνατῶν, καί δι᾿ ἡμῶν γενέσθαι δυναμένων. Καί πάλιν, ἡ μέν βούλησις, τοῦ τέλους ἐστίν· ἡ δέ προαίρεσις, τῶν πρός τό τέλος. Τέλος οὖν εἶναι φασι τό βουλητόν· οἶον, τήν ὑγίειαν· πρός τό τέλος, δέ, τό βουλευτόν· οἶον, τόν τῆς ὑγιείας τόπον. Τήν αὐτήν οὖν ἀναλογίαν ἥν ἔχει τό βουλητόν πρός τό βουλευτόν, ἔχειν τήν βούλησίν φασι πρός τήν προαίρεσιν· εἴπερ ταῦτα μόνα προαιρούμεθα, ἅ δι᾿ ἡμῶν οἰόμεθα δύνασθαι γενέσθαι.\n\nΒουλόμεθα δέ καί τά μή δι᾿ ἡμῶν οἷα τε γενέσθαι. Δέδεικται τοίνυν, ὡς οὐδέ βούλησίς ἐστιν ἡ προαίρεσις· δειχθήσεται δέ πάλιν, ὡς οὔτε βούλευσίς ἐστιν ἤγουν βουλή.\n\nΠΕΡΙ ΒΟΥΛΗΣ ΗΓΟΥΝ ΒΟΥΛΕΥΣΕΩΣ Τήν βουλήν ἤγουν βούλευσιν εἶναί φασιν ὄρεξιν ζητητικήν περί τι τῶν ἐφ᾿ ἡμῖν πρακτῶν γινομένην. Προαιρετόν δέ, τό ἐκ τῆς βουλῆς κριθέν. Δῆλον οὖν ἐντεῦθεν, ὡς ἡ μέν βούλευσις, ἐπί τοῖς ἔτι ζητουμένοις ἐστίν· ἡ δέ προαίρεσις, ἐπί τοῖς ἤδη προκεκριμένοις. Καί δῆλον, οὐκ ἐκ μόνου τοῦ ὁρισμοῦ, ἀλλά καί τῆς ἐτυμολογίας. Προαιρετόν γάρ ἐστι τό ἕτερον πρό ἑτέρου αἱρετόν. Οὐδείς δέ προκρίνει τι, μή βουλευσάμενος· οὐδέ αἱρεῖται μή κρίνας. Οὐκ ἔστιν οὖν βουλή, τουτέστι βούλευσις, ἡ προαίρεσις.","english":"We say that to wish is to be healthy and to be rich and to be made immortal; but we do not say that to choose is to be rich and to be healthy and to be made immortal, since wishing applies both to things possible and to things impossible, whereas choosing applies only to things possible and able to come about through us. And again, wishing is of the end, whereas choosing is of the things that lead to the end. They say, then, that the end is the object of wish—for example, health—while the things leading to the end are the object of deliberation—for example, the place of health. They say, then, that the same proportion which the object of wish has to the object of deliberation, wishing has to choosing, since we choose only those things which we think are able to come about through us.\n\nBut we also wish for things that are not able to come about through us. It has been shown, then, that choosing is not even wishing; and it will be shown again that it is neither deliberation nor counsel.\n\nCONCERNING COUNSEL, THAT IS, DELIBERATION. They say that counsel, that is, deliberation, is a seeking desire concerning some one of the things that are to be done and are up to us. And the object of choice is that which has been judged from counsel. It is clear from this, then, that deliberation concerns things still being sought, whereas choosing concerns things already decided beforehand. And this is clear not only from the definition but also from the etymology. For the object of choice is one thing chosen before another. But no one decides beforehand without deliberating, nor chooses without judging. Choosing, then, is not counsel, that is, deliberation.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":6,"ref":"p6","source":"ΠΕΡΙ ΠΡΟΑΙΡΕΣΕΩΣ Προαίρεσιν εἶναι φασιν ὄρεξιν βουλευτικήν τῶν ἐφ᾿ ἡμῖν πρακτῶν. Μικτόν γάρ τι, καί πολλοῖς σύγκρατον ἡ προαίρεσις· ἐξ ὀρέξεως καί βουλῆς συγκειμένη καί κρίσεως. Οὐδέτερον γάρ τούτων ὑπάρχει καθ᾿ αὑτό θεωρούμενον ἡ προαίρεσις· οὔτε γάρ μόνον ὄρεξις καθ᾿ αὑτήν, οὔτε βουλή, οὔτε κρίσις· ἀλλά ἐκ τούτων σύγκρατος, καθώς ὁ καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς ἄνθρωπος ἐκ ψυχῆς καί σώματος σύνθετος. Ἐπειδή τότε προαίρεσις, καί προαιρετόν γίνεται, τό προκριθέν ἐκ τῆς βουλῆς, περί οὗ ἡ προαίρεσις, ὅταν προσλάβῃ τήν ὄρεξιν. Ἀναγκαίως οὖν ἡ προαίρεσις περί ταῦτά ἐστι μετά τήν κρίσιν, περί ἅ ἡ βουλή πρό τῆς κρίσεως. Ἐκεῖνα γάρ προαιρούμεθα, περί ὧν βουλευόμεθα.\n\nΠΕΡΙ ΤΙΝΩΝ ΒΟΥΛΕΥΟΜΕΘΑ Βουλευόμεθα δέ περί τῶν ἐφ᾿ ἡμῖν καί δι' ἡμῶν γίνεσθαι δυναμένων· καί ἄδηλον ἐχόντων τό τέλος. Τό μέν οὖν ἐφ᾿ ἡμῖν εἴρηται, ἐπειδή περί τῶν πρακτῶν μόνον βουλευόμεθα. Ταῦτα γάρ ἐφ᾿ ἡμῖν· οὐ γάρ περί τῆς αὐθυποστάτου σοφίας. Οὔτε γάρ περί Θεοῦ, οὔτε περί τῶν ἐξ ἀνάγκης καί ἀεί ὡσαύτως γινομένων· οἷον τῆς κυκλικῆς τῶν χρόνων κινήσεως· οὔτε περί τῶν οὐκ ἀεί μέν ὄντων, ἀεί δέ ὁμοίως γινομένων, οἷον ἀνατολῆς ἡλίου καί δύσεως· οὔτε περί τῶν φύσει μέν, οὐκ ἀεί δέ ὁμοίως γινομένων, ἀλλ᾿ ὡς ἐπί τό πλεῖστον· οἷον, περί τοῦ πολιοῦσθαι τόν ἑξηκοντούτην, ἤ γενειάσκειν τόν εἰκοσαετῆ· οὔτε περί τῶν φύσει μέν, ἄλλοτε δέ ἄλλως ἀορίστως γινομένων· οἷον περί ὄμβρων καί αὐχμῶν καί χαλάζης. Διά ταῦτα μέν τό ἐφ᾿ ἡμῖν, εἴρηται· Τό δέ, Δι᾿ ἡμῶν γίνεσθαι δυναμένων·","english":"Concerning choice. They say that choice is a deliberative desire for things that are up to us and actionable. For choice is something mixed and compounded of many things, being composed of desire and deliberation and judgment. For choice is neither of these considered by itself: it is neither desire alone by itself, nor deliberation, nor judgment, but a compound of these, just as the human being according to us is composite of soul and body. For then it becomes choice, and a thing chosen, when the thing decided upon by deliberation, about which the choice is, takes on desire. Necessarily, then, choice concerns these things after judgment, the things about which deliberation is before judgment. For we choose those things about which we deliberate.\n\nConcerning what things we deliberate. We deliberate about things that are up to us and are able to come about through us, and that have an unclear outcome. Now \"up to us\" has been stated because we deliberate only about actionable things. For these are up to us; for it is not about self-subsistent wisdom. Nor is it about God, nor about things that come about by necessity and always in the same way—for example, the circular motion of the times—nor about things that do not always exist but always come about in the same way, such as the rising and setting of the sun; nor about things that come about by nature but not always in the same way, but for the most part—for example, about a sixty-year-old growing gray, or a twenty-year-old growing a beard; nor about things that come about by nature but at different times in different ways, indefinitely—for example, about rains and droughts and hail. For these reasons, then, \"up to us\" has been stated; and \"able to come about through us\"—","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":7,"ref":"p7","source":"ἐπειδήπερ οὐ περί πάντων ἀνθρώπων (τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων), οὔτε περί παντός πράγματος βουλευόμεθα· ἀλλ᾿ οὐδέ περί πάντων τῶν ἐφ᾿ ἡμῖν, καί δι᾿ ἡμῶν γινομένων· ἀλλά δεῖ προσκεῖσθαι, καί ἄδηλον ἐχόντων τό τέλος. Ἐάν γάρ ᾖ φανερόν καί ὁμολογούμενον, οὐκ ἔτι περί αὐτοῦ βουλευόμεθα· κἄν ἐφ᾿ ἡμῖν, καί δι᾿ ἡμῶν γίνηται. Ἐδείχθη δέ, ὡς οὐδέ περί τοῦ τέλους, ἀλλά περί τῶν πρός τό τέλος, ἡ βουλή. Βουλευόμεθα γάρ οὐ πλουτῆσαι· ἀλλ᾿ ὅπως καί δι᾿ ὧν πλουτήσομεν. Καί συντόμως εἰπεῖν, περί τούτων μόνον βουλευόμεθα, ὧν ἡ πρᾶξις ἐπίσης ἐνδέχεται· ἔστι δέ ἐπίσης ἐνδεχόμενον, ὅ αὐτό τε δυνάμεθα, καί τό ἀντικείμενον αὐτῷ. Εἰ δέ τό ἕτερον μόνον τῶν ἀντικειμένων ἠδυνάμεθα, τοῦτο μέν ἦν ὁμολογούμενον, ὡς ἀναμφίβολον· τό δἐ ἀντικείμενον, ἀδύνατον. Οἷον, ἄρτου καί λίθου προκειμένων, οὐδείς βουλεύεται ποῖον ποιήσεται βρῶμα· τοῦ μέν ὁμολογουμένου· τοῦ δέ σαφῶς ὄντος ἀδυνάτου. Ταῦτα γοῦν προαιρούμεθα, τά ἐπίσης ἐνδεχόμενα, περί ὧν καί βουλευόμεθα.","english":"Since we do not deliberate about all human beings, nor about every matter; but neither about all things that are up to us and come about through us; but it must be added, also, that they have an unclear outcome. For if it is evident and agreed upon, we no longer deliberate about it, even if it is up to us and comes about through us. And it has been shown that deliberation concerns not the end, but the things that lead to the end. For we do not deliberate about becoming rich, but about how and by what means we shall become rich. And to speak briefly, we deliberate only about those things whose action is equally possible; and that is equally possible which we are able to do, and also its opposite. But if we were able to do only one of the opposites, this was agreed upon as beyond doubt, and the opposite was impossible. For example, when bread and stone are set before us, no one deliberates which one he will make his food, since the one is agreed upon and the other is clearly impossible. These things, then, we choose—the equally possible things, about which we also deliberate.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":8,"ref":"p8","source":"ΠΕΡΙ ΓΝΩΜΗΣ Ἀλλ᾿ οὔτε γνώμη τίς ἐστιν ἡ προαίρεσις, κἄν οἱ πολλοί τοῦτο προχείρως νομίζωσιν· ἀλλά γνώμης· εἴπερ τήν γνώμην εἶναι φασιν ὄρεξιν ἐνδιάθετον τῶν ἐφ᾿ ἡμῖν, ἐξ ἧς ἡ προαίρεσις· ἤ διάθεσιν ἐπί τοῖς ἐφ᾿ ἡμῖν ὀρεκτικῶς βουλευθεῖσι. Διατεθεῖσα γάρ ἡ ὄρεξις τοῖς κριθεῖσιν ἐκ τῆς βουλῆς, γνώμη γέγονε· μεθ᾿ ἥν, ἤ κυριώτερον εἰπεῖν, ἐξ ἧς ἡ προαίρεσις. Ἕξεως οὖν πρός ἐνέργειαν ἐπέχει λόγον, ἡ γνώμη πρός τήν προαίρεσιν.\n\nΠΕΡΙ ΕΞΟΥΣΙΑΣ Ἀλλ᾿ οὔτε ἐξουσία ἐστίν ἡ προαίρεσις. Ἡ μέν γάρ προαίρεσις, ὡς πολλάκις ἔφην, ὄρεξις ἐστι βουλευτική τῶν ἐφ᾿ ἡμῖν πρακτῶν· ἡ δέ ἐξουσία, κυριότης ἔννομος τῶν ἐφ᾿ ἡμῖν πρακτῶν· ἤ κυριότης ἀκώλυτος τῆς τῶν ἐφ᾿ ἡμῖν χρήσεως· ἤ ὄρεξις τῶν ἐφ᾿ ἡμῖν ἀδούλωτος. Οὐκ ἔστιν οὖν ταυτόν ἐξουσία καί προαίρεσις· εἴπερ κατ᾿ ἐξουσίαν μέν προαιρούμεθα· οὐκ ἐξουσιάζομεν δέ κατά προαίρεσιν· καί ἡ μέν ἐπιλέγεται μόνον· ἡ δέ χρᾶται τοῖς ἐφ' ἡμῖν, καί τοῖς ἐπί τοῖς ἐφ᾿ ἡμῖν, ἤγουν, προαιρέσει καί κρίσει καί βουλῇ. Κατ' ἐξουσίαν γάρ βουλευόμεθα, καί κρίνομεν, καί προαιρούμεθα, καί ὁρμῶμεν, καί χρώμεθα τοῖς ἐφ᾿ ἡμῖν. ΠΕΡΙ ΔΟΞΗΣ Ἀλλ᾿ οὔτε δόξα τίς ἐστιν ἤ προαίρεσις. Ἡ μέν γάρ δόξα διττή· λογική τε, καί ἄλογος· ἡ δέ προαίρεσις τρεπτή. Τήν μέν οὖν ἄλογον δόξαν εἶναί φασιν, ἁπλῆν γνῶσιν καί πρόχειρον· ὡς ὅταν τις προφέρῃ δόξαν ἀλλοτρίαν, ἀγνοῶν τήν αὐτῆς αἰτίαν. Οἷον, ἀθάνατον λέγων τήν ψυχήν, καί μή διδούς ἀποδεικτικήν αἰτίαν τῆς ἀθανασίας αὐτῆς. Τήν δέ λογικήν δόξαν, γνῶσιν εἶναι λέγουσι, κατά ἀποπεράτωσιν τῆς διανοίας συνισταμένην·","english":"CONCERNING OPINION. But neither is choice opinion, even if the many casually think so; but it is of opinion—if indeed they say that opinion is an inward desire of the things that are up to us, from which comes choice; or a disposition toward the things that are up to us, desired after deliberation. For desire, once disposed toward the things judged by counsel, has become opinion; after which, or more properly, from which comes choice. Therefore opinion stands in the relation of habit to activity, as opinion does to choice.\n\nCONCERNING AUTHORITY. But neither is choice authority. For choice, as I have often said, is a deliberative desire of the things that are up to us to do; but authority is lawful mastery over the things that are up to us to do; or unhindered mastery of the use of the things that are up to us; or an unenslaved desire of the things that are up to us. Authority and choice are therefore not the same; since we choose by authority, but we do not have authority by choice; and the one merely selects, while the other uses the things that are up to us, and the things that depend on the things that are up to us—that is, choice and judgment and counsel. For by authority we deliberate, and judge, and choose, and set ourselves in motion, and use the things that are up to us.\n\nCONCERNING BELIEF. But neither is choice a kind of belief. For belief is twofold: rational and irrational; but choice is changeable. Now they say that irrational belief is a simple and ready knowledge; as when someone puts forward another's belief, not knowing its cause—for example, saying that the soul is immortal, yet not giving a demonstrative cause of its immortality. But rational belief they say is knowledge, established by the completion of the mind.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":9,"ref":"p9","source":"ὡς ὅταν τις λογισάμενός τι, καί τήν αἰτίαν αὐτοῦ ἐπιστημονικῶς ἀποδίδωσι. Διανοία γάρ ἐστιν, ἡ διήκουσα καί διαστηματικῶς ἐνεργοῦσα, ἀπό προτάσεως ἀρχομένη μέχρι συμπεράσματος. Οἷον, προτίθεταί τις δεῖξαι τήν ψυχήν ἀθάνατον, καί λέγει· Ἐπειδή αὐτοκίνητος ἐστιν ἡ ψυχή· τό δέ αὐτοκίνητον, ἀεικίνητον· τό δέ ἀεικίνητον, ἀθάνατον· ἡ ψυχή ἄρα ἀθάνατος. Ἤ πάλιν· Ἐπειδή ἀσύνθετός ἐστιν ἡ ψυχή· τό δέ ἀσύνθετον, ἀδιάλυτον· τό δέ ἀδιάλυτον, ἀθάνατον· ἡ ψυχή ἄρα ἀθάνατος. Διανοίας γάρ ἴδιον, τό διανύειν τινά ὁδόν ἐπί τήν τοῦ πράγματος γνῶσιν φέρουσαν· ὁδεύει δέ ἀπό τῶν προτάσεων διά τῶν συλλογισμῶν ἐπί τά συμπεράσματα, καί ποιεῖ τήν λογικήν δόξαν. Καί πάλιν, ἡ μέν δόξα οὐ μόνον τῶν ἐφ᾿ ἡμῖν, ἀλλά καί τῶν οὐκ ἐφ᾿ ἡμῖν· ἡ δέ προαίρεσις, μόνον τῶν ἐφ᾿ ἡμῖν· καί δόξαν μέν ἀληθῆ λέγομεν καί ψευδῆ· προαίρεσιν δέ, οὐ λέγομεν ἀληθῆ καί ψευδῆ· ἀλλά καλήν καί κακήν· καί ἡ μέν δόξα, τῶν καθόλου· ἡ δέ προαίρεσις, τῶν καθέκαστα· περί γάρ τῶν πρακτῶν ἡ προαίρεσις· ταῦτα γάρ τά καθέκαστα. Διά πλειόνων, ὡς οἶμαι, φανερόν γέγονε, μή εἶναι δόξαν, τήν προαίρεσιν. Εἰ γάρ ἡ μέν δόξα κατ᾿ ἀποπεράτωσιν τῆς διανοίας συνισταμένη, γνῶσίς ἐστιν· ἡ δέ προαίρεσις, ὄρεξις βουλευτική τῶν ἐφ᾿ ἡμῖν πρακτῶν, οὐκ ἔστι τῇ δόξῃ ταυτόν ἡ προαίρεσις.","english":"as when someone, having reasoned something out, also gives its cause in a scientific manner. For understanding is that which proceeds through and operates discursively, beginning from a premise and going as far as the conclusion. For example, someone sets out to show that the soul is immortal, and says: Since the soul is self-moving; but what is self-moving is ever-moving; but what is ever-moving is immortal; therefore the soul is immortal. Or again: Since the soul is simple; but what is simple is indissoluble; but what is indissoluble is immortal; therefore the soul is immortal. For it is proper to understanding to traverse a certain road leading to the knowledge of the matter; and it travels from premises through syllogisms to conclusions, and produces rational opinion. And again, opinion is not only of things up to us, but also of things not up to us; but choice is only of things up to us; and we call opinion true and false, but we do not call choice true and false, but good and bad; and opinion is of universals, but choice is of particulars; for choice is concerned with things to be done, and these are particulars. Through more arguments, as I think, it has become clear that choice is not opinion. For if opinion, being constituted by the completion of understanding, is knowledge, but choice is a deliberative desire of things to be done that are up to us, choice is not the same as opinion.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":10,"ref":"p10","source":"ΠΕΡΙ ΦΡΟΝΗΜΑΤΟΣ, ΗΓΟΥΝ ΦΡΟΝΗΣΕΩΣ Ἀλλ᾿ οὔτε φρόνημα ἤγουν φρόνησίς ἐστι ἡ προαίρεσις. Εἴπερ τήν μέν φρόνησιν, ὄρεξιν θεωρητικήν λογικῶν καί γνωστικῶν μαθημάτων φασίν· ἤ ἔξιν ἀνοίας τε καί ὑπερνοίας ἀντίπαλον· τήν δέ προαίρεσιν, ὡς διαφόρως ἀποδέδωκεν ὁ λόγος, ὄρεξιν βουλευτικήν τῶν ἐφ᾿ ἡμῖν. Γίνεσθαι δέ τήν φρόνησίν φασι κατά τόν τρόπον τοῦτον· οἶον, τήν μέν πρώτην τοῦ νοῦ κίνησιν, νόησιν\n\nκαλοῦσι· τήν δέ περί τινος νόησιν, ἔννοιαν λέγουσι· ἥτις ἐπιμείνασα καί τυπώσασα τήν ψυχήν πρός τό νοούμενον, ἐνθύμησις προσαγορεύεται· ἡ δέ ἐνθύμησις ἐν ταυτῷ μείνασα, καί ἑαυτήν βασανίσασα, φρόνησις ὀνομάζεται· ἡ δέ φρόνησις πλατυνθεῖσα, ποιεῖ τόν διαλογισμόν· ἐνδιάθετον λόγον παρά τοῖς ταῦτα δεινοῖς ὀνομαζόμενον· ὅν ὑπογράφοντές φασι, κίνημα τῆς ψυχῆς εἶναι πληρέστατον ἐν τῷ διαλογιστικῷ γινόμενον, ἄνευ τινός ἐκφωνήσεως· ἐξ οὖ τόν προφορικόν λόγον φασί προϊέναι.\n\nΦρόνημα δέ πάλιν εἶναι λέγουσι, τήν ἐκ τῆς φρονήσεως ἐπιγινομένην τῷ φρονητικῷ γνῶσιν τοῦ φρονηθέντος· φρόνησιν γάρ, καί φρονητόν καί φρονητικόν καί φρόνημά φασι. Καί φρόνησις μέν ἐστιν, ἡ σχέσις· φρονητόν δέ, τό φρονούμενον· φρονητικόν, τό φρονοῦν· καί φρόνημα, ἡ γενομένη ἐκ τῆς φρονήσεως τῷ φρονητικῷ γνῶσις τοῦ φρονηθέντος πράγματος. Εἰ τοίνυν τοῦτο μέν οὕτως· ἡ δέ προαίρεσις οὐχ οὕτως· ἄρα προαίρεσις οὐκ ἔστι τό φρόνημα. Δέδεικται τοίνυν, ὡς οἶμαι, σαφῶς, οὐκ εἶναι ταυτόν ἀλλήλοις τά προταθέντα, κατά τούς τοῦτο νομίζοντας.","english":"CONCERNING FRONEMA, THAT IS, FRONESIS. But neither is fronema, that is, phronesis, the same as proairesis. For they say that phronesis is a contemplative desire for rational and cognitive learning, or a habit opposed to folly and to hypernoia; whereas proairesis, as the account has variously delivered it, is a deliberative desire for the things that are up to us. And they say that phronesis comes about in this manner: for example, they call the first movement of the intellect noesis;\n\nand the noesis concerning something they call ennoia; and this, having persisted and impressed the soul toward the object of thought, is addressed as enthymesis; and the enthymesis, having remained in the same state and having tested itself, is named phronesis; and phronesis, having been widened, produces dialogismos—called by those skilled in these matters the internal word (endiathetos logos); which, they say in outlining it, is the most complete movement of the soul occurring in the dialogistic faculty, without any vocal utterance; from which, they say, the spoken word (prophorikos logos) proceeds.\n\nAnd again they say that fronema is the knowledge of the thing thought, arising from phronesis in the phronetic faculty. For they speak of phronesis, and phroneton, and phronetikon, and fronema. And phronesis is the relation; phroneton is the object thought; phronetikon is that which thinks; and fronema is the knowledge of the thing thought that comes to be in the phronetic faculty from phronesis. If, then, this is so, but proairesis is not so, then proairesis is not fronema. It has been shown, then, as I think, clearly, that the things proposed are not the same as one another, according to those who think so.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":11,"ref":"p11","source":"Εἰ δέ φαῖεν ἀλλήλοις πάντως εἶναι ταυτόν, διά τό πάντων ἐπίσης, ὡς γένος κατηγορεῖσθαι τήν ὄρεξιν, ἤγουν τήν ὀρεκτικήν τῆς φύσεως δύναμιν· εἰπάτωσαν ἀλλήλοις εἶναι ταυτόν καί πάντα τά εἴδη, τά τε χερσαῖα, καί πτηνά καί ἔνυδρα, διά τό πάντων ἐπίσης ὡς γενικώτερον, κατηγορεῖσθαι γένος τό ζῶον, φροῦδος αὐτοῖς ἡ τοῦ παντός γενήσεται διακόσμησις· πραγμάτων οὐκ οὖσα διαφόρων ὑπόστασις, ἀλλά μόνον ψιλῶν ὀνομάτων ἔκφανσις. ΟΤΙ... ΟΥΚ ΕΣΤΑΙ ΜΕΤΑ ΤΗΝ ΑΝΑΣΤΑΣΙΝ ΕΝ ΤΟ ΘΕΛΗΜΑ ΤΩΝ ΑΓΙΩΝ ΠΡΟΣ ΑΛΛΗΛΟΥΣ... ΘΕΟΝ Οὐκοῦν ἡ προαίρεσις προσλαβοῦσα τήν ἐπί τοῖς ἐφ᾿ ἡμῖν ὁρμήν τε καί χρῆσιν, πέρας τῆς κατ᾿ ὄρεξιν, ἡμῖν λογικῆς ὑπάρχει κινήσεως. Τό γάρ φύσει λογικόν, δύναμιν ἔχον φυσικήν τόν λογικήν ὄρεξιν, ἤν καί θέλησιν τῆς νοερᾶς καλοῦσι ψυχῆς· ὀρέγεται καί λογίζεται· καί λογισάμενον βούλεται. Βούλησιν γάρ εἶναί φασιν, οὐ τήν ἁπλῶς φυσικήν, ἀλλά τήν ποιάν· τουτέστι, τήν περί τινος θέλησιν· καί βουλόμενον ζητεῖ· καί ζητοῦν σκέπτεται· καί σκεπτόμενον βουλεύεται· καί βουλευόμενον κρίνει· και κρίνον προαιρεῖται· καί προαιρούμενον ὁρμᾷ· καί ὁρμῶν, κέχρηται· καί χρώμενον παύεται τῆς ὀρεκτικῆς ἐπ᾿ ἐκεῖνο κινήσεως. Οὐδείς γάρ κέχρηται, μή πρότερον ὁρμήσας· καί οὐδείς ὁρμᾷ, μή προαιρούμενος· καί οὐδείς προαιρεῖται, μή κρίνας· καί οὐδείς κρίνει, μή βουλευσάμενος· καί οὐδείς βουλεύεται, μή σκεψάμενος· καί οὐδείς σκέπτεται, μή ζητήσας· καί οὐδείς ζητεῖ, μή βουληθείς· καί οὐδείς βούλεται, μή λογισάμενος· καί οὐδείς λογίζεται, μή ὀρεγόμενος· καί οὐδείς λογικῶς ὀρέγεται, μή ὑπάρχων φύσει λογικός.","english":"But if they should claim that all these are altogether the same as one another, because desire—that is, the desiring power of nature—is predicated equally of all as a genus, let them say that all the species too are the same as one another—land animals, birds, and water creatures—because \"animal\" is predicated equally of all as a more general genus; then the ordering of the whole will be gone for them, since it is not the substance of different things but only the manifestation of bare names. THAT... THERE WILL NOT BE AFTER THE RESURRECTION IN THE WILL OF THE SAINTS TOWARD ONE ANOTHER... GOD. Therefore proairesis, having taken to itself the impulse and use in matters that are up to us, is for us the end of the rational movement according to desire. For what is rational by nature, having a natural power—the rational desire, which they also call the will of the intelligent soul—desires and reasons; and having reasoned, it wills. For they say that will is not the simply natural will but the qualified will—that is, the will concerning something; and willing, it seeks; and seeking, it considers; and considering, it deliberates; and deliberating, it judges; and judging, it chooses; and choosing, it impulses; and impelling, it uses; and using, it ceases from the desiring movement toward that thing. For no one uses without first having impelled; and no one impels without choosing; and no one chooses without judging; and no one judges without deliberating; and no one deliberates without considering; and no one considers without seeking; and no one seeks without willing; and no one wills without reasoning; and no one reasons without desiring; and no one desires rationally without being rational by nature.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":12,"ref":"p12","source":"Λογικόν οὖν φύσει ζῶον ὑπάρχων ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ὀρεκτικός ἐστι, καί λογιστικός, καί βουλητικός, καί ζητητικός, καί σκεπτικός καί προαιρετικός, καί ὁρμητικός καί χρηστικός.\n\nΕἰ δέ μετά τῶν λοιπῶν καί προαιρετικόν φύσει ζῶον ὁ ἄνθρωπος· ἡ δέ προαίρεσις τῶν ἐφ᾿ ἡμῖν, καί δι᾿ ἡμῶν γίνεσθαι δυναμένων, καί ἄδηλον ἐχόντων τό τέλος ἐστίν· ἐφ᾿ ἡμῖν δέ, καί ὁ τῶν ἀρετῶν λόγος, τῶν κατά φύσιν δυνάμεων ὑπάρχων ἐνεργούμενος νόμος· καί ὁ κατά παράχρησιν τῶν αὐτῶν δυνάμεων τρόπος, τά παρά φύσιν πάθη παρυφιστῶν· ἄρα πᾶς φύσει προαιρετικός, τῶν ἀντικειμένων ἐπιδεκτικός τε καί κριτικός. Εἰ δέ τῶν ἀντικειμένων κριτικός, καί προαιρετικός πάντως· εἰ δέ προαιρετικός, ὡς ὑπ᾿ αὐτῷ κειμένης τῆς ἐπ᾿ ἄμφω κινήσεως, οὐκ ἄτρεπτος φύσει καθέστηκεν(3). Οὐκοῦν ἐπειδή τῶν ἀμφιβόλων ἐστίν, ὡς ἐφ᾿ ἡμῖν, ἤ τε βουλή καί ἡ κρίσις καί ἡ προαίρεσις, ὅταν οὐκ ἔστι τά\n\nἀμφίβολα, τῆς αὐθυποστάτου πᾶσιν ἐμφανοῦς ἀληθείας δειχθείσης, προαίρεσις οὐκ ἔστι διά τῶν μέσων καί ἐφ᾿ ἡμῖν ὄντων κινουμένη πραγμάτων· ὅτι μηδέ κρίσις, ἀφορισμόν ποιουμένη τῶν ἀντικειμένων, ὧν τό κρεῖττον ποιούμεθα πρό τοῦ χείρονος αἱρετόν· εἰ δέ τότε κατά τόν νῦν κρατοῦντα νόμον τῆς φύσεως, προαίρεσις οὐκ ἔστι, πάσης ἀπογενομένης τῶν ὄντων ἀμφιβολίας, ὄρεξις ἐνεργής ἔσται μόνη νοερά, τοῖς οὕτω κατά φύσιν ὀρεκτικοῖς· μόνης ἀφράστως ἐπειλημμένη τῆς τοῦ κατά φύσιν ὀρεκτοῦ μυστικῆς ἀπολαύσεως, πρός ἤν ἔσχε διά τῶν ἀπηριθμημένων τήν κίνησιν· ἧς ὁ κόρος ἐστίν, ἡ ἐπ᾿ ἄπειρον ἐπίτασις αὐτῆς τῆς τῶν ἀπολαυόντων ὀρέξεως·","english":"Man, then, being by nature a rational living being, is desiring, and reasoning, and willing, and seeking, and inquiring, and deliberating, and choosing, and impelled, and capable of use.\n\nBut if, along with the rest, man is by nature a choosing living being; and choice belongs to things that are up to us and can come to be through us, and that have an unclear end; and the principle of the virtues is also up to us, being a law operative in the natural powers; and the mode of the same powers when misused brings in the passions contrary to nature—then everyone who is by nature capable of choice is also receptive and discerning of opposites. And if he is discerning of opposites, he is certainly also capable of choice; and if he is capable of choice, since the movement toward both sides lies under his control, he is not established as by nature immutable. Therefore, since deliberation and judgment and choice are among doubtful matters, as being up to us, whenever the doubtful matters are not present—the self-subsistent truth having been shown forth clearly to all—there is no choice, since it is moved through intermediate matters that are up to us; for neither is there judgment, making a separation of opposites, of which we make the better choice before the worse. But if at that time, according to the law of nature that now prevails, there is no choice, all ambiguity of beings having departed, there will be only an active noetic desire, in those who are thus desiring according to nature; it has ineffably laid hold of the mystical enjoyment of the natural object of desire alone, toward which it had its movement through the things enumerated; whose satiety is the endless intensification of the desire itself of those who enjoy it.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":13,"ref":"p13","source":"ἑκάστου τοσοῦτον ὑπερφυῶς μεθέξοντος, ὅσον ἐπόθησε· καί πρός αὐτό τό φύσει ποθούμενον ἄμεσος συνανάκρασις. Εἰ δέ ὅσον τις ἐπόθησε, τοσοῦτον μεθέξει τοῦ ποθουμένου· τῷ μέν τῆς φύσεως λόγῳ, μία δειχθήσεται πάντων ἡ θέλησις· τῷ δέ τῆς κινήσεως τρόπῳ, διάφορος. Εἰ δέ τρόπῳ τῷ κατά τήν κίνησιν οὐ μία πάντων ἀνθρώπων ἡ θέλησις· οὐδέποτε μία τοῦ τε Θεοῦ καί τῶν σωζομένων, ὥς τισιν ἔδοξε, κατά πάντα τρόπον γενήσεται θέλησις· κἄν ἕν τό θεληθέν ἐστι τῷ τε Θεῷ καί τοῖς ἁγίοις, ἡ σωτηρία τῶν σωζομένων· σκοπός ὑπάρχουσα θεῖος, ὥς τέλος πάντων προεπινοηθέν τῶν αἰώνων· περί ὅ, τῶν τε σωζομένων πρός ἀλλήλους καί Θεοῦ τοῦ σώζοντος, κατά τήν θέλησιν γενήσεται σύμβασις· ὅλου ἐν πᾶσι γενικῶς, καί τό καθ᾿ ἕκαστον ἰδικῶς χωρήσαντος τοῦ Θεοῦ, τοῦ τά πάντα πληροῦντος τῷ μέτρῳ τῆς χάριτος· καί ἐν πᾶσι πληρουμένου, μελῶν δίκην, κατά τήν ἀναλογίαν τῆς ἐν ἑκάστῳ πίστεως αὐτῷ συμφυεῖσιν. Εἰ γάρ τοῦ μέν Θεοῦ τό θέλημα φύσει σωστικόν, τό δέ τῶν ἄνθρώπων φύσει σωζόμενον ταυτόν οὐκ ἄν εἴη ποτέ τό φύσει σῶζον, καί τό φύσει σωζόμενον· κἄν εἷς ἀμφοτέρων σκοπός, ἡ σωτηρία τῶν ὅλων καθέστηκεν· ὑπό μέν τοῦ Θεοῦ προβεβλημένη· ὑπό δέ τῶν ἁγίων προῃρημένη. Εἰ δέ ταυτόν ἔσται καί ἕν ἀριθμῷ τό τε θεῖον καί τό ἀνθρώπινον θέλημα, κατά τούς λέγοντας, ἐπειδή θελήματι πάντας ὁ Θεός ὑπέστησε τούς αἰῶνας, ἔσται τῷ αὐτῷ θελήματι δημιουργός καί ὁ τῶν ἁγίων χορός, εἴτε φυσικῷ, εἴτε γνωμικῷ· καί ἁπλῶς, ᾧ πεφύκασι πρός τό θεῖον ταυτίζεσθαι· ὅπερ ἄτοπον, καί μόνης, ὡς οἶμαι, ῥεμβαζομένης ἔργον διανοίας ἐστιν.","english":"Each will partake supernaturally to the extent that he desired, and there will be an immediate commingling with the very object of natural desire. But if each will partake of the desired object to the extent that he desired, then by the principle of nature the will of all will be shown to be one, but by the manner of movement it is different. And if by the manner according to movement the will of all men is not one, then never will the will of God and of those who are saved become one in every manner, as some have supposed; even if the object willed is one and the same for God and for the saints—namely, the salvation of those who are saved—existing as a divine purpose, foreknown as the end of all the ages. Concerning this, there will be a coming-together in will, both of the saved with one another and with God who saves; God having gone forth universally in all things and individually in each particular, filling all things with the measure of grace, and being filled in all things, as it were members, by those united to him according to the proportion of the faith in each. For if the will of God is by nature saving, and the will of men is by nature being saved, the same thing could never be both that which saves by nature and that which is saved by nature; even if one purpose belongs to both—the salvation of all things—having been set forth by God and chosen beforehand by the saints. But if the divine will and the human will are to be the same and one in number, as those who say so maintain, then since God by his will brought all the ages into being, the choir of the saints will be a creator by that same will, whether natural or deliberative; and simply put, by that will by which they are naturally identified with the divine—which is absurd, and, as I think, the work of a mind wandering alone.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":14,"ref":"p14","source":"Ἑως γάρ ἄν μή πάντες δημιουργοί, ἤ μόνον ἀπόστολοι, ἤ μόνον προφῆται· καί οὗτοι πάλιν, ἤ Πέτρος μόνον, ἤ Μωσῆς μόνον· καί οὐ μία, πολλαί δέ παρά τῷ Θεῷ καί Πατρί μοναί τοῖς ἁγίοις εἰσί· τῷ τε κατά φύσιν ἀγαθῷ θελήματι, τό κατά μίμησιν πρός αὐτό κινηθέν ἀνθρώπινον, ποιότητι τε φυσικῇ καί ποσότητι εἴη ταυτόν, ὅπερ ἀμήχανον (πῶς γάρ ἄν τῷ φύσει μεθεκτικῷ, τό φύσει μεθεκτόν εἴη ταυτόν;) μίαν γνώμην κατά πάντα τρόπον εἶναι τοῦ τε Θεοῦ καί τοῦ τῶν ἁγίων χοροῦ, ἀδύνατον· κἄν, ὡς εἶπον, ἕν ἐστιν ἀμφοτέροις τό θεληθέν, ἡ σωτηρία τῶν ὅλων· περί ἥν τῶν θελημάτων ἡ ἕνωσις. Ἀλλ᾿, ὡς ἔοικεν, ἀγνοοῦτες οἷος αὐτοῖς ἐξ ὧν λέγουσιν ἀτοπίας ἀναφύεται λόγος, ἀσκόπως ἐφ᾿ ἅ μή δεῖ φέρεσθαι τήν σφῶν αὐτῶν συγχωροῦσι διάνοιαν. Εἰ γάρ οὐκ ἔστι θέλημα, ὁπωσοῦν νοούμενον ἤ λεγόμενον ἄσχετον, καί τό πρός τι γένος οὐκ ἔχον κατηγορούμενον· ποιότης ἐστίν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ τῶν καθ᾿ αὐτά, ὡς ἐν ἑτέρῳ δηλαδή θεωρούμενον. Εἰ δέ τῶν ἐν ἑτέρῳ θεωρουμένων ἐστί τό θέλημα, συμβεβηκός πάντως ἐστίν· εἰ δέ συμβεβηκός, ἤ οὐσίας(4), ἤ ὑποστάσεως ἔσται χαρακτηριστικόν (τούτων γάρ οὐδέν μέσον ἐστί καθ᾿ αὐτό θεωρούμενον, ἤτοι μηδετέρων μετέχον, ἤ ἐξ ἀμφοῖν σύνθετον)· καί εἰ μέν οὐσίας, μίαν τοῦ τε Θεοῦ καί τῶν ἁγίων φύσιν κατηγορήσουσι· πάντων διά τοῦ ἑνός θελήματος, τήν εἰς μίαν οὐσίαν παθόντων συναίρεσιν. Τό γάρ γενικῶς τινων ἐπίσης κατηγορούμενον, οὐσίας, ὑφ᾿ ἥν τελοῦσιν, ὑπάρχει δηλωτικόν. Εἰ δέ ὑποστάσεως, μία πάντων ἔσται τοῦ τε Θεοῦ καί τῶν ἁγίων ὑπόστασις, πάντων ἀλλήλοις εἰς ταυτόν συγχωνευθέντων. Τό γάρ ἰδικῶς τινι καθ᾿","english":"For until all are creators, or only apostles, or only prophets; and these again, either only Peter, or only Moses; and there are not one but many mansions with God and the Father for the saints; and the human will moved by imitation toward the good will according to nature would be the same in natural quality and quantity—which is impossible (for how could what is by nature participable be the same as what is by nature capable of participation?)—it is impossible that there be one judgment in every way of God and of the choir of the saints; even if, as I said, the object willed is one for both, namely the salvation of all things, concerning which is the union of wills. But, as it seems, not knowing what absurdities arise for them from what they say, they recklessly allow their own thought to be carried toward things it should not. For if will, understood or spoken of in any way, is not without relation, and does not have a genus predicated of it, it is a quality, but not of things in themselves, as evidently contemplated in another. And if will is among things contemplated in another, it is altogether an accident; and if an accident, it will be characteristic either of essence or of hypostasis (for there is nothing between these contemplated in itself, either partaking of neither or composed of both); and if of essence, they will predicate one nature of God and the saints, all having through the one will suffered a contraction into one essence. For what is predicated generally and equally of certain things is declarative of the essence under which they are classed. But if of hypostasis, there will be one hypostasis of all, both of God and of the saints, all having been fused together into the same. For what is predicated specifically of something according to","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":15,"ref":"p15","source":"ὑπόστασιν ἐμπεφυκός, ἄλλοις ἀπαραλλάκτως ἐνθεωρούμενον, πάντας ἀλλήλοις συγχεῖ· καί τόν ἑκάστου τοῦ, πῶς εἶναι λόγον, ποιεῖ πάντελῶς ἀδιάγνωστον. ΟΤΙΠΕΡ ΕΝ ΘΕΛΗΜΑ ΟΥ ΔΥΝΑΤΟΝ ΕΠΙ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ ΛΕΓΕΣΘΑΙ· ΕΙΤΕ ΦΥΣΙΚΟΝ, ΕΙΤΕ ΠΡΟΑΙΡΕΤΙΚΟΝ...\n\nΟὐκοῦν, εἴπερ ἐν τούτοις αὐτῶν ὁ λόγος ἠσθένησεν· οὐδέ ἐπί τόν Κύριον ἡμῶν καί Θεόν, καί Σωτῆρα τῶν ὅλων Χριστόν μεταβαίνων, καί ἕν ὁπωσοῦν λεγόμενον ἐπ᾿ αὐτοῦ θέλημα κατασκευάζων εὐσθενήσοι ποτ᾿ ἄν. Εἰ μέν γάρ φυσικόν εἴποιεν τοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦτο τό θέλημα, τήν Μανιχαϊκήν αὐτόθεν νοσήσαντες δειχθήσονται φαντασίαν, ὡς τήν οὐκ οὖσαν, οὔτε γενησομένην μίαν Χριστοῦ φύσιν, καταλλήλῳ θελήματι δηλουμένην πρεσβεύοντες· τήν τε μανίαν Ἀρείου κατά ταυτόν, καί τήν Ἀπολιναρίου ζηλώσαντες φωραθήσονται συνουσίωσιν· ὡς τοῦ Θεοῦ καί Πατρός, καί τῆς ἀχράντου Μητρός, τόν Χριστόν κατά τήν οὐσίαν ἀλλοτριώσαντες. Τό γάρ φυσικόν θέλημα, φύσιν χαρακτηρίζει· καί οὐδείς ἀντερεῖ λόγος. Εἰ δέ φύσιν χαρακτηρίζει, δῆλον ὡς φύσιν, οἱ τοῦτο λέγοντες, τόν Χριστόν καταγγέλλουσι. Εἰ δέ φύσις ὁ Χριστός, οὔτε Θεός φύσει, οὔτε μήν ἄνθρωπος φύσει ἐστίν ἀληθῶς· εἴπερ μή φύσει Χριστός ἀληθῶς ὁ Πατήρ, ἤ φύσει Χριστός ἀληθῶς ἡ μήτηρ. Εἰ δέ φύσει Θεός ὁ Χριστός, καθό φύσει Χριστός, πολύθεος ὁ τοῦτο λέγων· ἄλλην Πατρός ὡς Θεοῦ φύσιν, οὐκ ὄντος φύσει Χριστοῦ· καί ἄλλην Χριστοῦ φύσιν, ὡς Θεοῦ πρεσβεύων, ὄντος φύσει Χριστοῦ· καί πέρας αὐτοῖς τῆς τοιαύτης τερατολογίας, ἡ πρός πολυθεΐαν ἔσται κατάκρισις.","english":"having grown into a hypostasis, is contemplated indistinguishably in others, it confounds all things with one another, and makes the principle of how each one is entirely undiscernible. THAT NO ONE WILL CAN BE SPOKEN OF IN THE CASE OF CHRIST, WHETHER NATURAL OR PROAERETIC...\n\nTherefore, if their argument has been weakened in these matters, it would never be able to prevail even when passing on to our Lord and God and Savior of all, Christ, and constructing one will, however it is spoken of, in him. For if they should say that this will of Christ is natural, they will be shown straightway to be sick with the Manichaean fantasy, in that they champion one nature of Christ that neither exists nor will ever come to be, indicated by a corresponding will; and they will be caught at the same time emulating the madness of Arius and the consubstantiation of Apollinaris, in that they alienate Christ in his essence from God the Father and from the immaculate Mother. For the natural will characterizes a nature; and no argument will contradict this. And if it characterizes a nature, it is clear that those who say this proclaim Christ to be a nature. But if Christ is a nature, he is neither God by nature nor truly man by nature; since the Father is not truly Christ by nature, nor is the mother truly Christ by nature. But if Christ is God by nature, insofar as he is Christ by nature, the one who says this is a polytheist, championing another nature of the Father as God—since Christ is not by nature—and another nature of Christ as God—since he is by nature Christ; and the end of such monstrous talk for them will be condemnation to polytheism.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":16,"ref":"p16","source":"Εἰ δέ προαιρετικόν, ὅπερ καλοῦσι γνωμικόν, ἤ κατά φύσιν ἔσται πάντως, τόν τρόπον τῆς τῶν ἐπί Χριστῷ πρακτῶν χρήσεως ἔχον διά πάντων συνεύοντα τῷ λόγῳ τῆς φύσεως· καί οὐκ ἀπαθής, ἀλλ᾿ ἐγκρατής οὕτω γε παθῶν κατ᾿ αὕτούς ὁ Χριστός ὑπάρχων δειχθήσεται· καί κατά προκοπήν ἀγαθός, ὅ τί ποτε τήν φύσιν ἐστί. Τοιοῦτον γάρ ἡ κατά φύσιν προαίρεσις τῶν ἐπί τῷ αἱρουμένῳ πρακτῶν, τό κρεῖττον ποιουμένη πρό τοῦ χείρονος αἱρετόν· ἤ παρά φύσιν, καί τόν τρόπον τῆς τῶν ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ χρήσεως δείξει φθαρτικόν τοῦ λόγου γεγενημένον τῆς φύσεως· τοιοῦτον γάρ ἡ παρά φύσιν προαίρεσις, τῶν ἐπί τῷ αἱρουμένῳ πρακτῶν, τό χεῖρον ποιουμένη πρό τοῦ κρείττονος προαιρετόν. Κατορθωθείσης γάρ ἤ παρασφαλείσης τῆς τοῦ αἱρουμένου τῶν ἐπ' αὐτῷ πρακτῶν κατά τήν βούλευσιν κρίσεως, ἧς οἱονεί ψῆφος ἐστιν ἡ προαίρεσις, ἤ ὁ κατά φύσιν αὐτῷ διά τῆς εὐχρηστίας ὑφίσταται λόγος, ἤ ὁ παρά φύσιν διά τῆς ἀχρηστίας παρυφίσταται τρόπος· ὁ μέν, τῆς κατά φύσιν· ὁ δέ, τῆς παρά φύσιν προαιρέσεως γινόμενος ἄγγελος.","english":"But if it is a matter of choice, which they call opinion-based, it will either be wholly according to nature, having the manner of the use of the things done in Christ's case, consonant in all respects with the principle of nature; and thus Christ will be shown to be not impassible but merely self-controlled in relation to passions, according to them; and good by progress, whatever it is by nature. For such is the choice according to nature of the things done by the one choosing, making the better choice before the worse; or it will be contrary to nature, and will show the manner of the use of the things done in his case to have become destructive of the principle of nature. For such is the choice contrary to nature, of the things done by the one choosing, making the worse choice before the better. For when the judgment of the one choosing concerning the things done in his case has been set right or has erred in deliberation, of which choice is, as it were, the vote, either the principle according to nature subsists for him through good use, or the manner contrary to nature subsists alongside through misuse; the one being the messenger of the choice according to nature, the other of the choice contrary to nature.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":17,"ref":"p17","source":"Καί εἰ μέν κατά φύσιν ἡ τοῦ Χριστοῦ προαίρεσις ᾖ, οὐ μόνον ἐπί τοῖς αὐτοῖς πάλιν αὐτούς αἰτιασόμεθα, φύσιν ἄλλην Χριστοῦ θεότητος μέσην καί κτίσεως τολμηρῶς σχεδιάζοντας· ἀλλά καί ληροῦντας γελάσομεν, φύσει τῶν ἀντικειμένων κατά προαίρεσιν ὡς ψιλόν ἄνθρωπον κατά Νεστόριον τόν Χριστόν δεκτικόν ποιουμένους. Εἰ δέ παρά φύσιν, σιωπῶ παρατρέχων τό βλάσφημον, μήπως λαθών τοῖς κατ᾿ αὐτῶν ἐλέγχοις τήν γλῶτταν χρανθήσομαι. Προαιρετικόν γάρ ἐπί Χριστοῦ θέλημα φάσκοντες, ὑπόστασιν Χριστοῦ πάντως ὑπέδειξαν κατά φύσιν κινεῖσθαι καί παρά φύσιν δυναμένην. Τοιοῦτον γάρ, ὡς ἔφθην εἰπών, ἡ προαίρεσις· εἰ δέ τῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ χαρακτηριστικόν ἐστιν ὑποστάσεως, ἀφώρισαν αὐτόν, κατά δή τοῦτο τό θέλημα, τοῦ τε Πατρός καί τοῦ Πνεύματος ἑτερόβουλόν τε καί ἑτερόγνωμον. Τό γάρ τῷ Υἱῷ, καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν ἰδικῶς ἐνθεωρούμενον, Πατρί καί Πνεύματι καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν παντελῶς ἀκοινώνητον. Ὅσοι τοίνυν τῶν ἁγίων Πατέρων(5) ἐπί τῆς κατά Χριστόν ἀνθρωπότητος προαιρέσεως ἐπεμνήσθησαν, τήν ὀρεκτικήν τῆς φύσεως δύναμιν οὐσιωδῶς· ταυτόν δέ φάναι, τήν φυσικήν θέλησιν, ἤ","english":"And if Christ's choice is according to nature, we shall not only again accuse them on the same grounds, as boldly fabricating another nature of Christ's divinity intermediate between Godhead and creation, but we shall also laugh at them as babbling fools, since by nature they make Christ, according to Nestorius, as a mere man receptive of things opposed by choice. But if it is contrary to nature, I pass over in silence the blasphemy, lest I be secretly defiled in tongue by the refutations against them. For in saying that there is a choice-based will in Christ, they have altogether shown that Christ's hypostasis is by nature moved and is able to move contrary to nature. For such, as I said before, is choice; but if it is characteristic of Christ's hypostasis, then by this very will they have separated him from the Father and the Spirit as of different will and different mind. For what is contemplated individually in the Son according to hypostasis is wholly unshared according to hypostasis with the Father and the Spirit. Therefore, as many of the holy Fathers as made mention of choice in the humanity according to Christ, [meant] the appetitive power of nature essentially—and to say the same, the natural will—or","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":18,"ref":"p18","source":"τήν ἡμῶν αὐτῶν προαίρεσιν τῷ σαρκωθέντι Θεῷ κατ᾿ οἰκείωσεν ἐνυπάρχουσαν, παρεδήλωσαν.\n\nὍ δή μάλιστα σκοπήσας ὁ σός δοῦλος καί μαθητής, ἐν τοῖς πρός τόν ἁγιώτατόν μου κύριον καί διδάσκαλον περί τῶν ἀπόρων τῆς ἁγίας Γραφῆς ἐκτεθεῖσι Θαλάσσιον, εἶπον προαίρεσιν· εἰδῶς, ὡς εἴπερ ἡμῖν γέγονεν ἄνθρωπος ὁ ποιητής τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ἡμῖν δηλονότι καί τήν ἀτρεψίαν κατώρθωσε τῆς προαιρέσεως, ὡς ἀτρεψίας δημιουργός· τά μέν τῆς ἡμῶν ἐπιτιμίας δι᾿ αὐτῆς τῆς πείρας, οὐσιωδῶς κατ᾿ ἐξουσίαν πάθη δεχόμενος· τά δέ τῆς ἀτιμίας, κατ᾿ οἰκείωσιν φιλανθρώπως ἀναδεχόμενος· ὧν τήν μέν οἰκείωσιν, τῆς προαιρετικῆς ἀπαθείας αἰτίαν τῷ γένει πεποίηται· τήν δέ πεῖραν, τῆς ἑπομένης φυσικῆς ἀφθαρσίας πιστόν ἀῤῥαβῶνα δεδώρηται. Τό γάρ ἀνθρώπινον τοῦ Θεοῦ, κατά προαίρεσιν ὡς ἡμεῖς οὐ κεκίνηται, διά βουλῆς πεποιημένον καί κρίσεως τήν τῶν ἀντικειμένων διάγνωσιν· ἵνα μή φύσει κατά προαίρεσιν νομισθείη τρεπτόν· ἀλλ᾿ ἅμα τῇ πρός τόν Θεόν Λόγον ἑνώσει τό εἶναι λαβόν, ἀδίστακτον, μᾶλλον δέ στάσιμον τήν κατ᾿ ὄρεξιν φυσικήν ἤτοι θέλησιν, κίνησιν ἔσχεν· ἤ κυριώτερον εἰπεῖν, τήν στάσιν ἀκίνητον ἐν αὐτῷ κατά τήν ἀκραιφνεστάτην οὐσίωσιν τῷ Θεῷ Λόγῳ παντελῶς θεωθεῖσαν· ἥν φυσικῶς τυπῶν τε καί κινῶν(6), ὡς οἰκείαν, καί τῆς αὐτοῦ ψυχῆς φυσικήν, ἀφαντασιάστως πεπλήρωκε τό μέγα τῆς ὑπέρ ἡμῶν οἰκονομίας μυστήριον· μηδέν τοῦ προσλήμματος φυσικόν παντελῶς ἀπομειώσας, πλήν τῆς ἁμαρτίας· ἧς οὐδείς οὐδενί τῶν ὄντων καθάπαξ ἐνέσπαρται λόγος.","english":"They indicated our own choice, existing in the incarnate God by appropriation.\n\nThis is what your servant and disciple especially considered in the questions on the difficulties of Holy Scripture set out to my most holy lord and teacher Thalassius, when I said \"choice\"; knowing that if the Maker of men has become man for us, he has plainly also set right for us the immutability of choice, as the creator of immutability: on the one hand, the things of our punishment, through experience itself, receiving passions essentially by authority; on the other hand, the things of dishonor, receiving them in a humane way by appropriation. Of these, he has made the appropriation a cause of the freely chosen impassibility for our race, and the experience he has granted as a faithful pledge of the natural incorruption that follows. For the human element of God has not been moved by choice as we are, having been made by counsel and judgment the discernment of things opposed, lest it be thought naturally mutable by choice; but having received its being at once with its union to God the Word, it had an undeviating, or rather a stable, motion of natural desire, that is, of will; or, to speak more properly, it had an immovable stability in him, wholly deified in the purest essence by God the Word. This he naturally stamped and moved as his own and natural to his soul, and without imagination fulfilled the great mystery of the economy for us, in no way diminishing anything natural of the assumption, except sin; of which no principle has ever been sown in any of existing things.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":19,"ref":"p19","source":"Τῆς οὖν διαφορᾶς τῶν ὀνομάτων φανερᾶς ἡμῖν γεγενημένης, διά τῆς εὐκρινῶς ἑκάστῳ προσαρμοσθείσης ὑπογραφῆς, μή ταρασσώμεθα τῶν ἐπί συγχύσει τῶν νοουμένων πραγμάτων, ἀδιακρίτως τοῖς ὀνόμασι κεχριμένων ἀκούοντες· εἴπερ ἐν πράγμασιν ἡμῖν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ὀνόμασιν ἡ ἀλήθεια· καί νομίσωμεν ταυτόν εἶναι τό μή ταυτόν· ἀλλ' εὐσεβῶς πιστεύοντες, ὁμολογήσωμεν τόν Χριστόν Θεόν τέλειον ἀληθῶς, καί ἄνθρωπον τέλειον ἀληθῶς, τόν αὐτόν πράγματι κυρίως κατ᾿ ἀλήθειαν ὄντα, καί οὐ μόνῃ ψιλῇ κλήσει τοῦτο λεγόμενον· καί διά τοῦτο φύσεις δύο, ὧν αὐτός ἐστιν ὑπόστασις, εἴπερ οὐκ ἄσαρκος, αὐτόν καταγγείλωμεν· καί δύο θελήματα φυσικά, κατά τούς Πατέρας· εἴπερ οὐκ ἄψυχος καί ἄνους, ἔχειν αὐτόν παῤῥησιασώμεθα· καί μή θαῤῥήσωμεν καινίσαι φωνήν, ἐφ᾿ ᾗ καταφυγήν οὐκ ἔχομεν τήν πατρικήν αὐθεντίαν. Ἕν γάρ θέλημα Χριστοῦ φυσικόν, ἤ προαιρετικόν, οὐ μόνον διά τήν δειχθεῖσαν ἀτοπίαν δέος εἰπεῖν τούς εὐσεβεῖν ἐσπουδακότας, ἀλλ᾿ ὅτι καί μηδείς τῶν ἁγίων πώποτε τοῦτο φήσας πέφανται· ἀληθῶς εἰδότες, ὡς ἡ προαίρεσις τῶν ἐπ᾿ ἄμφω· τά καλά τε λέγω καί τά κακά, κινεῖσθαι δυναμένων ἐστίν· ὅπερ ἐπί Χριστοῦ τῆς ὄντως οὐσίας τῶν ἀγαθῶν καί πηγῆς, κἄν ἐννοεῖν, μή ὅτι γε λέγειν, πάσης ἀσεβείας πληρέστατον. Καί περί μέν τούτων ταῦτα. Περί δέ τῆς ἐν τῷ ἑβδόμῳ κεφαλαίῳ τῶν ἀπόρων τοῦ μεγάλου Γρηγορίου κειμένης μιᾶς ἐνεργείας, σαφής ὁ λόγος. Τήν ἐσόμενην γάρ κατά τό μέλλον τῶν ἁγίων ὑπογράφων κατάστασιν, ἔφην μίαν ἐνέργειαν τοῦ Θεοῦ καί τῶν ἁγίων, τήν πάντων ἐκθεωτικήν τῶν ἁγίων, τῆς ἐλπιζομένης μακαριότητος·","english":"Since, then, the difference of the names has become clear to us through the definition that has been precisely fitted to each, let us not be disturbed when we hear those who use the names indiscriminately for the confusion of the things understood; since in things, not in names, is the truth for us; and let us not think that the same is not the same; but believing piously, let us confess Christ truly perfect God and truly perfect man, the same being in reality principally according to truth, and not called this by a mere empty name; and for this reason let us proclaim that he has two natures, of which he himself is the hypostasis, since he is not without flesh; and two natural wills, according to the Fathers, since he is not without soul and mind, let us boldly affirm that he has; and let us not dare to coin a new phrase, for which we have no paternal authority as a refuge. For to say that there is one natural will of Christ, or one of choice, is feared not only because of the absurdity that has been shown, by those who have been zealous to be pious, but also because no one of the saints has ever appeared to say this; knowing truly that choice belongs to those who are able to be moved toward both, I mean the good and the evil; which, in the case of Christ, the truly substance and source of good things, even to conceive, let alone to say, is most full of all impiety. And concerning these things, this much. But concerning the one energy set forth in the seventh chapter of the Difficulties of the great Gregory, the account is clear. For describing the future state of the saints that will be in the age to come, I said that there is one energy of God and of the saints, the deifying of all the saints, of the hoped-for blessedness.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":20,"ref":"p20","source":"τοῦ μέν Θεοῦ κατ᾿ οὐσίαν ὑπάρχουσαν, τῶν ἁγίων δέ κατά χάριν γεγενημένης. Μᾶλλον δέ, μόνον Θεοῦ προσεπήγαγον· ἐπειδή μόνης ἀποτέλεσμα τῆς θείας ἐνεργείας ἐστίν(7), ἡ κατά χάριν τῶν ἁγίων ἐκθέωσις, ἧς ἡμεῖς οὐκ ἔχομεν ἐγκατεσπαρμένην τῇ φύσει τήν δύναμιν. Ὧν δέ τήν δύναμιν οὐκ ἔχομεν, τούτων οὐδέ τήν πρᾶξιν, φυσικῆς δυνάμεως οὖσαν συμπλήρωσιν. Ἔχεται οὖν ἡ μέν πρᾶξις, δυνάμεως· ἡ δέ δύναμις, οὐσίας, Ἥ τε γάρ πρᾶξις, ἀπό δυνάμεως καί ἡ δύναμις, ἀπό τῆς οὐσίας καί ἐν τῇ οὐσίᾳ. Τρία οὖν ταῦτά ἐστιν, ὡς φασιν, ἀλλήλων ἐχόμενα· δυνάμενον, δύναμις, δυνατόν. Καί δυνάμενον μέν λέγουσι, τήν οὐσίαν· δύναμιν δέ, καθ᾿ ἥν ἔχομεν τήν τοῦ δύνασθαι κίνησιν· καί\n\nδυνατόν, τό παρ᾿ ἡμῖν κατά δύναμιν γενέσθαι πεφυκός. Εἰ δέ τό παρ᾿ ἡμῖν γίνεσθαι πεφυκός, κατά δύναμον ἔχομεν φυσικήν. Οὐκ ἔστι δέ τῶν παρ᾿ ἡμῶν κατά δύναμιν γίνεσθαι πεφυκότων ἡ θέωσις, οὐκ οὖσα τῶν ἐφ᾿ ἡμῖν· οὐδείς γάρ ἐν τῇ φύσει, τῶν ὑπέρ φύσιν λόγος. Ἄρα τῆς ἡμῶν οὐκ ἔστι δυνάμεως πρᾶξις ἡ θέωσις, ἧς οὐκ ἔχομεν κατά φύσιν τήν δύναμιν· ἀλλά μόνης τῆς θείας δυνάμεως, οὐκ ἔργων ὑπάρχουσα δικαίων τοῖς ἁγίοις ἀντίδοσις(8)· ἀλλά τῆς τοῦ πεποιηκότος ἀφθονίας ἀπόδειξις· τοῦτο θέσει ποιήσαντος τούς ἐραστάς τῶν καλῶν, ὅπερ αὐτός ὑπάρχων φύσει δειχθήσεται, καθ' οὕς αὐτός ἐπίσταται λόγους· ἵνα καί τελείως γνωσθῇ, καί μείνῃ παντελῶς ἀκατάληπτος. Οὐκ ἀνεῖλον οὖν τήν φυσικήν τῶν τοῦτο πεισομένων ἐνεργείαν, ὧν ἀποτελεῖν πέφυκε πεπαυμένην, καί μόνην ἐμφήνας τῶν ἀγαθῶν τήν ἀπόλαυσιν πάσχουσαν·","english":"Of God it exists according to essence, but of the saints it has come to be according to grace. Or rather, I have added \"of God alone,\" since the deification of the saints according to grace is the effect of the divine energy alone, whose power we do not have implanted in our nature. And of those things whose power we do not have, we do not have the action either, since it is the completion of a natural power. Action, then, follows power, and power follows essence; for action is from power, and power is from essence and in essence. These three things, then, as they say, are connected to one another: the one able, power, and the able. And they call the one able the essence; power, that by which we have the movement of being able; and the able, that which is naturally disposed to come to be among us according to power. But if it is naturally disposed to come to be among us, we have it according to a natural power. Deification, however, is not among the things naturally disposed to come to be among us according to power, since it is not among the things that are up to us; for no principle of things above nature exists in nature. Therefore deification is not an action of our power, since we do not have its power by nature; but it is of the divine power alone, not being a recompense of righteous works for the saints, but a demonstration of the abundance of the one who made them, who by position made the lovers of good things to be what he himself will be shown to be by nature, according to the principles he himself knows; so that he may be both perfectly known and remain wholly incomprehensible. He did not, then, abolish the natural activity of those who will experience this, whose activity he has caused to cease from producing, and he has revealed only the enjoyment of good things, which is passive.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":21,"ref":"p21","source":"ἀλλά μόνην ὑπέδειξα θεώσεως ἀπεργαστικήν τήν ὑπερούσιον δύναμιν, κατά χάριν τῶν θεωθέντων γεγενημένην. Καί μηδείς ὑπονοήσει τούτοις μίαν καταγγέλλεσθαι Χριστοῦ τήν ἐνέργειαν. Οὐ γάρ ἄνθρωπον ἀποθεωθέντα τόν Χριστόν καταγγέλλομεν, ἀλλά Θεόν τελείως ἐνανθρωπήσαντα, καί τῆς οἰκείας ἀφράστου θεότητος τήν ἄπειρον, ἀπειράκις ἀπείρως ὑπεράπειρον δι᾿ ἐνεργοῦς φύσει σαρκός νοερῶς ἐψυχωμένης ἐμφανῆ ποιησάμενον δύναμιν· ὅλον Θεόν τόν αὐτόν, καί ἄνθρωπον ἀληθῶς· ἄμφω τε φύσει τέλειον τόν αὐτόν καί πληρέστατον· καί πᾶν εἴ τι κατ' ἄμφω πεφυκός ἀνελλιπῶς ἔχοντα πλήν ἁμαρτίας, ἧς λόγος οὐδείς. Ὧν γάρ αὐτός φύσεων ὑπόστασις ἦν, τούτων καί τούς οὐσιώδεις φυσικῶς ἐπεδέχετο λόγους. Εἰ δέ τούς οὐσιώδεις ὧν αὐτός ὑπόστασις ἦν, ἐπεδέχετο λόγους, καί φυσικήν ἔμψυχον σαρκός εἰκότως εἶχεν ἐνέργειαν, ἧς οὐσιώδεις τῇ φύσει κατέσπαρται λόγος. Εἰ δέ φυσικήν ὡς ἄνθρωπος ἐνέργειαν εἶχεν, ἧς ὁ λόγος τῆς φύσεως ὑπῆρχε συστατικός, καί ὡς Θεός δηλονότι φυσικήν εἶχεν ἐνέργειαν, ἧς ὁ λόγος τῆς ὑπερουσίου θεότητος ὑπῆρχεν ἐκφαντικός. Θεός γάρ ὑπάρχων τέλειος, καί ἄνθρωπος τέλειος ὁ αὐτός, καθ᾿ ἑκάτερον ὧν ὑπῆρχεν ὑπόστασις, φυσικῶς ἐνήργει μή διαιρούμενος. Εἰ δέ καθ᾿ ἑκάτερον ὧν ὑπῆρχεν ὑπόστασις φυσικῶς ἐνήργει μή διαιρούμενος, δῆλον ὅτι μετά τῶν φύσεων, ὧν ὑπόστασις ἦν, καί τάς οὐσιώδεις αὐτῶν καί συστατικάς ἐνεργείας εἶχεν, ὧν αὐτός ἕνωσις ἦν· ἑαυτῷ προσφυῶς ἐνεργῶν, καί οἷς ἐνήργει πιστούμενος, τήν τῶν ἐξ ὧν, ἐν οἷς τε καί ἅπερ ὑπῆρχεν, ἀλήθειαν. Εἷς οὖν ἐκ δύο φύσεων ὁ Χριστός· θεότητός τε καί ἀνθρωπότητος·","english":"But I have pointed out that the supersubstantial power alone is the effective cause of deification, having come to be by grace for those who have been deified. And let no one suspect that in these things one single activity of Christ is proclaimed. For we do not proclaim Christ as a man who has been deified, but as God who has become fully human, and who has made manifest the infinite, infinitely and beyond-infinitely transcendent power of his own ineffable divinity through an active flesh, by nature rationally ensouled; the same one is wholly God and truly man; the same one is perfect and most complete in both natures; and he possesses without deficiency everything that is naturally proper to both, except sin, of which there is no account. For the essential principles of the natures of which he himself was the hypostasis, he naturally received as his own. But if he received the essential principles of the natures of which he himself was the hypostasis, then he reasonably also had the natural, ensouled activity of the flesh, whose essential principles are sown in its nature. And if as man he had a natural activity, whose principle was constitutive of his nature, then clearly as God he also had a natural activity, whose principle was declarative of his supersubstantial divinity. For being perfect God and perfect man, the same one, in accordance with each of the natures of which he was the hypostasis, naturally acted without being divided. But if in accordance with each of the natures of which he was the hypostasis he naturally acted without being divided, it is clear that together with the natures of which he was the hypostasis, he also had their essential and constitutive activities, of which he himself was the union; acting in a manner proper to himself, and by the things he did being attested as the truth of those from which, in which, and which he was. One, therefore, is Christ out of two natures: divinity and humanity.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":22,"ref":"p22","source":"μονογενής Λόγος καί Υἰός καί Κύριος τῆς δόξης· ἐν αἷς γνωρίζεται, καί αἷς ἀληθῶς ὑπάρχων πιστεύεται· δύο τε φυσικάς καί γενικάς, καί τῶν ἐξ ὧν ἦν συστατικάς κινήσεις, ἤγουν ἐνεργείας ἔχων, ὧν ἀποτελέσματα τά κατά μέρος ἦν ἐνεργήματα· ἐξ αὐτοῦ τε προβαλλόμενα, καί ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ τελειούμενα, χωρίς τομῆς τῶν ἐξ ὧν ὑπῆρχε, καί τῆς οἰασοῦν δίχα συγχύσεως. Οὐ γάρ ὑπομένει τομήν ἤ σύγχυσιν, ὁ μηδέποτε τροπαῖς ὑποκείμενος, καί πᾶσι τοῖς οὖσι τήν τε τοῦ εἶναι, καί πῶς εἶναι διαμονήν τε καί σύστασιν παρεχόμενος.\n\nΤαῦτα τῆς σῆς χάριν ἐπιτόμως, ἡγιασμένε Πάτερ, εἰρήσθω κελεύσεως· ἵνα ἔχοις εἴπερ τι χρήσιμον φέροιεν, πῶς διακρούσασθαι τήν τῶν φιλολάλων ἀδολεσχίαν, ἄδειαν λαβοῦσαν τήν τῶν καιρῶν δυσκολίαν. Καί μή παρίδῃς τόν σόν δοῦλον πενόμενον· ἀλλά θείῳ πλούτισον Πνεύματι, τῆς εὐπειθείας ἀντιδούς τάς εὐσθενεῖς σου δεήσεις· καί παρατιθέμενος Χριστῷ τῷ μεγάλῳ Θεῷ καί ποιητῇ τῶν ὅλων μή διαλείποις, τῷ παρά πάσης προσκυνουμένῳ τῆς κτίσεως, σύν Πατρί καί ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι εἰς τούς αἰῶνας. Ἀμήν.","english":"the only-begotten Word and Son and Lord of glory; in those things by which he is known, and by which he is truly believed to exist; having two natural and generic motions, that is, activities, of which the particular effects were the operations; both proceeding from him and perfected by him, without division of the things from which he existed, and without any confusion whatsoever. For he does not admit division or confusion, who is never subject to changes, and who provides to all things that exist both their being and their manner of being, their permanence and their constitution.\n\nLet these things be said briefly, holy Father, for the sake of your command, so that you may have, if they bring anything useful, how to drive away the loquacity of the word-lovers, which has taken license from the difficulty of the times. And do not overlook your servant who is poor, but enrich him with the divine Spirit, giving in return for his obedience your powerful prayers; and do not cease to commend him to Christ, the great God and Maker of all things, who is worshipped by all creation, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, forever. Amen.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":23,"ref":"p23","source":"ΣΧΟΛΙΑ 1. Λόγῳ μέν ἡ φύσις περιγράφεται τῶν ὄντων πρός ἀρετῆς γένεσιν, κατά πρόοδον· ἥτις ἐστί παντελής κατ᾿ ἀρετήν τῆς φύσεως ἄρνησις. Νῷ δέ περιορίζεται ἡ παντός αἰῶνος καί χρόνου κίνησις, πρός σύστασιν ἁπλανοῦς ἑνώσεως, κατά ἀνάβασιν· ἥτις ἐστί τῶν ἐν οἷς ἐστιν ἡ φύσις ὑπέρβασις· λέγω δέ τόπον καί χρόνον, ἐν οἷς τῶν ὄντων ὑπόστασις. Ἡ δέ πρός τόν ἐξ οὗ τά πάντα καί δι' οὗ καί εἰς ὅν ὡς πέρας τῶν ὅλων, κατά χάριν ἀποκατάστασις, κατ᾿ ἀνάληψιν γίνεται· ἥτις ἐστί τοῦ μέν ἀναλαμβανομένου πάθος· ἐνέργεια δέ τοῦ ἀναλαμβάνοντος. 2. Πρόσωπον, ἤτοι ὑπόστασις· φύσις, ἤτοι οὐσία. Οὐσία γάρ, τό κατ᾿ εἰκόνα, ὁ λόγος· τό καθ᾿ ὁμοίωσιν δέ, ὁ βίος, ὑπόστασις ἐστιν, ἐξ ὧν ἀμφοτέρων ἡ ἀρετή συμπεπλήρωται. Ὑπόστασιν γάρ σοφίας, τήν ἀρετήν· οὐσίαν δέ φασιν ἀρετῆς εἶναι τήν σοφίαν. Διό τῆς μέν σοφίας ἀπλανής ἔκφανσίς ἐστιν, ὁ τρόπος τῆς τῶν θεωρητικῶν ἀγωγῆς· τῆς ἀρετῆς δέ βάσις, ὁ λόγος τῆς τῶν πρακτικῶν θεωρίας καθέστηκεν. Ἀμφοτέρων δέ χαρακτήρ ἀψευδέστατος, ἡ πρός τό κυρίως ὄν ἀκλινής ἐνατένησις.","english":"SCHOLIA 1. By reason, the nature of beings is circumscribed toward the generation of virtue, by way of procession; which is the complete denial of nature in virtue. And by intellect, the motion of every age and time is bounded, toward the establishment of unerring union, by way of ascent; which is the transcendence of those things in which nature exists—I mean place and time, in which is the subsistence of beings. But the restoration by grace toward the One from whom all things are and through whom and to whom, as the end of all things, comes about by way of assumption; which is a passion of the one assumed, but an activity of the one assuming. 2. Person, that is, subsistence; nature, that is, substance. For substance is the principle according to the image; but the life according to the likeness is subsistence, from both of which virtue is completed. For they say that virtue is the subsistence of wisdom, and wisdom is the substance of virtue. Therefore the unerring manifestation of wisdom is the manner of the conduct of contemplatives; and the foundation of virtue is the principle of the contemplation of practical things. And the most unerring character of both is the unwavering intent toward the truly existing One.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":24,"ref":"p24","source":"3. Ὅτι οὐκ ἄτρεπτος φύσει ὁ ἄνθρωπος· καί πῶς. 4. Ὅτι τό θέλημα, ἤ οὐσίας ἤ ὑποστάσεως ἐστι χαρακτηριστικόν· καί μέσον τούτων οὐκ ἔστιν, οὔτε κοινόν καί σύνθετον ἐξ ἀμφοῖν· οὔτε οὐδετέρου μετέχον. 5. Ὅτι ἡ προαίρεσις ἐπί Χριστοῦ, τήν φυσικήν σημαίνει θέλησιν· ἤτοι τήν ὀρεκτικήν τῆς φύσεως δύναμιν.\n\n6. Βλέπε τό τῆς οἰκονομίας μυστήριον.\n\n7. Εἰς τό, Δι᾿ αὐτοῦ γάρ ζῶμεν καί κινούμεθα, καί ἐσμέν· ἤτοι περί οὐσίας, καί δυνάμεως, καί ἐνεργείας.\n\n8. Περί θεώσεως. Ἀκούσαις δέ τούτων καί σύ, Νεῖλε· καί φρονήσαις ἅ φρονοῦσιν οἱ τῆς ἀληθείας διδάσκαλοι.\n\nΠΡΟΣ ΜΑΡΙΝΟΝ ΤΟΝ ΟΣΙΩΤΑΤΟΝ ΠΡΕΣΒΥΤΕΡΟΝ ΕΚ ΤΗΣ ΠΕΡΙ ΕΝΕΡΓΕΙΩΝ ΚΑΙ ΘΕΛΗΜΑΤΩΝ ΠΡΑΓΜΑΤΕΙΑΣ, ΚΕΦΑΛ. Ν' Ὅτι Σευῆρος κακούργως ταυτόν εἶναι λέγει τῇ φύσει τήν ὑπόστασιν, ἵνα τήν σύγχυσιν διά τῆς μιᾶς κυρώσῃ φύσεως, καί φύγῃ τόν ἔλεγχον, ὑπόστασιν λέγων νενοηκέναι τήν φύσιν· καί πάλιν τήν διαίρεσιν εἰσηγήσηται, τήν ἐξ ὑποστάσεως πρεσβεύων ἕνωσιν· καί δόξῃ λανθάνειν ἀντί φύσεων ἐκδέχεσθαι φάσκων τάς ὑποστάσεις. Καί αὖθις τήν ἀνυπαρξίαν τῶν φύσεων, διά τῆς ψιλῆς διαφορᾶς ἐγκαλούμενος, εὕρῃ καταφυγήν ἀπολογίας, τήν ψιλήν ἐν ποιότητι φυσικῇ διαφοράν. Καί ὅτι καθάπερ Νεστόριος ψιλήν λέγων τήν ἕνωσιν, πραγματικήν εἰσῆγε διαίρεσιν· οὕτω καί Σευῆρος ψιλήν λέγων φύσεων διαφοράν, πραγματικήν ποιεῖται τή σύγχυσιν.","english":"3. That man is not by nature immutable; and how. 4. That the will is characteristic either of essence or of hypostasis; and there is no middle between these, nor anything common and composite from both, nor anything partaking of neither. 5. That in Christ, \"choice\" signifies the natural will; that is, the appetitive power of nature.\n\n6. Consider the mystery of the economy.\n\n7. On the passage, \"For in him we live and move and are\"; that is, concerning essence, and power, and activity.\n\n8. Concerning deification. And may you too, Nile, hear these things and think what the teachers of the truth think.\n\nTo Marinus the most holy presbyter, from the treatise On Activities and Wills, chapter 50: That Severus wickedly says that the hypostasis is the same as the nature, in order that by the one nature he may ratify the confusion, and may escape refutation, saying that he has understood the nature to be the hypostasis; and again may introduce division, championing the union from a hypostasis; and may seem to escape notice by saying that he accepts the hypostases instead of natures. And again, when accused of the non-existence of the natures through the bare difference, he may find a refuge of defense, the bare difference in natural quality. And that just as Nestorius, saying the union was bare, introduced a real division; so also Severus, saying the difference of natures was bare, effects a real confusion.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":25,"ref":"p25","source":"Ἀλλά τούτοις Σευῆρος στενοχωρούμενος τοῖς λόγοις καί μή φέρων τῆς ἀληθείας τήν βάσανον, πάλιν ἑαυτῷ συνήθως τό ψεῦδος προβάλλεται σύμμαχον· ταυτόν εἶναι φάσκων ἐπί τῆς οἰκονομίας τῇ φύσει τήν ὑπόστασιν· καί τήν ἐν ποιότητι φυσικῇ διαφοράν, τῇ πραγματικῇ καί κατά φύσιν· διά τό καί φυσικήν εἶναι πᾶσαν ποιότητα, καί πρᾶγμα προσαγορεύεσθαι· ἵνα, εἰ μέν ἁλούς τοῖς ἐλέγχοις φωραθῇ, σαφῶς διά τῆς μιᾶς συνθέτου φύσεως, τήν τε Μάνεντος φαντασίαν, καί τήν Ἀπολιναρίου σύγχυσιν, καί τήν Εὐτυχοῦς μετά τήν ἕνωσιν εἰς μίαν οὐσίαν τῶν ἑνωθέντων πρεσβεύων συναίρεσιν, χαμαιλέοντος δίκην τάς χρόας ὑπαλλάσοντος, τήν οἰκείαν μεταβάλοι φωνήν, φάσκων, ὑπόστασιν νενοηκέναι τήν φύσιν. Εἰ δέ πάλιν ἐξ ὑποστάσεων ἤγουν προσώπων λέγων γεγενῆσθαι τήν ἕνωσιν,\n\nτήν Ἐβιῶνος, Παύλου τε τοῦ Σαμωσατέως καί Νεστορίου διαίρεσιν ἀποδειχθῇ φρονῶν, καί τήν ὡς ἐν προφήτῃ τοῦ Λόγου κατά χάριν ἐνέργειαν θεσπίζων, ἕτοιμον αὖθις σχοίη τό ψεῦδος συνήγορον, ἀντί φύσεων εἰρηκέναι τάς ὑποστάσεις ἀποφαινόμενος. Εἰ δέ πάλιν ἐγκληθῇ δικαίως, ἐπί τῇ ψιλῇ διαφορᾷ, τήν τῶν ἑνωθέντων πραγμάτων δογματίζων ἀνυπαρξίαν, εὕροι πρός ἀπολογίαν καταφυγήν τήν ὡς ἐν ποιότητι φυσικῇ διαφοράν· ποιοτήτων λέγων φυσικῶν, ἀλλ' οὐ φύσεων, ἤγουν οὐσιῶν ἐπί Χριστοῦ διαφοράν μετά τήν ἕνωσιν· διά τῆς λυούσης τήν σύγχυσιν φωνῆς· τουτέστι, τῆς διαφορᾶς, πλέον ὁ πανοῦργος σοφιστής, διασφίγγων τήν σύγχυσιν· τῶν ἐναντίων κατά τόν νόμον τῆς φύσεως, οὐ λύσιν τά ἐναντία ποιούμενος, ἀλλά σύστασιν, παρά τόν ὄρον καί νόμον τῆς φύσεως·","english":"But Severus, hard pressed by these arguments and unable to endure the test of the truth, again, as is his custom, puts forward falsehood as his ally, asserting that in the economy the hypostasis is the same as the nature, and that the difference in natural quality is the same as the real and natural difference, on the ground that every quality is natural and is also called a thing; so that, if he is caught and detected by the refutations, he might clearly, through the one composite nature, while championing the fantasy of Manes, the confusion of Apollinarius, and the Eutychian collapse of the united things into one substance after the union, changing his colors like a chameleon, alter his own voice and claim that he meant the nature by hypostasis. But if again, saying that the union came about from hypostases, that is, persons, he is shown to hold the division of Ebion, of Paul of Samosata, and of Nestorius, and to be teaching the operation of the Word by grace as in a prophet, he would again have falsehood ready as his advocate, declaring that he had spoken of hypostases instead of natures. And if again he is justly accused, on the basis of the mere difference, of dogmatizing the non-existence of the united things, he would find as a refuge for his defense the difference in natural quality, saying that after the union there is in Christ a difference of natural qualities, but not of natures, that is, of substances—through the phrase that dissolves confusion, that is, the difference—the crafty sophist all the more tightening the confusion, since opposites, according to the law of nature, do not produce dissolution but consolidation, contrary to the definition and law of nature.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":26,"ref":"p26","source":"καί τοιοῦτος γενόμενος περί τήν διαφοράν εἰς πλάνην τῶν ἀκοούντων, οἷος ὑπάρχων περί τήν ἕνωσιν ἀπεφάνθη Νεστόριος. Ἐκεῖνος τε γάρ κατά μόνην ψιλήν τήν προσηγορίαν, ὀνομάζων τήν ἕνωσιν, κατ᾿ ἐνέργειαν τήν τῶν πραγμάτων εἰσῆγε διαίρεσιν· καί οὗτος ψιλήν τήν διαφοράν πρεσβεύων μετά τήν ἕνωσιν, κατά μέν τήν ἐπίνοιαν εἶναι φρονεῖ τῶν διαφερόντων τήν ὕπαρξιν· κατά δέ τήν ἐνέργειαν, τήν αὐτῶν ἐπιδιατίθεται σύγχυσιν. Εἰ γάρ μή ψιλήν ἐφρόνει Νεστόριος γεγενῆσθαι τήν ἕνωσιν, εἶπεν ἄν τήν ἐκ τῆς ἑνώσεως τῶν φύσεων ἀποτελεσθεῖσαν τοῦ Χριστοῦ μίαν ὑπόστασιν σύνθετον· καί οὗτος, εἰ μή ψιλήν ἐκήρυττε τήν διαφοράν, οὐ παρῃτεῖτο λέγειν ἐν Χριστῷ μετά τήν ἕνωσιν τήν ἄτμητον καί ἀδιαίρετον τῶν διαφερόντων ποιότητα, γινώσκων ὅτι πάσῃ διαφορᾷ, πάντως συνεισάγεται ποσότης· καί πάσῃ ποσότητι, συνέζευκται ὁ δηλωτικός αὐτῆς ἀριθμός. Ἀμήχανον γάρ, ἤ διαφοράν ποσότητος εἶναι χωρίς, ἤ ποσότητα δίχα τοῦ δηλοῦντος αὐτήν ἀριθμοῦ διαγνωσθῆναι.","english":"And having become such in the matter of difference, leading his hearers into error, he is shown to be exactly what Nestorius was concerning union. For that man, naming the union by mere appellation alone, introduced the division of the things in actuality; and this man, championing a mere difference after the union, holds in thought that the existence of the differing things is [a difference], but in actuality he adds confusion of them. For if Nestorius had not thought the union to be mere, he would have said that the one composite hypostasis of Christ was accomplished from the union of the natures; and this man, if he did not preach a mere difference, would not have refused to say that in Christ after the union there is the indivisible and undivided quality of the differing things, knowing that with every difference quantity is certainly introduced, and with every quantity the number that indicates it is joined. For it is impossible either for difference to be without quantity, or for quantity to be discerned apart from the number that indicates it.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":27,"ref":"p27","source":"Καί ὁ μέν, τήν φύσεων μόνην ἐπί Χριστοῦ γινώσκων ποσότητα, τό δέ κατά σύνθεσιν ἐκ τῶν φύσεων τῆς ὑποστάσεως μοναδικόν οὐκ εἰδώς, ἐπικάλυμμα ποιεῖται διαμπάξ (τῆς) τῶν φύσεων διαιρέσεως, τήν ψιλήν τῆς ἑνώσεως προσηγορίαν· ὁ δέ, τό κατά μόνην τήν φύσιν ἀντί τοῦ καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν πρεσβεύων μοναδικόν, τό δέ κατά φύσιν ποσόν οὐκ εἰδώς, ἐπικάλυμμα ποιεῖται τῆς τῶν φύσεων συγχύσεως τήν ψιλήν ἐν ποιότητι φυσικῇ διαφοράν. Καί ὁ μέν, τήν ἐν μόνῃ ποιότητι γνωμικῇ τῶν φύσεων ἕνωσιν πρεσβεύων, ἀρνεῖται τήν μίαν ὑπόστασιν, ἀληθῆ τῶν πραγμάτων κατ᾿ οὐσίαν γεγενῆσθαι τήν σύνοδον λέγειν οὐκ ἀνεχόμενος. Αὐθεντία γάρ καί ἀξία, καί τοιάδε θέλησις, ὧν ἔφασκε Νεστόριος εἶναι τήν ἕνωσιν, γνώμης ὑπάρχει κινήματα σαφῶς, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ φύσεως. Ὁ δέ, τήν ψιλήν ἐν μόνῃ ποιότητι φυσικῇ λέγων διαφοράν μετά τήν ἕνωσιν, τῶν ἑνωθέντων ποιεῖται προδήλως ἀναίρεσιν, τήν κατ᾿ οὐσίαν αὐτῶν τῶν ἑνωθέντων ἐν ἑτερότητι φυσικῇ διαφοράν ἀπαρνούμενος. Καί συντόμως περί τούτων εἰπεῖν· ὁ μέν, τήν τῶν γνωμικῶν ποιοτήτων ἕνωσιν εἰς τήν τῶν φύσει πραγμάτων ἐφεῦρε διαίρεσιν· ὁ δέ, τοὐναντίον, τήν τῶν φυσικῶν ποιοτήτων διαφοράν, εἰς τήν τῶν πραγμάτων ἐπενόησε σύγχυσιν. Ὄντως κακή ξυνωρίς ἀνδρῶν παρανόμων, διασπᾷν μαινομένων κακῶς διά τῶν ἐναντίων τήν τῶν ὀρθῶν δογμάτων ἀλήθειαν. Ὁ μέν γάρ, ποιοτήτων γνωμικῶν εἰσηγούμενος ἕνωσιν τήν τῶν μηδόλως κατ᾿ αὐτόν ἑνωθεισῶν φύσεων ποιεῖται διαίρεσιν·","english":"And the one, knowing only the quantity of natures in Christ but not knowing the singularity of the hypostasis according to composition from the natures, makes as a cover for the division of the natures through and through the bare appellation of union; while the other, championing the singularity according to nature alone instead of according to hypostasis, but not knowing the quantity according to nature, makes as a cover for the confusion of the natures the bare difference in natural quality. And the one, championing the union of the natures in quality of will alone, denies the one hypostasis, not enduring to say that the conjunction of things according to essence has truly come to be. For authority and worth, and such a will as these, which Nestorius said constituted the union, are clearly motions of will, but not of nature. And the other, speaking of the bare difference in natural quality alone after the union, plainly makes a destruction of the united things, repudiating the difference according to the essence of the united things themselves in natural otherness. And to speak briefly about these things: the one contrived the union of qualities of will into the division of things by nature; the other, on the contrary, devised the difference of natural qualities into the confusion of things. Truly a wicked pair of lawless men, madly raging to tear apart the truth of right doctrines by opposite means. For the one, introducing a union of qualities of will, effects the division of the natures that were in no way united according to him;","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":28,"ref":"p28","source":"ὁ δέ, ποιοτήτων φυσικῶν λέγων μόνον εἶναι διαφοράν μετά τήν ἕνωσιν, ὡσαύτως τήν τῶν μηδόλως κατ' αὐτόν ἑνωθεισῶν φύσεων εἰσηγεῖται συγκεχυμένην ἀλλοίωσιν· οὐκ εἰδότες ὅ τι καί λέγουσιν. Ἐχρῆν γάρ εἴπερ ἑαυτοῖς στοιχεῖν διεγνώκεισαν, τόν μέν Νεστόριον, γνωμικῶν ποιοτήτων λέγοντα γεγενῆσθαι τήν ἕνωσιν, μή διαιρεῖν τάς φύσεις, ὧν μηδέ τήν ἀρχήν παντελῶς ἐπρέσβευσεν ἕνωσιν· ἀλλά τήν ὧν εἶναι φάσκει τήν ἕνωσιν, γινώσκειν διαφοράν μετά τήν ἕνωσιν· τόν δέ Σευῆρον, ποιοτήτων φυσικῶν διαφοράν\n\nεἰσηγούμενον, μετά τήν ἕνωσιν μή συγχεῖν τάς φύσεις, ὧν οὐ συγχωροῦμεν αὐτῷ λέγειν τήν ἕνωσιν, ἕως ἄν αὐτῶν ἀγνοεῖ τήν διαφοράν μετά τήν ἕνωσιν. Τῶν γάρ ἑνωθέντων ἡ διαφορά θεωρεῖται μετά τήν ἕνωσιν, κἄν Νεστόριος μέμηνε· καί τῶν μετά τήν ἕνωσιν διαφερόντων ἡ ἕνωσις, κἄν Σευῆρος παρατάττεται, καί πολλήν ὑπέρ τοῦ ψεύδους ποιεῖται τήν συνηγορίαν.\n\nΕἰ μέν οὖν κατά τόν Νεστόριον, μόνων τῶν γνωμικῶν θελημάτων ἕνωσις γέγονε, τούτων εἰπάτω καί τήν διαφοράν μετά τήν ἕνωσιν, ἀφείς τήν τῶν μηδαμῶς ἑνωθέντων πραγμάτων διαίρεσιν· καί συνήγαγε τῇ τῶν γνωμικῶν θελημάτων διαφορᾷ, καί τήν τῆς γνώμης παραλλαγήν· καθ᾿ ἥν οὐχ ἡ κατά φύσιν διαφορά δείκνυσθαι πέφυκεν, ἀλλ᾿ ἡ καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν, ποιουμένη τῆς ἀγαθότητος ἐν τῇ διαφορᾶ τῶν γνωμικῶν θελημάτων, ἄνεσιν καί ἐπίτασιν· καί πεποίηκεν ἁμαρτωλόν, τόν κατά προκοπήν παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ θεοποιούμενον ἄνθρωπον· ὡς μή κατά πάντα τρόπον τε καί λόγον τήν αὐτήν τῷ Θεῷ γνωμικήν ἔχοντα θέλησιν. Ἡ γάρ διαφορά τῶν γνωμικῶν θελημάτων, τήν τῆς γνώμης, ὡς ἔφην, ποιεῖται παραλλαγήν·","english":"But the other, saying that there is only a difference of natural qualities after the union, likewise introduces the confused alteration of the natures that were in no way united according to him—not knowing what they are even saying. For it was necessary, if indeed they had determined to be consistent with themselves, that Nestorius, who says that the union came about from qualities of will, should not divide the natures whose union he did not altogether advocate in the first place; but that he should recognize the difference, after the union, of those natures whose union he asserts. And that Severus, who introduces a difference of natural qualities after the union, should not confuse the natures whose union we do not permit him to speak of, as long as he is ignorant of their difference after the union. For the difference of things united is contemplated after the union, even if Nestorius rages; and the union of things differing after the union, even if Severus arrays himself against it and makes a great advocacy on behalf of falsehood.\n\nIf, then, according to Nestorius, the union was of wills of choice alone, let him also state the difference of these after the union, abandoning the division of things that were in no way united; and let him combine with the difference of wills of choice also the variation of the judgment, according to which it is not the difference according to nature that is naturally shown, but the difference according to hypostasis, making remission and intensification of goodness in the difference of wills of choice; and he has made a sinner of the man who is deified by him through progress, as not having in every way and respect the same will of choice as God. For the difference of wills of choice produces the variation of judgment, as I said.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":29,"ref":"p29","source":"ἡ δέ τῆς γνώμης παραλλαγή, τῆς ἀγαθότητος εἰσηγεῖται τήν μείωσιν· ὑφ᾿ ἧς ὁ καθοτιοῦν ἔτι κρατούμενος, τελείως οὔπω κατά τήν γνώμην γέγονεν ἀναμάρτητος. Οὐκοῦν τό καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν ἐκ τῆς συνόδου τῶν φύσεων ἕν μή δεχόμενος ὁ Νεστόριος, καί τήν τῶν γνωμικῶν θελημάτων διέλυσεν ἕνωσιν, οὐχ εὑρίσκων εἰπεῖν τέ ποτέ ἐστι τό ἐκ τῆς ἑνώσεως τῶν γνωμικῶν θελημάτων ἀποδεικνύμενον ἕν. Οὐ γάρ ἔχει ταυτότητα λέγειν τῆς ἀγαθότητος, τῆς τῶν γνωμικῶν θελημάτων σαφῶς διαφορᾶς μετά τήν ἕνωσιν, τήν κατ᾿ ἐπίτασιν καί ἄνεσιν ταύταις ἑτερότητα προφαινούσης. Ὧν γάρ ἡ σύνοδος, τούτων ἀνάγκη πάντως λέγειν καί τήν διαφοράν. Καί μάτην αὐτῷ τῆς ταυτοβουλίας ὁ λόγος ἐπενοήθη, κἄν πρός δήλωσιν τῆς τῶν προσώπων διαιρέσεώς ἐστιν ἁρμόδιος. Ἡ γάρ ταυτοβουλία, βουλῶν ἐστιν ἕνωσις φυλάττουσα τήν τῶν κατ᾿ αὐτήν ἠνωμένων διαφοράν, εἴπερ ἀσύγχυτος αἷς ἡ τῶν βουλομένων προσώπων συνεπιθεωρεῖται διαίρεσις....ΔΥΟ ΘΕΛΗΜΑΤΑ ΛΕΓΟΝΤΕΣ ΟΙ ΠΑΤΕΡΕΣ ΕΠΙ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ, ΤΟΥΣ ΦΥΣΙΚΟΥΣ ΝΟΜΟΥΣ, ΟΥ... ΓΝΩΜΑΣ ΕΚ ΤΗΣ ΑΥΤΗΣ ΠΡΑΓΜΑΤΕΙΑΣ ΚΕΦΑΛ. ΝΑ' Ὅτι δύο θελήματα λέγοντες οἱ Πατέρες ἐπί Χριστοῦ, τούς φυσικούς νόμους, οὐ τάς γνώμας ἐσήμαναν.","english":"But the variation of the judgment introduces a diminution of goodness; and whoever is still controlled by it in any way has not yet become perfectly sinless in judgment. Therefore Nestorius, not accepting the one according to hypostasis from the concurrence of the natures, also dissolved the union of the gnomic wills, not finding it possible to say what precisely is the one thing demonstrated from the union of the gnomic wills. For he cannot speak of an identity of goodness, since the difference of the gnomic wills is clearly evident after the union, which presents to view their otherness in intensification and remission. For of whatever things there is a concurrence, of these it is entirely necessary to speak also of the difference. And in vain was the account of sameness of will devised by him, even if it is suitable for demonstrating the division of the persons. For sameness of will is a union of wills that preserves the difference of those united according to it, if indeed it is without confusion, since the division of the persons who will is also contemplated together with them.... The Fathers, saying two wills in Christ, meant the natural laws, not the judgments. From the same treatise, chapter 51: That the Fathers, saying two wills in Christ, meant the natural laws, not the judgments.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":30,"ref":"p30","source":"Ἀλλά μηδείς εὐθυνέτω τόν λόγον, τήν τῶν γνωστικῶν θελημάτων ἀπαγορεύοντα δυάδα· πάντας εὑρίσκων σχεδόν τούς ἐνδόξους διδασκάλους, δύο θελήματα λέγοντας· μηδ' αὖ πάλιν κατά Σευῆρον, πρός ἕν θέλημα διά τοῦτο τόν εὐσεβῆ μεθορμήσοιτο νοῦν, ἵνα μή κακοῦ κακόν ποιῆται διάδοχον· τῆς διαιρέσεως λέγω τήν σύγχυσιν. Οὐ γάρ εἶπον οἱ θεσπέσιοι Πατέρες ἐπί Χριστοῦ ποσότητα γνωμικῶν θελημάτων, ἀλλά φυσικῶν· τούς οὐσιώδεις τε καί φυσικούς τῶν ἑνωθέντων νόμους τε καί λόγους, θελήματα καλῶς προσαγορεύσαντες. Καί γάρ φυσικήν τῆς νοερῶς ἐψυχωμένης σαρκός, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ τήν γνωμικήν τοῦ τινος ἀνθρώπου, τοῦ κινήμασι διανοήσαντες ὄρεξιν, ἔχουσαν τῆς τοῦ ὄντος φυσικήν ἐφέσεως δύναμιν, φυσικῶς κινουμένη τε καί τυπουμένην ὑπό τοῦ Λόγου πρός τήν τῆς οἰκονομίας ἐκπλήρωσιν, θέλημα σοφῶς προσηγόρευσαν· οὗ χωρίς εἶναι τήν ἀνθρωπίνην φύσιν, ἀδύνατον. Θέλημα γάρ ἐστι φυσικόν, δύναμις τοῦ κατά φύσιν ὄντος ὀρεκτική, καί τῶν οὐσιωδῶς τῇ φύσει προσόντων, συνεκτική πάντων ἰδιωμάτων· καθ᾿ ἥν ἀεί τῷ φύσει θελητικῷ, τό πεφυκέναι θέλειν, ἐμπέφυκεν· οὐ ταυτόν δέ τό πεφυκέναι θέλειν, καί θέλειν· ὡς οὐδέ τό πεφυκέναι","english":"But let no one hold the argument accountable, since it forbids the duality of gnomic wills, finding almost all the illustrious teachers saying two wills; nor again let him, in the manner of Severus, rush the pious mind over to one will on this account, lest he make evil the successor of evil—I mean the confusion that follows division. For the divinely inspired Fathers did not speak of a quantity of gnomic wills in Christ, but of natural ones, rightly calling the essential and natural laws and principles of the united natures \"wills.\" For they wisely called the natural [will] of the rationally ensouled flesh—not the gnomic will of some particular man, which they understood as an appetite moved by acts of thought, possessing the power of natural striving toward what is—a will, naturally moved and shaped by the Word for the fulfillment of the economy; without which it is impossible for human nature to be. For a natural will is the appetitive power of what exists by nature, and the cohesive [principle] of all the properties that belong essentially to nature; according to which there has always been implanted in the naturally willing [faculty] the being-naturally-disposed-to-will; and the being-naturally-disposed-to-will is not the same as to will; as neither is the being-naturally-disposed","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":31,"ref":"p31","source":"λαλεῖν, καί λαλεῖν. Πέφυκε μέν γάρ ἀεί τό λαλητικόν, λαλεῖ δέ οὐκ ἀεί· ἐπειδή τό μέν οὐσίας ἐστί λόγῳ φύσεως συνεχόμενον· τό δέ βουλῆς, τῇ τοῦ λαλοῦντος γνώμῃ τυπούμενον· ὥστε φύσεως μέν τό ἀεί πεφυκέναι λαλεῖν· ὑποστάσεως δέ, τό πῶς λαλεῖν· ὥσπερ καί τό πεφυκέναι θέλειν καί θέλειν. Εἰ δέ τό πεφυκένει θέλειν, καί θέλειν οὐκ ἔστι ταυτόν (τό μέν γάρ, ὡς ἔφην, οὐσίας· τό δέ, τῆς τοῦ θέλοντος ὑπάρχει βουλῆς)· εἶχεν ἄρα τό πεφυκέναι θέλειν ὁ σαρκωθείς Λόγος ὡς ἄνθρωπος, τῷ αὐτοῦ θεϊκῷ θελήματι κινούμενόν τε καί τυπούμενον. Τό γάρ ἐκείνου θέλειν, φησίν ὁ μέγας Γρηγόριος, οὐδέν ὑπεναντίον Θεῷ, θεωθέν ὅλον. Εἰ δέ τεθέωτο, τῇ τοῦ θεοῦντος δηλονότι συμφυΐᾳ τεθέωτο· τό δέ θεοῦν καί θεούμενον, δύο πάντως· ἀλλ᾿ οὐχ ἕν καί φύσει ταυτόν. Εἴπερ τῶν πρός τι, τό τε θεοῦν, καί τό θεούμενον· τά δέ πρός τι, πάντως ἀλλήλοις συνεισάγεσθαι πέφυκε, καί θατέρῳ συνεπινοεῖσθαι θάτερον. Οὐκοῦν ὡς φύσει πεφυκώς, καί τήν πρός τόν θάνατον συστολήν θέλων ἐπισημαίνεται σαρκικῶς μετά τῶν λοιπῶν παθῶν ὡς ἄνθρωπος ὁ Σωτήρ, πάσης καθαράν τήν οἰκονομίαν δεικνύς φαντασίας, καί τήν φύσιν τῶν κατακριθέντων αὐτῆς διά τήν ἁμαρτίαν παθημάτων, λυτρούμενος. Καί πάλιν τήν ὁρμήν ἐπιδείκνυται, σαρκί θανατώσας τήν θάνατον· ἵνα καί τό φύσει πεφυκῶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος ἐν ἑαυτῷ δείξῃ σωζόμενον, καί τήν ἀπόῤῥητον καί μεγάλην τοῦ Πατρός ὡς Θεός παραδείξῃ βουλήν, σωματικῶς πληρουμένην. Οὐ γάρ ἵνα πάθῃ, σώσῃ δέ, προηγουμένως γέγονεν ἄνθρωπος. Διό φησι· Πάτερ, εἰ δυνατόν, παρελθέτω τοῦτο τό ποτήριον ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ·","english":"To speak, and to speak. For the capacity to speak is by nature always present, but one does not always speak; since the one belongs to essence, being connected by the principle of nature, while the other belongs to counsel, being shaped by the speaker's judgment. So that it is of nature to be always naturally able to speak, but of hypostasis, how one speaks; just as also to be naturally able to will and to will. But if to be naturally able to will and to will are not the same (for the one, as I said, is of essence, while the other belongs to the counsel of the one who wills), then the incarnate Word had the natural capacity to will as a man, being moved and shaped by His own divine will. For His willing, says the great Gregory, is in no way opposed to God, having been wholly deified. And if it was deified, it was deified obviously by the connatural union with the deifier; but the deifier and the deified are certainly two, not one and the same by nature. Since the deifier and the deified are among things relative; and things relative are by nature always introduced together with one another, and the one is conceived together with the other. Therefore, as one who is naturally so by nature, the Savior also wills the shrinking from death and signals it in a fleshly way along with the other passions as a man, showing the whole economy to be pure of all fantasy, and redeeming the nature of the passions themselves which were condemned because of sin. And again He displays the impulse, having put death to death in the flesh; so that He might show in Himself both what is naturally so by nature as a man being saved, and might display as God the ineffable and great counsel of the Father, being fulfilled bodily. For He did not become man primarily in order to suffer, but in order to save. Therefore He says: Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":32,"ref":"p32","source":"πλήν μή τό ἐμόν, ἀλλά τό σόν γενέσθω θέλημα· δεικνύς ἅμα τῇ συστολῇ, τήν ὀρμήν τοῦ ἀνθρωπίνου θελήματος, ἐν τῇ συμφυΐᾳ τοῦ θεϊκοῦ, κατά τήν τοῦ φυσικοῦ λόγου πρός τήν τῆς οἰκονομίας τρόπον συμπλοκήν, τυπουμένην τε καί γινομένην· εἴπερ ἡ σάρκωσις, ἐναργής ἐστι φύσεως καί οἰκονομίας ἀπόδειξις· τοῦ τε φυσικοῦ λέγω τῶν ἡνωμένων λόγου, καί τοῦ καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν τῆς ἑνώσεως τρόπου τοῦ μέν πιστουμένου, τοῦ δέ καινοτομοῦντος τάς φύσεις, δίχα τροπῆς καί συγχύσεως. Ἀλλ᾿ οὐ τό αὐτό, κατά τό αὐτό, καταργηθῆναί τε καί ἐνεργηθῆναι δεόμενος, ὅπερ ἄτοπον· εἴπερ τοῦ Υἱοῦ φύσει θέλημα, τό τοῦ Πατρός. Εἶχεν οὖν θέλημα φυσικόν ὡς ἄνθρωπος ὁ Σωτήρ, τῷ αὐτοῦ θεϊκῷ θελήματι τυπούμενον, οὐκ ἐναντιούμενον· οὐδέν γάρ ἠναντίωται παντάπασι Θεῷ φυσικόν, ὁπόταν οὔτε γνωμικόν· ἔνθα καί προσωπική θεωρεῖται διαίρεσις, ἄνπερ ᾖ κατά φύσιν· ἐπεί τόν ποιητήν αἰτιατέον τῆς μέμψεως, ἑαυτῷ πεποιηκότα τό φύσει μαχόμενον.\n\nΠῶς δέ γέγονε κατ᾿ ἀλήθειαν ἄνθρωπος σαρκωθείς ὁ Λόγος, τοῦ μάλιστα τήν φύσιν ὡς λογικήν χαρακτηρίζοντος ἔρημος; Τό γάρ τῆς κατ᾿ ἔφεσιν ὀρεκτικῆς ἐστερημένον κινήσεως, καί πάσης ζωτικῆς δυνάμεως ἀμοιρήσειεν ἄν. Τό δέ ζωτικήν οὐκ ἔχον ἐκ φύσεως δύναμιν, οὐδέ τήν οἰανοῦν δηλονότι ψυχήν, ἧς χωρίς οὐδέ σάρξ ὑποσταίη ποτ᾿ ἄν. Οὐκοῦν ψιλῇ μορφώσει σαρκός τήν οἰκονομίαν ἐφάντασεν· ἀλλ᾿ οὐ φύσει σαρκός, νοερῶς τε καί λογικῶς ἐψυχωμένης καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν σαρκωθείς ὁ Λόγος πεπλήρωκε, θέλημα φυσικόν κατά Σευῆρον οὐκ ἔχων ὡς ἄνθρωπος·","english":"Nevertheless, not my will, but yours be done; showing at once, by the contraction, the impulse of the human will, in its connatural union with the divine, according to the interweaving of the natural principle with the manner of the economy, being formed and coming to be—since the incarnation is a clear proof of nature and economy; I mean of the natural principle of the united realities, and of the manner of union according to hypostasis—the one being confirmed, the other innovating the natures, without change and without confusion. But he does not ask that the same thing, in the same respect, be both abolished and brought into activity, which is absurd; since the will of the Son is by nature the will of the Father. The Savior therefore had a natural will as man, formed by his own divine will, not opposed to it; for nothing natural is wholly opposed to God, whenever it is not also a matter of inclination; where also a personal distinction is observed, if indeed it be according to nature; since one must blame the Maker for the fault, if he has made for himself what is by nature in conflict.\n\nBut how has the Word, having become incarnate, truly become man, being destitute of that which most of all characterizes nature as rational? For that which is deprived of the appetitive movement according to desire would also be devoid of every vital power. And that which does not have vital power by nature would clearly not have any soul at all, without which not even flesh could ever subsist. Therefore he made the economy a phantom by a mere shaping of flesh; but the Word, having been incarnate, has fulfilled it not by the nature of flesh, ensouled intelligently and rationally according to hypostasis, not having a natural will as man, according to Severus.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":33,"ref":"p33","source":"εἰ γάρ φυσικῷ θελήματι κατ᾿ ἀλήθειαν ὡς ἄνθρωπος ἦν ἐλλιπής, τέλειος κατ' ἀλήθειαν οὐ γέγονεν ἄνθρωπος, οὐδ᾿ ὅλως ἄνθρωπος γέγονεν. Τίς γάρ ἀτελοῦς φύσεως ὕπαρξις, ἧς οὐδέ λόγος ἐστί; Σκοπός οὖν Σευήρῳ, καί τοῖς ἀμφ᾿ αὐτόν, διά τινος πάντως ἐλλείψεως φυσικῆς, τήν προσληφθεῖσαν καθ᾿ ἕνωσιν ἄῤῥητον ἐξώσασθαι φύσιν· τῆς τε Μάνεντος φαντασίας, καί τῆς Ἀπολιναρίου συγχύσεως, καί τῆς Εὐτυχοῦς συνουσιώσεως ἐπικυρῶσαι τό μῦσος. Μέμνημαι γάρ κατά τήν Κρητῶν νῆσον διάγων, τινῶν ψευδεπισκόπων πρός ἐμέ διενεχθέντων τῆς Σευήρου μερίδος· ἀκούσας, ὡς διά τοῦτο δύο κατά τόν Λέοντος τόμον ἐνεργείας οὐχ ὁμολογοῦμεν ἐπί Χριστοῦ, διά τά\n\nἑπόμενα ταύταις θελήματα, οἷς ἐξ ἀνάγκης προσώπων συνεισάγεται δυάς· ἀλλ᾿ οὐδέ μίαν πάλιν, ἁπλῆν θεωρεῖσθαι μή δυναμένην· ἕν δέ θέλημα, καί πᾶσαν θείαν τε καί ἀνθρωπίνην ἐνέργειαν ἐξ ἑνός καί τοῦ αὐτοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένου, κατά Σευῆρον προϊέναι φαμέν. Πρός οὕς ἄν τις σχετλιαστικῶς ἐκεῖνο τῆς προφητείας ἐποίσει τό μέρος· Ὤ, ὤ, φεύγετε ἀπό Βοῤῥᾶ· εἰς Σιών ἀνασώζεσθε, οἱ κατοικοῦντες θυγατέρα Βαβυλῶνος. Βοῤῥᾶς γάρ ὡς ἀληθῶς Σευήρου διάνοια, τόπος γενομένη ζοφερός, καί τῆς τοῦ θείου φωτός ἐστερημένη διατριβῆς· Θυγάτηρ δέ Βαβυλῶνος, ἡ κακῶς ἐκ τῆς προσγενομένης αὐτῷ χειρίστης ἕξεως γεννηθεῖσα συγκεχυμένη τῶν ψευδῶν διδασκαλία δογμάτων, ἥν κατοικοῦσι οἱ τό φῶς ἀπεστραμμένοι τῆς γνώσεως, καί πρός τήν Σιών, λέγω τήν Ἐκκλησίαν, ἀνασωθῆναι δι᾿ ἐπιστροφἠς οὐκ ἐθέλοντες. Ὁμοῦ γάρ τῆς τε θεολογίας καί τῆς οἰκονομίας, ὁ Σευήρου βασανιζόμενος καταγωνίζεται λόγος.","english":"For if by nature and in truth he was imperfect as man, he has not become perfect in truth as man, nor has he become man at all. For what existence belongs to an imperfect nature, of which there is not even a principle? Therefore Severus' aim, and that of those around him, was through some natural deficiency altogether to expel the ineffable nature assumed in union, and to ratify the pollution of Manes' fantasy, of Apollinaris' confusion, and of Eutyches' consubstantiation. For I remember, while I was staying on the island of Crete, that certain false bishops of Severus' party disputed with me; having heard that for this reason we do not confess two energies in Christ according to Leo's Tome, because of the wills that follow them, by which a duality of persons is necessarily introduced; but nor again do we say there is one, since it cannot be seen as simple; but we say that one will, and every divine and human energy, proceeds from one and the same God the Word incarnate, according to Severus. Against whom one might indignantly bring that part of the prophecy: Woe, woe, flee from the north; be saved to Zion, you who dwell in the daughter of Babylon. For the north is truly Severus' thought, having become a murky place and deprived of the dwelling of the divine light; and the daughter of Babylon is the confused teaching of false doctrines, wickedly born from the worst habit that came to him, which those who have turned away from the light of knowledge inhabit, and who do not wish to be saved to Zion, I mean the Church, through conversion. For at once the argument of Severus, being tortured, is defeated in both theology and economy.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":34,"ref":"p34","source":"Εἰ γάρ κατ᾿ αὐτόν, ταῖς ἐνεργείαις ἕπεσθαι τά θελήματα πέφυκε τοῖς δέ θελήμασιν εἰσάγεσθαι πρόσωπα, καθάπερ αἰτίοις αἰτιατά· ἵνα μή λέγω τίς ἡ ἀπόδειξις· καί παντί προσώπῳ δηλονότι, κατ' αὐτόν, θέλημα· καί τούτῳ πάντως ἐνέργεια συνεισαχθήσεται πρόσφορος. Ὁ γάρ τόν πρός τι, λόγος, ἄλυτον ἔχων τήν σχέσιν, ἴσην ποιεῖται τήν τῶν σχετῶν ἀκολούθως ἀντιστροφήν.\n\nΟὐκοῦν ἐπειδή πολύσημόν ἐστι τό ἁπλῶς λεγόμενον, εἰ μέν φυσικά τά κατά ἀντιστροφήν συνεισαγόμενα τοῖς προσώποις εἶεν θελήματα, ἡ μακαρία Μονάς, κατά Σευῆρον, καί φύσεων ἔσται Τριάς. Εἰ δέ γνωμικά, στασιάσει πάντως πρός ἑαυτήν μή συμβαίνουσα τοῖς θελήμασιν, ὡς προσώπων Τριάς· ἤ πάντως, εἴπερ ἕν θέλημα τῆς ὑπερουσίου Τριάδος ἐστί, μονοπρόσωπος ἔσται Θεότης τριώνυμος. Καί πάλιν, εἰ τῇ ἐνεργείᾳ πάντως κατά τήν Σευήρου πρότασιν ἕπεται θέλημα· τούτῳ δέ συνεισάγεται πρόσωπον, ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἀναιρεθείσῃ τῇ ἐνεργείᾳ, καί τό ἑπόμενον αὐτῇ συνανῄρηται θέλημα, καί τό τούτῳ συνεισαγόμενον πρόσωπον. Εἰ δέ τῇ μέν ἐνεργείᾳ, τό θέλημα· τῷ δέ θελήματι, συναιρεῖται τό πρόσωπον, ἀνυπόστατος ἔσται κατά Σευῆρον ὁ Χριστός· τῇ ἐνεργείᾳ, διά τό συναιρούμενον αὐτῇ θέλημα τοῦ συνεισαγομένου τῷ θελήματι προσώπου συναναιρεθέντος. Καί πάλιν, εἰ ταῖς ἐνεργείαις κατ᾿ αὐτόν ἕπεται πάντως θελήματα, τοῖς δέ θελήμασι συνεισάγεται πρόσωπα· ἐξ ἑνός δέ καί τοῦ αὐτοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένου προϊέναι φησί πᾶσαν θείαν καί ἀνθρωπίνην ἐνέργειαν·","english":"For if, according to him, wills naturally follow upon activities, and persons are introduced along with wills, as things caused follow upon causes—not to mention what the proof of this is—then every person, evidently, according to him, has a will, and with this will an appropriate activity will certainly be introduced as well. For the principle of relation, having an indissoluble relation, makes an equal reciprocal conversion of the correlatives in consequence.\n\nTherefore, since what is said simply is multivalent: if the wills introduced by reciprocal conversion along with persons are natural, then the blessed Monad, according to Severus, will be a Trinity of natures. But if they are gnomic, it will certainly be at variance with itself, not agreeing with its wills, as a Trinity of persons; or certainly, if there is one will of the superessential Trinity, the Godhead will be single-personed, with three names. And again, if, according to Severus's proposition, a will certainly follows upon activity, and a person is introduced along with the will, then when the activity is necessarily abolished, the will that follows upon it is abolished together with it, and the person introduced along with the will. But if will belongs to activity, and person is abolished together with will, then according to Severus Christ will be without hypostasis—because, with the will that is abolished together with the activity, the person introduced along with the will has been abolished together with it. And again, if, according to him, wills certainly follow upon activities, and persons are introduced along with wills; but he says that every divine and human activity proceeds from one and the same God the Word made flesh—","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":35,"ref":"p35","source":"καί πᾶν θέλημα κατ᾿ αὐτόν (δηλονότι θεῖόν τε καί ἀνθρώπινον), ὡς ταῖς ἐνεργείαις ἑπόμενον μετά τῶν ἰσαρίθμως συνεισαγομένον αὐτοῖς προσώπων, ἐξ ἑνός καί τοῦ αὐτοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένου πάντως συμπροαχθήσεται· καί οὐδείς ἀντερεῖ λόγος. Ἔσται τοιγαροῦν τῇ μέν ἀναιρέσει τῶν φυσικῶν ἐνεργειῶν ὁ Χριστός κατά Σευῆρον, ἀνούσιος· τῇ δέ παραγραφῇ τῆς μιᾶς, πάλιν ἄβουλος καί ἀνυπόστατος· καί τῇ πάσῃ προαγωγῇ θείας τε καί ἀνθρωπίνης ἐνεργείας, πολύβουλός τε καί πολυπρόσωπος· ἤ τό γε κυριώτερον εἰπεῖν, ἀπειρόβουλός τε καί ἀπειροπρόσωπος. Ὁ γάρ πᾶσαν φήσας ἐνέργειαν, ποσότητος πεποίηκε δήλωσιν ἀναρίθμητον. Οὐκοῦν κατά μέν τήν ἀντιστροφήν τῆς Σευήρου προτάσεως, ὁ τῆς θεολογίας αὐτῷ διαπέπτωκε λόγος, Ἀρειανήν πολυθεΐαν, καί Σαβελλιανήν ἀθεΐαν, καί μαχομένην ἑλληνικῶς ἑαυτῇ φύσιν θεότητος εἰσηγουμένῳ· κατά δέ τήν πρότασιν, σαφῶς ὁ τῆς οἰκονομίας αὐτῷ νενόθευται λόγος, τόν ἕνα Χριστόν ἀνούσιον, ἄβουλον, ἀνυπόστατον· καί πάλιν τόν αὐτόν ἀπειρόβουλόν τε πρεσβεύοντι καί ἀπειροπρόσωπον· οὗ τί δυσσεβέστερον;","english":"And every will, according to him (evidently both divine and human), as following upon activities together with the persons introduced in equal number with them, will certainly be brought forth together from one and the same incarnate Word; and no argument will contradict this. Therefore, by the removal of natural activities, Christ will be, according to Severus, without substance; and by the cancellation of the one will, again without will and without hypostasis; and by the entire production of divine and human activity, he will be many-willed and many-personed; or, to speak more authoritatively, infinitely-willed and infinitely-personed. For he who has spoken of every activity has made a declaration of quantity that is numberless. Therefore, by the reversal of Severus's proposition, the account of theology has collapsed for him, since he introduces an Arian polytheism, a Sabellian atheism, and a nature of divinity warring against itself in the Greek manner; and by the proposition, the account of the economy has been clearly corrupted for him, since he proclaims the one Christ to be without substance, without will, and without hypostasis; and again the same to be infinitely-willed and infinitely-personed. What could be more impious than this?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":36,"ref":"p36","source":"Ὁρᾶτε ποῦ φέρων ὁ Σευήρου κανών ἀπάγει τούς πειθομένους; Τοιοῦτος γάρ ἅπας καθέστηκε λόγος, τήν ἀήττητον βάσιν οὐκ ἔχων ἀλήθειαν. Ἕν δέ Χριστοῦ θέλημα λέγων, ὦ βέλτιστε, πῶς καί ποῖον τοῦτο φής; Εἰ μέν ὡς Χριστοῦ φυσικόν,\n\nΠατρός φύσει καί Μητρός αὐτόν ἠλλοτρίωσας, οὐδετέρῳ κατ᾿ οὐσίαν ἑνούμενον. Οὐδέτερον γάρ αὐτοῖν φύσει Χριστός· καί πῶς ἐκφεύξῃ τοῦτο λέγων, τῆς πολυθεΐας τόν κίνδυνον; Εἰ δέ γνωμικόν, μόνης ἔσται τῆς αὐτοῦ χαρακτηριστικόν ὑποστάσεως. Προσώπου γάρ ἀφοριστικόν ὑπάρχει τό γνωμικόν· καί δειχθήσεται σαφῶς ἑτερόβουλος Πατρί τε καί Πνεύματι κατά σέ, καί μαχόμενος. Εἰ δέ τῆς αὐτοῦ μόνης θεότητος, ἐμπαθής ἔσται θεότης, παρά φύσιν βρώσεως καί πόσεως ἀφιεμένη. Εἰ δέ τῆς αὐτοῦ μόνης ἀνθρωπότητος, οὐκ ἔσται φύσει δραστήριον. Πῶς γάρ, εἴπερ ἀνθρώπινον; Καί τερατώδης δειχθήσεται σαφῶς ἡ τῶν θαυμάτων ἐπίδειξις. Εἰ δέ ἀμφοτέρων φύσει κοινόν, πῶς ἔσται θέλημα κοινόν, ὧν ἡ φύσις διάφορος; Εἰ δέ ὡς ὅλου σύνθετος, πρός τῷ καινῷ μύθῳ καί πλάσματι. Τίς γάρ θελήματος σύνθεσις; πάλιν αὐτόν τοῦ Πατρός ἠλλοτρίωσας, συνθέτῳ θελήματι μόνην χαρακτηρίσας ὑπόστασιν σύνθετον. Οὕτω μέν οὖν πᾶσαν φυτείαν ἐκριζοῖ προσελθών ὁ λόγος, ἥν ὁ Πατήρ οὐκ ἐφύτευσεν· ἐπεί μή πέφυκε τό ξένον περιποιεῖσθαι γεώργιον.","english":"Do you see where the canon of Severus leads those who are persuaded by it? For every such argument is established in this way, not having truth as its invincible foundation. But saying \"one will of Christ,\" O excellent sir, how and of what sort do you say this is? If indeed as natural to Christ, you have alienated him by nature from the Father and from the Mother, since he is united in essence to neither. For Christ is by nature neither of the two; and how will you escape this, saying it, the danger of polytheism? But if it is gnomic, it will be characteristic of his hypostasis alone. For the gnomic is distinctive of a person; and he will be shown clearly to be of different will from the Father and the Spirit, according to you, and to be fighting against them. But if it is of his divinity alone, the divinity will be passible, being abandoned contrary to nature to eating and drinking. But if it is of his humanity alone, it will not be naturally active. For how, if indeed it is human? And the display of miracles will be shown clearly to be monstrous. But if it is common by nature to both, how will the will be common, whose nature is different? But if as of a composite whole, in addition to the novel myth and fiction. For what composition of will is there? Again you have alienated him from the Father, having characterized the only composite hypostasis by a composite will. Thus, then, the word comes and uproots every plant which the Father did not plant; since it is not natural to cultivate a foreign field.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":37,"ref":"p37","source":"Ἀλλ᾿, ὡς ἔοικε, τό φυσικόν θέλημα τῆς κατά Χριστόν ἀνθρωπότητος Σευῆρος ἀνεῖλεν, οὐκ εἰδώς ὅτι κυριώτερόν τε καί πρῶτον ἰδίωμα πάσης μάλιστα φύσεως λογικῆς, ἡ κατ᾿ ἔφεσιν αὐτῆς καθέστηκε κίνησις· ἥν οἱ Πατέρες σκοπήσαντες, φυσικῶν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ γνωμικῶν ἐπί Χριστοῦ θελημάτων διαφοράν λαμπρῶς ὡμολόγησαν. Οὐ γάρ ἄν ἔλεγόν ποτε γνωμικῶν ἐπί Χριστοῦ θελημάτων διαφοράν, ἵνα μή δίγνωμον καί δίβουλον, καί οἷον εἰπεῖν μαχόμενον ἑαυτῷ τῇ στάσει τῶν λογισμῶν· καί διά τοῦτο διπρόσωπον αὐτόν κηρύττωσιν· οἵ γε κατά μόνην ταύτην γινώσκοντες τήν τῶν γνωμικῶν θελημάτων διαφοράν ἐν τῷ βίῳ γεγενῆσθαι· τήν τε τῆς ἁμαρτίας εἴσοδον, καί τήν πρός τόν Θεόν ἡμετέραν διάστασιν. Ἐν οὐδενί γάρ ἄλλῳ καθέστηκε τό κακόν, εἰ μή μόνον ἐν τῇ πρός τό θεῖον θέλημα διαφορᾷ τοῦ κατά γνώμην ἡμετέρου θελήματος· ᾗτινι πάντως ἀντικειμένη συνεισάγεται ποσότης, καί ὁ ταύτης δηλωτικός ἀριθμός, δεικνύς ἡμῶν τήν πρός τόν Θεόν τοῦ γνωμικοῦ θελήματος ἀντιπάθειαν.","english":"But, as it seems, Severus abolished the natural will of the humanity according to Christ, not knowing that the most authoritative and first property of every rational nature especially is its motion according to desire; looking to this, the Fathers brightly confessed the difference of natural, but not of gnomic, wills in Christ. For they would never have spoken of a difference of gnomic wills in Christ, lest they proclaim him double-minded and double-willed and, so to speak, at war with himself in the conflict of his reasonings; and for this reason they proclaim him two-faced—those who know that this difference of gnomic wills alone came to be in life: both the entrance of sin and our separation from God. For evil is established in nothing else except only in the difference of our will according to judgment from the divine will; and opposed to this altogether, a quantity is introduced together with it, and the number that indicates it, showing our antipathy of the gnomic will toward God.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":38,"ref":"p38","source":"Εἷς οὖν Νεστορίῳ τε τῶν Σευήρῳ περί τοῦ δυσσεβεῖν ὑπάρχει σκοπός, κἄν ὁ τρόπος διάφορος. Ὁ μέν γάρ διά τήν σύγχυσιν, φεύγων τήν καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν ἕνωσιν, τήν οὐσιώδη διαφοράν προσωπικήν ποιεῖται διαίρεσιν· ὁ δέ διά τήν διαίρεσιν τήν οὐσιώδη μή λέγων διαφοράν, τήν καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν ἕνωσιν φυσικήν ἐργάζεται σύγχυσιν· δέον μήτε σύγχυσιν ἐπί Χριστοῦ, μήτε διαίρεσιν· ἀλλ' ἕνωσιν τῶν κατ᾿ οὐσίαν διαφερόντων, καί διαφοράν τῶν καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν ἡνωμένων ὁμολογεῖν, ἵνα καί τῶν οὐσιῶν ὁ λόγος, καί τῆς ἑνώσεως ὁ τρόπος, εὐσεβῶς καταγγέλληται· ὧν ἄμφω διαῤῥαγέντες· ὁ μέν, τήν τῶν γνωμικῶν μόνον ποιοτήτων ἕνωσιν· ὁ δέ, τήν τῶν φυσικῶν μόνον μετά τήν ἕνωσιν ἐπικυρώσας διαφοράν, ἄμφω τῆς τῶν πραγμάτων ἀληθείας ἀπέπεσον· ὁ μέν, διαίρεσιν· ὁ δέ, σύγχυσιν τοῦ μυστηρίου τολμηρῶς κατακρίναντες.\n\nΠΡΟΣ ΓΕΩΡΓΙΟΝ ΤΟΝ ΟΣΙΩΤΑΤΟΝ ΠΡΕΣΒΥΤΕΡΟΝ ΚΑΙ ΗΓΟΥΜΕΝΟΝ ΕΡΩΤΗΣΑΝΤΑ ΔΙ' ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗΣ ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΚΑΤΑ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΝ ΜΥΣΤΗΡΙΟΥ Νοῦν μέν τόν οἰκεῖον ἐφέσει θείᾳ πτερώσας, καί τόν λόγον διάρας σπουδῇ ὕλης καί τῶν περί ταύτην, θεοτίμητε Πάτερ, ἀκόρεστον ἔχεις τῶν ἱερογράφων Λογίων τήν ἔντευξιν, καί τῆς περί αὐτά φροντίδος δι᾿ ἐμμελοῦς προσοχῆς, εἰ καί τις ἄλλος τήν ἀκάματον δύναμιν. Οὐ γάρ οἶδε κόρον τό ὑπέρ αἴσθησιν· οὔτε μήν τήν οἰανοῦν περιστολήν, τό ὑπέρ ἔννοιαν. Τό μέν γάρ, ῥοῆς ἁπάσης καί ἀποῤῥοῆς κατά φύσιν ὑπερανέστηκε· τό δέ παντός εἴδους ὑπερανέχει καί σχήματος· τοῦ τε κρυφίου τήν ἔκφανσιν, ὡς θέμις, ἐκεῖνο ποιεῖται· καί τοῦ ἀορίστου","english":"One purpose—that of impiety—belongs to both Nestorius and Severus, even if their manner is different. For the one, on account of confusion, avoiding the union according to hypostasis, makes the essential difference a personal division; while the other, on account of division, not speaking of the essential difference, works the union according to hypostasis into a natural confusion. Yet one ought neither to confess confusion in Christ nor division, but union of those who differ in essence, and difference of those united according to hypostasis, so that both the principle of the essences and the manner of the union may be piously proclaimed. Both of these, having broken them apart—the one ratifying only the union of gnomic qualities, the other only the natural difference after the union—both fell away from the truth of the realities: the one daringly condemning the mystery to division, the other to confusion.\n\nTo George, the most holy presbyter and abbot, who asked by letter concerning the mystery according to Christ. Having winged your own mind with divine desire, and having traversed the word with zeal through matter and the things concerning it, O God-honored Father, you possess an insatiable reading of the sacred Scriptures, and of the care concerning them through diligent attention, if ever anyone else, the untiring power. For that which is beyond sense knows no satiety; nor indeed does that which is beyond thought know any circumscription whatsoever. For the one stands by nature above all flux and emanation; and the other surpasses every form and figure; and it makes the manifestation of the hidden thing, as is fitting; and of the undefined","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":39,"ref":"p39","source":"τήν ἐνδεχομένην τοῦτο παρέχει κατάληψιν· καί ὅση πρός ἁρπαγήν διανοίας αὐτάρκης, καί Πνεύματος ἁγίου περίδραξιν. Ἕως γάρ τούτου, καί διά τοῦτο καθέστηκεν, ἡ φιλάνθρωπος τοῦ ὑπέρ ἀνθρώπου δι᾿ ἐκφάνσεως συγκατάβασις· χάριτι θεουργούσα τούς γνώμη συναναβαίνοντας· καί τῇ κενώσει τοῦ Λόγου τό κατ᾿ αὐτό πλήρωμα δεχομένους, ἐν τῷ ἀπαρτισμῷ τῆς τῶν ἐντολῶν ἐργασίας· καθ᾿ ἥν προς ἐντέλειαν φρονήσεως καί ἀνδρείας αὐτός ἀναχθείς, τό τε φαινόμενον σωφρόνως πιέζεις, καί τό κρυπτόμενον, δικαίως πιαίνεις· ἵν᾿ ἐκείνῳ μέν τήν νέκρωσιν τοῦ Ἰησοῦ παραδείξῃς, πᾶσαν ὁλικῶς ἁμαρτίαν ἐξαφανίζουσαν· ἐν τούτῳ δέ τήν ζωήν ἐπιδείξῃς, ἀρετήν πᾶσαν ὑπερκοσμίως προβαλλομένην· ἐξ ὧν πρᾶξιν ἱεράν κατορθώσας καί θεωρίαν, τέλος ἱερόν ἐκομίσω τήν σωτηρίαν· ἥν ὥστε μεταδοῦναι καί ἄλλοις, καί ταύτην γνωρίσαι, τό θεομίμητον, εἵλου πρός ἐμέ τόν ἀνάξιον, ταπεινόν τε καί ἀγνώτην ὑπάρχοντα, τιμίαις προσχρήσασθαι συλλαβαῖς· καί πρῶτα μέν, σοφίσαι λόγῳ καί συνετίσαι· πρός δέ καί ἁγιάσαι διά τῆς ἑνούσης σοι χάριτος, πᾶσι πανταχοῦ διαδιδομένης· ἀπερίγραφον γάρ, ὡς αἰτίαν τόν ἀναίτιον ἔχουσα Λόγον.","english":"This provides the comprehension of it that is possible, and as much as is sufficient for the seizure of the mind, and the grasp of the Holy Spirit. For up to this point, and for this reason, stands the loving-kindness of the condescension on behalf of man through manifestation, working divinely by grace those who ascend together with him in purpose, and by the emptying of the Word receiving the fullness according to it, in the completion of the working of the commandments; according to which, having been led to perfection of prudence and courage, you press down what appears with self-control, and you fatten what is hidden with righteousness; so that in the former you might display the death of Jesus, wholly destroying all sin, and in the latter you might show forth life, projecting all virtue in a manner beyond the world; from which, having accomplished sacred action and contemplation, you received salvation as a sacred end; in order to impart this also to others and to make it known, you chose, in imitation of God, to employ precious syllables toward me, the unworthy, who am lowly and unknown; and first, to make me wise in word and to instruct me, and besides also to sanctify me through the grace that dwells in you, being distributed to all everywhere; for it is uncircumscribed, as having the uncaused Word as its cause.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":40,"ref":"p40","source":"Εἶτα καί πρός ἐπιστήμην ἱκανῶς ἀγαγεῖν τοῦ καινοῦ μυστηρίου τῆς κατ᾿ ἄνθρωπον θεοπλαστίας τοῦ δι᾿ ἡμᾶς σαρκωθέντος Θεοῦ Λόγου καί τελείως ἐνανθρωπήσαντος· τῷ δι᾿ ἐρωτήσεως ἐθέλειν, οὐ τό ἡγούμενον μαθεῖν· ἐν περιλήψει γάρ τῶν καλῶν ὑπάρχεις ἁπάντων· ἀλλ᾿ εἰς μύησιν προβιβάσαι τελεωτέραν, τό οὔπω δεδεγμένον τήν ἥττονα. Καί σοῦ τόν εὐσεβῆ τρόπον ἀποθαυμάσας, τόν λόγον προΐσχομαι κατά δύναμιν· φάσκων, ὡς οὐκ ἄλλο τι κατά φύσιν ὑπάρχει τό κατά τόν Σωτῆρα ἀνθρώπινον, καί ἄλλο τό καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς· ἀλλά ταυτόν τῇ οὐσίᾳ καί ἀπαράλλακτον, εἴπερ ἐκ τῆς ἡμετέρας ἐλήφθη, κατά τήν ἐκ τῶν παρθενικῶν τῆς πανάγνου καί Θεομήτορος ἀχράντων αἱμάτων ἄῤῥητον πρόσληψιν· οἷς δίκην σπορᾶς ἑνωθεῖς ὁ Λόγος, γέγονε σάρξ, μή ἐκστάς τοῦ εἶναι κατ' οὐσίαν Θεός· καί τέλειος καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς ἐχρημάτισεν ἄνθρωπος, πλήν μόνης τῆς ἁμαρτίας· δι᾿ ἥν ἡμεῖς μέν πολλάκις στασιάζομεν, καί ἀντιπαλαίομεν τῷ Θεῷ κατά τήν θέλησιν, ὡς ἐφ᾿ ἑκατέρα τήν ταύτης κεκτημένοι ῤοπήν· αὐτός δέ πάσης κατά φύσιν ἐλεύθερος ὤν ἁμαρτίας, ὡς ἄνθρωπος οὐ ψιλός, ἀλλ᾿ ἐνανθρωπήσας Θεός, οὐδέν ἐναντίον εἶχεν· ἀλλ᾿ ἄχραντον, καί πάντη κυρίως ἀμόλυντον τήν ἡμετέραν φύσιν διέσωζε· καθό καί ἔλεγε· Νῦν ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου ἔρχεται καί ἐν ἐμοί εὑρίσκειν οὐδέν· τῶν οἷς ἡμεῖς δηλαδή τήν φύσιν παραχαράττοντες, τήν ἐναντίωσιν τοῦ θελήματος ἐπιδείκνυμεν· δι᾿ ἥν τῷ καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς ἀνυπότακτος λέγεται καί Χριστός, ἕως ἄν ταύτης καί ἡμᾶς ἀπολύσῃ τῇ δυνάμει τῆς ἐνανθρωπήσεως·","english":"Then also to lead sufficiently to the knowledge of the new mystery of the God-fashioning in man of the God Word who was made flesh for us and became perfectly man—by your wanting to learn through questioning, not the leading point; for you are in the comprehension of all good things—but to bring one forward to a more perfect initiation, that which has not yet received the lesser. And having marveled at your pious manner, I set forth the account according to my ability, saying that the human nature in the Savior is not one thing by nature and another thing in us, but the same in essence and without variation, since it was taken from our nature, according to the ineffable assumption from the virginal, all-pure, and undefiled blood of the God-bearer; united to these as to seed, the Word became flesh, not departing from being God in essence; and He became perfect man according to us, except for sin alone. For because of this we often strive and struggle against God in our will, as having acquired the inclination to it on both sides; but He, being by nature free from all sin, as not a mere man but God become man, had nothing contrary; but He preserved our nature undefiled and in every way truly unblemished; as He also said: Now the ruler of this world comes and finds nothing in me—that is, in those things by which we, falsifying our nature, show the opposition of the will; on account of which Christ is also said to be unsubject to what is according to us, until He sets us free from it by the power of His becoming man.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[{"kind":"scripture","severity":"info","ref":"John 1:14","text":"The English carries the scriptural phrase “the word became flesh”, which matches John 1:14. The match is on the English draft; check the Coptic before quoting the verse."}]},{"i":41,"ref":"p41","source":"ἧς ἐπικυρῶν τήν ἀλήθειαν, πάντα γέγονε δι᾿ ἡμᾶς, καί δέδρακεν ἑκουσίως ὑπέρ ἡμῶν, μήτε τήν ἡμετέραν οὐσίαν, μήτε τι τῶν αὐτῆς ἀδιαβλήτων καί φυσικῶν τό παράπαν ψευσάμενος· εἰ καί ταύτην μετ᾿ ἐκείνων ἁπάντων ἐθέωσε, πυρακτωθέντος δίκην σιδήρου, πᾶσαν θεουργόν ἀποφήνας, ὡς διόλου κατ᾿ ἄκρον αὐτῇ περιχωρήσας διά τήν ἕνωσιν· καί ἕν μετ᾿ αὐτῆς ἀσυγχύτως καί τήν αὐτήν καί μίαν ὑπόστασιν γεγονώς. Ὄθεν τό κατ᾿ αὐτόν ἀνθρώπινον, οὐ διά τόν λόγον τῆς φύσεως, ἀλλά διά τόν καινοπρεπῆ τῆς γενέσεως τρόπον, πρός τό ἡμέτερον παραλλάττει· ταυτόν μέν ὑπάρχον κατά τήν οὐσίαν· οὐ ταυτόν δέ κατά τήν ἀσπορίαν ἐπεί μή ψιλή, ἀλλ᾿ αὐτοῦ κατ᾿ ἀλήθειαν τοῦ δι᾿ ἡμᾶς ἐνανθρωπήσαντος ἦν. Ὥσπερ οὖν καί τό θέλειν αὐτοῦ κυρίως μέν ὄν φυσικόν καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς, τυπούμενον δέ θεϊκῶς ὑπέρ ἡμᾶς. Δῆλον γάρ ὡς ἀσπορία καί σπορά, φύσιν οὐ τέμνει· περί δέ τήν αὐτήν τέμνεται φύσιν, ὥσπερ οὖν καί ἀγεννησία καί γέννησις.\n\nἘπεί τυχόν εἰ διαφοράν πρός τήν ἡμετέραν φύσιν ὡς ἄνθρωπος εἶχεν ὁ Λόγος διά τήν ἀπορίαν· ἕξει γε πάντως, καί πρός τήν τοῦ Πατρός οὐσίαν, διά τήν","english":"Confirming its truth, he did everything for our sake and acted willingly on our behalf, never at all falsifying either our essence or any of its irreproachable natural properties—even though he deified this essence together with all those properties, made it all God-working like iron heated to glowing, since through the union he wholly interpenetrated it to the utmost; and he became one with it without confusion, being the same and one hypostasis. Hence his human element differs from ours, not by reason of nature, but by reason of the novel manner of its generation: it is the same in essence, but not the same in respect of seedlessness, since it was not merely a man's, but truly belonged to him who for our sake became man. Just as his willing is properly natural, as with us, yet is shaped divinely, beyond us. For it is clear that seedlessness and seeding do not divide nature; the division concerns the same nature, just as unbegottenness and begetting do.\n\nSince, perhaps, if the Word as man had a difference from our nature because of the absence of seed, he will certainly have one also in relation to the essence of the Father, because of the","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":42,"ref":"p42","source":"γέννησιν. Οὐ γάρ ταυτόν ἀγεννησία καί γέννησις. Ἕξομεν δέ καί ἡμεῖς πρός τε τόν παλαιόν Ἀδάμ καί τήν Εὔαν, δίχα σπορᾶς γενομένους· ὁ μέν γάρ, πλάσμα τοῦ πλάσαντος· ἡ δέ, τμῆμα τοῦ πλάσματος. Ἀλλά μήν ταυτόν ὁ Υἱός τῷ Πατρί διά τήν θεότητα· Θεός γάρ καί ὁμοούσιος· ὥσπερ οὖν καί ἡμεῖς, πρός τε τόν Ἀδάμ καί τήν Εὔαν, καί αὐτόν τόν δι' ἡμᾶς σαρκωθέντα Θεόν, συγγενεῖς διά τήν ἀνθρωπότητα καί ὁμοούσιοι. Ὡς γάρ οὐκ οὐσία Θεοῦ τό ἀγέννητον καί γεννητόν (τίς γάρ ὁ λέγων), οὕτως οὐδέ σπορά καί ἀσπορία φύσις καθοτιοῦν ἀνθρωπότητος. Οὐδεμίαν οὖν ὁ μέγας θεολόγος Γρηγόριος ἔμφασιν παρέχει, τοῦ ἄλλο εἶναι κατά τήν φύσιν τό κατά τόν Σωτῆρα ἀνθρώπινον, καί ἄλλο τό καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς, εἰ καί τισιν ἐνομίσθη, τῶ φάσκειν αὐτόν, \"Εἴπαμεν ἄν ὡς παρά τοῦ ἀνθρώπου τυποῦσθαι τόν λόγον· οὐ τοῦ κατά τόν Σωτῆρα νοουμένου· τό γάρ ἐκείνου θέλειν, οὐδέν ὑπεναντίον Θεῷ θεωθέν ὅλον· ἀλλά τοῦ καθ' ἡμᾶς· ὡς τοῦ ἀνθρωπίνου θελήματος, οὐ πάντως ἑπομένου τῷ θείῳ, ἀλλ' ἀντιπίπτοντος ὡς τά πολλά καί ἀντιπαλαίοντος». Αὐτοῦ γάρ ἐστιν κυρίως καί λέγεται, οὐχ ὡς ἑτέρας ἤ ἐξ ἑτέρας ὅν πάρεξ τῆς ἡμετέρας οὐσίας καί φύσεως· ἀλλ᾿ ὡς δι᾿ ἐκεῖνον καί ἐν ἐκείνῳ, κατά τήν αὐτήν καί μίαν ὑπόστασιν γεγονός· καί οὐ καθ᾿ ἑαυτό χωρίς, ἤ δι᾿ ἑαυτό πραχθέν, ὥσπερ ἡμεῖς. Ὄθεν καί σποράν οὐκείαν καινοτομοῦντα τόν ἐπεισαχθέντα τῆς γεννήσεως τρόπον αὐτόν ἔσχε τόν Λόγον, ἅμα τῷ εἶναι φυσικῶς, καί τό ὑποστῆναι θεϊκῶς ἐν αὐτῷ κληρωσάμενον· ἵνα καί τό ἡμέτερον κυρωθῇ· καί τό ὑπέρ ἡμᾶς πιστευθῇ.","english":"birth. For unbegottenness and generation are not the same. We too shall have relation to the old Adam and to Eve, who came into being without seed: the one a formed thing of the one who formed him, the other a part cut from the formed thing. But indeed the Son is the same as the Father through divinity, for he is God and consubstantial; just as we too are akin and consubstantial with Adam and Eve, and with God himself who for our sake became flesh, through humanity. For just as unbegottenness and begottenness are not the essence of God (for who would say so?), so neither are seed and seedlessness the nature of humanity in any respect. Therefore the great theologian Gregory gives no indication that the human element in the Savior is one thing by nature and that which is ours another, even if some have thought so, when he says: \"We would have said that the word is formed, as it were, from the human being—not the one understood in the Savior (for his willing is in no way opposed to God, being wholly deified), but the one that is ours, since the human will does not altogether follow the divine, but for the most part resists and struggles against it.\" For it is properly his and is said to be his, not as though he were another or from another apart from our essence and nature, but as having come to be through him and in him according to the same one hypostasis, and not done by itself apart from him or through itself, as in our case. Whence also, innovating a seed proper to himself, he had the Word himself, who was introduced in the manner of his generation, as having at once both natural existence and divine subsistence allotted in him, so that what is ours might be confirmed and what is beyond us might be believed.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":43,"ref":"p43","source":"Δεῖ γάρ ἐν πᾶσιν καί τήν ὑπ' αὐτοῦ τοῦ σαρκωθέντος καί τελείως δι᾿ ἡμᾶς ἐνανθρωπήσαντος Θεοῦ Λόγου, καί τήν προσληφθεῖσαν φύσιν μετά τῶν αὐτῆς φυσικῶν συντηρεῖν· ὧν ἄνευ τό παράπαν οὔτε φύσις ἐστίν, ἀλλά φαντασία μόνη διάκενος, καί τήν ἕνωσιν διαφυλάττειν· τήν μέν, ἐν ἑτερότητι φυσικῇ σωζομένην· τήν δέ πάλιν, ἐν ὑποστατικῇ γνωριζομένην ταυτότητι· καί οὕτω τε σοφῶς ἅμα καί εὐσεβῶς, ὅλο διόλου τόν τῆς οἰκονομίας λόγον, ἄφυρτον ὁμοῦ καί ἀδιαίρετον ἀποφαίνειν.\n\nὍν αὐτός ὀρθοδόξως κηρύττων, ἕξεις ἀνακηρύττοντα κατά τήν ὑπόσχεσιν, καί τῶν οἰκείων δωρούμενον ὥσπερ δι᾿ ἐλπίδος ἐνταῦθα, οὕτω διά πείρας ἐκεῖ τήν ἀπόλαυσιν· ἧς κἀμέ μετασχεῖν ἱκέτευσον, Πάτερ ἡγιασμένε, διά τῆς σῆς μεσιτείας προσάγων αὐτῷ τῷ καλοῦντι καί σώζοντι· καί μισθόν τῆς εἰς ἀλλήλους τῶν ὁμογενῶν συμπαθείας, τῷ σύν αὐτῶ καί παρ᾿ αὐτῷ δοξασθῆναι χαριζομένῳ· ᾧ ἡ δόξα καί τό κράτος σύν τῷ παναγίῳ Πατρί, καί τῷ ζωοποιῷ αὐτοῦ Πνεύματι, εἰς τούς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. Ἀμήν.","english":"For it is necessary in all things both to preserve the union brought about by the very God the Word who was made flesh and perfectly became man for our sake, and to preserve the nature he assumed together with its natural properties—without which there is no nature at all, but only an empty fantasy—and to keep the union: the one preserved in natural otherness, and the other again recognized in hypostatic identity; and thus wisely and at the same time piously to show forth the whole account of the economy as both unconfused and undivided.\n\nProclaiming him orthodoxly, you will have him proclaiming in return according to the promise, and granting the enjoyment of his own gifts—here, as it were, through hope, and there through experience. Pray that I too may share in this, holy Father, bringing me through your mediation to the one who calls and saves, and granting as a reward of the mutual compassion of those of the same race, to be glorified with him and in him; to whom be the glory and the might, with the all-holy Father and his life-giving Spirit, unto the ages of ages. Amen.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":44,"ref":"p44","source":"ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΥΣ ΛΕΓΟΝΤΑΣ, ΟΤΙ ΜΙΑΝ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ ΧΡΗ ΛΕΓΕΙΝ ΕΝΕΡΓΕΙΑΝ... Πρός τούς λέγοντας, ὅτι μίαν Χριστοῦ χρή λέγειν ἐνέργειαν κατ᾿ ἐπικράτειαν· διά τό ὡς δραστικωτέραν τήν θείαν αὐτοῦ, κατεπικρατεῖν τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης οὕτω χρή ἀπολογεῖσθαι.\n\nΠρῶτον μέν δύο ἐνεργείας καί ὑμεῖς ὁμολογεῖτε· μίαν ἐπικρατοῦσαν· τήν θείαν φημί· καί μίαν κρατουμένην· τήν ἀνθρωπίνην δηλονότι· ὅπερ ἐστί τῶν Πρός τι. Τά δέ Πρός τι, πάντως συνεισάγουσιν ἑαυτοῖς καί τά ἀντιδιαιρούμενα. Ἔπειτα δέ, ὅτι εἰ κατ᾿ ἐπικράτειαν λέγετε τήν ἐνέργειαν, ὡς τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης διά τό ἐπικρατηθῆναι ἀναιρουμένης, μείωσιν αὐταῖς εἰσάγετε. Τό γάρ ἐπικρατοῦν, πάντως καί αὐτό τῶν πασχόντων ἐστί· καί αὐτό γάρ κρατεῖται ὑπό τοῦ ἐπικρατουμένου. Εἰ γάρ καί ἔλασσον, ὅμως δέ κρατεῖται πάντως· ὥσπερ χρυσός ἐπικρατῶν μέν τοῦ καταμιγνυμένου αὐτῷ ἀργυρίου, φέρε εἰπεῖν, ἤ χαλκοῦ·\n\nκρατούμενος δέ καί αὐτός, εἰ καί ἦττον, δῆλον δέ ὅτι κατά τήν ποσότητα τήν προσμιγεῖσαν.","english":"TO THOSE WHO SAY THAT ONE MUST SPEAK OF ONE ENERGY OF CHRIST... To those who say that one must speak of one energy of Christ by predominance, because his divine energy, being more active, thus predominates over the human, one must reply as follows.\n\nFirst, you too confess two energies: one predominating—I mean the divine—and one being dominated—clearly the human. And this is a matter of things in relation to something. But things in relation to something invariably introduce along with themselves the things that are distinguished in opposition to them. Secondly, if you speak of the energy by predominance, as though the human energy were abolished because it has been dominated, you introduce a diminution into them. For that which predominates is itself also altogether among the things that are acted upon; for it too is dominated by what is dominated. For even if it is lesser, it is nonetheless altogether dominated—just as gold predominates over the silver mixed with it, say, or the bronze, yet is itself also dominated, even if less so, evidently in proportion to the quantity that has been mixed in.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":45,"ref":"p45","source":"ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΥΣ ΛΕΓΟΝΤΑΣ, ΟΤΙ ΩΣΠΕΡ ΟΡΓΑΝΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΤΟΥ ΚΙΝΟΥΝΤΟΣ ΜΙΑ ΕΝΕΡΓΕΙΑ, ΟΥΤΩΣ...\n\nΠρός τούς λέγοντας, ὅτι Ὥσπερ ὀργάνου καί τοῦ κινοῦντος μία ἐνέργεια, οὕτως καί θεότητος καί ἀνθρωπότητος μία ἐνέργεια. Εἰ μέν φυσικόν τό ὄργανόν φατε, σύγχρονος ἔσται καθ' ὑμᾶς ὁ Λόγος τῇ σαρκί, ἤ ἡ σάρξ τῷ Λόγῳ συναΐδιος· πᾶν γάρ κεχρημένον φυσικῷ ὀργάνῳ, σύγχρονον τοῦτο ἔχει· ὥσπερ τό σῶμα, ἡ ψυχή· καί ὥρα ἡμᾶς καί κτίσμα τήν θείαν φύσιν λέγειν, ἤ τό σῶμα ἄκτιστον. Εἰ δέ τεχνικόν τό ὄργανον λέγετε, ἄψυχον τοῦτο εἰσάγετε, καί ἰδίᾳ διεστηκός καί μεμερισμένον· καί οὐκ ἀεί κινούμενον, ἀλλ᾿ ὅτε τῷ ἐργαζομένῳ δόξει τοῦτο μετά χεῖρας λαβεῖν καί ἐργάζεσθαι· καί λοιπόν ἤ Νεστορίου τοῦ παράφρονος σύμφρονες δειχθήσεσθε, διαιροῦντος καί διιστῶντος τά εἰς μίαν ὑπόστασιν καί ἕν πρόσωπον συνελθούσας Χριστοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ δύο φύσεις· ἤ Ἀπολιναρίου τοῦ ἀσεβοῦς φοιτηταί, τό ἄψυχον καί ἄνουν τό σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ λέγοντος.\n\nΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΥΣ ΛΕΓΟΝΤΑΣ, ΜΙΑΝ ΣΥΝΘΕΤΟΝ ΤΟΥ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ ΕΝΕΡΓΕΙΑΝ Πρός τούς λέγοντας, μίαν σύνθετον τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐνέργειαν. Ἡ σύνθετος ἐνέργεια, πάντως συνθέτου φύσεώς ἐστι. Πᾶσα δέ σύνθετος φύσις, ὁμόχρονον καί ἀκούσιον ἔχει τήν γένεσιν· κτιστή γάρ ὑπάρχει, καί τόπῳ καί κόσμῳ ἰδίῳ περιγραφομένη· καί ἀτόμων πολλῶν ἐστι περιληπτική. Ὥρα οὖν ὑμᾶς μίαν Χριστοῦ σύνθετον λέγοντας ἐνέργειαν, καί σύνθετον Χριστοῦ φύσιν λέγειν, ἧς καί ἔστιν ἀφοριστική, σύγχρονα τό μέρη ἔχουσαν· καί τούτων τήν σύνοδον ἀκούσιον καί ἠναγκασμένην· κτιστήν τε καί κόσμῳ ἰδίῳ καί τόπῳ περιγεγραμμένην·","english":"TO THOSE WHO SAY THAT JUST AS OF AN INSTRUMENT AND THE ONE MOVING IT THERE IS ONE ENERGY, SO ALSO...\n\nTo those who say that just as of an instrument and the one moving it there is one energy, so also of divinity and humanity there is one energy. If you say the instrument is natural, then according to you the Word will be contemporaneous with the flesh, or the flesh co-eternal with the Word; for everything that uses a natural instrument has this as contemporaneous with itself, just as the body has the soul; and it will be time for us to say that the divine nature is a creature, or that the body is uncreated. But if you say the instrument is artificial, you introduce it as soulless, and separately distinguished and divided, and not always being moved, but only when it seems good to the craftsman to take it in his hands and work; and for the rest you will be shown to be of one mind with the demented Nestorius, who divides and separates the two natures of Christ our God that came together into one hypostasis and one person; or disciples of the impious Apollinarius, who says the body of Christ is soulless and mindless.\n\nTO THOSE WHO SAY THAT THERE IS ONE COMPOSITE ENERGY OF CHRIST. To those who say that there is one composite energy of Christ. A composite energy is altogether of a composite nature. But every composite nature has its generation contemporaneous and involuntary; for it is created, and circumscribed by place and its own world; and it is comprehensive of many individuals. It is time, then, for you who say there is one composite energy of Christ also to say there is a composite nature of Christ, of which it is also definitive, having its parts contemporaneous, and the coming-together of these involuntary and compelled, and created and circumscribed by its own world and place.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":46,"ref":"p46","source":"λοιπόν δέ καί πλῆθος Χριστῶν καθ᾿ ὧν αὕτη κατηγορεῖται. ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ «ΠΑΤΕΡ, ΕΙ ΔΥΝΑΤΟΝ, ΠΑΡΕΛΘΕΤΩ ΑΠ' ΕΜΟΥ ΤΟ ΠΟΤΗΡΙΟΝ Περί τοῦ «Πάτερ, εἰ δυνατόν, παρελθέτω ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ τό ποτήριον». Εἰ τό, Πάτερ, εἰ δυνατόν, παρελθέτω ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ τό ποτήριον, συστολῆς ἔμφασιν ἔχον, ἀπό τοῦ ἀνθρώπου λαμβάνεις, \"οὐ τοῦ κατά τόν Σωτῆρα νοουμένου (τό γάρ ἐκείνου θέλειν, οὐδέν ὑπεναντίον Θεῷ, θεωθέν ὅλον), ἀλλά τοῦ καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς, ὡς τοῦ ἀνθρωπικοῦ θελήματος οὐ πάντως ἑπομένου τῷ Θεῷ, ἀλλ᾿ ἀντιπίπτοντος ὡς τά πολλά καί ἀντιπαλαίοντος\" ἧ φησιν ὁ θεῖος Γρηγόριος· τό ἑξῆς τῆς εὐχῆς, ἤγουν τό, Οὐχ ὅ ἐγώ θέλω, ἀλλά τό σόν ἰσχυέτω θέλημα, τί σοι δοκεῖ; συστολῆς ὑπάρχειν, ἤ ἀνδρείας; συννεύσεως ἄκρας, ἤ διαστάσεως; Ἀλλ᾿ ὅτι μέν οὐκ ἀντιπτώσεως, οὔτε δειλίας, συμφυΐας δέ μᾶλλον ἐντελοῦς καί συννεύσεως, οὐδείς ἀντερεῖ τῶν νοῦν ἐχόντων.\n\nΚαί εἰ συμφυΐας ἐντελοῦς καί συννεύσεως, ἐκ τίνος ταύτης προσδέχῃ; τοῦ καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς, ἤ τοῦ κατά τόν Σωτῆρα νοουμένου ἀνθρώπου; ἀλλ᾿ εἰ μέν ἐκ τοῦ καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς, ἡμάρτηται περί αὐτοῦ διαγορεύων ὁ τοῦ διδασκάλου λόγος· \" Ὡς τοῦ ἀνθρωπικοῦ θελήματος οὐ πάντως ἑπομένου τῷ θείῳ θελήματι, ἀλλ᾿ ἀντιπίπτοντος ὡς τά πολλά καί ἀντιπαλαίοντος». Εἰ γάρ ἕπεται, οὐκ ἀντιπίπτει· καί εἰ ἀντιπίπτει, οὐχ ἕπεται. Θατέρῳ γάρ θάτερον ὡς ἀντικείμενον ἀναιρεῖται καί","english":"Henceforth also a multitude of Christs, against whom this charge is brought. CONCERNING \"FATHER, IF IT IS POSSIBLE, LET THIS CUP PASS FROM ME.\" Concerning \"Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me.\" If the phrase \"Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me,\" which carries the appearance of shrinking, you take it as from the man—not the man understood in the case of the Savior (for his willing was in nothing opposed to God, being wholly deified), but the man as understood in our case, \"since the human will does not in every way follow God, but for the most part resists and struggles against him,\" as the divine Gregory says—then what do you think the rest of the prayer, namely \"Not what I will, but your will be strong,\" is? Is it a shrinking, or courage? An extreme yielding, or a separation? But that it is not a falling back, nor cowardice, but rather a complete union and yielding, no one of those who have understanding will deny.\n\nAnd if it is a complete union and yielding, from whose [will] do you accept this? From the man as understood in our case, or from the man understood in the case of the Savior? But if from the man as in our case, then the teacher's word has erred in declaring about him: \"Since the human will does not in every way follow the divine will, but for the most part resists and struggles against it.\" For if it follows, it does not resist; and if it resists, it does not follow. For by the one the other, as being opposed, is destroyed and","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":47,"ref":"p47","source":"ὑπεξίσταται. Εἰ δέ μή τοῦ καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς, ἀλλά τοῦ κατά τόν Σωτῆρα νοουμένου ἀνθρώπου λαμβάνῃς τό, Οὐχ ὅ ἐγώ θέλω, ἀλλά τό σόν ἰσχυέτω θέλημα, τήν ἄκραν τοῦ ἀνθρωπικοῦ πρός τό θεῖον αὐτοῦ θέλημα καί πατρικόν ὡμολογήσας σύννευσιν· καί δύο τοῦ διπλοῦ τήν φύσιν· τάς τε θελήσεις καί ἐνεργείας κατά φύσιν οὔσας, παρέστησας· ἐν οὐδετέρᾳ τήν οἰανοῦν ἐναντίωσιν ἔχοντος· εἰ καί τήν φυσικήν ἐν πᾶσι διαφοράν τῶν ἐξ ὧν καί ἐν αἷς τε, καί ἅπερ ἦν ὁ αὐτός κατά φύσιν. Εἰ δέ τούτοις ἐξειργόμενος τοῖς λογισμοῖς, ἐπί τό λέγειν προάγῃ, μήτε τοῦ καθ' ἡμᾶς, μήτε τοῦ κατά τόν Σωτῆρα νοουμένου ἀνθρώπου τυγχάνειν τό, Οὐχ ὅ ἐγώ θέλω, ἀλλ' ἀρνητικῶς, ἐπί τῆς τοῦ Μονογενοῦς ἀνάρχου θεότητος φέρεσθαι· τοῦ, τί θέλειν αὐτόν ἰδίως παρά τόν Πατέρα διεῖργον· οὐκοῦν καί τό θεληθέν, ὅπερ ἐστίν ἡ τοῦ ποτηρίου παραίτησις, ἐπ᾿ αὐτῆς ἀνάγκῃ φέρεις τῆς ἀνάρχου θεότητος. Εἰ γάρ καί τοῦ τί θέλειν ἰδίως ἀναίρεσιν φής ἔχειν τήν ἄρνησιν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ τοῦ θεληθέντος ἀποσκευήν· οὐ γάρ ἐπ᾿ ἀμφοῖν τίθεσθαι τήν ἄρνησιν δυνατόν· καί τοῦ τι θέλειν ἰδίως τόν Μονογενῆ παρά τόν Πατέρα, καί τοῦ θεληθέντος. Ἐπεί πάντως ἡ τοῦ κοινοῦ Πατρός καί Υἱοῦ θέλησις θελήματος, ἀναίρεσις ἔσται τοῦ θεληθέντος Θεῷ, ἤγουν τῆς ἡμῶν σωτηρίας. Τοῦτο γάρ αὐτῷ φύσει καθέστηκε θελητόν. Εἰ δέ μή δυνατόν ἐπ᾿ ἀμφοῖν τιθέναι τήν ἄρνησιν, δῆλον ὡς εἰ ταύτην ἐπί τοῦ τι θέλειν ἰδίως ἄγεις, ἵνα τήν τοῦ κοινοῦ θέσιν ποιήσῃς θελήματος, οὐκ ἀναιρήσῃς τό θεληθέν, ἤγουν τήν τοῦ ποτηρίου παραίτησιν·","english":"He withdraws. But if you take the words \"Not what I will, but your will be done\" as referring not to the man according to us but to the man understood in the case of the Savior, you have confessed the utmost concord of the human will with his divine and paternal will; and you have set forth two wills and energies of the double nature, being natural; since in neither is there any opposition whatsoever, even if there is a natural difference in all things of which and in which he was, and which he was by nature, the same. But if, driven by these reasonings, he proceeds to say that \"Not what I will\" belongs neither to the man according to us nor to the man understood in the case of the Savior, but is borne negatively upon the unoriginate divinity of the Only-begotten, then the \"what he wills\" privately apart from the Father separates him; and consequently you bring, by necessity, the thing willed—which is the passing of the cup—upon the unoriginate divinity itself. For even if you say that the negation has the removal of the \"what he wills\" privately, yet it is not the setting aside of the thing willed; for it is not possible to place the negation upon both—both the \"what the Only-begotten wills\" privately apart from the Father, and the thing willed. Since certainly the will of the common Father and Son will be a removal of the thing willed by God, that is, of our salvation. For this is by nature willed by him. But if it is not possible to place the negation upon both, it is clear that if you bring it upon the \"what he wills\" privately, in order to make the positing of the common will, you will not remove the thing willed, that is, the passing of the cup.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":48,"ref":"p48","source":"ἀλλά κατά τῆς κοινῆς ἐποίσεις καί ἀνάρχου θεότητος, ἐφ᾿ ἧς ἀρνητικῶς καί τό θέλειν ἀνήγαγες. Εἰ δέ τοῦτο κἄν ἐννοεῖν ἀπευκτόν, ἄρα γε σαφῶς ἐνταῦθα ἡ ἄρνησις, ἤγουν τό, Οὐχ ὅ ἐγώ θέλω, πάντῃ τήν ἐναντίωσιν ἀποσκευαζομένη, τήν τοῦ ἀνθρωπικοῦ τοῦ Σωτῆρος πρός τό θεῖον αὐτοῦ θέλημα καί πατρικόν συμφυΐαν παρίστησιν· ὡς ὅλην ὅλου τήν φύσιν οὐσιωθέντος τοῦ Λόγου, καί ὅλην τῇ οὐσιώσει θεώσαντος. Ὅθεν ὡς δι' ἡμᾶς καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς γεγονώς, ἔλεγεν ἀνθρωποπρεπῶς πρός τόν Θεόν καί Πατέρα· ή τό ἐμόν, ἀλλά τό σόν ἰσχυσάτω θέλημα· ἅτε θέλησιν καί ὡς ἄνθρωπος ἔχων αὐτός ὁ φύσει Θεός, τήν τοῦ πατρικοῦ θελήματος πλήρωσιν. Διό κατ᾿ ἄμφω τάς ἐξ ὧν, καί ἐν αἷς, καί ὧν ὑπόστασις ἦν, φύσει θελητικός καί ἐνεργητικός τῆς ἡμῶν ὑπάρχων ἐγνωρίζετο σωτηρίας· τό μέν, ὡς ταύτην συνευδοκῶν Πατρί καί Πνεύματι· τό δέ, ὡς Πατρί διά ταύτην ὑπήκοος γενόμενος μέχρι θανάτου, θανάτου δέ σταυροῦ· καί τό μέγα τῆς εἰς ἡμᾶς οἰκονομίας, διά σαρκός αὐτουργήσας μυστηρίου.","english":"But you will bring this against the common and unoriginate Godhead, to which you have also referred the \"willing\" negatively. But if this is abominable even to conceive, then surely here the denial—that is, \"Not what I will\"—wholly setting aside the opposition, presents the natural union of the human will of the Savior with his divine and paternal will; since the Word was made substance of the whole nature of the whole man, and deified the whole by his making it substance. Whence, as having become for us according to us, he spoke in a manner befitting man to God and the Father: \"Not my will, but yours prevail\"—inasmuch as he, who is by nature God, also as man had a will, namely the fulfillment of the paternal will. Therefore in both respects—both from the things of which, and in which, and of which he was a hypostasis—he was recognized as being by nature willing and active for our salvation: on the one hand, as consenting to this with the Father and the Spirit; on the other, as having become obedient to the Father through this unto death, even death on a cross; and as having wrought the great mystery of the economy toward us through the flesh.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":49,"ref":"p49","source":"ΣΧΟΛΙΟΝ Ὅτι οἱ λέγοντες τό, Οὐχ ὁ ἐγώ θέλω, ἀρνητικῶς ἐπί τῆς τοῦ Μονογενοῦς ἀνάρχου θεότητος φέρεσθαι· σημαῖνον, ὡς αὐτοί φασι, τό, μή τι θέλειν αὐτόν ἴδιον παρά τόν Πατέρα, ἀνάγκην ἔχουσι, καί τό θεληθέν, ὅπερ ἐστίν ἡ τοῦ ποτηρίου παραίτησις, ἐπ᾿ αὐτῆς ἀνάγειν τῆς ἀνάρχου θεότητος· καί ὅτι ἐπειδή μή δυνατόν ἐπ᾿ ἀμφοῖν τίθεσθαι τήν ἄρνησιν, καί τοῦ τί θέλειν ἰδίως τόν ονογενῆ παρά τόν Πατέρα, καί τοῦ θεληθέντος, πάντως ἐπί τοῦ τι θέλειν ἰδίως μόνον ταύτην ἀνάγωσιν, οὐκ ἐπί τοῦ θεληθέντος, ὅπερ ἐστίν ἡ τοῦ ποτηρίου παραίτησις, ἤγουν ἡ σωτηρία ἡμῶν· οὗ τί γένοιτο παραλογώτερον; Συμβαίνει γάρ ἐθέλειν παρελθεῖν τόν Θεόν, ὅ φύσει αὐτῷ καθέστηκε θελητόν. Ἐπεί οὗ ἐστι τό, Οὐχ ὅ ἐγώ θέλω, τούτου πάντως καί τό. Παρελθέτω ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ ποτήριον. ΤΟΜΟΣ ΔΟΓΜΑΤΙΚΟΣ ΣΤΑΛΕΙΣ ΕΝ ΚΥΠΡΩ ΠΡΟΣ ΜΑΡΙΝΟΝ ΔΙΑΚΟΝΟΝ Οὐ μᾶλλόν σου τῆς πολλῆς εὐλαβείας κατεπλάγην τό κόσμιον ἤ τοῦ μεγίστου ζήλου τό ἀνδρικόν ἀπεθαύμασα, πανάγιε Θεοῦ θεράπον, καί τῶν αὐτοῦ","english":"SCHOLION: Those who say that the phrase \"Not what I will\" is to be taken negatively of the unoriginate Godhead of the Only-Begotten—signifying, as they themselves say, that he does not will anything of his own beside the Father—are compelled also to refer the thing willed, which is the setting aside of the cup, to that same unoriginate Godhead. And because it is not possible to apply the negation to both—both to the Only-Begotten's willing something of his own beside the Father and to the thing willed—they must by all means refer it only to the willing something of his own, and not to the thing willed, which is the setting aside of the cup, that is, our salvation. What could be more absurd than this? For it follows that God wills to pass by what is by nature willed by him. Since where \"Not what I will\" applies, there also certainly applies \"Let this cup pass from me.\"\n\nDOGMATIC TOME SENT TO CYPRUS TO MARINUS THE DEACON: I was not so struck with admiration by the orderly decency of your great piety as I marveled at the manly courage of your exceedingly great zeal, all-holy servant of God, and of his...","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":50,"ref":"p50","source":"πάνσοφε μύστα καί μυσταγωγέ μυστηρίων. Τῇ γάρ ἐξ ἀμφοῖν ἱερᾷ συμπλοκῇ, τήν ἐν πᾶσιν ἀγαθοῖς ἐκτήσω τελείωσιν· κατ᾿ ἐκείνην μέν, ὅλος ἐν ὅλῳ διόλου γενόμενος τῷ Θεῷ, διά τῆς τῶν αὐτοῦ θείων ἐντολῶν ἐκπληρώσεως, ὅλος εἶναι λογίζῃ δι' ἄκραν πτωχείας ὑπερβολήν ἐν τοῖς κατ᾿ ἐμέ προσύλῳ ψυχῆς διαθέσει, τῷ ἰχῶρι τῶν ἀκαθάρτων ἰλυσπώμενοι παθῶν· ὁμοῦ τε τό ἀσφαλές ἐντεῦθεν ἑαυτῷ κατά λόγον περιποιούμενος· οὐδέν γάρ αὐθαιρέτου πτωχείας εἰς πῆξιν τῶν καλῶν καί συντήρησιν, ἰσχυρότερον· θεμέλιος γάρ τῶν ἐν ψυχῇ θείων οἰκοδομημάτων καθέστηκεν ἀῤῥαγής, καί τοῖς ἄλλοις ἅπασιν, οἷς τό καλόν διεσπούδασται, σωτηρίας γενόμενος πρόξενος· τῷ ἄγειν ἐξ ὑποδείξεως ἐνεργοῦς μᾶλλον, ἤ διδακτικῆς προσφωνήσεως, εἰς μέγεθος ἀρετῆς δι᾿ ὑφέσεως ὑψηλῆς, τούς πρός σέ τόν τε νοῦν ὁμοίως καί τόν βίον σοφῶς ἀπευθύνοντας. Κατά τοῦτον δέ, φημί, τόν ζῆλον, ὅλην ἔχων τήν ζέσιν τοῦ Πνεύματος, καί τό πῦρ ἐν τῇ γῇ τῆς καρδίας κτησάμενος, ὅ ἦλθεν ἐν αὐτῇ βαλεῖν, ὁ πᾶσαν ἡμῶν ἐκδαπανῶν μοχθηράν ἕξιν καί κίνησιν, φιλάγαθος φύσει καί φιλάνθρωπος Λόγος, φλογίζεις μέν τούς ἐξ ἀπάτης τε καί ἀνοίας ὑλομανοῦντάς τε καί ὑθλομανοῦντας, ἔν τε πράξεσι φαύλαις καί κιβδήλοις λόγοις, τούτων ἀπελέγχων τό σαθρόν τε καί εἰκαῖον, τῇ προβολῇ τῆς ἀσβέστως ἐν σοί καιομένης κατά θείαν γνῶσιν καί ἀρετήν μακαρίας λαμπάδος· θερμαίνεις δέ, τούς τῇ πήξει λίαν κατεψηγμένους, ταύτης δή τῆς κρημώδους καί ἀφεγγοῦς προβολῆς, ταῖς ἀκτινοφανέσι τῶν θείων λόγων αὐγαῖς·","english":"All-wise initiate and mystagogue of the mysteries. For by the sacred conjunction of both, you obtained perfection in all good things: by that one, having become wholly in the whole entirely in God through the fulfillment of his divine commandments, you are reckoned to be wholly, through the extreme excess of poverty, in the things that are according to me—in the material disposition of the soul, wallowing in the ichor of impure passions; and at the same time procuring for yourself from this the security according to reason. For nothing is stronger for the fixing and preservation of good things than voluntary poverty. For it has been established as an unbreakable foundation of the divine buildings in the soul, and has become for all others besides, by whom the good is earnestly pursued, a cause of salvation—by leading, from the demonstration of active deeds rather than from didactic address, to greatness of virtue through a lofty condescension, those who wisely direct themselves toward you both in mind and in life alike. And according to this zeal, I say, having the whole fervor of the Spirit and having acquired in the earth of the heart the fire which the Word, who by nature loves the good and loves mankind, came to cast into it, consuming all our wicked habit and motion—you set aflame those who, from deceit and folly, are mad after matter and mad after trifles, in base deeds and counterfeit words, refuting their rottenness and vanity by the projection of the blessed torch that burns unquenchably in you according to divine knowledge and virtue; and you warm those who have been thoroughly frozen by the fixing of this very precipitous and lightless projection, with the radiant beams of the divine words.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":51,"ref":"p51","source":"τό τε νύχος πάμπαν ἐλαύνων καί διαλύων, καί τήν ἄκραν συστολήν πρός ἄκραν ἀνδρείαν μετάγων καί δύναμιν· φωτίζεις δέ πάλιν ἀπό ὀρέων αἰωνίων· τῶν ἀΰλων φημί, καί πᾶσαν πασῶν αἰσθήσεων ὑπερβεβηκότων γνῶσιν καί δύναμιν, πατρικῶν λόγων τε καί δογμάτων, τούς ἐφιεμένους φωτός· καί τῇ κατά τήν σοφίαν γεύσει, τοῦτο σαφῶς ἐκεῖνο δι᾿ ἐλπίδος εἰκονισθέντας ἤδη καλῶς, ὅπερ αὐτό φύσει καθέστηκε τό ποθούμενον· πρός τήν διά πείρας ἄγων αὐτούς, καί προσάγων εὐσεβῶς ὁλικήν μεταποίησιν. Οὐδέν γάρ οὕτω τῆς κατά σέ θείας ἱερωσύνης εἰκονίζει τό ἔργον, ὡς ὁ κατά Θεόν εὐλαβείᾳ σύγκρατος καί ἀνένδοτος ζῆλος, καί ὁ τούτου συνεκτικός ἅμα καί ἐξαπτικός ἐν ἡμῖν ἔμφυτος λόγος, ἐκεῖνο δρᾷν παρασκευάζων, καί σοφῶς οἰακίζων, ἅπερ ὁ φύσει καί πρῶτος διακελεύεται, πρός τήν ἡμῶν ἄνοδον εἰς αὐτόν, καί τελείαν δι᾿ ἔργων ὁσίων καί δογμάτων ἀγαθῶν ἀποκατάστασιν· ἀποφυγήν δέ καί ἀποστροφήν, τῶν ταύτης ἡμᾶς ποιούντων διαμαρτεῖν τῆς ἱερᾶς ἀναβάσεως. Καί τί γε ἄλλο διαλύει ταύτην σφοδρῶς, καί οἷον ἀποτειχίζει· φημί δέ τήν πρός τόν Λόγον πορείαν, πλήν τῆς αὐτοῦ φοβερᾶς προδοσίας τῶν νῦν ἐπιφυέντων τοῖς τήν βασιλικήν ὁδόν τῶν θείων καί πατρικῶν δογμάτων ὁδεύουσι· καί μηδεμίαν τῶν παρ' ἑκατέρα δυστυχῶς φερομένων ἐν βαράθροις συγχύσεως καί φάραγξι διαιρέσεως παρεκτροπήν γινωσκόντων;","english":"Both utterly driving away and dissolving the night, and transferring the extreme contraction to extreme courage and power; and again you illumine from the eternal mountains—I mean the immaterial ones, which have surpassed every knowledge and power of all the senses—with the paternal words and doctrines, those who desire the light; and by the taste according to wisdom, you lead them through experience, and piously bring them to a whole transformation, [those] who have already been well and clearly imaged through hope as that very thing which is by nature the object of longing. For nothing so images the work of the divine priesthood according to you as the zeal mixed with reverence according to God and unyielding, and the innate reason in us that both holds this together and kindles it, preparing us to do and wisely steering those things which the first by nature commands, toward our ascent into him and perfect restoration through holy works and good doctrines; and [nothing so images] the avoidance and turning away from those things which make us fail of this sacred ascent. And what else violently dissolves this and, as it were, walls it off—I mean the journey toward the Word—except his fearful betrayal by those now growing upon those who walk the royal road of the divine and paternal doctrines, and who know no deviation of any of those wretchedly borne on either side into the pits of confusion and the ravines of division?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":52,"ref":"p52","source":"ἤ γνῶναι καθοτιοῦν βουλομένων, χάριτι τοῦ σοφῶς ὁδηγοῦντός τε καί χειραγωγοῦντος παναγίου Πνεύματος, εἰς τήν πρόσωπον πρός πρόσωπον τελείαν ἐπίγνωσίν τε καί μύησιν αὐτοῦ τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καί Σωτῆρος τῶν ὅλων Χριστοῦ, τούς κατ᾿ εὐχάς δι᾿ εἰλικρινοῦς καί ὀρθοδόξου πίστεως ἐπειγομένους. Πρόδοσις γάρ ἐστι, ἡ τῆς εὐσεβοῦς αὐτοῦ τε καί περί αὐτοῦ δόξης παραλλαγή, τῇ προσλήψει τῆς τῶν ἑτεροδόξων ὁμολογίας καί διδαχῆς ἀπεμπολοῦσα αὐτόν, εἰς ἀναίρεσιν τῆς ἐξ ἡμῶν παναγίας αὐτοῦ σαρκός· μᾶλλον δέ τῆς ὅλης οἰκονομίας ἀνατροπήν· καί προδοσία τῆς ἐν πρώτοις, ὅτε σαρκί μεθ᾿ ἡμῶν ὑπῆρχεν ὁ Λόγος, γεγενημένης, βαρυτέρα τοσοῦτον, ὅσῳ τελειωτέρα τοῖς πᾶσιν ἥ τε τῆς θεότητος αὐτοῦ γνῶσις, καί τῆς κατ᾿ αὐτόν ἀνθρωπότητος ἡ ἀλήθεια προδήλως γεγένηται· τά πέρατα τῆς οἰκουμένης διαλαβοῦσα τῇ μεγαλοφωνίᾳ τῶν αὐτήν κηρυττόντων ἁγίων Πατέρων. Πᾶσι γάρ πανταχοῦ βεβαίως ὁμολογουμένου, καί ὀρθοδόξως πιστευομένου, κατά τήν αὐτῶν, φημί δή τῶν θεοκρίτων ὑφήγησιν","english":"of those who wish to know in any way whatsoever, by the grace of the all-holy Spirit who wisely guides and leads by the hand, to the face-to-face perfect knowledge and initiation of the great God and Savior of all things, Christ himself—those who press on through prayers by sincere and orthodox faith. For it is a betrayal, the alteration of his pious glory and of the glory concerning him, selling him off by the adoption of the confession and teaching of the heterodox, to the destruction of his all-holy flesh that comes from us—or rather, to the overturning of the whole economy; and it is a betrayal heavier than the first, which took place when the Word was with us in the flesh, by as much as both the knowledge of his divinity and the truth of the humanity according to him have become manifestly more perfect in all things, encompassing the ends of the inhabited world by the loud voice of the holy Fathers who proclaim it. For since it is firmly confessed by all everywhere, and orthodoxly believed, according to their guidance—I mean, of those judged by God—","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":53,"ref":"p53","source":"διδασκάλων, ὡς ὁ εἷς τῆς ἁγίας καί ὁμοουσίου Τριάδος, ὁ μονογενής Υἱός, τέλειος κατά φύσιν ὑπάρχων Θεός, τέλειος κατά θέλησιν ἄνθρωπος γέγονε, σάρκα τήν ἡμῶν ὁμοούσιον ἐκ τῆς ἁγίας Θεομήτορος Ἀειπαρθένου κατ᾿ ἀλήθειαν προσλαβών, λογικῶς τε καί νοερῶς ἐψυχωμένην, καί καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν ἑαυτῷ κυρίως ἀδιασπάστως ἑνώσας, εἷς τε μετ᾿ αὐτῆς ὑπάρχει καθά καί πρότερον· πλήν οὐκ ἀσύνθετος τήν ὑπόστασιν· εἰ καί τήν φύσιν ἁπλοῦς· ἅτε διαμείνας Θεός καί τῷ Πατρί ὁμοούσιος· καί αὖθις διπλοῦς ὡς γενόμενος σάρξ· ἵνα τῷ μέν διττῷ τῆς φύσεως, συγγενής ᾗ κατ᾿ οὐσίαν τοῖς ἄκροις, καί τήν πρός ἄλληλα φυσικήν τῶν οἰκείων μερῶν σώζῃ διαφοράν· τῶ δέ μοναδικῷ τοῦ προσώπου, τήν ἐν τοῖς μέρεσι τελείαν ἔχων ταυτότητα, καί τήν πρός τά ἄκρα προσωπικήν, ὡς εἷς καί μόνος, κέκτηται διαφοράν· καί τῷ ἀνελλιπεῖ τῆς πρός αὐτά (φημί δέ τά ἄκρα) φυσικῆς καί οὐσιώδους ἀπαραλλαξίας, τέλειος ᾖ τά ἑκάτερα· Θεός ὁμοῦ καί ἄνθρωπος ὁ αὐτός· ἀτελῆ τοῦτον εἰσάγουσι, καί τῶν κατά φύσιν παθόντα τήν ἔκπτωσιν, οἱ τήν τῶν προσόντων αὐτῷ φυσικῶς ἀπομείωσιν ἀσεβῶς δογματίζοντες. Εἰ γάρ ἑκατέρας φύσεως ἀνελλιπῶς οὐ φυλάττει τήν ἰδιότητα, χωρίς μόνης ἁμαρτίας, κατά τούς θείους Πατέρας, τῶν ἐξ ὧν καί ἐν αἷς κυρίως ἐστίν ὁ σαρκωθείς Λόγος καί μετά τήν ἕνωσιν, ἐλλιπής ὑπάρχει Θεός· εἴπερ ὅλως ἄνθρωπος μείωσιν τῶν φυσικῶν κεκτημένος.","english":"of the teachers, as the one of the holy and consubstantial Trinity, the only-begotten Son, being perfect God by nature, has become perfect man by will, having truly taken flesh consubstantial with us from the holy Mother of God, the Ever-Virgin, animated with reason and intellect, and having united it to himself hypostatically, properly and inseparably, and he is one with it as he was also before; except that he is not without composition in his hypostasis, even if he is simple in nature, inasmuch as he remained God and consubstantial with the Father; and again he is double as having become flesh; so that by the duality of nature he might be akin in essence to the extremes, and might preserve the natural difference of his own parts from one another; and by the singularity of his person, having the perfect identity in the parts, he possesses also the personal difference in relation to the extremes, as one and only; and by the unerring natural and essential immutability toward them (I mean the extremes), he might be perfect in each; the same being both God and man together. Those who impiously dogmatize the diminution of the properties that belong to him by nature introduce him as imperfect and as having suffered the fall of things according to nature. For if he does not preserve the property of each nature without deficiency, apart from sin alone, according to the divine Fathers, of those from which and in which the incarnate Word properly is even after the union, he is an imperfect God; if indeed he is at all a man having acquired a diminution of natural properties.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":54,"ref":"p54","source":"Οὐ χρή τοιγαροῦν προφάσει δῆθεν ἑνώσεως μηδενί λυμαινομένης, ἀλλά μόνον εἰς ἕν καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν συνδεούσης τά πράγματα, τήν ὕπαρξιν αὐτῶν παραφθείρειν, τῇ ἀναιρέσει τοῦ τε φυσικοῦ θελήματος καί τῆς οὐσιώδους ἐνεργείας. Εἴτε γάρ ὡς ἐκ μερῶν ὅλον τι, τά τε οὐσιώδη δύο θελήματα καί τάς ἰσαρίθμους φυσικάς ἐνεργείας κατά σύνθεσιν εἰς ἕν θέλημα καί μίαν ἐνέργειαν ἐκτήξομεν τυχόν καί χωνεύσομεν, μυθικόν τό τοιοῦτον, καί τῆς πρός τόν Πατέρα καί ἡμᾶς ξένον τε πάντη καί ἀλλότριον δειχθήσεται κοινωνίας· ὡς οὐ σύνθετον ἐκείνου κατά φύσιν ἔχοντος θέλημα, ἤ ἐνέργειαν· οὐδέ πάλιν ἡμῶν. Οὐδεμίαν γάρ τῶν ἐν ὑποκειμένῳ σύνθεσις· ὅτι μηδέ καθ᾿ ἑαυτά τό παράπαν ὕπαρξις θεωρεῖται, καί τῆς ὑποκειμένης οὐσίας ἐκτός. Πρός γάρ τῷ ἄχαρι καί λίαν κατάπτυστον, ἄνω τε καί κάτω διά τήν φυσικήν πρός ἄμφω συγγένειαν κατά διαστολήν ἐξ ἡμισείας μερίζεσθαί τε καί τέμνεσθαι, προσομολογούντων· καί ταῦτα τήν καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν ἀδιάσπαστον ἕνωσιν. Εἴτε πάλιν τῆς θείας τοῦ σαρκωθέντος Λόγου φύσεως ἀλώβητον, τό τε φυσικόν θέλημα, καί τήν οὐσιωδῶς προσοῦσαν ἐνέργειαν συντηρήσομεν, τῆς δέ κατ᾿ αὐτόν ἀνθρωπίνης οὐσίας ἀνέλωμεν ταῦτα καί ἀποσκευάσομεν· καί οὕτως τήν ὑπερφυᾶ παραβλάπτομεν ἕνωσιν, οὐκ ἔχουσαν ὅ τι καί δήσει πρός μίαν ὑπόστασιν, τῆς λογικῶς τε καί νοερῶς ἐψυχωμένης σαρκός, ἤγουν τῆς καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς οὐσίας καί φύσεως, ἐν τῷ Λόγῳ τό παράπαν οὐκ οὔσης τελείως καί σωζομένης. Ποῦ γάρ καί ποία φύσις, τῶν κατά φύσιν παθοῦσα τή ἔκπτωσιν;","english":"It is not right, therefore, on the pretext of a union that supposedly harms nothing but only binds things together into one hypostasis, to corrupt their existence by abolishing the natural will and the essential energy. For if, as a whole is composed of parts, we melt down and fuse the two essential wills and the equal number of natural energies by composition into one will and one energy, such a thing will be shown to be mythical and entirely foreign and alien to the communion with the Father and with us; since neither does he have a composite will or energy by nature, nor again do we. For there is no composition of things that exist in a subject, because they are not contemplated as having any existence at all in themselves, apart from the underlying essence. For in addition to being ungracious and utterly detestable, it would also mean admitting that, on account of the natural kinship to both, he is divided and cut in half, as it were, above and below by distinction—and this despite the indivisible union according to hypostasis. Or again, if we preserve inviolate the natural will and the essentially inherent energy of the divine nature of the incarnate Word, but abolish and set aside these things from the human essence that is his, then we thereby harm the supernatural union, which would have nothing to bind it to one hypostasis, since the flesh endowed with a rational and intellectual soul—that is, the essence and nature that is ours—would not exist at all perfectly and be preserved in the Word. For where and what nature is it that has suffered the fall of its natural properties?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":55,"ref":"p55","source":"Εἰ οὖν τούτων, ἤ τινος τούτων ἐλλιπής ἦν κατά σάρκα τῶν φυσικῶν ἰδιωμάτων ὁ Κύριος, οὐδέ σάρξ ὅλως ὑπῆρχε καί ἄνθρωπος· ἤ γάρ δείξωσιν οἱ ταῦτα λέγοντες, ἄνθρωπον ὄντα κατά φύσιν τούτων ἐκτός, ἤ ὅλως ἄνθρωπον· ἤ, εἴπερ οὐδαμῶς τό παράπαν ἐστί, δῆλον ὥς οὐκ ἄνθρωπος, τούτων ἤ τινος αὐτῶν κατά φύσιν ἐστερημένος, σαρκωθείς ὁ Λόγος γεγένηται. Πῶς γάρ καί τίνι λόγῳ, μηδεμίαν ἔλλειψιν τῶν τοιούτων ἐχούσης τῆς φύσεως; ἀλλ᾿ ἕτερόν τι ξένον παντάπασι τῆς ἡμετέρας οὐσίας ὑπάρχει καί ἄγνωστον· καί, ἤ ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς συνουσιωμένον αὐτῷ, καί ἄνωθεν κατελθόντι συγκατελθόν αὐτῷ, ἐκεῖνο σαφῶς ὅπερ λέγεται γεγονέναι· καί τί λοιπόν πρός ἡμᾶς ἡ κατάβασις, οὐδαμῶς συνελθόντας διά τῆς οὐκ ἐξ ἡμῶν προσληφθείσης, καί καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν ἑνωθείσης ἁγίας σαρκός; ἤ φαντασία τό πᾶν, καί σχῆμα μόνον φαινακίζον τήν αἴσθησιν, ἀλλ' οὐκ οὐσία σαρκός,\n\nὡς οὐκ ἀπαρχή τοῦ ἡμετέρου γένους, τό φύραμα κατά χάριν ἑνίζουσα, καί τῶν διαιρετικῶν ἀπολύουσα πάντων, ὧν ἡ τοῦ παλαιοῦ παράβασις Ἀδάμ αἰτία γεγένηται· δι᾿ ἥν καί ὁ θάνατος κατεκρίθη τῆς φύσεως. Τί τοιγαροῦν βασκαίνουσιν ἡμῖν τῆς τελείας σωτηρίας καί ὁμολογίας; Τί τούς ἀφύκτους δῆθεν καθ' ἡμῶν διατείνουσι συλλογισμούς, καί ταῖς μέν ἐνεργείαις ἕπεσθαί φασι τά θελήματα, καί τούτοις συνέπεσθαι πάλιν τήν ἐναντίωσιν, ἐξ ἧς καί τούς τἀναντία θέλοντας ἐπεισάγουσιν;","english":"If, then, the Lord was lacking in these, or in any one of these natural properties according to the flesh, he was not flesh at all, nor man. For either those who say these things must show a man who by nature exists outside these properties, or a man at all; or, if indeed he is in no way at all such, it is clear that the Word who became incarnate did not become man, being deprived by nature of these or of any one of them. For how, and by what account, when the nature has no deficiency of such things? But something altogether strange to our essence and unknown exists; and either it was consubstantial with him from the beginning, and having come down from above it came down together with him, and that thing has clearly become what is said; and what then is the descent to us, since we have in no way come together through the holy flesh that was not taken from us and was united to him in hypostasis? Or the whole thing is a fantasy, and only a shape deceiving the senses, but not the substance of flesh, as not being a firstfruits of our race, uniting the mixture by grace, and releasing from all the divisive things of which the transgression of the old Adam became the cause; through which death also was condemned upon the nature. Why, then, do they begrudge us our complete salvation and confession? Why do they stretch out against us these supposedly inescapable syllogisms, and say that wills follow energies, and that opposition again follows these, from which they also introduce those who will the opposite?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":56,"ref":"p56","source":"Ἵνα δέ τάς συστάσεις εὐθύνειν παρῶ· πόθεν, καί πῶς τά τοιαῦτα σοφίζονται; Πυθέσθαι μόνον ἤθελον καί μαθεῖν, ὡς ἄρα δράσαντες αὐτοί τά τοιαῦτα, καί τήν καινήν ἔκθεσιν ἐνεργήσαντες, ἀθελήτως τοῦτο πεποίηκαν, καί τίς ὁ βίαν ἐπενεγκών; Εἴτα μετά τήν πρᾶξιν, οὐκ ὄν πρότερον παντελῶς, ὕστερον τοῦ γενομένου τό θέλημα προσεκτήσαντο, πόθεν, κἀκ τίνος ἐλθόν; Καί τίς ὁ τοῦ πραχθέντος ἔχειν τό θέλημα βιασάμενος, ἵνα καί παρά θέλησιν πραχθῇ, καί παρά βούλησιν στερχθῇ τό πραττόμενον; Πῶς δέ πάλιν, εἰ μήτε φυσικῶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος ἤθελε, καί ἐνήργει τά κατά φύσιν, αὐτός ὁ σαρκωθείς Λόγος, ἑκουσίως τήν τε πεῖναν καί δίψαν, τόν τε πόνον, καί κόπον, καί ὕπνον, καί τά λοιπά πάντα προσίετο θέλων; Οὐ γάρ Λόγος μόνον ταῦτα κατά φύσιν ἤθελεν ἤ ἐνήργει, τήν φύσιν ἔχων μετά Πατρός καί Πνεύματος ὑπερούσιόν τε καί ὑπεράπειρον· εἰ καί πάλιν ἡ \"ἐξουσιαστικῶς ὡς Θεός, ἐδίδου τῇ φύσει καιρόν, ὅταν ἐβούλετο, τά ἑαυτῆς ἐνεργῆσαι\"· καθάπερ φησίν ὁ θεῖος τῆς Νυσσαέων καθηγητής καί μέγας Γρηγόριος. Εἰ γάρ ὡς μόνον Θεός ταῦτα, καί οὐχ ὡς ἄνθρωπος ὁ αὐτός ἤθελεν, ἤ σῶμα φύσει τό θεῖον, ἤ τήν οὐσίαν τραπείς, σάρξ κατ᾿ ἔκπτωσιν τῆς οἰκείας θεότητος γέγονεν· ἤ πάντως λογικῶς ἡ κατ᾿ αὐτήν διόλου καί ἄλογος· ἤ εἴπερ ἐψύχωτο λογικῶς ἡ κατ᾿αὐτόν οὐκ ἐψύχωτο σάρξ· ἀλλ᾿ ἄψυχος ἦν κατ᾿ αὐτήν διόλου καί ἄλογος· ἤ εἴπερ ἐψύχωτο λογικῶς, καί θέλημα ἐκέκτητο τό φυσικόν. Πᾶν γάρ φύσει λογικόν, καί φύσει θελητικόν πάντως ἐστί.","english":"But let me pass over the task of correcting their treatises. From where, and how, do they contrive such things? I wished only to ask and to learn that, having done such things themselves and having carried out the new exposition, they did this involuntarily—and who is the one who applied the force? Then, after the deed, since it did not exist at all before, did they later acquire the will of what was done—from where, and from whom did it come? And who is the one who compelled them to have the will of what was done, so that it was done even against their will, and what was done was accepted even against their wish? And again, how, if the incarnate Word himself did not will and act naturally as a man according to nature, did he willingly accept hunger and thirst, and pain, and toil, and sleep, and all the rest, willing them? For it was not as Word alone that he willed or acted these things according to nature, having his nature with the Father and the Spirit, both beyond being and beyond limit—even if again he \"gave to nature, with authority as God, the opportunity to act according to its own laws, whenever he wished,\" as the divine and great Gregory, the teacher of the Nysseans, says. For if he willed these things only as God and not as man, then either the divine body was by nature divine, or, its essence being changed, it became flesh by a falling away from its own divinity; or else the flesh according to him was entirely without reason and irrational; or if it was ensouled with reason, the flesh according to him was not ensouled with reason, but was entirely soulless and irrational; or if it was ensouled with reason, it also possessed a natural will. For everything that is rational by nature is also by nature altogether volitional.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":57,"ref":"p57","source":"Καί εἰ θέλημα φυσικόν εἶχεν ὡς ἄνθρωπος, ἐκεῖνα πάντως ἤθελε κατ᾿ οὐσίαν, ἅπερ αὐτός ὡς Θεός τῇ φύσει πρός σύστασιν δημιουργήσας ἐνέθετο φυσικῶς. Οὐ γάρ ἦλθε παραχαράξαι τήν φύσιν, ἥν αὐτός ὡς Θεός καί Λόγος πεποίηκεν· ἀλλ' ἦλθε διόλου θεῶσαι τήν φύσιν, ἥν αὐτός ἑαυτῷ θέλων, εὐδοκίᾳ Πατρός καί συνεργείᾳ Πνεύματος, κατά τήν αὐτήν καί μίαν ὑπόστασιν ἥνωσε, μετά πάντων τῶν προσόντων αὐτῇ φυσικῶς, καί δίχα τῆς ἁμαρτίας.\n\nΟὐκοῦν ὡς φύσει Θεός ἤθελε τά κατά φύσιν θεῖα καί Πατρικά. Συνθελητής γάρ ὑπῆρχε τοῦ ἰδίου Γεννήτορος· καί ὡς ἄνθρωπος φύσει πάλιν ὁ αὐτός, ἤθελε τά κατά φύσιν ἀνθρώπινα· πάσης καθαράν φυλάττων φαντασίας τήν οἰκονομίαν, μηδαμῶς ἀντιπίπτοντα τῶ θελήματι τοῦ Πατρός. Οὐδέν γάρ τῶν φυσικῶν, ὥσπερ οὐδ᾿ αὐτή καθάπαξ ἡ φύσις, τῷ αἰτίῳ ποτ᾿ ἄν ἀντιπίπτει τῆς φύσεως· ἀλλ᾿οὐδέ γνώμη καί ὅσα γνώμης ἐστίν, ὁπηνίκα μέντοι τῷ λόγῳ συννεύει τῆς φύσεως. Καί γάρ εἰ τυχόν φαίη τις, ὡς ἀντιπίπτει Θεῷ τι τῶν κατά φύσιν, αὐτοῦ μᾶλλον ἤ τῆς φύσεως ὑπάρχει τό ἔγκλημα· πόλεμον φυσικῶς ἐνθεμένου τοῖς οὖσι, πρός τήν κατ᾿ αὐτοῦ καί ἀλλήλων στάσιν καί μάχην. Ὅτι γάρ οὐδέν ἀντίκειται Θεῷ φυσικόν, δῆλον ἐκ τοῦ ταῦτα κατά γέννησιν ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ δημιουργηθῆναι, καί μηδεμίαν ὑπέρ τῆς οὐσιώδους ἐν ἡμῖν τούτων συστάσεως αἰτίασιν ἔχειν· πᾶν μέν οὖν τοὐναντίον, διά τήν τούτων παρεκτροπήν τάς ἐγκλήσεις σαφῶς ὑπομένειν. Κατά ταύτην μέν γάρ, πάσης τε γνωμικῶς κακίας γινόμεθα κατά τόν ἀρχαίκακον ὄφιν· κατ᾿ ἐκείνην δέ, πλάσμα Θεοῦ καί τίμιον κτίσμα κατά φύσιν ὑπάρχομεν.","english":"And if he had a natural will as a man, he would altogether will by essence those things which he himself, as God by nature, implanted naturally when he created them for their constitution. For he did not come to falsify the nature which he himself as God and Word had made, but he came to deify entirely the nature which he himself, willing it for himself, by the good pleasure of the Father and the cooperation of the Spirit, united in the same and one hypostasis, together with all the things that belong to it naturally, and apart from sin.\n\nTherefore as God by nature he willed the divine and paternal things according to nature. For he was a co-willer with his own Begetter; and as a man by nature, the same one again willed the human things according to nature, keeping the economy wholly free from every fantasy, in no way opposing the will of the Father. For nothing of the natural things, just as not even nature itself at all, could ever oppose the cause of nature; but neither does the judgment, nor all that belongs to judgment, whenever it inclines to the principle of nature. For even if someone should perhaps say that something of the natural things opposes God, the blame belongs to him rather than to nature, since he has naturally implanted war in beings, for the sake of their faction and battle against him and against one another. For that nothing natural is opposed to God is clear from the fact that these things were created by him according to generation, and that they have no accusation to make on behalf of the substantial constitution of these things in us; but quite the contrary, that they clearly undergo the accusations because of their deviation. For according to this, we become in judgment wholly of every evil, like the archevil serpent; but according to that, we are by nature a creature of God and an honored creation.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":58,"ref":"p58","source":"Διά τοι τοῦτο κατά τούς θείους Πατέρας, οὔτε θελημάτων φυσικῶν, οὔτε μήν ἐνεργειῶν, ὥσπερ οὐδ᾿ αὐτῶν φύσεων μείωσιν\n\nἐργαζόμεθα τό παράπαν, ἐπί τοῦ αὐτοῦ καί ἑνός Θεοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένου· τέλειον τόν αὐτόν κατά πάντα Θεόν ὁμοῦ καί ἄνθρωπον ὀρθοδόξως πιστεύοντες, ἐκ τοῦ τελείως τά τε θεῖα καί ἀνθρωπικά, καί ἔχειν φυσικῶς, καί θέλειν καί ἐνεργεῖν· καί θείαν ὁμοῦ καί ἀνθρωπίνην ἔχειν κυρίως οὐσίαν καί θέλησιν καί ἐνέργειαν· ἵνα μή τῇ περί ἑκάτερον τῶν φυσικῶν ἰδιωμάτων ἐλλείψει, τήν ἑκατέρας τῶν ἐξ ὧν καί ἐν αἷς ὑπάρχει φύσεων, μείωσιν, μᾶλλον δέ τελείαν ὑπαρξίαν, παρά τό εἰκός δογματίσωμεν.\n\nὍτι γάρ θέλημα κατά φύσιν εἶχεν ἀνθρώπινον, ὡσπεροῦν καί κατ᾿ οὐσίαν θεῖον, αὐτός ἐπιδείκνυται προδήλως ὁ Λόγος, διά τῆς ἀνθρωποπρεποῦς ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ δι᾿ ἡμᾶς γενομένης οἰκονομικῆς τοῦ θανάτου παραιτήσεως, καθ᾿ ἥν ἔλεγε· Πάτερ, εἰ δυνατόν, παρελθέτω ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ τό ποτήριον· ἵνα δείξῃ τῆς οἰκείας σαρκός τήν ἀσθένειαν· καί ὡς οὐ φαντασίᾳ σάρξ ἐγνωρίζετο τοῖς ὁρῶσι, τήν αἴσθησιν παρακλέπτων· ἀλλ᾿ ἀληθείᾳ κυρίως ἄνθρωπος ἦν, τῆς φυσικῆς τοῦτο μαρτυρούσης θελήσεως, ἧς ἡ κατά οἰκονομίαν ὑπῆρχε παραίτησις. Ὅτι δέ πάλιν διόλου τεθέωτο, πρός αὐτό τό θεῖον θέλημα συννεύων, ἐξ αὐτοῦ καί κατ᾿ αὐτό κινούμενον ἀεί καί τυπούμενον, δῆλον ἐκ τοῦ μόνην τήν τοῦ Πατρικοῦ θελήματος ἐπίκρισιν τελείως ποιήσασθαι, καθ᾿ ἥν ὡς ἄνθρωπος ἔφασκε· Μή τό ἐμόν, ἀλλά τό σόν γινέσθω θέλημα·","english":"For this reason, according to the divine Fathers, we make no diminution at all either of natural wills or of energies, just as neither of the natures themselves, in the case of the one and the same God the Word made flesh; orthodoxly believing the same one to be perfect in all things, both God and man together, from the fact that he perfectly has naturally, and wills and acts, both the divine and the human things; and that he properly has both a divine and a human essence, will, and energy; so that by a deficiency in either of the natural properties, we may not unseemly dogmatize a diminution—or rather a complete existence—of either of the natures from which and in which he exists.\n\nFor that he had a human will by nature, just as also a divine one by essence, the Word himself plainly demonstrates through the death-petition made by him for our sake in a manner befitting man, according to the economy, when he said: Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; in order to show the weakness of his own flesh; and that the flesh was not known to those who saw it by fantasy, stealing away the perception; but in truth he was properly man, the natural will bearing witness to this, whose petition was according to the economy. And that again he had been wholly deified, inclining to the divine will itself, always moved and formed by it and according to it, is clear from the fact that he perfectly made only the judgment of the Father's will, according to which as a man he said: Not my will, but yours be done.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":59,"ref":"p59","source":"τύπον ἡμῖν ἑαυτόν καί παράδειγμα κἀν τούτῳ διδούς, πρός ἀθέτησιν τοῦ ἡμετέρου θελήματος, διά τήν τοῦ θείου τελείαν ἐκπλήρωσιν, εἰ καί θάνατον ἐπηρτημένον διά τοῦτο κατίδοιμεν. Εἰ γάρ μή ὡς ἄνθρωπος φύσει γενόμενος, καί φυσικόν ἤγουν ἀνθρώπινον θέλημα κεκτημένος, τοῦτό τε κατ᾿ οἰκονομίαν ὑποκλίνων, καί πρός ἕνωσιν τοῦ πατρικοῦ συνελαύνων θελήματος, ἔλεγεν αὐτῷ τῷ Πατρί· Μή τό ἐμόν θέλημα γινέσθω, ἀλλά τό σόν· δῆλον ὡς φύσει Θεός τοῦτο ἔλεγε· κἀκ τούτου λοιπόν ἑαυτόν ἐδείκνυ, μή τό αὐτό καί ἴσον θέλημα τῷ Πατρί κεκτημένον, ἀλλ᾿ ἕτερον καί κατά φύσιν διάφονον· ὅ καί ὑποτάσσων, ᾔτει γενέσθαι μόνον τό πατρικόν. Καί εἰ ἄλλο παρά τό τοῦ Πατρός φυσικόν ἐκέκτητο θέλημα, δῆλον ὡς καί τήν οὐσίαν εἶχε παρηλλαγμένην. \"Μιᾶς γάρ οὐσίας, ἕν δή καί τό θέλημα», κατά τόν σοφώτατον Κύριλλον. Διαφόρου δέ τοῦ φυσικοῦ θελήματος ὄντος, διάφορος πάντη τε καί πάντως ἡ φύσις. Δυοῖν οὖν θάτερον· ἤ γάρ ὡς ἄνθρωπος εἶχε θέλημα φυσικόν, καί δι᾿ ἡμᾶς οἰκονομικῶς παρῃτεῖτο θέλων τόν θάνατον· καί πάλιν ὥρμα κατ᾿ αὐτοῦ διά τῆς πρός τό πατρικόν θέλημα τελείας συννεύσεως· ἤ μή ἔχων ὡς ἄνθρωπος θέλημα φυσικόν, ὡς Θεός φύσει τά τοῦ σώματος εἰς ἰδίαν οὐσίαν ἔπασχε πάθη, συστελλομένην φυσικῶς τόν θάνατον, καί ἄλλο κατ᾿ οὐσίαν πρός τόν Πατέρα θέλημα φυσικόν κεκτημένην· ὅ καί μή γενέσθαι δι᾿ εὐχῆς ἐζήτει καί παρεκάλει. Καί τίς Θεός θάνατον κατά φύσιν σαρκός δεδιώς, καί διά τοῦτο παρελθεῖν τό ποτήριον ἐξαιτούμενος, καί ἄλλο παρά τό πατρικόν θέλημα φυσικόν κεκτημένος;","english":"Giving himself to us as a type and example in this also, for the rejection of our own will, for the perfect fulfillment of the divine will, even if for this reason we should look upon death hanging over us. For if, not having become man by nature and possessing a natural, that is, human, will, he was not bending this will by economy and driving it toward union with the Father's will when he said to the Father himself, \"Not my will, but yours be done\"—it is clear that as God by nature he said this; and from this, then, he showed himself to possess a will not the same and equal to the Father's, but different and by nature distinct; and submitting this will, he asked that only the Father's be done. And if he possessed a natural will other than the Father's, it is clear that he also had a substance that was different. \"For of one substance there is also one will,\" according to the most wise Cyril. But if the natural will is different, the nature is altogether and in every way different. Of two things, then, one: either as man he had a natural will, and for our sake by economy he declined it, willing death, and again he rushed against it through perfect assent to the Father's will; or, not having a natural will as man, as God by nature he suffered the passions of the body into his own substance, which was naturally shrinking from death and possessed another natural will according to substance in relation to the Father; and this he sought and entreated by prayer not to happen. And what God, fearing death according to the nature of the flesh, and for this reason asking that the cup pass by, and possessing another natural will besides the Father's?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":60,"ref":"p60","source":"Ταύτην οὖν τῶν ἡμετέρων ψυχῶν ἀποσκευαζόμενοι τήν ἀτοπίαν, τήν εὐσεβῆ τῶν Πατέρων ὁμολογίαν κατέχωμεν· καί ὅταν λέγει \"Πάτερ, εἰ δυνατόν, παρελθέτω τό ποτήριον τοῦτο\", καθώς φησιν ὁ μέγας Ἀθανάσιος ἐν τῷ περί Σαρκώσεως αὐτοῦ καί Τριάδος λόγῳ· πλήν μή τό ἐμόν θέλημα γενέσθω, ἀλλά τό σόν· τό μέν πνεῦμα πρόθυμον, ἡ δέ σάρξ ἀσθενής· νοοῦμεν ὡς δύο θελήματα ἐνταῦθα δείκνυσι· τό μέν ἀνθρώπινον· ὅπερ ἐστί τῆς σαρκός· τό δέ θεϊκόν. Τό γάρ ἀνθρώπινον διά τήν ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκός παραιτεῖται τό πάθος· τό δέ θεϊκόν αὐτοῦ πρόθυμον. Ταύτῃ καί ὁ μέγας θεολόγος Γρηγόριος ἐν τῷ περί Υἱοῦ δευτέρῳ λόγῳ σαφῶς ἐκδιδάσκει, λέγων· \"Τό γάρ ἐκείνου θέλειν, οὐδέν ὑπεναντίον, θεωθέν ὅλον». Ὥστε θέλειν εἶχεν ἀνθρώπινον, κατά τόν θεῖον τοῦτον διδάσκαλον· οὐ μήν Θεῷ καθοτιοῦν ὑπεναντίον· ὅτι μή γνωμικόν τοῦτο καθάπαξ, ἀλλά φυσικόν κυρίως\n\nἐτύγχανεν, ὑπό τῆς αὐτοῦ καθ᾿ οὐσίαν θεότητος τυπούμενον ἀεί καί κινούμενον πρός τήν τῆς οἰκονομίας ἐκπλήρωσιν· καί ὅλον δι᾿ ὅλου τῇ πρός τό πατρικόν συννεύσει τε καί συμφυΐᾳ τεθεωμένον, καί θεῖον τῇ ἑνώσει κυρίως, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ τῇ φύσει, καί γενόμενον ἀληθῶς καί λεγόμενον· μηδαμῶς τῷ θεωθῆναι, τοῦ κατά φύσιν ἐκστᾷν.","english":"Setting aside, then, this absurdity of our souls, let us hold fast to the pious confession of the Fathers. And when he says, \"Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me,\" as the great Athanasius says in his discourse On the Incarnation and the Trinity—\"Nevertheless, not my will, but yours be done; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak\"—we understand that he shows two wills here: the one human, which belongs to the flesh, and the one divine. For the human will, on account of the weakness of the flesh, shrinks from the passion, while his divine will is willing. In this same way the great theologian Gregory also clearly teaches in his second discourse On the Son, saying: \"For his willing was in no way contrary, being wholly deified.\" So he had a human will, according to this divine teacher, yet in no way contrary to God, because it was not in any respect a deliberative will, but was properly natural, being always shaped by his essential divinity and moved toward the fulfillment of the economy, and wholly and entirely deified through its inclination and connaturality toward the Father, and divine by union, properly speaking, but not by nature, and truly becoming and being called so—in no way departing from what is according to nature by the fact of being deified.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":61,"ref":"p61","source":"Τῷ γοῦν θεωθέν ὅλον εἰπεῖν, τήν τοῦ κατ᾿ αὐτόν ἀνθρωπίνου θελήματος πρός τό θεῖον αὐτοῦ καί πατρικόν ἕνωσιν ὁ διδάσκαλος παραστήσας, πᾶσαν ἐναντίωσιν, καί τούς τἀναντία θέλοντας ἐκ τοῦ κατά Χριστόν μυστηρίου τελείως ἀπήλασε· τῷ δέ φάσκειν, \"Τό γάρ ἐκείνου θέλειν», τήν τε τοῦ κατ᾿ αὐτόν ἀνθρωπίνου θελήματος ἔμφυτον κίνησιν, καί τήν πρός τό θεῖον αὐτοῦ καί πατρικόν οὐσιώδη καί φυσικήν διαφοράν ἐπιδεικνύμενος, τήν σύγχυσιν μετά τῆς φαντασίας ὁλικῶς ἀπεσκεύασε. Ταύτην γάρ καί τήν ὁμότιμον αὐτῇ ἐπ᾿ ἀσεβείᾳ διαίρεσιν πολεμούσας εἰδότες τόν τῆς οἰκονομίας λόγον, ὅ τε θεῖος οὗτος Πατήρ, καί οἱ κατ᾿ αὐτόν ἅγιοι τῆς καθολικῆς Ἐκκλησίας διδάσκαλοι, μεγαλοφώνως τήν τε διαφοράν καί τήν ἕνωσιν καθ᾿ ἑκατέρας αὐτῆς ἐδογμάτισαν· τήν μέν, ἐν τῷ φυσικῷ λόγῳ πραγματικῶς καί τελείως συντηρουμένην, τήν δέ πάλιν, ἐν τῶ οἰκονομικῷ τρόπῳ παγίως καί ὑποστατικῶς σωζομένην, εἰς πίστωσιν τῶν ἐν τῷ ἑνί καί μόνῳ Χριστῷ τῷ Θεῷ καθ᾿ ἕνωσιν τήν ἀδιάσπαστον οὐσιωδῶς ὄντων πραγμάτων καί πάντων τῶν προσόντων αὐτοῖς φυσικῶν. Πάντες γάρ ὥσπερ ἄλλην καί ἄλλην, θείαν φημί καί ἀνθρωπίνην, καί διπλῆν φύσιν ἐπί τοῦ αὐτοῦ καί ἑνός ἐδογμάτισαν· οὕτως διαπρυσίως τοῦς πᾶσιν ἐκήρυξαν καί ἄλλο καί ἄλλο θέλημα, θεῖόν φημι καί ἀνθρώπινον, καί δύο θελήματα· καί ἄλλην καί ἄλλην ἐνέργειαν, θείαν τε καί ἀνθρωπίνην· καί διπλῆν αὖθις ἐνέργειαν, τουτέστι δύο. Οὕτω γάρ καί τῶν οὐσιῶν τήν ἐν ἀριθμῷ σημασίαν προδήλως ἐξεφώνησαν. Φαίνεται γάρ ὁ αὐτός ὡς ἄνθρωπος, καί τό κατά φύσιν ὑπάρχων Θεός, θέλων οἰκονομικῶς παρελθεῖν τό ποτήριον·","english":"To the one who has been wholly deified, then, the Teacher, having set forth the union of the human will that is according to him with his divine and paternal will, completely drove away all opposition and those who will contrary things from the mystery according to Christ. And by saying, \"For the will of that one,\" demonstrating both the innate motion of the human will that is according to him and the essential and natural difference from his divine and paternal will, he wholly removed confusion together with fantasy. For knowing that the principle of the economy wages war against this and the division held in equal honor with it in impiety, this divine Father and the holy teachers of the Catholic Church who are according to him proclaimed with a great voice both the difference and the union in accordance with each of these: the one, preserved in the natural principle really and perfectly; the other again, saved in the economic manner firmly and hypotatically, for the assurance of the things that exist essentially in the one and only Christ God according to union without separation, and of all the natural properties that belong to them. For just as all proclaimed another and another nature—I mean divine and human—and a double nature in the same and one, so too they loudly proclaimed to all another and another will—I mean divine and human—and two wills; and another and another energy, divine and human; and again a double energy, that is, two. For in this way they also clearly declared the significance of the essences in number. For the same one appears as man, and being God by nature, willing economically to pass by the cup.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":62,"ref":"p62","source":"καί μέχρι τούτου τυπῶν τό ἡμέτερον, ὡς Κύριλλος ἡμᾶς ὁ σοφός ἐξεπαίδευσεν· ἵνα τῆς ἡμῶν φύσεως πᾶσαν θανάτου συστολήν ἀπελάσῃ, καί πρός ὁρμήν ἀνδρικῶς τήν κατ' αὐτοῦ φημί τοῦ θανάτου, στομώσῃ τε καί διεγείρῃ. Φαίνεται δέ πάλιν ὡς Θεός, καίπερ ἄνθρωπος ὤν κατ'οὐσίαν, θέλων τήν οἰκονομίαν πατρικῶς ἐκπληρῶσαι, καί τήν πάντων ἡμῶν σωτηρίαν ἐργάσασθαι· δείκνυται δέ καί ὡς ἄνθρωπος, φύσει τυγχάνων Θεός, ἀνθρωπίνως ἐνεργῶν, καί τήν πεῖραν τῶν παθημάτων δι' ἡμᾶς ἑκουσίως δεχόμενος· δείκνυται δέ πάλιν ὡς Θεός, καί τό κατά φύσιν ἄνθρωπος ὤν, θεϊκῶς ἐνεργῶν, καί τάς θεοσημείας φυσικῶς προβαλλόμενος· ἐξ ὧν ὅτι καί Θεός ὁμοῦ καί ἄνθρωπος ἦν ὁ αὐτός ἐγνωρίζετο, ταῖς ἐξ ὧν καί ἐν αἷς ὑπῆρχεν οὐσίαις ἰσάριθμα τά θελήματα, καί τάς ἐνεργείας φυσικῶς κεκτημένος, εἰς βεβαίωσιν τῆς τῶν ἅπερ κυρίως ἦν τελείας ὑπάρξεως. Εἰ δέ τις πρός τήν τούτων ἀθέτησιν ἀντιφατικῶς, τήν τε τοῦ θεοφάντορος Διονυσίου θεανδρικήν ἐνέργειαν, καί τήν τοῦ σοφωτάτου Κυρίλλου συγγενῆ καί δι᾿ ἀμφοῖν ἐπιδεδειγμένην εἰς μέσον τῷ λόγῳ προΐσχεται, γινωσκέτω μηδεμίαν ἐντεῦθεν ἐρανισόμενος ἑαυτῷ κατά τῆς εὐσεβοῦς ὁμολογίας ἰσχύν. Ἡ μέν γάρ θεανδρική προσφόρῳ φωνῇ πρός τοῦ διδασκάλου φρασθεῖσα, διπλῆν τοῦ διπλοῦ τήν φύσιν ἐνέργειαν περιφραστικῶς δηλονότι σημαίνει. Θείαν γάρ καί ἀνδρικήν, ἤγουν ἀνθρωπίνην, διά τῆς κατά τήν ἐκφοράν συναφείας προδήλως ἐκήρυξεν· ἀλλ᾿ οὐχ ἁπλῶς· ὅθεν οὐδέ δι᾿ ἀριθμοῦ ταύτην ὠνόμασεν, εἰ καί μοναδικῶς τήν τῶν φυσικῶν ἐνεργειῶν ἕνωσιν ἐπισημαίνων, ταύτην ἐδίδαξεν·","english":"And he was shaping what is ours even up to this point, as Cyril the wise taught us, in order that he might drive away every constriction of death from our nature, and sharpen and stir it manfully toward the impulse against death itself, I mean. He appears again as God, though he is man in essence, willing to fulfill the economy in a paternal manner and to work out the salvation of us all; and he is shown also as man, being God by nature, acting in a human way and voluntarily accepting the experience of sufferings for our sake; and he is shown again as God, and being man according to nature, acting in a divine way and naturally bringing forth the divine signs; from which he was recognized as being the same both God and man together, possessing wills and energies naturally equal in number to the essences from which and in which he existed, for the confirmation of the perfect existence of the things that he was in the proper sense. But if anyone, in contradiction for the rejection of these things, brings forward in his argument the theandric energy of Dionysius the theologian and that which is akin to it of the most wise Cyril and demonstrated through both, let him know that he gathers no strength for himself from this against the pious confession. For the theandric energy, expressed by the teacher in a fitting phrase, signifies in a periphrastic manner, clearly, the double energy of the double nature. For he proclaimed plainly a divine and a human, that is, a human, energy through the conjunction in the expression; but not simply so; wherefore he did not name it by number either, even if, signifying the union of the natural energies in a singular manner, he taught this.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":63,"ref":"p63","source":"ἥτις οὐ λυμαίνεται τῇ φυσικῇ τούτων διαφορᾷ· καθάπερ οὐδ᾿ αὐτῇ τῇ τῶν οὐσιῶν, ἡ τούτων ἀδιάσπαστος ἕνωσις· ἐπειδή κατά τούς λέγοντας, Εἰ μίαν εἶχεν ἐνέργειαν, καί ταύτην θεανδρικήν· εἰ μέν φυσικήν μίαν ὁ σαρκωθείς Λόγος ἐκέκτητο ταύτην,\n\nπρός δύο ἡ μία κατά φύσιν ἐνέργεια, πῶς μερισθήσεται; καί ποίῳ λόγῳ τάς διαφόρους οὐσίας ἡ μία κατά τό αὐτό συστήσει καί ἀφορίσει ἐνέργεια; πρός τε τά ὁμογενῆ τήν κατ' οὐσίαν ἀπαραλλαξίαν ἔχειν ἑκατέραν ποιοῦσα, καί πρός τά ἑτερογενῆ πάλιν τήν κατ᾿ οὐσίαν διαφοράν. Καί παρῶ λέγειν, ὡς τῆς πρός τόν Πατέρα καί ἡμᾶς φυσικῆς συγγενείας ἐκπέπτωκεν, ὡς μήτε παντελῶς ἐκείνου, μήτε ἡμῶν θεανδρική τήν ἔμφυτον καί οὐσιώδη κεκτημένων ἐνέργειαν. Εἰ δέ γε πάλιν ὑποστατικήν, πρός τῇ καινῇ δόξῃ· τίς γάρ ὁ λέγων ὑποστατικήν ὑπάρχειν ἐνέργειαν. Καί οὕτως ἀλλότριον τοῦ Πατρός κατ' ἐνέργειαν αὐτόν ὁ τοιοῦτος ἀποφαίνει λόγος, εἴπερ ὑποστατικήν, καί οὐ φυσικήν ἔχει παρά τόν Πατέρα ἐνέργειαν. Τοῖς γάρ ὑποστατικοῖς ἰδιώμασι, τήν πρός αὐτό κέκτηται διαφοράν προδήλως ὁ Λόγος. Καί ἡ \"συγγενής δέ καί δι᾿ ἀμφοῖν ἐπιδεδειγμένη μία\" πάλιν \"ἐνέργεια», κατά τόν ἀοίδιμον Κύριλλον, οὐκ ἐπ᾿ ἀναιρέσει τῆς τῶν κατά φύσιν ἐνεργειῶν οὐσιώδους διαφορᾶς· τῶν ἐξ ὧν καί ἐν αἷς ὑπάρχει ὁ εἷς καί μόνος Χριστός ὁ Θεός· ἀλλ᾿ ἐπί συστάσει τῆς ἄκρας τούτων ἑνώσεως εἴρηται τῷ διδασκάλῳ. Καί ἔοικέ πως δι᾿ ἄλλων φωνῶν, τόν θεοφάντορα Διονύσιον ἐκμιμεῖσθαι. Ἵνα γάρ δόξῃ μή γυμνόν ὄντα τοῦτον Θεόν, μήτε ψιλόν αὖθις ἄνθρωπον·","english":"This union does not destroy the natural difference between them, just as the inseparable union of their essences does not destroy that difference either; since, according to those who say, \"If he had one activity, and that a theandric one\"—if the incarnate Word had possessed this as one natural activity, how will the one activity according to nature be divided between two? And by what reasoning will the one activity establish and distinguish the different essences in the same respect, making each to have essential immutability in relation to things of the same kind, and again essential difference in relation to things of a different kind? And I pass over saying that he has fallen away from the natural kinship with the Father and with us, since neither entirely of that one nor of us do they possess the innate and essential activity, if they hold a theandric one. But if again they say it is hypostatic, this is in addition to the new doctrine—for who is it that says there exists a hypostatic activity? And in this way such an argument shows him to be alien from the Father in activity, if indeed he has a hypostatic and not a natural activity alongside the Father. For by hypostatic properties the Word plainly possesses his difference in relation to him. And the \"one activity, kindred and demonstrated through both,\" again according to the celebrated Cyril, is not said to the abolition of the essential difference of the natural activities—of those from which and in which the one and only Christ, God, exists—but is spoken by the teacher to establish their extreme union. And he seems in some way, through other utterances, to be imitating the God-bearing Dionysius. For in order that he might not seem to be God naked, nor again a mere man—","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":64,"ref":"p64","source":"μήτε ἰδίᾳ Θεόν ἀσωμάτως ἐνεργοῦντα, μήτε ἰδίᾳ ἄνθρωπον τά κατά γνώμην πράττοντα· ἀλλά Θεόν σεσαρκωμένον καί τελείως δι᾿ ἡμᾶς ἐνανθρωπήσαντα, θεϊκῶς ἅμα καί ἀνθρωπικῶς τόν αὐτόν ἐνεργοῦντα, ἔφυσεν, ὡς οὐ λόγῳ μόνον, καί τοῖς θεοπρεπέσιν ἐπιτάγμασιν, ἐνεργός εὑρίσκεται ὁ Σωτήρ ἐν τῷ τούς νεκρούς διανιστᾷν καί θεραπεύειν πᾶσαν νόσον καί πᾶσαν μαλακίαν· ἀλλά συνεργάτιν ὥσπερ τινά πρός τοῦτο δή μάλιστα τήν ἁγίαν αὐτοῦ παραλαμβάνειν ἠπείγετο σάρκα· τοῦτο ποιῶν μέν ὡς Θεός τῷ παντουρῷ αὐτοῦ προστάγματι· ζωοποιῶν δέ αὖ πάλιν καί τῇ ἀφῇ τῆς ἡνωμένης αὐτῷ καθ' ὑπόστασιν ἁγίας σαρκός, ἵνα δείξῃ καί ταύτην ζωοποιεῖν δυναμένην διά τῆς οὐσιώδους αὐτοῦ ἐνεργείας, ἧς ἐστι κυρίως ἡ ἀφή, ἡ φωνή, καί ὅσα τοιαῦτα. Εἶτα, ὡς ἔδειξε τάς φυσικάς ἐνεργείας αὐτοῦ, τοῦ ἐξ ἀμφοῖν συγκειμένου Χριστοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, σωζομένας τελείως· τήν τῆς θεότητος αὐτοῦ, διά τοῦ παντουργοῦ προστάγματος, τήν δέ τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος αὐτοῦ, διά τῆς ἀφῆς· παρέστησε ταύτας ἡνωμένας διόλου τῇ πρός ἀλλήλας συμφυΐᾳ καί περιχωρήσει· ὡς μίαν διά τήν ἕνωσιν αὐτοῦ τε τοῦ Λόγου καί παναγίας αὐτοῦ σαρκός δείκνυσθαι τήν ἐνέργειαν· οὐ φυσικήν, οὐχ ὑποστατικήν· οὐ γάρ τι τοιοῦτον εἴρηκεν ὁ διδάσκαλος· ἀλλά συγγενῆ τοῖς μέρεσι· δι᾿ ὧν, ὡς εἴρηται, κατά τε πρόσταγμα παντουργόν, κατά τε ἀφήν χειρός ἐπεδείκνυτο.","english":"neither as God acting bodilessly on his own, nor as man doing things according to his own will on his own; but as God made flesh and perfectly become man for our sake, the same one acting divinely and humanly at once, as the Savior is found to be active not only by word and by commands befitting God, in raising the dead and healing every disease and every sickness, but he was eager to take his holy flesh as a kind of co-worker especially for this; doing this as God by his all-powerful command, and again giving life by the touch of his holy flesh united to him in hypostasis, in order to show that this too is able to give life through his essential activity, of which the touch, the voice, and all such things are properly a part. Then, as he showed the natural activities of his own, of Christ God composed of both, perfectly preserved—that of his divinity through the all-powerful command, and that of his humanity through the touch—he presented them as wholly united by their mutual coalescence and interpenetration; so that one activity is shown because of the union of the Word himself and his all-holy flesh; not a natural one, not a hypostatic one—for the teacher has said no such thing—but one akin to the parts; through which, as has been said, he was shown both by all-powerful command and by the touch of a hand.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":65,"ref":"p65","source":"Δέδεικται τοίνυν τῆς ἱερᾶς τοῦ σοφοῦ διδασκαλίας, ὡς καί τήν διαφοράν τῶν φυσικῶν ἐνεργειῶν, ὥσπερ οὖν καὐτῶν τῶν φύσεων ὧν καί εἰσί, διαγορεύει φυλαττομένην καί μετά τήν ἕνωσιν· καὐτήν τήν ἕνωσιν αὖθις ὁρίζεται· τήν μέν, ἐν τῷ λέγειν, πρόσταγμα παντουργόν καί ἀφήν· τήν δέ, τῷ λέγειν, μίαν τε καί συγγενῆ· δι' ὧν πᾶσαν συναίρεσίν τε καί διαίρεσιν τοῦ κατά Χριστόν μυστηρίου μεγαλοφυῶς ἀποπέμπεται· οἱ δέ μή οὕτω λαμβάνοντες, ἀλλ᾿ ὡς μίαν Λόγου τε καί σαρκός τήν συγγενῆ νοοῦντες ἐνέργειαν, τήν Εὐτυχοῦς καί Ἀπολιναρίου συνουσίωσιν δογματίζουσι. Δεῖ τοιγαροῦν ἐν πᾶσι καί τόν λόγον ἀλώβητον διασώζειν, καί τόν τῆς οἰκονομίας τρόπον διατηρεῖν ἀπαράφθαρτον· ἵνα μηδεμίαν ἡ πονηρά ξυνωρίς, ἡ διαίρεσις, φημί, καί ἡ σύγχυσις, κατά τῆς ἀληθείας σχοίη παρείσδυσιν.\n\nΚατά ταύτην οὖν, καί τά ἄλλας, εἴπερ εὑρεθεῖεν, μοναδικάς τῶν ἁγίων Πατέρων φωνάς, τήν εὐσεβῆ διάνοιαν ἐκληπτέον· καί μηδαμῶς εἰς ἀντίφασιν ταύτας, πρός τάς τῶν ἁγίων δυϊκάς ἐκδεξώμεθα· γινώσκοντες, ὡς καί αὗται πρός τήν διαφοράν κατά τῆς συγχύσεως ἰσχυραί κἀκεῖναι πρός τήν ἕνωσιν κατά δαιρέσεως","english":"It has therefore been shown from the sacred teaching of the wise man that the difference of the natural energies, just as also of the natures themselves to which they belong, is declared to be preserved even after the union; and again he defines the union itself: the one, in saying \"all-working command and touch\"; the other, in saying \"one and consubstantial\"—by which he magnificently dismisses every confusion and division of the mystery according to Christ. But those who do not take it in this way, but understand the consubstantial energy of the Word and the flesh as one, dogmatize the consubstantiation of Eutyches and Apollinaris. It is necessary, therefore, in all things both to preserve the account (logos) unimpaired and to keep the manner of the economy uncorrupted, so that the evil pair—I mean division and confusion—may have no entrance against the truth.\n\nAccording to this, then, and the other singular sayings of the holy Fathers, if such should be found, one must take the pious meaning; and in no way should we receive them as contradicting the dual sayings of the holy Fathers, knowing that these are strong for the difference against confusion, and those for the union against division.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":66,"ref":"p66","source":"ἀσφαλεῖς· ἀλλ᾿ ἄμφω, καί ταύτας κἀκείνας, ψυχῇ τε καί στόματι περιχαρῶς ἀσπασώμεθα, καί ὀρθοδόξως ὁμολογήσωμεν· καί διά τῶν κατά προφοράν δοκούντων πως ἐναντίων φωνῶν, τούς κατά διάνοιαν ἐναντίους ἐπίσης ἑαυτοῖς καί ἀλλήλοις, καί τῇ ἀληθείᾳ, σοφῶς τροπωσώμεθα· καί τῆς ἡμετέρας αὐλῆς, ἤγουν τῆς καθολικῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ καί ἀποστολικῆς Ἐκκλησίας, ἀνδρικῶς ἐξελάσωμεν· καί μηθ᾿ ὅλως τήν οἰανοῦν πάροδον κατά τῆς ὀρθοδόξου πίστεως, τοῖς λῃστρικῶς ὅρια πατρικά μηχανωμένοις μεταίρειν, παράσχωμεν, τῷ διαῤῥίπτειν τι τῶν εὐσεβῶν ὅπλων τε καί δογμάτων, δι᾿ ὧν γίνεσθαι πέφυκεν ἡ ἐκείνων καταστροφή καί ἀναίρεσις.\n\nΠλήν κἀκεῖνο γινώσκειν χρεῶν, ὡς ἐπί τε φύσεων καί φυσικῶν ἐνεργειῶν, καί μοναδικάς πρός ταῖς δυϊκαῖς φωναῖς τῶν ἁγίων Πατέρων εὑρίσκομεν· ὡς, \"τήν μίαν φύσιν τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένην», καί, \"τήν θεανδρικήν ἐνέργειαν», καί τήν \"συγγενῆ καί δι' ἀμφοῖν ἐπιδεδειγμένην»· ἐπί δέ φυσικῶν θελημάτων, οὐδεμίαν μοναδικήν, ὡς ἐμέ γινώσκειν, τό παράπαν ἐκφώνησιν εὑρεῖν δυνατόν, ἀλλά τάς ἐν ἀντωνυμίαις καί ἀριθμῷ δυϊκάς σημασίας. Πῶς οὖν καί τίνι λόγῳ, κἄν προσεξετάσαι δεχώμεθα παντελῶς, ἕν ἤ δύο θελήματα χρή λέγειν ἐπί Χριστοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, τῆς τῶν Πατέρων νομοθεσίας καί διδασκαλίας δύο φυσικά θελήματα παρακελευομένης ὁμολογεῖν ἐπ' αὐτοῦ καί πρεσβεύειν, καθά καί φύσεις αὐτάς, καί τάς τούτων φυσικάς ἐνεργείας, μέχρι τοῦ γινώσκειν τήν διαφοράν;","english":"...are safe; but let us gladly welcome both these and those with soul and mouth, and confess them orthodoxly; and through the voices that seem somehow opposed in pronunciation, let us wisely turn back the thoughts that are equally opposed to themselves and to one another and to the truth; and let us manfully drive them from our court, that is, from the catholic and apostolic Church of God; and let us not at all grant them any passage whatsoever against the orthodox faith, to those who craftily devise to remove the fathers' boundaries like robbers, by casting away any of the pious weapons and doctrines, through which their overthrow and destruction naturally comes about.\n\nBut it is also necessary to know this, that in the case of natures and natural energies, we find the holy Fathers using singular expressions alongside the dual ones; as, \"the one nature of God the Word incarnate,\" and, \"the theandric energy,\" and the one \"kindred and shown forth through both\"; but in the case of natural wills, as far as I know, it is not possible at all to find any singular expression, but only dual meanings in pronouns and number. How then, and by what reasoning—even if we were to accept examining it thoroughly—ought one to say one or two wills in Christ God, when the legislation and teaching of the Fathers enjoins us to confess and honor two natural wills in him, just as also the natures themselves and their natural energies, to the point of knowing the difference?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":67,"ref":"p67","source":"Τούτων μοι παρεκβατικῶς νῦν λελεγμένων πρός τήν σήν θεοτίμητον ἀγιστείαν, παρακαλῶ τήν ἐπ᾿ αὐτοῖς, ἤ μή προσηκόντως ῥηθεῖσιν, ἤ μή νοηθεῖσι καλῶς, συγγνώμην ὁμοῦ καί διόρθωσίν μοι χαρίσασθαι, φιλαγάθῳ πατρικῆς εὐσπλαχνίας στοργῇ καί μιμήσει· καί Χριστῷ τῷ Θεῷ με παραθέσθαι, τῷ σύν Πατρί καί Πνεύματι ἁγίῳ δοξαζομένῳ εἰς τούς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. Ἀμήν. ΣΧΟΛΙΑ 1. Ἄτοπον, φησί, τό ἕν θέλημα μερίζεσθαι (τοῦτο γάρ ἀναγκάζει ἡ φυσική συγγένεια) καί τό μέν ἥμισυ τῇ μιᾷ, τό δέ λοιπόν τῇ λοιπῇ φύσει δίδοσθαι· καί οὕτως ἀλλοτριοῦν τόν Χριστόν τοῦ Θεοῦ καί ἡμῶν, ὡς οὐκ ἐχόντων σύνθετον θέλημα. 2. Ὅτι τήν διαφοράν, καί τήν ἕνωσιν οἱ Πατέρες κατά τῆς συγχύσεως, καί τῆς ὁμοτίμου αὐτῆ διαιρέσεως ἐδογμάτισαν.\n\n3. Ὁ Νεῖλος. Ἔστιν ὑποστατική, ἀλλ᾿ ἐφ᾿ ἡμῶν ἡ παράλογος, δι᾿ ἥν ἄνθρωπος ὁ Θεός, ἵν᾿ ἐπανασώσῃ τόν ἄνθρωπον· ἀπαλλάξας ταύτης, ὅσοι φόβῳ θανάτου διά παντός τοῦ ζῇν ἔνοχοι ἦσαν δουλείας· ἤγουν ὅσοι φοβούμενοι τήν ὀδύνην, τήν ἠδονήν περιεποιοῦντο, τήν μητέρα τῆς ὀδύνης· τήν τῆς φθορᾶς ἀρχηγόν· τήν τοῦ θανάτου προαγωγόν καί προμνήστριαν.","english":"Having said these things to your God-honored holiness by way of digression, I beseech you to grant me both forgiveness and correction for them, whether they were spoken improperly or not understood well, with the kindly, fatherly affection and imitation of compassion; and to commend me to Christ God, who is glorified with the Father and the Holy Spirit unto the ages of ages. Amen. SCHOLIA 1. It is absurd, he says, that the one will be divided (for natural kinship forces this) and that half be given to the one and the rest to the other nature; and thus to alienate the Christ of God and from us, as though we did not have a composite will. 2. That the Fathers dogmatized the difference and the union against confusion and the division of equal honor with it.\n\n3. Nilus. It is hypostatic, but in our case it is the irrational [will], through which God became man, in order to restore man; having freed from this those who through fear of death were all their life subject to slavery; that is, those who, fearing pain, procured pleasure, the mother of pain; the origin of corruption; the forerunner and matchmaker of death.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":68,"ref":"p68","source":"ΙΣΟΝ ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗΣ ΓΕΝΟΜΕΝΗΣ ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΝ ΑΓΙΩΤΑΤΟΝ ΕΠΙΣΚΟΠΟΝ ΚΥΡΙΟΝ ΝΙΚΑΝΔΡΟΝ ΙΣΟΝ Ἐπιστολῆς γενομένης πρός τόν ἁγιώτατον ἐπίσκοπον κύριον Νίκανδρον, παρά τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις Μαξίμου, περί τῶν δύο ἐν Χριστῷ ἐνεργειῶν. Αὐτός, θεοτίμητε καί παμμακάριε Πάτερ, φερωνύμως ἔχων μετά τῆς ἀνδρείας, τήν κατά πάντων ἀφανῶς, ἤ φανερῶς τήν ἁγίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ καθολικήν καί ἀποστολικήν Ἐκκλησίαν πολεμούντων ἐχθρῶν ἱερωτάτην νίκην· καί τόν ὑπέρ αὐτοῦ ἀειθαλῆ τοῖς χαρίσμασι, καί ταῖς ἐνεργείαις τοῦ Πνεύματος ἀμαράντινον στέφανον, ἤδη κατ᾿ ἐλπίδας λαβών παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ, καί ὡς ἐν χερσί κτησάμενος τοῦ κατά φύσιν ἐφετοῦ, διά τῆς πρός αὐτό τελείας συννεύσεως τήν\n\nμακαρίαν ἀπόλαυσιν· κἀκ τούτου σαφῶς, εἰ καί τις ἄλλος, αὐτοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου κατατρυφῶν, πῶς ποτε, καί τίνι τρόπῳ ταύτην προσάπτειν, κἄν λόγῳ ψιλῷ, μή τί γε διά τιμίων σου καί μακαρίων προσάγειν καταδέχῃ γραμμάτων τῷ ἀδρανεῖ καί δειλῷ, καί μηδόλως εἰς παράταξιν Θεοῦ, καί τόν αὐτοῦ καί ὑπέρ αὐτοῦ, ἅγιον πόλεμον, τάς τοῦ νοῦ πρακτικάς δυνάμεις, ἤ τούς κατά ψυχήν ὡσεί τινας δακτύλους χειρῶν, λογισμούς, μέχρι καί νῦν δεδιδαγμένῳ κινεῖν, καί ταύτῃ τροποῦσθαι γενναίως τούς κατέναντι Κυρίου παντοκράτορος ῥήμασί τε καί δόγμασιν ἐπαιρομένους· καί τῆς ἀγαθῆς γῆς ἐξελαύνειν, ἥτις ἐστίν αὐτός ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν καί Θεός, καί ἡ ταυτόν ὀρθόδοξος πίστις· ἡ ὄντως παγία τῶν εὐσεβῶν δογμάτων ἕδρα καί σύστασις· καί τῶν ἀρετῶν ἡ ἀένναος καρπογονία καί φύσις. Ἀλλά τοῦτο χριστομιμήτως πεποίηκας·","english":"An Equal of a Letter That Was Sent to the Most Holy Bishop, Lord Nicander, by Maximus, Who Is Among the Saints, Concerning the Two Energies in Christ. You yourself, God-honored and all-blessed Father, having in a manner befitting your name, together with manliness, the most sacred victory over all the enemies who war against the holy catholic and apostolic Church of God, whether secretly or openly, and having already received from Him, in accordance with your hopes, the ever-blooming and, by the graces and energies of the Spirit, unfading crown for it, and having acquired, as it were in your hands, the blessed enjoyment of the object of natural longing through your perfect inclination toward Him—and from this clearly, if anyone else, delighting in the Lord Himself, how at any time and in what manner you deign to bring this to the weak and cowardly one, who has not at all been taught until now to move the practical powers of the mind, or the thoughts of the soul as though they were certain fingers of the hands, into the battle-line of God and His holy war, and His war on His behalf, and by this to rout bravely those who exalt themselves against the Lord Almighty by words and doctrines, and to drive them out of the good land, which is our Lord and God Himself, and the orthodox faith that is the same as Him—the truly firm foundation and support of pious doctrines, and the ever-flowing fruitfulness and nature of the virtues. But you have done this in a Christ-imitating way.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":69,"ref":"p69","source":"ἵνα τήν τούτου προδήλως εἰς ἐμέ, τόν γνωμικῶς αὐτοῦ διεστηκότα, καί τήν μακράν ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ τῆς κακίας ὥσπερ τινά χώραν ἕξιν, ἐμπροθέτως οἰκοῦντα, καί τά πάθη τῆς ἀτιμίας καθάπερ χοίρους δι᾿ ἐνεργείας ἐκτρέφοντα, φιλάγαθον ἐπιδειξάμενος κένωσιν, καί τῶν ἐνόντων σοι θείων κατορθωμάτων τῷ μεγέθει τῆς συγκαταβάσεως ὑποδείξας τήν δύναμιν, εἰς ἔφεσιν ταύτης ἐγείρῃς, καί πρός ἱερόν τινα καί μακάριον ζῆλον, ἀτρέπτως στομώσῃς, τῆς πάμπολύ με παρά πάντας βαρούσης νωθείας τε καί ἀμελείας τόν φόρτον εἰς δύναμιν ἀποῤῥιψάμενον· καί σε τῆς περί ἐμέ τόν πτωχόν σοφῆς οἰκονομίας καί προμηθείας χάριν ἀποθαυμάσας, μακάριε, τήν ἐν πλείοσιν ἔτεσι καί ἀρεταῖς θειοτέραις διατήρησιν, σοῦ τοῦ καλοῦ καί ἀγαθοῦ ποιμένος τε καί πατρός, μετά δακρύων, καίτοι λίαν ὑπάρχων ἁμαρτωλός, χαρισθῆναι μοι καί πᾶσιν ἐντενῶς καθικέτευσα τόν Κύριον ἡμῶν καί Θεόν· ἵνα ἔχοντές σε μάλιστα νῦν, ὅ τε τῆς φύσει καί ὄντως ἀληθείας τήν πρόῤῥησιν, ἡ κατά τήν ἔκβασιν τῶν πραγμάτων ἀλήθεια σαφῶς ἐπιστώσατο· καί θλίψις, οἵα καθάπαξ οὐ γέγονεν ἀπό καταβολῆς κόσμου, οὐδ᾿ οὐ μή γένηται, πάντας πανταχῆ διά τάς ἁμαρτίας κατέλαβε· τῇ τε πανσθενεῖ βακτηρίᾳ τῶν θεοπειθῶν προσευχῶν δυναμοῦντά τε καί ῤωννύοντα, καί τῇ πανιέρῳ σύριγγι τῆς θεοσόφου διδασκαλίας ὁδηγοῦντα καλῶς καί φωτίζοντα, καί εἰς τόπον χλόης τῆς ἀειζώου τῶν ἀρετῶν ἕξεως κατασκηνοῦντα διά τῆς πράξεως· καί ἐπί ὕδατος ἀναπαύσεως τῆς ἀειβλύστου τῶν ἱερῶν ἐν τοῖς δόγμασι χορηγίας ναμάτων ἐκτρέφοντα διά τῆς γνώσεως·","english":"so that, having manifestly shown toward me—who by disposition stood apart from him and dwelt deliberately, as it were, in a far country of evil habit, and by my activity fed the passions of dishonor like swine—his goodness-loving self-emptying, and having displayed the power of your inherent divine achievements by the greatness of your condescension, you might rouse me to desire for this and sharpen me unswervingly toward a certain holy and blessed zeal, having to the best of my ability cast off the burden of the sluggishness and negligence that weighs me down far more than all others; and having marveled, blessed one, at your wise stewardship and providence concerning me, the poor wretch, I earnestly entreated with tears our Lord and God that the preservation of you, the good and noble shepherd and father, in many years and more divine virtues might be granted to me and to all—although I am exceedingly a sinner—so that, having you especially now, both the declaration of the truth by nature and truly, the truth according to the outcome of events clearly confirmed; and the affliction, such as has never at all occurred since the foundation of the world, nor ever will occur, has seized all people everywhere because of their sins; you, strengthening and invigorating with the all-powerful staff of God-persuaded prayers, and guiding well and enlightening with the all-sacred pipe of God-wise teaching, and settling us through action in a place of green pasture of the ever-living habit of the virtues; and feeding us through knowledge beside the water of rest of the ever-flowing provision of the sacred streams in the doctrines;","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":70,"ref":"p70","source":"καί εἰς τόπον ὀχυρόν καί μάνδραν ὑψηλήν τήν καθολικήν Ἐκκλησίαν, καί τόν ταύτην δι᾿ αἵματος οἰκείου καί ζωοποιοῦ κατά θέλησιν ἁρμοσάμενον Κύριον ἀσφαλῶς διασώζοντα, τῆς τῶν ἐναντίων ἐλευθερωθῶμεν καταδρομῆς· οἱ προσφόρου καιροῦ τῆς τοῦ παντός δραξάμενοι ταραχῆς καί συγχύσεως, τό μέγα τῆς τῶν ἁπάντων σωστικῆς οἰκονομίας Χριστοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ καί ἀπόῤῥητον, ὡς πάντας αἰῶνας καί χρόνους, καί τούς ἐν αἰῶσι καί χρόνῳ φυσικῶς περιγράφον, συγχεῖν μηχανῶνται μυστήριον· οἷα τῆς ἐξ ἡμῶν νοερῶς τε καί λογικῶς ἐψυχωμένης, ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ κατ' εὐδοκίαν Πατρός καί συνέργειαν ἁγίου Πνεύματος προσληφθείσης, καί αὐτῷ κατά μίαν καί τήν αὐτήν ὑπόστασιν ἑνωθείσης ἁγίας σαρκός, οὐκ ἐχούσης μετά τήν ἕνωσιν τά προσόντα κατά φύσιν αὐτῇ, δίχα μόνης τῆς ἁμαρτίας· ὅτι μηδέ τῆς φύσεως ἦν· μᾶλλον δέ, αὐτοῦ τοῦ σαρκωθέντος Λόγου, καί δι᾿ ἡμᾶς ἐνανθρωπήσαντος, τά τήν ἡμετέραν φύσιν οὐσιωδῶς χαρακτηρίζοντα καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς τελείως οὐ σώζοντα· ἀλλ᾿ ἤ ταῦτα πρός τήν ἑαυτοῦ θείαν μετασκευάσαντος φύσιν· καί ταύτῃ, τό ἐλλιπές τῆς οἰκείας θεότητος δείξαντος, δεομένης παρενθήκης τινός πρός τήν κατ᾿ οὐσίαν ἐντέλειαν· ἤ πάμπαν εἰς ἀνυπαρξίαν μεταχωρῆσαι ποιήσαντος, ὡς οὐ λίαν καλά, καί τῆς αὐτοῦ δημιουργίας τό ἔργον ἐξαφανίσαντος τῷ μή κατά λόγον τινα καί σοφίαν αὐτά ποιῆσαι, καί ἑνῶσαι πρός ἑαυτόν καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν· ἐπεί πῶς, τό λόγῳ καί σοφίᾳ γενόμενον, ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ λόγῳ καί τῇ σοφίᾳ καθ᾿ ἕνωσιν ἀδιασπάστως οὐ σώζεται; ἤ πῶς σωζόμενον","english":"and into a fortified place and a lofty fold, the catholic Church, and the Lord who by his own life-giving blood fitted her together according to his will, safely preserving her, that we might be freed from the assault of the adversaries; those who, having seized the opportune moment of the universal turmoil and confusion, devise schemes to confound the great and ineffable mystery of the all-saving economy of Christ God, which as it were circumscribes all ages and times, and those in ages and in time by nature; such as the holy flesh, animated rationally and intelligently from us, taken up by him according to the good pleasure of the Father and the cooperation of the Holy Spirit, and united to him in one and the same hypostasis, which after the union does not have the properties that belong to it by nature, save only sin—because it was not even of nature; or rather, of the Word himself who was made flesh and became man for our sake, not perfectly preserving the things that essentially characterize our nature in our case; but either he transformed these into his own divine nature, and by this showed a deficiency in his own divinity, as needing some addition for perfection according to essence; or he caused them to pass altogether into non-existence, as not very good, and obliterated the work of his own creation by not making them according to some reason and wisdom, and uniting them to himself according to hypostasis; since how is that which came to be by reason and wisdom not preserved in the very reason and wisdom itself, unbrokenly through union? or how, being preserved","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":71,"ref":"p71","source":"καί μετά τήν ἕνωσιν, οὐχ ὁμολογεῖται; καί δι᾿ ἥντινα αἰτίαν, ἵνα διά τῆς ὁμολογίας ὅτι γέγονεν ἄνθρωπος ὁ φύσει Θεός πιστευθῆ κατ᾿ ἀλήθειαν; Ἤ τυχόν οὐδέ τήν ἀρχήν αὐτά τά φύσει προσόντα τῇ φύσει προσλαβών μετά τῆς φύσεως; Ἀλλά ἄψυχόν τινα καί ἄλογον, καί οὐδαμῶς ἐξ ἡμῶν, ἤ ἡμῖν ὑπάρχουσαν ὁμοούσιον σάρκα λαβών, ἤ οὐδέ λαβών, ἀλλ᾿ ἄνωθεν καί ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς συνουσιωμένην αὐτῷ κατενέγκας, ἥνωσεν ἑαυτῷ· καί τήν δ᾿ ἡμᾶς καί πρός ἡμᾶς οἰκονομίαν ἐφάντασεν, ἀνθρωπίνῳ σχήματι προσπελάσας ἡμῖν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἀνθρωπίνῃ φύσει προσομιλήσας, ἵνα τό γένος ἅπαν τοῦ παλαιοῦ παραπτώματος ἀνασώσηται, καί τοῦ δι᾿ αὐτό κατακρίματος ἐλευθερώσῃ.\n\nΤαῦτα γάρ, καί τούτων πλείω δοξάζουσιν, ὅσοι μή παντελείως ἐν Χριστῷ τῷ Θεῷ τά φυσικά, καί δίχα τῆς ἁμαρτίας, ὥσπερ καί τάς φύσεις αὐτάς σώζεσθαι κατά τούς ἁγίους Πατέρας ὀρθοδόξως ὁμολογοῦσι· καί μετά τήν ἕνωσιν. Οὐδέ γάρ τήν θείαν φύσιν καί ἄκτιστον ἀνύπαρκτόν τε καί ἀθέλητον ἤ ἀνενέργητον καθορῶμεν· οὔτε μήν τήν κτιστήν καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς καί ἀνθρωπίνην οὐσίαν ἀνύπαρκτόν τε καί ἀθέλητον ἤ ἀνενέργητον ἐπιγινώσκομεν.","english":"And after the union, is it not confessed? And for what reason, so that through the confession that the God by nature has become man, he might be believed in truth? Or perhaps did he not even from the beginning take upon himself the things that naturally belong to the nature together with the nature? But either he took a certain soulless and irrational flesh, and in no way from us, or not consubstantial with us, or he did not even take it, but brought it down from above and from the beginning as consubstantial with himself, and united it to himself; and he made the economy concerning us and toward us a mere appearance, approaching us in human form, but not conversing with human nature, in order that he might restore the whole race from the ancient transgression, and free it from the condemnation that came through it.\n\nFor these things, and more than these, are held by those who do not entirely in Christ God confess, as the holy Fathers do orthodoxly, that the natural properties are saved in Christ God, apart from sin, just as the natures themselves are; and after the union. For neither do we behold the divine and uncreated nature as nonexistent and without will or without operation; nor indeed do we recognize the created and human essence according to us as nonexistent and without will or without operation.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":72,"ref":"p72","source":"Καί εἰ μηδεμίαν τούτων ἔρημον ἐπιστάμεθα φυσικῆς ὑπάρξεως, θελήσεώς τε καί ἐνεργείας, ἐκ τούτων, δέ θείας φύσεως καί ἀνθρωπίνης φύσεως λέγω, καί ἐν ταύταις, καί τούτων ὑπόστασις ἐστι κατ᾿ ἀλήθειαν ὁ εἷς καί μόνος Χριστός καί Υἱός, πῶς, εἴπερ φύσει κυρίως Θεός, καί φύσει κυρίως ἄνθρωπος ὁ αὐτός, οὐχί καί θεῖον θέλημα καί ἐνέργειαν φύσει κυρίως, καί ἀνθρώπινον θέλημα, καί ἐνέργειαν φύσει κυρίως εἶχε, μηδετέρου τούτων κατά φύσιν ὤν ἐλλιπής, δι᾿ ὧν ἐπαληθεύων τοῖς πράγμασι τά ὀνόματα, καί τούτοις αὖθις ἐπικυρῶν τά πράγματα, προδήλως ὁ αὐτός ἐγνωρίζετο, τά τε θεῖα καί ἀνθρώπινα φυσικῶς ἔχων καί θέλων καί ἐνεργῶν, κἀκ τούτου τά ἐξ ὧν, καί ἐν οἷς, καί ἅπερ ὑπῆρχε, πιστευόμενος; Ἐπεί, τοῦ φυσικοῦ θελήματος καί τῆς οὐσιώδους ἐνεργείας ἀναιρουμένων, τῆς τε θείας καί ἀνθρωπίνης οὐσίας, τοῦ ἐκ τούτων καί ταύτας ὄντος καί σώζοντος κατά μίαν ὑπόστασιν, πῶς Θεός ἤ ἄνθρωπος ἔσται; καί πῶς τοῦτο, ἤ ἐκεῖνο κατ᾿ οὐσίαν ὑπάρχων δειχθήσεται, μή σώζων ἑκατέρας φύσεως ἀνελλιπῶς τήν ἰδιότητα, πάσης ἁμαρτίας χωρίς; Τό γάρ τῶν κατά φύσιν ἐκστᾷν, κἄν τῆς ἔξω τῆς οὐσίας γεγένηται, μηδεμίαν ὕπαρξιν ἔχον· ὅτι μηδέ κίνησιν φυσικήν. \"Τό γάρ μηδεμίαν κίνησιν ἔχον», ᾗ φησιν ὁ θεοφάντωρ καί μέγας ἅγιος Διονύσιος, \"οὔτε ἔστιν, οὔτε τί ἐστιν· οὔτε ἔστι τις αὐτοῦ παντελῶς θέσις».","english":"And if we know that none of these things is devoid of natural existence—I mean natural will and energy—and from these, that is, from the divine nature and the human nature, and in these and from these, the one and only Christ and Son is truly a hypostasis, how could it be that, if indeed he is by nature properly God and by nature properly man, the same one did not also have a divine will and energy by nature properly, and a human will and energy by nature properly, being deficient in neither of these according to nature—through which, validating the names by the realities and again confirming the realities by these, he was plainly recognized as the same one, having and willing and acting both divine and human things naturally, and from this being believed to be that from which, and in which, and what he was? Since, when natural will and essential energy are abolished, both the divine and the human essence are abolished—of him who is from these and these and preserves them according to one hypostasis—how will he be God or man? And how will he be shown to be this or that according to essence, if he does not preserve the property of each nature without deficiency, apart from all sin? For to depart from things according to nature, even if it has come to be outside of essence, has no existence at all, since it has not even natural motion. \"For that which has no motion at all,\" as the great saint Dionysius, taught of God, says, \"neither is, nor is anything; nor is there any position of it at all.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":73,"ref":"p73","source":"Διά τοι τοῦτο τάς Χριστοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ φύσεις ὁμολογοῦντας ἡμᾶς, τήν θείαν φημί καί τήν καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς ἀνθρωπίνην, πρός βεβαίαν τῆς τε τούτων ὑπάρξεως πίστωσιν, καί τῆς ἡμῶν περί αὐτῶν ὁμολογίας ἀλήθειαν, καί τά φυσικά τούτων ἰσαρίθμως δεῖ πάντως πρεσβεύειν θελήματα, καί τάς οὐσιώδεις τοσαύτας ἐνεργείας ὁμολογεῖν· καί μηδέν αὐτῶν προφάσει δῆθεν τῆς καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν θείας ἑνώσεως ἀπομειοῦν ἤ ἐξαρνεῖσθαι τό σύνολον· γινώσκοντας, ὡς ἡ καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν ἕνωσις οὐδέν παραβλάπτει τῶν φυσικῶν, καθάπερ οὐδέ τάς φύσεις αὐτάς· εἰ καί ταύτας εἰς ἕν ἄγει δι᾿ ἑαυτῆς κατά τήν μίαν ὑπόστασιν· τοῦ δύο, τῷ φυσικῷ λόγῳ ὑπάρχειν οὐδαμῶς ἐξιστῶσα· ὥσπερ οὖν καὐτά δή λέγω τά φυσικά ἰδιώματα, τῇ πρός ἄλληλα συμφυΐᾳ διόλου πάλιν ἑνίζουσα, καί μηδέτερον τοῦ ἑτέρου χωρίς, ἤ τῆς θατέρου πρός θάτερον κοινωνίας ἐκτός, κατά τόν τῶνῬωμαίων πάπαν ἀοίδιμον Λέοντα θεωρεῖσθαι καθοτιοῦν συγχωροῦσα, τήν τούτων οὐσιώδη καί φυσικήν οὐκ ἀμαυροῖ παντελῶς, ἀλλά τελείως φυλάττει διαφοράν· τῷ γάρ φυλάττειν φυλάττεται, καί τῷ συντηρεῖν συντηρεῖται. Μέχρι γάρ τότε σαφῶς ἕνωσις πραγμάτων ἐστίν, ἕως ἄν ἡ τούτων σώζηται φυσική διαφορά· ἐπεί ταύτης παυσαμένης, παύεται πάντως κἀκείνη, τῇ συγχύσει τελείως ἀφανισθεῖσα.","english":"For this reason, we who confess the natures of Christ God—I mean the divine and the human that is according to us—must by all means, for the firm assurance of their existence and for the truth of our confession concerning them, equally honor their natural wills, equal in number, and confess their essential energies, equal in number; and we must not diminish or utterly deny any of them on the pretext, ostensibly, of the divine union according to hypostasis; knowing that the union according to hypostasis harms none of the natural properties, just as it does not harm the natures themselves, even if it brings them into one through itself according to the one hypostasis, in no way removing them from being two by natural principle. Just as, therefore, I say, it unites again the natural properties themselves through their mutual connaturality, and does not permit either to be contemplated in any way apart from the other, or outside the communion of the one with the other, according to the memorable Pope Leo of the Romans, it does not utterly obscure their essential and natural difference, but perfectly preserves it; for by preserving it is preserved, and by maintaining it is maintained. For a union of things is clearly a union up to that point, as long as their natural difference is preserved; since when this ceases, that union also certainly ceases, having been completely destroyed by confusion.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":74,"ref":"p74","source":"Ταύτης τοιγαροῦν, λέγω δέ τῆς ἑνώσεως, οὐ λυμαινομένης τοῖς πράγμασιν, οὐδέ τῇ τούτων διαφορᾷ, ἀλλά μόνον τῇ κλήσει προσφυῶς ἑνοποιούσης τά κατ᾿ αὐτήν, εἰσί πάντοτε καί πάντως ἀμειώτως ἐν αὐτῇ καί τελείως σωζόμενα, τά κατά φύσιν διάφορα, τήν οἱανοῦν παρατροπήν οὐ παθόντα καί σύγχυσιν· οὐκ ἐν οὐσίαις αὐταῖς, οὐ θελήμασιν, οὐκ ἐνεργείαις, οὐκ ἄλλῳ τινί φυσικῷ. Πῶς οὖν ἐπικάλυμμα τῆς ἰδίας, οὐκ οἶδ᾿ ὅπως εὐφήμως εἰπεῖν, καλοφροσύνης, ταύτην τινές προφασίζονται· καί τόν σαρκωθέντα Λόγον ἀθέλητον φύσει, καί ἀνενέργητον τῷ καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς, ἤγουν τῷ ἀνθρωπίνῳ, φασί· ἅτε κυρίως ἀψύχου καί ἀλόγου τῆς ἐξ ἡμῶν προσληφθείσης οὐσίας ἐν αὐτῷ τυγχανούσης. Τό γάρ ἀνενέργητον, ἀκίνητόν τε καί ἄψυχον προδήλως ἐστί· καί τό μηδεμίαν λογικήν θέλησιν ἔχον, ἄλογον σαφῶς καί ἀνόητον. Καί εἰ τούτων χωρίς κατά φύσιν ὑπῆρχεν ὁ σαρκωθείς Λόγος τό καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς, πῶς ὅτι καί ἄνθρωπος γέγονε πιστευθήσεται; πῶς δέ μᾶλλον οὐχί τραπείς τήν θείαν φύσιν, καί σαρκός πάθεσιν ἀκουσίως ὑποπεσών δειχθήσεται κατ᾿ αὐτήν; Τῇ γάρ τῶν φυσικῶν ἀναιρέσει, τήν τῶν τοιούτων καταδρομήν, Ἄρειός τε καί Ἀπολινάριος κατ᾿ αὐτοῦ πεποιήκασιν. Ὁ μέν γάρ, ἄψυχον, ὁ δέ ἄλογον, ὅπερ ἀνενέργητόν ἐστι καί ἀθέλητον, αὐτόν δογματίσαντες, κτίσμα τοῦτον καί ποίημα καθ᾿ ἑαυτόν ἐβλασφήμησαν. Ἑκάτερος γάρ παθητόν φύσει θεότητος, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ φύσει σαρκός εἶπον τόν Μονογενῆ· κἄν Ἀπολινάριος ἔτι κατ᾿ ἀσέβειαν δαψιλευόμενος, καί τελείαν τήν εἰς σάρκα μεταβολήν κατ᾿ ἔκπτωσιν καί τροπήν τῆς αὐτοῦ θεότητος ἀπεφήνατο.","english":"Of this union, then—I mean the union—since it does no injury to the things themselves nor to their difference, but only by its calling aptly unifies the things that are according to it, the things that are by nature different are always and in every way preserved in it without diminution and perfectly, having suffered no deviation whatsoever or confusion—not in their essences, not in their wills, not in their activities, nor in any other natural property. How, then, do some put this forward as a cloak for their own—I do not know how to say it euphemistically—vainglory, and say that the incarnate Word is by nature without will and without activity in what is according to us, that is, in the human [nature], on the grounds that the essence taken from us in him was properly soulless and irrational? For that which is without activity is plainly also unmoved and soulless; and that which has no rational will is clearly irrational and mindless. And if the incarnate Word existed by nature in what is according to us without these things, how will it be believed that he also became man? How, rather, will he not be shown to have been changed in his divine nature and to have fallen unwillingly under the passions of the flesh according to it? For by the removal of natural properties, both Arius and Apollinarius made their assault against him. For the one, dogmatizing him as soulless, and the other as irrational—which is without activity and without will—blasphemed him as a creature and a product in himself. For each said that the Only-Begotten was passible by nature of divinity, but not by nature of flesh; and Apollinarius, still lavishing more in impiety, also declared that the change into flesh was complete, according to a falling away and turning of his divinity.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":75,"ref":"p75","source":"Χρή τοιγαροῦν εὐσεβοῦντας ἡμᾶς, τήν τοιαύτην ὁμολογίαν διώσασθαι, καί τήν τῶν ἁγίων Πατέρων κρατύνειν διδασκαλίαν· καί δύο φυσικά θελήματα κατ᾿ αὐτούς, καί οὐσιώδεις ἐνεργείας, ἐπί τοῦ αὐτοῦ καί ἑνός ὁμολογεῖν. Εἰ γάρ ἕν ἐπ᾿ αὐτοῦ θέλημα καί μίαν ἐνέργειαν εἴποιμεν, ἤ τοῦτον οὐκ ὄντα φύσει καί ἄνθρωπον, ἀλλά μόνον Θεόν· ἤ φύσει μόνον ἄνθρωπον, καί οὐ Θεόν· ἤ οὔτε ἄνθρωπον οὔτε Θεόν σαφῶς δογματίσομεν. Οἷον, εἰ μέν φυσικόν τό θέλημα τυχόν εἴποιμεν, ἤ θεῖον πάντως, ἤ ἀνθρώπινον τοῦτό ἐστι· καί εἰ θεῖον, τά θεῖα κατ᾿ αὐτό θελήσει φυσικῶς ὁ Λόγος· Θεόν φύσει μόνον καί συνθελητήν τῷ ἰδίῳ γεννήτορι δεικνύς ἑαυτόν, καί οὐκ ἄνθρωπον· οὐ γάρ πέφυκε διά τοῦ φύσει θείου, τό ἀνθρώπινον φύσει χαρακτηρίζεσθαι· ὥσπερ οὐδέ διά τοῦ κατ᾿ οὐσίαν ἀνθρωπίνου, τό κατ᾿ οὐσίαν θεῖον γνωρίζεσθαι. Τοῦτο δε, καί εἰ ἀνθρώπινον φῶμεν τό θέλημα φύσει, κατά τό ἀκόλουθον συναχθήσεται. Εἰ δέ ὑποστατικόν, τῆς αὐτοῦ μόνης ὑποστάσεως ἔσται χαρακτηριστικόν· καί οὔποτ᾿ ἄν κατ᾿ αὐτό κοινωνήσῃ Πατρί καί ἡμῖν· τῶν γάρ ἄκρων ὑποστάσει διαστέλλεται καί χωρίζεται. Τά αὐτά δέ πάλιν καί περί ἐνεργειῶν ἔστιν εἰπεῖν.","english":"It is necessary, therefore, that we who are pious reject such a confession and strengthen the teaching of the holy Fathers, and confess, in accordance with them, two natural wills and essential energies in the same and one [Christ]. For if we were to say that there is one will and one energy in him, we would clearly be dogmatizing that he is either not by nature also a man but only God, or by nature only a man and not God, or neither man nor God. For example, if we were to say that the will is natural, it is either wholly divine or human; and if divine, the Word naturally wills divine things by it, showing himself to be by nature God only and of one will with his own Begetter, and not a man; for it is not in the nature of things that the human be characterized by the naturally divine, just as neither is the divine in essence known by the human in essence. And this same conclusion will follow if we say that the will is natural and human. But if it is hypostatic, it will be characteristic of his own hypostasis alone; and by it he would never have communion with the Father and with us, for he is distinguished and separated from the extremes by hypostasis. The same things may again be said concerning the energies.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":76,"ref":"p76","source":"Ἀλλ᾿ οὐ διά τοῦτο, μή γένοιτο, τάς τῶν θεοφόρων Πατέρων περί αὐτῶν, φημί τῶν ἐνεργειῶν, μοναδικάς ἐξαρνούμεθα, τήν τε τοῦ λεχθέντος θεοφάντορος ἁγίου Διονυσίου \"Θεανδρικήν ἐνέργειαν», καί τήν Κυρίλλου τοῦ σοφοῦ \"μίαν τε καί συγγενῆ δι᾿ ἀμφοῖν ἐπιδεδειγμένην ἐνέργειαν». Αὗται μέν γάρ διά τήν ἕνωσιν, καί τήν πρός ἀλλήλας διόλου τῶν φυσικῶν ἐνεργειῶν συμφυΐαν, εὐσεβῶς αὐτοῖς ἐκηρύχθησαν· ὥσπερ καί αἱ δυϊκαί, διά τήν οὐσιώδη καί φυσικήν τούτων διαφοράν. Ἡ γάρ Θεανδρική τῆς θείας ὁμοῦ καί ἀνδρικῆς ἐνεργείας ὑπάρχει περίληψις. Κατάλληλον γάρ ὁ διδάσκαλος ἐπινοήσας φωνήν, ἑκατέραν, ὡς ἔφην, τῇ προφορᾷ συλλαμβάνουσαν, καί ταύτην μοναδικῶς ἐκφωνήσας, τήν διπλῆν, τοῦ διπλοῦ τήν φύσιν, ἐνέργειαν περιφραστικῶς παρεδήλωσεν. Ἐπειδή γάρ πρότερον ἔφησεν, \"Οὐ κατά Θεόν τά θεῖα δράσας, ὅτι μή γυμνός ὑπῆρχε Θεός· ἀλλά δράσας μέν φύσει τά θεῖα· Θεός γάρ ἦν κατά φύσιν· διά σαρκός δέ, τῆς αὐτῷ καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν ἡνωμένης· οὐ τά ἀνθρώπινα κατά ἄνθρωπον, ὅτι μή ἄνθρωπος ὑπῆρχε ψιλός· ἀλλά","english":"But not for this reason—God forbid—do we deny the unitary statements of the God-bearing Fathers concerning them, I mean the energies: both the \"theandric energy\" of the aforementioned holy Dionysius the God-seer, and the \"one and kindred energy shown forth through both\" of the wise Cyril. For these were piously proclaimed by them because of the union and the complete coalescence of the natural energies with one another; just as the dual statements were, because of their essential and natural difference. For the theandric is a comprehension of the divine and human energy together. For the teacher, having devised a fitting term that embraces each, as I said, in its utterance, and having uttered it in a unitary way, indicated the double energy of the double nature periphrastically. For since he had said earlier, \"not doing divine things as God, because he was not God naked; but doing divine things by nature—for he was God by nature—yet through flesh united to him in person; not human things as a man, because he was not a mere man; but","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":77,"ref":"p77","source":"δράσας μέν φυσικῶς τά ἀνθρώπινα· φύσει γάρ ἄνθρωπος ἦν· κατ᾿ ἐξουσίαν δέ θεϊκήν», ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἀνάγκῃ τινί καί βίᾳ καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς φυσικῇ πρός τό πράττειν ἀγόμενος, συνέπλεξε τήν τε θείαν ἅμα καί ἀνδρικήν τοῦ αὐτοῦ κατά φύσιν ἐνέργειαν· ὡς μηδετέραν τῆς ἑτέρας οὖσαν χωρίς, ἀλλ᾿ ἐν ἀλλήλαις τε καί δι᾿ ἀλλήλων συμφυῶς γνωριζομένας, διά τήν ἄλυτον ἕνωσιν· καί μοναδικῇ φωνῇ συλλαβών ἄμφω, περιφραστικῶς ἀνεκήρυξεν. Ἵνα τῷ μέν δρᾶσαι τά τε θεῖα καί ἀνθρώπινα εἰπεῖν· εἰ καί μή κατά Θεόν, μήτε μήν κατά ἄνθρωπον· ὅτι μή γυμνός, ὡς ἔφην, Θεός, μήτε ψιλός ἄνθρωπος ἦν· ὅμως δέ κατ᾿ ἀλήθειαν δρᾶσαι, τήν τῶν φυσικῶν ἐνεργειῶν οὐσιώδη πιστώσηται διαφοράν· τῷ δέ συλλαβεῖν ταύτας, καί τῇ προσφόρῳ φωνῇ συνοπτικῶς ἐξειπεῖν διά τῆς θεανδρικῆς ἐνεργείας, τήν τούτων ἀδιάσπαστον ἕνωσιν ἐκδιδάξῃ.\n\nΚαί ἡ Κυρίλλου δέ τοῦ σοφοῦ «μία τε καί συγγενής δι᾿ ἀμφοῖν ἐπιδεδειγμένη ἐνέργεια», τῆς τοῦ μεγάλου τούτου Πατρός μεγίστης ἔχεται διανοίας. Τήν γάρ τῶν φυσικῶν ἐνεργειῶν καὐτός συμφυΐαν καί ἕνωσιν δι᾿ αὐτῆς ἐκπαιδεύει. Θέλων γάρ δεῖξαι καί ὁ πανεύφημος οὗτος ἀνήρ, ὥς ἥ τε σάρξ Θεός, καί ἡ κατ᾿ αὐτήν οὐσιώδης ἐνέργεια, θεία τῇ πρός τῇ φύσει Θεόν Λόγον ἑνώσει γεγένηται, καί τά ὑπέρ ἄνθρωπον ἐνήργει, μή ἐκστᾶσα τούτου, οὗπερ ἦν κατά φύσιν· ὥσπερ οὖν καί αὐτός ὁ Λόγος τῇ ταύτης προσλήψει δι᾿ ἡμᾶς ἑκουσίως γέγονεν ἄνθρωπος, τά κατά ἄνθρωπον ἐνεργῶν· καίπερ ὑπάρχων φύσει Θεός, διαγορεύει τοῦτον, μή παντουργῷ προστάγματι μόνον ἰᾶσθαι καί ζωοποιεῖν, ὡς μή Θεόν ὄντα γυμνόν·","english":"having acted naturally in human matters—for he was by nature a man—but by divine authority, not driven to act by any necessity or force according to our nature, he combined both the divine and the manly energy of the same one according to nature, so that neither was apart from the other, but they were known in each other and through each other connaturally, because of the indissoluble union; and having comprehended both in a single expression, he proclaimed it periphrastically. So that by \"having acted\" both divine and human things might be stated—even if not according to God, nor yet according to man; because he was not, as I said, bare God, nor mere man; nevertheless, that he truly acted, he might confirm the essential difference of the natural energies; and by comprehending these, and expressing them summarily in fitting speech through the theandric energy, he might teach their indivisible union.\n\nAnd the saying of the wise Cyril also, \"one and kindred energy shown through both,\" holds to the greatest thought of this great Father. For he too, through it, teaches the connatural union and unity of the natural energies. For this all-praised man, wishing to show that the flesh is God, and the essential energy according to it has become divine by its union with God the Word in nature, and that he worked things beyond man, not departing from that which he was by nature—just as the Word himself, by his assumption of it, voluntarily became man for us, working things according to man—declares that he heals and gives life not by an all-working command alone, as if he were not God bare;","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":78,"ref":"p78","source":"ἀλλά συνεργάτιν ὥσπερ τινά, πρός τοῦτο δή μάλιστα, τήν ἁγίαν αὐτοῦ σάρκα λαμβάνειν ἐπείγεσθαι· καί ζωοποιεῖν καί θεραπεύειν δι᾿ αὐτῆς καί τῆς κατ᾿ αὐτήν ἀφῆς καί φωνῆς· ἵνα ταύτην δεικνύῃ ζωοποιεῖν δυναμένην, διά τό πρός αὐτήν ἐν τῇ ἑνώσει γενέσθαι· καί αὐτοῦ τοῦ φύσει ζωογονοῦντος τά σύμπαντα, καί οὐχ ἕτερον σάρκα κυρίως ὑπάρχειν. Διό καί μίαν αὐτοῦ καί αὐτῆς, φημί τῆς ἁγίας σαρκός καί συγγενῆ δι' ἀμφοῖν ἐπιδεικνύει ἐνέργειαν· μίαν μέν, τῇ ἑνώσει· συγγενῆ δέ πάλιν, τοῖς μέρεσιν· ὡς τήν αὐτήν οὖσαν, ἔν τε παντουργῷ προστάγματι, καί ἁφῇ τῆς ἁγίας σαρκός· δι᾿ ἀμφοῖν γάρ, ὡς Θεός, ὁ Λόγος, ταύτην σαφῶς ἐπεδείκνυτο· δεικνύς τῷ καί δι᾿ αὐτῆς ζωοποιεῖν, ὡς καί αὐτή γέγονεν δι᾿ ὅλου ζωοποιός· καθάπερ καί πῦρ διά σιδήρου καῖον, ἑνώσει τῇ πρός αὐτόν καυστικόν ἀποφαίνει τόν σίδηρον· ὡς εἶναι λοιπόν διά τοῦτο μή τοῦ πυρός κατά φύσιν μόνον τήν καῦσιν, ἀλλά καὐτοῦ τοῦ σιδήρου διά τήν ἕνωσιν· καί τήν ἐν τοῖς θαύμασι θείαν τοῦ Λόγου πάλιν ἐνέργειαν, μή τοῦ αὐτοῦ μόνον διά τήν φύσιν ὑπάρχειν, ἀλλά καὐτῆς τῆς ἁγίας σαρκός, διά τήν πρός αὐτήν καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν ἕνωσιν· συνεργάτιν γάρ ἑαυτοῦ ταύτην ἐν τοῖς θείοις παρελάμβανεν, ᾗ φησιν ὁ διδάσκαλος, ὥσπερ καί ψυχή τό ἴδιον σῶμα, πρός τήν τῶν οἰκείων ἔργων ἐκπλήρωσιν. Αὕτη γοῦν ἡ μία καί συγγενής δι᾿ ἀμφοῖν ἐπιδεδειγμένη ἐνέργεια, τῶν κατά φύσιν ἐνεργειῶν δηλοῦσα τήν ἕνωσιν·","english":"but rather that he hastened to take his holy flesh as a kind of co-worker, especially for this purpose, and to give life and to heal through it, both by its touch and by its voice, so that he might show that this flesh is able to give life, because it had come to be united with him, and that he who by nature gives life to all things is not one thing and the flesh in the strict sense another. Therefore he demonstrates one energy, and one that is akin, of himself and of it—I mean of the holy flesh—through both: one by union, and again akin by the parts, as being the same in the all-working command and in the touch of the holy flesh. For through both the Word, as God, clearly demonstrated this, showing by the fact that he gives life also through it that it too has become wholly life-giving, just as fire burning through iron makes the iron burning by its union with it, so that from then on the burning belongs not only to the fire by nature but also to the iron itself because of the union. And again, the divine energy of the Word in the miracles belongs not to him alone by nature but also to his holy flesh because of the union with him in subsistence. For he took it as his co-worker in divine works, as the teacher says, just as the soul does its own body, for the fulfillment of its own works. This one and akin energy, then, demonstrated through both, reveals the union of the natural energies.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":79,"ref":"p79","source":"τό ἑτερογενές τούτων καί δυϊκόν, καθάπερ καί ἡ θεανδρική ἐνέργεια, δι᾿ ἑαυτῆς κυρίως σημαίνει τῷ πρός ἄμφω τά μέρη, τῶν ἐξ ὧν καί ἐν οἷς ὁ εἷς καί μόνος ἐγνωρίζετο σεσαρκωμένος Λόγος, ἀναφέρεσθαι· καί ἀμφοτέρων ὑπάρχειν, ὡς δι᾿ ἀμφοῖν, τοῦ τε παντουργοῦ προστάγματος, καί τῆς ἀφῆς τῆς ἁγίας σαρκός ἐπιδεδειγμένη.\n\nΟὐ δεῖ δέ τῷ συγγενεῖ ξενίζεσθαι παντελῶς· ἐπί τε γάρ ὁμοουσίων καί ἑτερουσίων λέλεκται τοῖς ἁγίοις Πατράσι τό συγγενές· καί μάρτυς ὁ Θεολόγος καί μέγας Γρηγόριος, περί ψυχῆς λέγων οὕτως ἐν τῷ εἰς Καισάριον τόν αὐτοῦ ἀδελφόν Ἐπιταφίῳ λόγῳ, Μικρόν δε ὕστερον καί τό συγγενές σαρκίον ἀπολαβοῦσα, ᾧ τά ἐκεῖθεν συνεφιλοσόφησεν. Ἐνταῦθα διά τήν ἕνωσιν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ τήν φύσιν συγγενῆ τῇ ψυχῇ τήν σάρκα κέκληκεν ὁ διδάσκαλος. Καί πάλιν, Ἐν τῷ Εἰς τά φῶτα, περί τοῦ\n\nμονογενοῦς Υἱοῦ διδάσκων, φησί· Καί ὁ ὑπό τοῦ συγγενοῦς μαρτυρούμενος Πνεύματος. Νῦν τό συγγενές διά τήν φύσιν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ τήν ἕνωσιν εἴρηκεν. Αὐτός δέ Κύριλλος ὁ σοφός κἀπί τῇ οὐσίᾳ καί ὑποστάσει διῃρημένων τό συγγενές ἀπαρατηρήτως λαμβάνει· καί τάδε λέγει τόν εὐαγγελιστήν Ἰωάννην ὑπομνηματίζων, περί τῆς κατά τό θεῖον βάπτισμα θεραπείας, \"Συγγενῶς πως ἐχούσης πρός ἄμφω τῶν δεδηλωμένων. Πνεύματι μέν γάρ ἁγιάζει τοῦ ἀνθρώπου τό πνεῦμα· ὕδατι δέ αὖ, τό σῶμα», Τίς δέ, καί ποία συγγένεια Πνεύματος ἁγίου καί ὕδατος κατά τε οὐσίαν ἤ ὑπόστασιν, πρός τό ἡμέτερον πνεῦμα καί σῶμα; εἰ καί τά μάλιστα κατά χάριν ἡμῖν καί τοῖς ἐξ ὧν συγκείμεθα μέρεσιν αὕτη προσγίνεται, διά τήν ἱεράν ἀναγέννησιν.","english":"This heterogeneity and duality of theirs, just as also the theandric activity, properly signifies through itself, by its reference to both parts, that the one and only incarnate Word was known from the things of which and in which he consists; and that it belongs to both, as having been demonstrated through both—both through the all-working command and through the touch of the holy flesh.\n\nBut one must not be entirely estranged by the term \"kindred\"; for the holy Fathers have used \"kindred\" both of things of the same essence and of things of different essence. And a witness is the Theologian, the great Gregory, speaking thus about the soul in his Funeral Oration for his brother Caesarius: \"And a little later, receiving also the kindred flesh, with which she philosophized together with him on the things from there.\" Here the teacher has called the flesh kindred to the soul because of the union, not because of nature. And again, in the Oration \"On the Lights,\" teaching about the only-begotten Son, he says: \"And he who is testified to by the kindred Spirit.\" Now he has spoken of \"kindred\" because of nature, not because of the union. But Cyril himself, the wise, also in the case of things divided in essence and hypostasis, takes \"kindred\" without scruple; and he says the following, commenting on John the evangelist, concerning the healing that comes through the divine baptism: \"Since the things indicated have a certain kindred relation to both. For with the Spirit he sanctifies the spirit of the man; and with the water, in turn, the body.\" But what, and of what sort, is the kinship of the Holy Spirit and of water, in essence or hypostasis, to our spirit and body? Even if especially it accrues to us according to grace, and to the parts of which we are composed, because of the sacred regeneration.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":80,"ref":"p80","source":"Ἀλλά καὐτός αὖθις ὁ μοναδικός ἀριθμός, ὡς πᾶσιν εὔδηλον, καθ᾿ ἕκαστον τῶν ἐν πτώσει γενῶν ἔν τε ὁμοουσίοις καί ἑτερουσίοις(1) πρός τῶν ἁγίων παραλαμβάνεται, τό καθ' ἕνωσιν, ἤ δηλονότι σκοπούντων, ὡς τό, «Εἷς ἐξ ἀμφοῖν, καί δι᾿ ἑνός ἀμφότερα», Καί τό, «Μία ὑπόστασις καί μία φύσις τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένη». Καί τό, «Εἰ γάρ καί τό συναμφότερον ἕν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ τῇ φύσει, τῇ δέ συνόδῳ». Καί πάλιν ἐπί τῶν ὁμοουσίων, ὡς τό, \" Καί ἦν, καί ἦν, ἀλλ᾿ ἕν ἦν. Φῶς καί φῶς, καί φῶς, ἀλλ᾿ ἕν φῶς. Καί τό \" Εἷς Θεός, καί μία φύσις ἡ ἀνωτάτη», φησίν ὁ Θεολόγος Γρηγόριος. Οὐ δεῖ τοιγαροῦν τάς μοναδικάς τῶν ἁγίων φωνῶν ἤ συγγενεῖς διά τήν ἕνωσιν εἰρημένας, ἐπ᾿ ἀνατροπῇ τῶν δυϊκῶν ἤ ἑτερογενῶν λελεγμένων αὐτοῖς, διά τήν διαφοράν ἐκδέχεσθαι παντελῶς· ἤ πάλιν κατ᾿ ἐκείνων ταύτας. Ὁ γάρ οὕτως ἐκλαμβάνων, καί μή ἀμφοτέρας ἐπίσης ἀσπαζόμενος, καί προσηκόντως, τάς μέν, τῆ ἑνώσει, τάς δέ, τῇ φυσικῇ διαφορᾷ προσαρμόζων· ἤ διαιρέσει πάντως, ἤ συγχύσει κατά τό εἰκός περιπίπτει· μᾶλλον δέ φάναι κυρίως, ἑαυτόν περιβάλλει, καί τῆς τῶν ἁγίων Πατέρων διωθεῖται κοινωνίας ἀληθοῦς καί ὁμολογίας. Εἰ γάρ καί πρός τόν Λόγον ἕν ἡ σάρξ καθ' ὑπόστασιν γέγονε, καί τῇ ἑνώσει τήν ἐνέργειαν αὐτοῦ κατεπλούτησεν· ἀλλ᾿ οὐδαμῶς τοῦ κτίστην κατ᾿ οὐσίαν ὑπάρχειν διέπεσεν, οὔτε τῶν φυσικῶν καί ἀδιαβλήτων παθῶν τήν οἰανοῦν πέπονθεν ἐκδρομήν. Καί εἰ τοῦτο κυρίως ἐστίν, ὥσπερ οὖν καί ἐστι, διάφορον τήν τε φύσιν αὐτήν, καί τήν φυσικήν πρός τόν Λόγον ἐκέκτητο προδήλως ἐνέργειαν. Ἦν αὐτός ἔχων ὁ σαρκωθείς Λόγος ὡς ἄνθρωπος·","english":"But again, the monadic number itself, as is clear to all, is received by the saints in each of the fallen kinds, both among those of the same essence and among those of different essence, as signifying unity, or obviously as they intend, as in \"One from both, and through one, both,\" and \"One hypostasis and one nature of God the Word incarnate,\" and \"For even if the combined whole is one, it is not by nature, but by conjunction.\" And again in the case of those of the same essence, as in \"And it was, and it was, but it was one. Light and light, and light, but one light.\" And \"One God, and one nature, the highest,\" says Gregory the Theologian. Therefore one must not understand the monadic utterances of the saints, or those akin to them spoken because of unity, as being said to overturn the dual or heterogeneous utterances spoken by them because of difference, nor again those as being against these. For he who takes them in this way, and does not equally and properly welcome both, fitting the one to unity and the other to natural difference, falls, in all likelihood, entirely into division or confusion—or rather, to speak more properly, he wraps himself in it and thrusts himself away from the true communion and confession of the holy Fathers. For even if the flesh has become one with the Word in hypostasis, and by the union has been enriched with his activity, yet in no way has it fallen from being creator by essence, nor has it suffered any deviation of its natural and blameless passions. And if this is truly so, as indeed it is, it plainly possessed both its nature itself and its natural activity toward the Word as different. The incarnate Word himself had it as a man:","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":81,"ref":"p81","source":"αὐτοῦ γάρ ἦν κατά φύσιν. Αἵματος γάρ καί σαρκός παραπλησίως ἡμῖν κεκοινώνηκε, δύο φυσικάς εἶχεν ὁ αὐτός ἐνεργείας ὥσπερ οὖν καί φύσεις· τήν θείαν καί Πατρικήν, καί τήν καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς ἀνθρωπίνην· δι᾿ ὧν ὅτι Θεός ἦν ὁ αὐτός καί ἄνθρωπος ἐπιστεύετο. Ὧν γάρ εἶχε τάς φυσικάς ἐνεργείας, τούτων δηλαδή καί τάς φύσεις. Ὡς γάρ Θεός, διά τε φωνῆς καί ἀφῆς τῆς ἁγίας σαρκός, ἰώμενός τε καί ζωοποιῶν ἐδείκνυτο κατά φύσιν· οὕτω πάλιν καί ἄνθρωπος ὤν ὁ αὐτός οὐσιωδῶς ἐγνωρίζετο, διά τῆς αὐτῆς ἀφῆς καί χειρός, λεντίῳ διαζωννύμενος, καί νίπτων τούς πόδας τῶν μαθητῶν· καί κλῶν τούς ἄρτους, καί τούτοις διαδιδούς· καί τό ψωμίον εἰς τό τρυβλίον ἐμβάπτων· καί πάλιν διά τῆς φωνῆς τήν προσοῦσαν λύπην καταμηνύων, Περίλυπός ἐστιν ἡ ψυχή μου ἕως θανάτου. Καί, Νῦν ἡ ψυχή μου τετάρακται. Καί, Οὕτως οὐκ ἰσχύσατε μίαν ὥραν γρηγορῆσαι μετ᾿ ἐμοῦ. Καί ὅσα τοιαῦτα, μηδαμῶς τό φύσει πεφυκός ἑκατέρας φύσεως, τῶν ἐξ ὧν καί ἐν αἷς συνέστηκεν, ἀθετῶν· ἀλλά φυσικαῖς ἐνεργείαις τάς φύσεις πιστούμενος.","english":"For this was his by nature. For since he partook of blood and flesh like us, the same one had two natural energies as also two natures—the divine and Paternal, and the human according to us—through which he was believed to be both God and man. For of whatever things he had the natural energies, of these clearly also the natures. For as God, through both voice and the touch of his holy flesh, he was shown by nature to heal and give life; so again the same one, being also man, was known substantially through the same touch and hand—girding himself with a towel and washing the feet of the disciples; and breaking the loaves and distributing them; and dipping the morsel into the dish; and again through his voice disclosing the grief that was present: My soul is deeply grieved, even to death. And, Now my soul is troubled. And, So you could not watch with me one hour. And as many such things, in no way setting aside what is naturally inherent in each of the two natures, of those from which and in which he consists, but by natural energies confirming the natures.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":82,"ref":"p82","source":"Ἵνα δέ καί διά Κυρίλλου τοῦ σοφοῦ δειχθῇ, ὡς οὐ φύσει μίαν, ὥσπερ οὐδέ φύσιν, ἡ σάρξ εἶχε πρός τόν Λόγον ἐνέργειαν, εἰ καί συγγενής γέγονεν πρός αὐτόν, τῷ θεωθῆναι διά τήν ἕνωσιν, ἀκούσωμεν τί διέξεισι, τό κατά Ματθαῖον Εὐαγγέλιον ἑρμηνεύων, ἐν τῇ δευτέρᾳ βίβλῳ τῆς ἐξομολογήσεως. \"Διά τοῦτο φησίν ἐνεργεῖν ἐν Πνεύματι Θεοῦ. Καί γάρ τοι κατά τό ἀληθές, οὐ σαρκός ἐνέργεια φυσική καί\n\nἀνθρωπότητος δύναμις, παραλύει τόν Σατανᾶν, καί καταισχύνει τόν Βεελζεβούλ· ἐπεί διδασκέτω σέ τις παρελθών, εἰ βούλεται, τί τό κωλύον τοῖς ἐθέλουσι προκεῖσθαι τήν ἐξουσίαν τήν κατά πνευμάτων ἀκαθάρτων. Ἱδού, εἰ τοῦτο ἐνεργεῖ σαρκός φύσει· πάντες γάρ ἐσμέν ἐν σαρκί, καί εἷς πάντων ὁ τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος λόγος· ἀλλ᾿ οὔτε σαρκός ἔργον ἰδικῶς, οὔτε μέν ἀνθρωπότητος, τό κατισχύσαι πνευμάτων, ἐπεί μή πάντες ἰσχύουσιν· ἐνεργείας δέ μᾶλλον ὁρᾶται τό κατόρθωμα διά τοῦ Πνεύματος». Οὐκοῦν ἀληθές εἴρηκεν ὁ Πατήρ, καθό νοεῖται σάρξ καί ἄνθρωπος, ὅτι Πνεύματος ἔργον ἦν, καί οὐχί τῆς σαρκός, ἤγουν ἀνθρωπότητος, ἡ κατά δαιμόνων ἰσχύς. Ἅγιον μέν γάρ ὁμολογουμένως ἐστί τό σῶμα τοῦ Κυρίου, καί πᾶσαν ἔχον κατά πάσης νόσου τήν δύναμιν· ἀλλ᾿ ἦν τε, καί ἐστιν ἅγιον, οὐκ ἐπείπερ ἁπλῶς νοεῖται σάρξ, ἐν μόνοις οὖσα τοῖς ἰδίοις λόγοις, ἀλλ᾿ ᾗ ἐστι ναός τοῦ κατοικοῦντος ἐν αὐτῇ Θεοῦ Λόγου, ἁγιάζοντος τήν ἰδίαν σάρκα διά τοῦ ἰδίου Πνεύματος.","english":"But that it may also be shown through Cyril the wise that the flesh did not have one energy toward the Word by nature, just as neither one nature, even if it has become akin to him by being deified through the union, let us hear what he sets forth, interpreting the Gospel according to Matthew, in the second book of his Confession. \"For this reason,\" he says, \"he works in the Spirit of God. For in truth, it is not a natural energy of the flesh and a power of humanity that paralyzes Satan and puts Beelzebul to shame; otherwise let someone come forward, if he wishes, and teach you what prevents those who wish from setting before themselves the authority over unclean spirits. Behold, if this is what the flesh works by nature—for we are all in the flesh, and the principle of humanity is one for all—but it is neither a work of the flesh specifically nor of humanity to prevail over spirits, since not all prevail; rather, the accomplishment is seen to be of energy through the Spirit.\" Therefore the Father has spoken truly, insofar as flesh and man are understood, that the strength against demons was the work of the Spirit, and not of the flesh, that is, of humanity. For the body of the Lord is confessedly holy and has all power against every disease; but it was and is holy, not because it is understood simply as flesh, existing in its own principles alone, but insofar as it is a temple of the God the Word who dwells in it, sanctifying his own flesh through his own Spirit.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":83,"ref":"p83","source":"Ὥστε, ᾗ φησιν ὁ θεῖος οὗτος ἀνήρ, κατά τό ἀληθές, οὐ σαρκός ἐνέργεια φυσική, καί ἀνθρωπότητος δύναμις παραλύει τόν Σατανᾶν· οὐδέ τοῦτο ἐνεργεῖ σαρκός ἡ φύσις· ἐπεί καί πάντες ἄνθρωποι ἐν σαρκί ὄντες, καί εἷς κατά τόν τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος λόγον, ἑλόμενοι ἄν ἐνεργεῖν, καί τήν κατά πνευμάτων εἶχον ἰσχύν. Ταῦτα γοῦν διδάξας σαφῶς παρέστηκε, καί τῶν ἰδίων ἑρμηνευτής γέγονε λόγων, ὡς τῷ ἐνοικεῖν, ὅπερ ἐστίν ἡνῶσθαι καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν μίαν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ τῷ σάρξ, ὑπάρχειν, ἐν μόνοις οὖσα τοῖς ἰδίοις λόγοις, ἁγία ἐστί καί ζωοποιός, κατά πάσης νόσου τήν δύναμιν ἔχουσα. Φυλάξωμεν τοιγαροῦν καί ἡμεῖς κατά τήν τῶν ἁγίων ὑφήγησιν, τόν τε τῆς διαφορᾶς λόγον ἀλώβητον, τάς φύσεις αὐτάς, καί τά προσόντα κατ᾿ οὐσίαν αὐταῖς διασώζοντα καί μετά τήν ἕνωσιν· καί τόν τῆς οἰκονομίας τρόπον παντελῶς ἀδιάσπαστον, τήν ἄκραν τῶν ἡνωμένων συμφυΐαν ἐνοειδῶς συντηροῦντα· καί τήν πᾶσαν ἡμῶν ἐξελάσωμεν διαίρεσίν τε καί σύγχυσιν. Εἰ δέ μή οὕτως τάς μοναδικῶς εἰρημένας τοῖς ἁγίοις φωνάς, τήν τε Θεανδρικήν καί τήν Μίαν τε καί συγγενῆ, κατά τόν τῆς ἑνώσεως λόγον εὐσεβῶς ἐκδεξώμεθα καί νοήσωμεν, ἀλλ᾿ ἤ ταύτην ὡς φυσικήν, ἤ πάλιν ὑποστατικήν ὑπολάβωμεν, φύσιν μίαν ἐξ ἀνάγκης τόν Χριστόν δογματίσομεν· μηδετέρας τῶν ἐξ ὧν συνέστηκε τό παράπαν μετέχουσαν, ὅτι μηδεμία κατά φύσιν ὑπάρχει Χριστός. Φύσις γάρ πρός φύσιν οὐκ ἄν κοινωνήσῃ κατά φύσιν ποτ᾿ ἄν· ἀλλ᾿ ἀμέτοχος, πάντη κατ᾿ οὐσίαν πρός πᾶσάν ἐστι διάφορος· τοῦτο μέν ἡμῖν συναχθήσεται, φυσικήν τήν ἐνέργειαν λέγουσι·","english":"So that, as this divine man says, in truth it is not a natural energy of the flesh, nor a power of humanity, that paralyzes Satan; nor does the nature of the flesh accomplish this; since indeed all men, being in the flesh and one according to the principle of humanity, had they chosen to act, would also have had power against spirits. These things, then, he has clearly taught and set forth, and has become the interpreter of his own words, namely that by indwelling—which is to be united according to one hypostasis—but not by being flesh, existing in its own principles alone, it is holy and life-giving, having power against every disease. Let us therefore also keep, according to the guidance of the saints, the principle of difference unimpaired, preserving the natures themselves and the properties that belong to them by essence even after the union; and the mode of the economy entirely indivisible, preserving in a unified way the extreme coalescence of the united; and let us drive out all our division and confusion. But if we do not thus piously receive and understand the utterances spoken in a unitary way by the saints—the Theandric and the One and the kindred—according to the principle of union, but instead suppose this to be either natural or again hypostatic, we shall necessarily dogmatize that Christ is one nature, partaking altogether of neither of the things from which he was composed, because Christ does not exist according to nature. For nature would never commune with nature according to nature; but it is unpartaken, entirely different in essence from every other; this will be concluded for us when they say the energy is natural.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":84,"ref":"p84","source":"εἰ δέ πάλιν ὑποστατικήν, ἀλλοτριώσομεν αὐτόν τοῦ Πατρός καί τοῦ Πνεύματος κατά τήν ἐνέργειαν. Οὐδενί γάρ χαρακτηριστικῷ τῆς ἰδίας ὑποστάσεως· κοινωνήσοι ποτ᾿ ἄν Πατρί καί Πνεύματι ὁ Υἱός. Μηδαμῶς τοιγαροῦν βουληθῶμεν φυσικήν ἤ ὑποστατικήν ἐπ᾿ αὐτοῦ τοῦ σαρκωθέντος Λόγου, καί τελείως ἐνανθρωπήσαντος ὁμολογεῖν τήν ἐνέργειαν. Οὐδείς γάρ τῶν ἀπό τῆς θείας αὐτοῦ πρός ἡμᾶς καταβάσεως μέχρι νῦν ἁγίων Πατέρων, φυσικήν ἤ ὑποστατικήν ὁμολογεῖν ἐνέργειαν ἐπ᾿ αὐτοῦ παραδέδωκεν· ἀλλ᾿ οὐδέ μίαν ῥητῶς, ὡς ἐμέ γινώσκειν, ἤ μόνον Κύριλλος ὁ θεσπέσιος· ἥν ὥσπερ ὁλοψύχως δεχόμεθα, καίπερ αὐτοῦ μόνου τυγχάνουσαν, τῆς ἑνώσεως χάριν· πῶς οὐχί καί τάς τῶν ὅλων σχεδόν ἁγίων Πατέρων, καὐτοῦ δέ πάλιν δέχεσθαι περιχαρῶς προσήκει δυϊκάς φωνάς, τῆς φυσικῆς ἕνεκεν διαφορᾶς· ἵνα μή τῆς περί τήν μίαν καί μόνον αὐτοῦ λέξιν προσκλήσει καί παραδοχῇ, τούτου τε καί ἄλλων ἁγίων τήν ἐκβολήν καί τήν ἀκυρωσίαν τῶν λόγων ποιήσωμεν· ὡς μή ἄλλου τινός αὐτῶν, ἤ μόνου Κυρίλλου τήν εὐσεβῆ τοῦ κηρύγματος πιστευθέντος ἀκρίβειαν· καί ταύτην οὐκ ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις λόγοις αὐτοῦ, τοῖς τήν διαφοράν δηλοῦσιν, ἀλλ᾿ ἤ μόνον ἐν τῇ μίᾳ καί συγγενεῖ ἐνεργείᾳ.","english":"But if again we call it hypostatic, we shall separate him from the Father and the Spirit in respect of energy. For the Son would never share with the Father and the Spirit any characteristic mark of his own hypostasis. By no means, therefore, let us be willing to confess the energy of the incarnate Word himself, who became perfectly man, as natural or hypostatic. For none of the holy Fathers from his divine condescension to us until now has handed down that one should confess a natural or hypostatic energy in him; nor, as far as I know, has anyone expressly done so, except only Cyril the inspired—which we accept wholeheartedly, although it is his alone, for the sake of the union. How, then, is it not fitting also gladly to accept the twofold expressions of nearly all the holy Fathers, and of him again as well, on account of the natural difference—lest by the summoning and acceptance of this one and only phrase of his, we bring about the rejection of him and of the other saints and the invalidation of their words; as though no one else among them, but only Cyril, had been entrusted with the pious exactness of the proclamation—and this not in his other words, which make clear the difference, but only in the one and kindred energy.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":85,"ref":"p85","source":"Ἄλλως τε, πῶς μίαν ἁπλῶς ἐπί Χριστοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ τινές φασι τήν ἐνέργειαν; Ἀνάγκη γάρ ἤ τῶν αὐτοῦ ταύτην ὑπάρχειν μερῶν, ἤ αὐτοῦ πάντως ὡς ὅλου. Ἀλλ᾿ εἰ μέν τῶν μερῶν, μερισθήσεται πρός ἄμφω δηλαδή τεμνομένη· τοῦτο δέ πάσχουσα, λυθήσεται πάντως, καί συνδιαλύσει τά κατ᾿ αὐτήν ἡνωμένα. Εἰ δέ τοῦ ὅλου, τῶν ἐναντίων ἔσται δεκτική, θνητή καί ἀθάνατος οὖσα, κτιστή καί ἄκτιστος, περιγραπτή καί ἀπερίγραφος. Καί εἰ τοῦτο, καθ᾿ ἕξιν καί στέρησιν οὖσαν καί μή οὖσαν τήν οἰκείαν ὁ Χριστός εἶχεν ἐνέργειαν· δι᾿ ἥν, ὡς κατ᾿ αὐτήν προσφυῶς ἐνεργῶν, τῶν ἐναντίων κατά τό αὐτό δεκτικός· ἀλλ᾿ οὐ κατ' ἄλλο καί ἄλλο· οὗ τί δυσσεβέστερον; Τό αὐτό δέ καί περί θελήματος ἔστιν εἰπεῖν. Πῶς δέ ἄρα συνεργάτιν τήν οἰκείαν ὁ Λόγος παρελάμβανε σάρκα, κατά Κύριλλον τόν σοφόν, οὐκ ἔχουσαν τήν κατά φύσιν ἐνέργειαν; Τό γάρ μή ἔχον ἐνέργειαν μήτε κίνησιν φυσικήν, νεκρόν πάντως καί ἄψυχον· καί τίνι λόγῳ προσίετο τό νεκρόν εἰς συνέργειαν; Τό γάρ ἀνενέργητον, τῇ παντελεῖ ἀκινησίᾳ καταργεῖ. Πῶς δέ ταύτην ἐδείκνυε ζωοποιεῖν δυναμένην, ὡς αὐτός πάλιν Κύριλλος ἐξεπαίδευσε, διά τῶν κατά φύσιν αὐτῆς κινημάτων· οἷον τῆς ἀφῆς, τῆς φωνῆς, τοῦ περιπάτου, τούτων οὐκ ὄντων αὐτῆς, ἤ ἐν αὐτῇ κατ᾿ οὐσίαν. Εἰ γάρ αὐτῆς κατ᾿ οὐσίαν, φυσικήν πάντως ἡ σάρξ εἶχεν ἐνέργειαν· ἐνεργείας γάρ αὐτῆς οὐσιώδους ἐστίν, ἤ τε κίνησις τῶν χειρῶν καί τῶν ποδῶν, καί ἡ κατά τήν προφοράν φωνή. Εἰ δέ οὐκ αὐτῆς κατά φύσιν ταῦτα, ζωοποιεῖν δυναμένην ταύτην ὁ Σωτήρ οὐκ ἀπέδειξε.","english":"Besides, how can some say that there is simply one energy in Christ God? For it must belong either to his parts or wholly to him as a whole. But if it belongs to the parts, it will be divided, being cut, as it were, toward both; and suffering this, it will be wholly dissolved, and it will dissolve together the things united in it. But if it belongs to the whole, it will be receptive of opposites, being mortal and immortal, created and uncreated, circumscribed and uncircumscribed. And if this is so, Christ had his own energy as a state and a privation, and as not being; through which, as one who acts in accordance with it naturally, he is receptive of opposites at the same time—but not in one respect and another; and what is more impious than this? The same can be said also concerning the will. But how, then, did the Word, according to the wise Cyril, take his own flesh as a fellow-worker, when it did not have its natural energy? For that which does not have energy or natural motion is wholly dead and lifeless; and for what reason did he accept the dead thing for cooperation? For the inactive thing is abolished by complete immobility. And how did he show that it was able to give life, as the same Cyril again taught, through its natural movements—such as touch, voice, walking—when these were not of it, or in it according to essence? For if they were of it according to essence, the flesh certainly had a natural energy; for the movement of the hands and feet, and the voice in utterance, are of its essential energy. But if these were not of it according to nature, the Savior did not show that it was able to give life.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":86,"ref":"p86","source":"Ταῦτα μικρά ἐκ πολλῶν, ὑμᾶς τε καί τῶν καθ᾿ ὑμᾶς θεοσόφων ἁγίων παιδευθείς διδαγμάτων, δι τήν ἱερωτάτην ὑμῶν κέλευσιν, ἐθάῥῤησα διά τοῦδε τοῦ μετρίου γράμματος χαράξαι, καί τῶν ὑπέρ δύναμιν κατατολμῆσαι, μικρός ὤν καί εὐτελής· καί μήτε νοῦν εὔστοχον εἰς ἐπιβολήν, μήτε λόγον εὔεικτον εἰς σαφήνειαν, μήτε ἦθος εὔκοσμον εἰς τήν τῶν κρειττόνων ἐξάνεσιν ἔχων· ἀλλά μᾶλλον χάριτι, διά τῆς μεσιτείας ὑμῶν σκεπαζόμενος ὑπό τοῦ παναγάθου Θεοῦ, καί καλύπτοντος τά πλήθη τῶν ἐμῶν ἁμαρτημάτων. Δυσωπῶ δέ μετά δακρύων, τοῖς τιμοίοις ὑμῶν ὡς παρών προκαλινδούμενος ἴχνεσιν, ἐπειδή ὑμᾶς κατέστησε τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον ἐπισκόπους ψυχῶν καί σωτῆρας μή κατοκνῆσαι ἐν οἷς οὐκ ἡκριβωμένως γέγραφα, φιλάγαθον ποιήσασθαι τήν διόρθωσιν· ἵν᾿ ἐκ τούτου μεσίτας Θεοῦ μᾶλλον, ἤ μιμητάς ἑαυτούς ἀναδείξηται· τόν ἐπί πάντας αὐτοῦ φωτισμόν, καί τό ἔλεος· οὐ μόνον ἕξει λαχόντες, ἀλλά καί ἀξίᾳ παρέχοντες· ᾧ καί παραθέσθαι τήν ἐμήν τοῦ πένητος καί φτωχοῦ ἀσθένειαν καθικετεύω, πρός τό σκεπασθῆναι τῆς τό πᾶν νεμομένης διά τάς ἐμάς ἁμαρτίας, ὁρατῆς τε καί ἀοράτου, φλογός· καί εἰς τήν δρόσον τῆς τε παναγίας αὐτοῦ καί ὀρθοδόξου πίστεως, καί τῆς ἱερᾶς ἀρετῆς διά παντός ἐπαναπαύεσθαι καί φρουρεῖσθαι. Ἀμήν ΣΧΟΛΙΟΝ 1. Ἴδε σοι τό ἄπορον λέλυται. Προελθών δέ Θεός μετά τῆς προσλήψεως, ἕν καί ἕν ἐκ δύο τῶν ἐναντίων, εἰπών ὁ μέγας, διά τήν καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν ἕνωσιν· ἀλλ᾿ οὐ φύσιν τό ἕν ἐξεδέξατο.","english":"These things, a few out of many, having been taught by you and by the God-wise saints who are among you, I have dared, because of your most sacred command, to trace out through this modest letter, and to venture upon things beyond my strength, being small and of little worth; having neither a mind well-aimed for conception, nor a word well-turned for clarity, nor a character well-ordered for the exposition of better things; but rather being sheltered by the grace of the all-good God through your mediation, and by him who covers the multitude of my sins. And I beseech with tears, prostrating myself before your honored footsteps as though present, since the Holy Spirit has appointed you bishops and saviors of souls, do not grow weary of making a kindly correction in the things I have written inexactly; so that from this they may show themselves rather mediators of God than imitators of themselves; possessing not only as a lot his illumination and mercy upon all, but also bestowing them by worthiness; to whom I also entreat that my weakness, poor and destitute, be commended, for the sake of being sheltered from the flame, both visible and invisible, which devours all things because of my sins; and for the sake of resting and being guarded continually in the dew of his all-holy and orthodox faith, and of sacred virtue. Amen.\n\nSCHOLION 1. See, the difficulty has been resolved for you. For God, having come forth with the assumption, said the one and the one from the two opposites, the great one says, because of the union according to hypostasis; but he did not accept the one as a nature.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":87,"ref":"p87","source":"ΤΟΙΣ ΚΑΤΑ ΤΗΝΔΕ ΤΗΝ ΣΙΚΕΛΩΝ ΦΙΛΟΧΡΙΣΤΟΝ ΝΗΣΟΝ ΠΑΡΟΙΚΟΥΣΙΝ ΑΓΙΟΙΣ ΠΑΤΡΑΣΙΝ...\n\nΤοῖς κατά τήνδε τήν Σικελῶν φιλόχριστον νῆσον παροικοῦσιν ἁγίοις Πατράσιν, ἡγουμένοις τε καί μονάζουσι, καί ὀρθοδόξοις λαοῖς, Μάξιμος ταπεινός καί ἁμαρτωλός, ἀνάξιος δοῦλος.\n\nΕἰρήνη πολλή τοῖς ἀγαπῶσι τόν νόμον σου, καί οὐκ ἔστιν αὐτοῖς σκάνδαλον, πρός τόν Θεόν ἔφησεν ὁ Θεοπάτωρ Δαβίδ· γνωρίζων ἐντεῦθεν ἅπασι, καί διαγορεύω τοῖς σωτηρίας ἐφιεμένοις, ἵνα τῇ τοῦ ἐσχάτου φύσει προσανέχοντες ὀρεκτοῦ θειοτάτῃ κατ᾿ ἄκρον ἀγάπῃ, ταύτη περιχαρῶς τό τῆς εἰρήνης καλόν πρός ἑαυτούς τε καί πάντας, εἰ δυνατόν, ἀλύτως μεταδιώκοιεν· ἅπαν ἐξ ἁπάντων ἀφαιρούμενοι σκάνδαλον, διά τῆς εὐσεβοῦς εἰς ἀλλήλους καί ἄκρας ὁμοφροσύνης. Οὗ δή χάριν, κἀμοί τῷ ἡμετέρῳ διεσπουδάσθη δούλῳ, γραφῇ καταθέσθαι προθύμως, ὅπερ φθάσας γλώττῃ συνεστησάμην, πρός τήν τῶν ἁγιωτάτων ὑμῶν ἀσφάλειάν τε καί πληροφορίαν, πᾶσαν ἐξ ἑτέρων γεγενημένην ὑμῖν περί τῆς ἡμῶν ταπεινώσεως ὑποψίαν, διά τῆς ἀπολογίας ἀποσκευασάμενος· \"Οὐδέ γάρ ἀνέχομαι, καθά φησιν ὁ Θεολόγος Γρηγόριος, πλήττεσθαί τινας ἐν ἐμοί τῶν πάντα τηρούντων ἐπιμελῶς τά ἡμέτερα, εὖ τε καί ὡς ἑτέρως ἔχοντα· καλόν γάρ μήτε ἁμαρτάνοντα, μήτε ὑπονοούμενον, ἕως ἄν οἷόν τε ᾗ, καί ὁ λόγος αἱρῇ, τιθέναι πρόσκομμα τοῖς πολλοῖς ἤ σκάνδαλον· εἴπερ καί τοῖς ἕνα τῶν μικρῶν σκανδαλίσασιν, ἴσμεν ὅπως ἀπαραίτητος καί βαρυτάτη παρά τοῦ ἀψευδοῦς ἡ τιμωρία».","english":"To the holy Fathers who dwell as sojourners in this Christ-loving island of the Sicilians, to the abbots and monks and orthodox peoples, Maximus, humble and sinful, an unworthy servant.\n\n\"Great peace have they who love your law, and there is no stumbling block for them,\" said David, the father of God, speaking to God; by this making it known to all, and declaring it to those who aspire to salvation, that they, cleaving by nature to the final object of desire with the most divine love in the highest degree, should joyfully pursue the good of peace for themselves and for all, if possible, without dissolution, removing every stumbling block from all things, through their pious and utmost concord toward one another. For this reason it has been earnestly desired by me also, your servant, to set down eagerly in writing what I previously composed by word of mouth, for the assurance and full conviction of your most holy selves, having by my defense set aside every suspicion concerning my humility that has arisen among you from others. \"For I do not endure,\" as Gregory the Theologian says, \"that any of those who carefully observe all our affairs, whether they stand well or otherwise, should be wounded in me; for it is good, when one is neither sinning nor suspected, as far as is possible and as reason permits, not to place an obstacle or stumbling block before the many; since we know how inexorable and most heavy is the punishment from the truthful one even for those who cause one of the little ones to stumble.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":88,"ref":"p88","source":"Γνωρίζω τοίνυν τοῖς ἁγιωτάτοις ὑμῖν, ὡς οὐδαμῶς μοι πεφρόνηται πώποτε, κατά τήν τῶν ἐπηρεαζόντων εἰσήγησιν ἡ τῶν ἀντιῤῥόπων καί ἐναντίων δογμάτων ὑπόληψις. Οὐδέ γάρ μίαν ἐν ταὐτῷ καί δύο, τουτέστι τρεῖς, κατ᾿ αὐτούς, θελήσεις καί ἐνεργείας ἐπί τοῦ αὐτοῦ καί ἑνός Χριστοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ διωμολογησάμην, ἤ συνεγραψάμην τό σύνολον. Θατέρῳ γάρ θάτερον ἀνατρέπεται, πῆξιν οὐδεμίαν ἔχον τήν λογισμῶν φυσικῶν· πρός τό καί ἁμάρτυρον εἶναι δόγμα τοῖς ἀληθείας, ἤγουν τοῖς ἁγίοις Πατράσιν. Εἰ γάρ μία, πῶς καί δύο· εἰ δέ δύο, πῶς καί μία; καί τίνι κατ᾿ αὐτήν ὁμοεργής, εἴτουν ὁμοούσιος, ὁ σαρκωθείς καθέστηκε Λόγος;\n\nΕἰ μέν γάρ τῷ Πατρί φήσειαν, διπλῆν ἐντεῦθεν εἰσάγουσι τήν θείαν ἐνέργειαν· εἴπερ μή ἐπ᾿ ἀναιρέσει τῶν δύο τοῦ αὐτοῦ κατά φύσιν ἐνεργειῶν, τῆς θείας λέγω καί τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης, διομολογοῦσι τήν πλαττομένην αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἐνέργειαν. Εἰ γάρ μή ἐπ᾿ ἀναιρέσει, δῆλον ὡς δύο τοῦ αὐτοῦ τάς θεϊκάς ἐνεργείας πρεσβεύουσι· φυσικήν καί ὑποστατικήν. Εἰ δέ δύο, διαφόρους πάντως· κἀντεῦθεν πολύθεον τήν οἰκείαν ὑπόληψιν, ὡς ἐν ἑτερότητι καί οὐ ταυτότητι φυσικῇ γνωριζομένης αὐτοῖς, τῆς ἐν Πατρί καί Υἱῷ θεϊκῆς ἐνεργείας. Καί οὐ πολύθεον μόνον τήν δόξαν· ἀλλ᾿ δη καί ἄθεον· ὡς οὐδεμίαν θεϊκήν ἐνέργειαν ἔχειν κατασκευάζοντες τήν Υἱόν, ἅ τε δή φύσιν καί ὑπόστασιν ἀλλήλοις συμφύροντες, μετά τῶν ἑκατέρας ἰδιωμάτων· καί ταυτόν σύν Σαβελλίῳ γνωρίζοντες, ὡς καθ᾿ ἑκατέραν τῷ Πατρί κοινωνοῦντα, φύσιν τε λέγω καί ὑπόστασιν, τόν Υἱόν ὑπογράφοντες, ὅπερ τῆς καθολικῆς Ἐκκλησίας ἐστίν ἀλλότριον·","english":"I therefore inform your most holy selves that never at any time have I held the supposition of the opposing and contrary doctrines, according to the suggestion of those who abuse me. For I have neither confessed nor written at all, in their sense, one and two, that is three, wills and energies in the same and one Christ our God. For the one is overturned by the other, having no fixed ground of natural reasonings, so that the doctrine is also without witness to the truth, that is, to the holy Fathers. For if one, how also two? And if two, how also one? And with whom, according to it, is the incarnate Word co-working, that is, consubstantial?\n\nFor if they say with the Father, from this they introduce a double divine energy—if indeed it is not for the abolition of the two natural energies of the same, I mean the divine and the human, that they acknowledge the third energy fabricated by them. For if not for abolition, it is clear that they maintain two divine energies of the same—natural and hypostatic. But if two, certainly different; and from this their own supposition is polytheistic, since the divine energy in Father and Son is known by them in otherness and not in natural identity. And not only polytheistic is their opinion, but indeed also atheistic, since they contrive that the Son has no divine energy at all, inasmuch as they confound nature and hypostasis with each other, together with the properties of each; and they know the same as Sabellius, in that they describe the Son as sharing with the Father in each—I mean nature and hypostasis—which is foreign to the catholic Church.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":89,"ref":"p89","source":"ἵνα μή λέγω, ὅτι καί φύσει παθητόν τόν Πατέρα καί σεσαρκωμένον, εἴτουν ἐνανθρωπήσαντα, τῇ πρός τόν Υἱόν ὁμοεργίᾳ, τῶν τε θαυμάτων ὁμοίως καί παθημάτων. Εἴ γε μή ἄλλο τι παρά τά θαύματα καί τά πάθη φασίν ἐνεργεῖν τόν Υἱόν, κατά τήν, ὡς εἴρηται, πλαττομένην αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἐνέργειαν· ᾗ καί κοινωνεῖν, πρός τῇ κατά φύσιν θείᾳ, τῷ Πατρί τόν μονογενῆ Λόγον ὑπαγορεύουσιν. Εἰ δέ τούτοις στενοχωρούμενοι, μή τῷ ἀνάρχῳ μέν Πατρί· τῇ δέ ἀχράντῳ μητρί κοινωνεῖν κατά ταύτην ὁρίζονται τόν Υἱόν τήν τρίτην ἐνέργειαν, δύο κἀνταῦθα παρέχουσιν αὐτῷ κτιστάς, ἤγουν ἀνθρωπικάς ἐνεργείας· φυσικήν αὖθις καί ὑποστατικήν· ἀλλοτριοῦντες αὐτόν δηλαδή, καθ' ἑκατέραν τοῦ Θεοῦ καί Πατρός· καί τῇ Ἀρείου συνεκφερόμενοι διατομῇ, κατά τήν ἐν ἀμφοτέραις ἐνεργείαις τοῦ Μονογενοῦς πρός τόν Πατέρα τελείαν κατ᾿ αὐτούς ἀποξένωσιν. Ὅπου γε καί ἡμᾶς\n\nθαυματουργούς, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχί μόνον φύσει παθητούς ἀποφαίνουσιν· εἴ γε τῇ τρίτῃ κατ᾿ αὐτούς, ἤ ὡς ἐκείνοις φίλον καλεῖν, τῇ τοῦ ὅλου, τουτέστιν, τῇ τῆς ὑποστάσεως ἐνεργείᾳ, τό συγγενές πρός ἡμᾶς ἀποσώζειν φασί τόν Χριστόν· καθ᾿ ἥν ἑκουσίως, οὐ τήν πεῖραν μόνον προσιέμενον τῶν παθημάτων, ἀλλά καί τήν δύναμιν τῶν θαυμάτων ἐπιδεικνύμενον, τοῦτον εἰκότως ἐπιγινώσκουσιν, ὅπερ ἀδύνατον. Οὐ γάρ οἷόν τε τήν αὐτήν καί μίαν ἐνέργειαν, ἤ θέλησιν, ἤ φύσιν τό σύνολον, θείαν ἐν τἀυτῷ καί ἀνθρωπίνην ὑπάρχειν· ἤ ἄκτιστον, καί κτιστόν· ἤ ἄναρχον καί ἠργμένην· ἤ σύνθετον, καί ἀσύνθετον·","english":"so as not to say that the Father is by nature passible and incarnate, or rather made man, in his co-operation with the Son, both in miracles and in sufferings alike. If indeed they say that the Son works nothing other than the miracles and the sufferings, according to the third activity which, as has been said, is fabricated by them; by which they also prescribe that the only-begotten Word shares with the Father, in addition to the divine activity according to nature. But if, being pressed by these difficulties, they define that the Son shares this third activity not with the unoriginate Father but with the undefiled mother, here too they grant him two created, that is, human, activities—again a natural one and a hypostatic one—evidently alienating him, in each of the two, from God and the Father, and being carried along with the division of Arius, according to the perfect estrangement, in their view, of the Only-begotten from the Father in both activities. Whereas indeed they show us to be wonder-workers, but not only passible by nature—if indeed by the third activity according to them, or as they like to call it, by the activity of the whole, that is, of the hypostasis, they say that Christ preserves his kinship with us; according to which, voluntarily accepting not only the experience of sufferings but also displaying the power of miracles, they reasonably recognize him as this, which is impossible. For it is not possible for the same and one activity, or will, or nature altogether, to be divine and human in the same respect; or uncreated and created; or unoriginate and begun; or composite and incomposite.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":90,"ref":"p90","source":"ἵνα τῇ αὐτῇ καί μιᾷ πρός ἑκάτερον, τόν τε Πατέρα φημί καί τήν Μητέρα, τό συγγενές ἀποσώζῃ φύσει καί ἀπαράλλακτον ὁ Υἱός· ἤ τά ἑκάτερα δρᾷ κατά τήν αὐτήν, τά τε θεῖα λέγω φύσει καί τά ἀνθρώπινα. Τοῦτο γάρ οὐδ᾿ ἄν οἱ τούς τραγελάφους πλάττοντες ἐννοήσαιεν.\n\nΕἰ δέ ἀδύνατον, τήν αὐτήν καί ἐνέργειαν, ἤ θέλησιν, ἤ φύσιν, θείαν ἐν ταὐτῷ φύσει τυγχάνειν καί ἀνθρωπίνην· ἤ κατά τήν αὐτήν καί μίαν ἑκάτεροις, Πατρί φημι καί Μητρί κοινωνεῖν, ἤ ἑκάτερα δρᾷν, τά τε θεῖα καί τά ἀνθρώπινα τόν Υἱόν· προσφυῶς δέ μᾶλλον, ὡς εἴρηται· τῇ μέν θείᾳ, τά θεῖα, τῇ δέ κατ᾿ αὐτόν ἀνθρωπίνῃ, τά ἀνθρώπινα· μετά μέντοι τῆς θατέρου κοινωνίας καί συμφυΐας, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ διῃρημένως· ἄρα καί ἀνώνυμος ὡς ἀνύπαρκτος, ἡ τρίτη κατ᾿ ἐκείνους ἐνέργεια, μηδενί κυρουμένη λόγῳ τε θείῳ, καί Πατρί παντελῶς. Καί τί τῷ ὅλῳ παρέχομεν, φασίν, εἰ μή τήν μίαν ὡς ἑνί τῷ ὅλῳ διά τήν ἕνωσιν διδοῦμεν ἐνέργειαν; ἀλλ᾿ ἠγνόησαν, ὅ τι καί λέγουσιν, οἱ ταῦτα προφέροντες. Οἰόμενοι γάρ ἄλλο τι τό ὅλον εἶναι παρά τά αὐτοῦ οἰκεῖα μέρη, ἐξ ὧν καί ἐν οἷς συνέστηκεν, ἰσχυρίζονταί πως ὀφείλειν, οὐκ ἐξ ἀποδείξεως, ἀλλ᾿ ἀποφάνσεως, καί ἄλλο τι παρά τό κατά φύσιν τοῖς μέρεσιν ἐνυπάρχον, τῷ ὅλῳ προσάπτειν ὡς ὅλῳ· φημί δή, τήν μίαν ἐνέργειαν· Δείξουσιν οὖν πρότερον, ἑκατέραν παρά τήν τῶν οἰκείων μερῶν ὕπαρξιν ἔχειν τό ὅλον· καί εἶθ᾿ οὔτως αὐτῷ καί ἑτέραν, ὡς ὅλῳ, παρά τάς ἐνυπαρχούσας τοῖς μέρεσιν οὐσιώδεις ἐνεργείας, προσνέμωσιν αὖθις ἐνέργειαν.","english":"so that the Son, by the same one relation to each—I mean the Father and the Mother—might preserve the kinship and immutability by nature; or else he performs both sets of things according to the same [relation], I mean both the divine things by nature and the human things. For not even those who fashion goat-stags could conceive of this.\n\nBut if it is impossible for the same activity, or will, or nature to be at once divine and human in the same nature; or for him to share in each—I mean the Father and the Mother—according to the same one [relation], or for the Son to perform both, the divine and the human; but rather, more fittingly, as has been said: by the divine [nature] the divine things, and by the human nature that is his own the human things—yet with communion and connaturality with the other, and not dividedly—then the third activity according to them is also nameless, as having no existence, being confirmed by no divine word, and not at all by the Father. And what, they say, do we grant to the whole, if we do not give the one activity to the whole as to one, because of the union? But those who bring these things forward have not understood even what they say. For thinking that the whole is something other than its own proper parts, from which and in which it consists, they insist somehow—not by demonstration but by assertion—that something other than what exists by nature in the parts must be attributed to the whole as whole; I mean, the one activity. Let them first show, then, that the whole has each [activity] beyond the existence of its own parts; and then in this way let them assign to it, as whole, another activity besides the essential activities that exist in the parts.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":91,"ref":"p91","source":"Εἰ δέ μή ἑτέραν κατά φύσιν ὕπαρξιν, οὐδ᾿ ἑτέραν δηλονότι κατά φύσιν ἐνέργειαν τῷ ὅλῳ παρά τάς τῶν μερῶν ἀποδώσωσιν. Ἑκάτερα γάρ κατά φύσιν ὤν ὁ Χριστός· Θεός γάρ φύσει καί ἄνθρωπος ὁ αὐτός· τά ἑκατέρας ἴδια φύσεως κατά φύσιν ἔχει· τήν τε θείαν φημί θέλησιν καί ἐνέργειαν, καί τήν ἀνθρωπίνην θέλησιν καί ἐνέργειαν· ἀλλ᾿ οὐχί μίαν μόνην, ἐπ᾿ ἀναιρέσει τῶν δύο κατά φύσιν ἐνεργειῶν· ἤ ἄλλην πρός ταῖς δυσί κατά φύσιν· τουτέστι, τρεῖς ἐνεργείας τε καί θελήσεις. Ἑκατέραν τοίνυν, ὥσπερ οὐσίαν, οὕτω καί ἑκατέραν οὐσιώδη θέλησιν καί ἐνέργειαν, τῷ αὐτῷ καί μόνῳ Χριστῷ κατά φύσιν προσνέμομεν. Εἰ γάρ καί τήν διαφοράν τοῦ αὐτοῦ μερῶν θεωροῦντες, τῇ θεότητι τοῦ αὐτοῦ τά θεῖα, καί τῇ κατ᾿ αὐτόν ἀνθρωπότητι τά ἀνθρώπινα προσφόρως παρέχομεν· ἔμπαλιν δέ διά τήν ἕνωσιν, τά ἑκατέρας ἴδια φύσεως κατά ἀντίδοσιν τῇ ἑτέρᾳ προσάπτομεν· ἐξ οὗ καί Θεόν παθητόν κατά τῆς ἁμαρτίας φαμέν καί σάρκα· «προσειλημμένην καί γενομένην ὅπερ τό χρίσαν· καί θαῥῤῶ λέγειν, ὁμόθεον», κατά τόν θεολόγον Γρηγόριον· «οὔτε κατά Θεόν τά θεῖα δράσαντα»· διά σαρκός γάρ, νοερῶς ἐψυχωμένης, καί ἑνωθείσης αὐτῷ καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν· ἀλλ᾿ οὐ γυμνῇ θεότητι, καθώς τό πρότερον· «οὔτε τά ἀνθρώπινα κατά ἄνθρωπον»· κατ᾿ ἐξουσίαν ἀπειροδύναμον, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἀνάγκῃ ὑπεύθυνον. Οὐ γάρ ἔκτισις ἦν, ὡς ἐφ᾿ ἡμῖν, ἀλλά κένωσις ὑπέρ ἡμῶν τοῦ σαρκωθέντος Λόγου τό πάθος. Ὅμως δ᾿ οὖν ὡς ὅλῳ τῷ αὐτῷ καί ἑνί καί μόνῳ Χριστῷ κατά φύσιν, ὅλα παρέχομεν τά τῶν, ἐξ ὧν ἐστι φύσεων, μόνης δίχα τῆς ἁμαρτίας· διό καί παθητόν καί ἀπαθῆ τόν αὐτόν· ἄκτιστον καί κτιστόν·","english":"If they do not attribute to the whole, beyond those of the parts, another existence according to nature, then clearly neither [do they attribute] another activity according to nature. For Christ is both according to nature; for the same one is God by nature and man; he has according to nature the things proper to each nature—I mean the divine will and activity, and the human will and activity—but not one only, to the destruction of the two activities according to nature; nor yet another besides the two according to nature, that is, three activities and wills. Each one, then, just as each substance, so also each essential will and activity, we assign according to nature to the same and only Christ. For even if, observing the difference of the parts of the same, we fittingly ascribe to his divinity the divine things and to his humanity the human things; and conversely, because of the union, we attach to the one the things proper to each nature by exchange—whence we say that God is passible as regards sin, and flesh, \"taken up and become what the anointing [anointed],\" and, I dare to say, \"consubstantial with God,\" according to the theologian Gregory; \"neither did he do the divine things as God\"—for [he did them] through the flesh, which was ensouled with a rational soul and united to him in hypostasis—but not by bare divinity, as formerly; \"nor the human things as man\"—by boundless power, not by necessity liable to account. For the passion of the incarnate Word was not a payment, as with us, but a self-emptying on our behalf. Nevertheless, as to the same whole and one and only Christ according to nature, we ascribe all the things of the natures of which he is, apart from sin alone; wherefore the same is both passible and impassible, uncreated and created.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":92,"ref":"p92","source":"περιγραπτόν καί ἀπερίγραπτον· ἐπίγειον καί οὐράνιον· ὁρώμενον καί νοούμενον· χωρητόν καί ἀχώρητον κατά τήν φύσιν, ὁμολογοῦμεν. Εἰ δέ τούτοις\n\nαὖθις περιγραφόμενοι τό ἀποτέλεσμα τῶν δύο τοῦ αὐτοῦ κατά φύσιν ἐνεργειῶν, τουτέστι τήν εἰς ἄλλους, (ἀνθρώπους) τῷ Σωτῆρι Θεῷ γιγνομένην θεοσημείαν· οἷον, τήν ἀνάστασιν, ἤ τήν ἀνάληψιν, ἤ τήν κάθαρσιν, ἤ τι τῶν τοιούτων τερατουργημάτων, ἐνέργειαν μίαν καί τήν αὐτήν ὑπάρχειν φασίν, οὐδ᾿ οὕτως εὐάφορμος ἐκείνοις ὁ λόγος. Οὐδέ γάρ μίαν ἴσμεν, ἀλλά καί πολλάς καί ἀπείρους τάς τοῦ Σωτῆρος θεοσημείας, περί ὧν φησιν ὁ θεολογικώτατος Ἰωάννης, Ἐάν γράφηται καθ᾿ ἕν, οὐδ᾿ αὐτόν οἶμαι χωρῆσαι τά γραφόμενα βιβλία τόν τῇδε κόσμον. Ἔπειτα καί τοῖς ἐκτός γινομένοις, οὔτε ἐπ᾿ ἄλλου μέν τινος τῶν ὄντων, μή τί γε δεῖ λέγειν ἐπ᾿ αὐτοῦ τοῦ ὑπέρ πάντα τά ὄντα Θεοῦ λόγου δι᾿ ἡμᾶς σαρκωθέντος, τήν οὐσιώδη παντελῶς ἐπιγινώσκομεν ὕπαρξιν· ἀλλ᾿ οἷς αὐτός ἐν αὐτῷ χαρακτηρίζεται φυσικοῖς ἰδιώμασι· ταυτόν δέ φάναι θελήσεσι φυσικαῖς καί ἐνεργείαις· ἤ οὕτω δ᾿ ἄν, καί τόν τέκτονα ζῶον ξυλουργόν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ λογικόν, οὐδέ θνητόν· ὁρίσοιντο ἄν, τήν τούτου φύσιν ἐκ τοῦ θώκου τυχόν, ἤ τοῦ σκίμποδος, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ τῶν οὐσιωδῶς συνιστώντων αὐτήν ἰδιωμάτων γνωρίζοντες· ὅπερ κἄν ἐννοεῖν, ἀμαθές. Ὅθεν φύσει Θεόν καί ἄνθρωπον τόν αὐτόν κυρίως, οὐχ ἑτέρωθεν ὄντα διαγινώσκομεν, ἤ ἐκ τῶν θεϊκῶς ἅμα καί ἀνθρωπικῶς χαρκτηριζόντων αὐτόν, ἐμφύτων ἰδιωμάτων· τῆς τε θείας, ὡς ἔφην, θελήσεως καί ἐνεργείας, καί τῆς ἀνθρωπικῆς τοῦ αὐτοῦ θελήσεως καί ἐνεργείας·","english":"We confess [him] to be circumscribed and uncircumscribed; earthly and heavenly; visible and intelligible; containable and uncontainable by nature. But if, being circumscribed again by these things, they say that the result of the two activities of the same [Christ] according to nature—that is, the divine sign wrought by God the Savior for others, (for humans)—such as the resurrection, or the ascension, or the cleansing, or any of such miraculous works, is one and the same activity, not even so is their argument easy to carry. For we know not one, but many and countless divine signs of the Savior, concerning which the most theological John says, \"If they were written one by one, I suppose that not even the world itself could contain the books that would be written.\" Then, moreover, in the case of things that come to be externally, we recognize the substantial existence altogether neither in the case of any other of existing things—let alone must we speak of God the Word himself, who for our sake was incarnated above all existing things—but by the natural properties by which he is characterized in himself; and to say this is the same as natural wills and activities. Or in this way, one would also define the craftsman as a woodworking living being, but not rational, nor mortal, recognizing his nature perhaps from the chair or the bench, but not from the properties that substantially constitute it—which even to conceive is ignorant. Whence we recognize the same one as truly God and man by nature from nowhere else than from the innate properties that characterize him divinely and at the same time humanly: both the divine, as I said, will and activity, and the human will and activity of the same one.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":93,"ref":"p93","source":"αἷς, καί δι᾿ ὧν, ὅ ἦν καί γέγονεν ἐπισφραγίζει· θαυματουργῶν μέν ὑπέρ ἡμᾶς ὡς Θεός ἑκουσίως· πάσχων δέ δι᾿ ἡμᾶς ὁ αὐτός ἑκουσίως ὡς ἄνθρωπος· ὡς οὐκ ἄλλο τι παρά τῶν ἐξ ὧν, ἐν οἷς τε καί ἅπερ ἐστί γνωριζόμενος, οἷόν τι νόθον καί μεταίχμιον, ἤγουν τρίτον ἀποτέλεσμα, κατά τήν τῶν ἡμιόνων παράδειξιν· ὡς ἡ τῶν κενολόγων αἱρετικῶν μυθοπλαστία τερατολογεῖ, τοῦ εὐσεβοῦς ἀποσφαλεῖσα τῶν ἁγίων Πατέρων κηρύγματος ἀλλ᾿ αὐτά κατ' ἀλήθειαν κυρίως ὤν, τά ἐξ ὧν, καί ἐν οἷς κατ᾿ ἀλήθειαν κυρίως ἐστίν. Ἐκ θεότητος γάρ καί ἀνθρωπότητος, καί ἐν θεότητι καί ἀνθρωπότητι κατά φύσιν ὑπάρχων· Θεός φύσει καί ἄνθρωπος ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός· καί ἄλλο τό παράπαν οὐδέν.\n\nΚαί πῶς, φασί, Κύριλλος ὁ σοφός μέσην τινά τάξιν τῶν ἐπί Χριστοῦ φωνῶν διαγορεύει φρονεῖν, οὑτωσί πρός Ἀκάκιον γράφων· \"Αἱ μέν γάρ εἰσι τῶν φωνῶν ὅτι μάλιστα θεοπρεπεῖς· αἱ δέ, οὕτω πάλιν ἀνθρωποπρεπεῖς· αἱ δέ μέσην τινά τάξιν ἔχουσι. Καί τί τοῦτο συμβαλεῖταί ποτ᾿ ἄν ἐκείνοις πρός τήν οἰκείαν ὑπόληψιν;\" Οὐ γάρ ἐκ μεταβολῆς, ἤ ἀποβολῆς τῶν ἄκρων, θεότητός φημι τοῦ Χριστοῦ καί ἀνθρωπότητος· ἤ θείας τοῦ αὐτοῦ καί ἀνθρωπίνης θελήσεως καί ἐνεργείας, ἕτερόν τι μέσον, ἤγουν μεταίχμιον ἀποτέλεσμα, μηδετέρᾳ φύσει τῶν ἐξ ὧν ἐστι κοινωνοῦν· ἤ πάλιν, ἐνέργειάν τινα σύνθετον ὄντα κατ᾿ αὐτούς, ἤ ἔχοντα παραδίδωσιν ἐν τούτοις ἡμῖν ὁ διδάσκαλος, ἀλλ᾿ ὅτι ταῦτα μέν κυρίως ἐστί, τά ἐξ ὧν ἐστιν· οὐ διῃρημένως δέ ταῦτα κατονομάζεται· ὁμοῦ δέ, καί ἐν ταυτῷ τούτων ἑκάτερον, ὡς εἷς ὤν καί μόνος ὁ Χριστός.","english":"By these things, and through these things, he seals what he was and what he has become: working wonders beyond us as God willingly; suffering for us, the same one willingly as man; as being nothing other than [what he is] from the things out of which, in which, and which he is, known—as though something bastard and border-line, that is, a third result, according to the example of mules; as the myth-making of the empty-worded heretics tells monstrous tales, having fallen away from the pious proclamation of the holy Fathers. But he is truly and properly those things out of which he is, and truly and properly he is in those things in which he is. For from divinity and humanity, and in divinity and humanity by nature existing, Christ is God by nature and man; and nothing else at all.\n\nAnd how, they say, does the wise Cyril declare that one should think a certain middle rank of the sayings about Christ, writing thus to Acacius: \"For some of the sayings are most especially God-befitting; others again are man-befitting; and others have a certain middle rank. And what will this ever contribute to their own supposition?\" For not from change, or loss of the extremes—I mean the divinity of Christ and his humanity—or of the divine and human will and energy of the same, does the teacher hand down to us in these things some other middle, that is, border-line result, sharing in neither nature of those from which it is; or again, an energy that is composite according to them, or that he has—but [he hands down] that these things are properly the things out of which he is; yet these things are not named in a divided way; but together, and in the same, each of them, as Christ is one and only.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":94,"ref":"p94","source":"Καί μαρτυρεῖ περί τούτων αὐτός ὑπαραπολογούμενος τῶν Ἀνατολικῶν ἐπισκόπων, καί γράφων πρός Ἀκάκιον οὕτως, \"Οἱ δέ γε κατά τήν Ἀντιόχειαν ἀδελφοί, μερίζουσι μέν κατ' οὐδένα τρόπον τά ἡνωμένα· διαιρεῖσθαι δέ μόναι διατείνονται τάς ἐπί τοῦ Κυρίου φωνάς· πρέπειν τε τάς μέν τῇ θεότητι αὐτοῦ, τάς δέ τῇ αὐτοῦ πάλιν ἀνθρωπότητι. Θεός γάρ ἐστιν ὁ αὐτός καί ἄνθρωπος· εἶναι δέ φασι καί ἑτέρας κοινοποιηθείσας τρόπον τινά, καί οἷον ἐπ' ἄμφω βλεπούσας· θεότητα καί ἀνθρωπότητα λέγω· οἷον τί φημι, αἱ μέν γάρ εἰσι τῶν φωνῶν ὅτι μάλιστα θεοπρεπεῖς, αἱ δέ οὕτω πάλιν ἀνθρωποπρεπεῖς· αἱ δέ μέσην τινά τάξιν ἔχουσιν, ἐμφανίζουσαι τόν Υἱόν τοῦ Θεοῦ Θεόν ὄντα καί ἄνθρωπον ὁμοῦ τε καί ἐν ταὐτῶ». δέδειχε τοιγαροῦν ἡμῖν ὁ διδάσκαλος, μέσην τάξιν εἶναι φωνῶν, οὐχ ἕτερόν\n\nτι τόν Χριστόν εἶναι, σημαινουσῶν, παρά τά ἐξ ὧν, ἐν οἷς τε καί ἅπερ ἐστίν, ὥς τινες ὑπειλήφασιν· ἀλλά τόν Θεόν ὁμοῦ καί ἄνθρωπον τόν αὐτόν κατά φύσιν ὑπάρχειν.","english":"And he himself bears witness about these things, making his defense on behalf of the Eastern bishops, and writing to Acacius thus: \"But the brothers at Antioch divide the united things in no way at all; they maintain only that the sayings concerning the Lord are to be divided, and that some of them befit his divinity, and others again his humanity. For he is the same God and man. And they say that there are also others made common in some way, and as it were looking to both—I mean divinity and humanity. For example, what do I mean? Some of the sayings are most God-befitting, others again are in this way man-befitting; and others hold a certain middle rank, showing the Son of God to be God and man at once and in the same.\" The teacher has therefore shown us that there is a middle rank of sayings, signifying that Christ is not something other than the things from which, in which, and what he is, as some have supposed; but that the same one is by nature both God and man.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":95,"ref":"p95","source":"Καί παρακομίζει πρός ἀπόδειξιν τούτων τάς θεοπνεύστους Γραφάς οὑτωσί φάσκων. \" Ὅταν μέν τῷ Φιλίππῳ λέγῃ, Τοσοῦτον χρόνον μεθ᾿ ὑμῶν εἰμί, καί οὐκ ἔγνωκάς με, Φίλιππε; οὐ πιστεύεις ὅτι ἐγώ ἐν τῷ Πατρί, καί ὁ Πατήρ ἐν ἐμοί ἐστιν; ὁ ἑωρακώς ἐμέ, ἑώρακε καί τόν Πατέρα· καί, Ἐγώ, καί ὁ Πατήρ ἕν ἐσμέν, θεωπρεπεστάτην εἶναι διαβεβαιούμεθα τήν φωνήν. Ὅτε δέ τοῖς τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἐπιπλήττει δήμοις, ἐκεῖνο λέγων, Εἰ τέκνα ἦτε τοῦ Ἀβραάμ, τά ἔργα τοῦ Ἀβραάμ ἐποιεῖτε ἄν· νῦν δέ ζητεῖτε με ἀποκτεῖναι ἄνθρωπον, ὅς τήν ἀλήθειαν ὑμῖν λελάληκα· τοῦτο Ἀβραάμ οὐκ ἐποίησεν· ἀνθρωποπρεπῶς εἰρῆσθαι τά τοιαῦτα φαμεν. Πλήν τοῦ ἑνός Υἱοῦ τάς θεοπρεπεῖς, καί μέντοι τάς ἀνθρωπίνας. Μέσας δέ εἶναι φωνάς ἐκείνας διαβεβαιούμεθα, οἷον, ὅταν ὁ μακάριος γράφῃ Παῦλος, Ἰησοῦς Χριστός χθές καί σήμερον ὁ αὐτός, καί εἰς τούς αἰῶνας. Καί πάλιν· Εἷς Θεός ὁ Πατήρ, ἐξ οὗ τά πάντα καί ἡμεῖς ἐξ αὐτοῦ· καί εἷς Κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, δι᾿ οὗ τά πάντα, καί ἡμεῖς δι᾿ αὐτοῦ. Καί πάλιν· Ὧν οἱ πατέρες, καί ἐξ ὧν ὁ Χριστός, τό κατά σάρκα, ὁ ὤν ἐπί πάντων Θεός, εὐλογητός εἰς τούς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν. Ἰδού γάρ, ἰδού Χριστόν Ἰησοῦν ὁ ὀνομάσας, χθές καί σήμερον τόν αὐτόν εἶναι φησι, καί εἰς τούς αἰῶνας· καί δι᾿ αὐτοῦ γενέσθαι τά πάντα· καί τόν κατά σάρκα ἐξ Ἰουδαίων, ἐπί πάντας ὀνομάζει Θεόν· καί μήν εὐλογητόν εἰς τούς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν. Μή τοίνυν διέλῃς ἐν τούτοις τάς ἐπί τοῦ Κυρίου φωνάς. Ἔχουσι γάρ ἐν ταυτῷ τό θεοπρεπές καί ἀνθρώπινον· ἐφάρμοσον δέ μᾶλλον αὐτάς ὡς ἑνί τῷ Υἱῷ, τουτέστι, Θεῷ Λόγῳ σεσαρκωμένῳ».","english":"And he brings forward the divinely inspired Scriptures as proof of these things, speaking as follows. \"When he says to Philip, 'Have I been with you so long a time, and you have not known me, Philip? Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in me? He who has seen me has seen the Father'; and, 'I and the Father are one'—we affirm that this voice is most fitting for God. But when he rebukes the crowds of the Jews, saying, 'If you were children of Abraham, you would do the works of Abraham; but now you seek to kill me, a man who has spoken the truth to you; this Abraham did not do'—we say that such things were spoken in a manner fitting for a man. Except that the things fitting for God, and indeed the things fitting for man, belong to the one Son. And we affirm that those voices are intermediate, for instance when the blessed Paul writes, 'Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.' And again: 'One God the Father, from whom are all things and we from him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and we through him.' And again: 'Whose are the fathers, and from whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever, amen.' For behold, behold, the one who named Christ Jesus says that he is the same yesterday and today and forever; and that all things came to be through him; and he calls the one according to the flesh from the Jews God over all; and indeed blessed forever, amen. Do not, then, divide in these matters the voices concerning the Lord. For they have at once the fitting for God and the human; rather, apply them as to one Son, that is, to God the Word made flesh.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":96,"ref":"p96","source":"Τούτοις δή τοῖς λόγοις τοῦ Πνεύματος καί αὐτάς ἡμῖν ἀποδέδειχεν ὁ Διδάσκαλος τάς μέσας φωνάς, μηδέν καθοτιοῦν ἕτερον ἐπί Χριστοῦ σημαινούσας, ἤ τό θεοπρεπες ἐν ταὐτῷ, καί τό ἀνθρώπινον· ὅθεν αὐτῷ ταύτας καί ἐφαρμόζειν ἀδιαιρέτως παρακελεύεται δεῖν, ὡς Θεῷ τῷ αὐτῷ, καί ἀνθρώπῳ φύσει τυγχάνοντι· καί ἄλλο τό παράπαν, ὡς ἔφην, οὐδέν.\n\nΚαί μήν ἐπί Χριστοῦ, φασί, μίαν καὐτός ὁμολογεῖ τήν ἐνέργειαν. Οὕτω γάρ τόν ἅγιον εὐαγγελιστήν Ἰωάννην ἑρμηνεύων διέξεισι, \" Καί γοῦν, ὅτε τοῦ Ἀρχισυναγώγου τό κόριον διανίστη, λέγων· Ἡ παῖς, ἐγείρου· ἐκράτησε τῆς χειρός αὐτῆς, καθώς γέγραπται· ζωοποιῶν μέν ὡς θεός, τῶ παντουργῷ προστάγματι· ζωοποιῶν δ᾿ αὖ πάλιν, καί διά τῆς ἁφῆς τῆς ἰδίας αὐτοῦ σαρκός· μίαν τε καί συγγενῆ δι᾿ ἀμφοῖν ἐπιδεικνύς τή ἐνέργειαν». Ἀλλά τοῦτο δή καί λίαν ἀπερικάλυπτον ἔχει τοῦ διδασκάλου τήν ἔννοιαν· ὅτι μή ἑκατέρων τῶν ἐξ ὧν ὁ εἷς καί μόνος ὑπάρχει Χριστός οὐσιῶν μίαν ὁρίζεται τήν ἐνέργειαν, ὡς ἄν τινες ὑποτοπήσοιεν· εἴπερ πρός Ἑρμείαν αὐτός ἀποφαίνεται, λέγων· \"Ἐνεργήσαι γάρ ὁμοίως τά τήν αὐτήν λαχόντα φύσιν· οἷς δέ ὁ τοῦ πῶς εἶναι λόγος ἐξηλλαγμένος, τούτοις ἄν εἴη καί ὁ τῆς ἐφ᾿ ἅπασιν ἐνεργείας λόγος οὐχ ὁ αὐτός. Τά γάρ τῆς αὐτῆς ἐνεργείας ὄντα, καί τῆς αὐτῆς οὐσίας ὡμολόγηνται». Δυοῖν οὖν ἀνάγκη θάτερον, ἤ πρός ἑαυτόν εἰσάγειν ἀπομαχόμενον τόν διδάσκαλον, ἤ τήν αὐτήν ἀποδιδόντα φύσιν, ὥσπερ οὖν καί ἐνέργειαν ἐπί Χριστοῦ τήν αὐτήν· ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἐξηλλαγμένας ὑπαγορεύειν τάς φύσεις, εἰς ταυτόν ἀλλήλαις ἰούσας τῷ ἀπαραλλάκτῳ τῆς ἐνεργείας.","english":"By these words of the Spirit, the Teacher has also demonstrated to us the middle voices themselves, signifying nothing else at all in the case of Christ than what is at once God-befitting and human; whence he enjoins that they must be applied to him indivisibly, as to the same one who is both God and by nature man; and nothing else at all, as I said.\n\nAnd indeed, they say, he himself also confesses one activity in Christ. For thus, interpreting the holy evangelist John, he sets out: \"And indeed, when he raised up the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue, saying, 'Girl, arise,' he took hold of her hand, as it is written; giving life as God by the all-working command, and giving life again also through the touch of his own flesh; showing one and kindred activity through both.\" But this makes the Teacher's meaning very plainly clear: that he does not define one activity of both the essences from which the one and only Christ exists, as some might suspect; since he himself declares against Hermias, saying: \"For things that have obtained the same nature act in the same way; but for those whose principle of how they are is different, the principle of their activity in all things would not be the same. For things that are of the same activity have been confessed to be also of the same essence.\" There is therefore a necessity of one of two things: either to introduce the Teacher fighting against himself, or, while ascribing the same nature, to ascribe also the same activity in Christ, as indeed he does; but not to set forth the natures as different, coming to the same thing with each other by the unvaryingness of activity.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":97,"ref":"p97","source":"\"Τά γάρ τῆς αὐτῆς ἐνεργείας ὄντα, καί τῆς αὐτῆς οὐσίας ὡμολόγηνται», φησίν. Εἰ δέ ἑκάτερον ἀπρεπές, τό τε πρός ἑαυτόν ἀσυμβάτως ἔχειν, καί τό μή παρηλλαγμένας ἐπί Χριστοῦ πρεσβεύειν τάς ἐξ ὧν ἐστί φύσεις, δῆλον ὡς οὐ μίαν ἑκατέρων τῶν οὐσιῶν, ἤγουν τοῦ ἐξ αὐτῶν συγκειμένου Χριστοῦ, παραδίδωσι τήν ἐνέργειαν· διά τοῦ φάναι, \"Μίαν τε καί συγγενῆ δι᾿ ἀμφοῖν ἐπιδεικνύς τήν ἐνέργειαν»· ἀλλά Θεόν ὄντα φύσει, καί σαρκωθέντα παρίστησι τόν ὑπερούσιον\n\nΛόγον, τήν ζωοποιόν αὐτοῦ φύσει καί θείαν ἐνέργειαν, ἀσωμάτως τε προάγειν καί διά σώματος. Συγγενῆ γάρ εἰπών, οὐδέν ἕτερον, ἤ τήν αὐτήν δι᾿ ἀμφοῖν, προστάγματός τε παντουργοῦ καί ἁφῆς τῆς ἁγίας αὐτοῦ σαρκός, ἐκφαινομένην τοῖς θαύμασι ζωοποιόν ἐνέργειαν ἐπεσήμανε· ὥσπερ καί τό πῦρ ἀΰλως τε καῖον καί δι᾿ ὕλης, τήν αὐτήν ἑκατέρως καυστικήν ἐπιδείκνυται δύναμιν. Οὐκοῦν, οὐκ ἐπ᾿ ἀναιρέσει τῆς τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἀνθρωπικῆς ἐνεργείας, ταῦτα φησίν ὁ διδάσκαλος· σαρκός γάρ ἁφήν εἰρηκώς, τήν ἀνθρωπίνην ἐκδήλως ἐσήμανεν· εἴπερ ἡ ἁπτική, τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης ἐνεργείας σαφής ἐστιν ἀπόδειξις· ἀλλ᾿οὔτε πρός ταῖς κατά φύσιν δυσίν ἑτέραν παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ παραδέδωκεν· ἀλλά τήν ζωοποιόν φύσει, καθά λέλεκται, δι' ἀμφοῖν· προστάγματός τε καί ἁφῆς ἐνέργειαν, ἐξ ἑνός καί τοῦ αὐτοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου προερχομένην δεδήλωκεν.","english":"For things that belong to the same activity have also been acknowledged to belong to the same essence,\" he says. But if each of the two is unfitting—both to be inconsistently disposed toward itself, and not to preach that the natures of which Christ consists are distinct in him—it is clear that he does not hand down one activity of both essences, that is, of Christ who is composed of them; by saying, \"showing one and kindred activity through both\"—but he presents the supersubstantial Word, who is God by nature and became incarnate, as bringing forth his life-giving and divine activity by nature both incorporeally and through a body. For in saying \"kindred,\" he signified nothing else than the same life-giving activity manifested in the miracles through both—the all-working command and the touch of his holy flesh—just as fire, both burning immaterially and through matter, displays the same burning power in either case. Therefore the Teacher says these things not to abolish the human activity of the Savior; for by mentioning the touch of flesh, he clearly signified the human, since touch is a clear proof of human activity. But neither did he hand down another besides the two natural ones; rather, he declared the activity that is life-giving by nature, as has been said, through both—command and touch—proceeding from one and the same God the Word.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":98,"ref":"p98","source":"Εἰ δέ τούτοις περισχεθέντες τοῖς τῶν Πατέρων εὐσεβέσι κηρύγμασι, τήν πρός Ἀχίλλιον Ἡρακλειανοῦ παρακομίζουσιν ἐπιστολήν, καθ᾿ ἥν ὑποβάλλουσι καί μίαν πρός τοῖς δυσί φύσιν ἐπί Χριστοῦ λέγειν, ὡς ὅλου, καί κίνησιν, αὐτοί ταύτην ἑρμηνευέτωσαν. Ἔχει γάρ ὦδε τό γράμμα· \" Μία μέν ἡ καθ᾿ αὑτήν ὅλη τοῦ Κυρίου φύσις τε καί κίνησις· δύο δέ αἱ κατά ἀναφοράν. Μίαν μέν ἡ τῶν μερῶν κίνησίς τε καί φύσις κατ᾿ οἰκείωσιν· δύο δέ, αἱ καθ᾿ αὐτάς. Κίνησιν δέ ὅταν φῶ· Ἐνέργειαν καί πάθος βούλομαι δηλοῦσθαι». Χρή τοιγαροῦν τούς ταῦτα τῶν οἰκείων δογμάτων προσβαλλομένους ὀχύρωσιν, διασαφηνίσαι τῷ λόγῳ, τίς, καί πῶς λεγομένη, καί τίνι τῶν ἐγκρίτων μεμαρτυρημένη Πατέρων, ὡς ἡ ὅλου τοῦ κυρίου μία τε φύσις καί κίνησις· καί τίνες αἱ δύο κατά ἀναφοράν. Τίς δέ καί ἡ τῶν μερῶν μία κατ᾿ οἰκείωσιν φύσις ὁμοίως καί κίνησις· καί τίνες αἱ δύο καθ᾿ αὑτάς· ἤγουν αἱ τρεῖς αὗται συζυγίαι τῶν τε φύσεων τοῦ αὐτοῦ καί κινήσεων. Καί τίς τήν αὐτήν καί μίαν κίνησιν ἑκάτερον δηλοῦν παραδέδωκεν· ἐνέργειάν τε φημί καί πάθος· καί πῶς, εἴπερ ἄμφω κατ' αὐτούς, οὐ κατά πᾶσαν αὐτοῦ διεσχοίνισται κίνησιν τοῦ Πατρός ὁ Υἱός, ὡς φύσει παθητός κατά πᾶσαν· εἴπερ οὐχ ἑκάτερον ἐνέργειαν ὁμοῦ καί πάθος ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ καί Σωτῆρος καθ οἷον δήποτε τρόπον ἐπισημαίνεται κίνησις. Ἀπαθές γάρ φύσει τό Θεῖον, καί ἄσχετον, καί ἁπλοῦν· μᾶλλον δέ πάσης ὑπερηπλωμένον ἁπλότητος. Πῶς δέ πάλιν οὐχί ταῖς τῶν τριῶν συζυγίαις κινήσεων, ἐνεργείας τε καί πάθη δυοκαίδεκα παρεισάγουσιν, εἴπερ ἡ κίνησις ἄμφω δηλοῖ κατ᾿ αὐτούς·","english":"But if, having been encompassed by these pious proclamations of the Fathers, they bring forward the letter of Heraclianus to Achillius, according to which they suggest that one nature in addition to the two, and one movement, be spoken of in Christ as of a whole, let them themselves interpret this. For the letter reads as follows: \"One is the whole nature and movement of the Lord according to itself; but two are those according to reference. One is the movement and nature of the parts according to appropriation; but two are those according to themselves. And when I say 'movement,' I wish 'activity' and 'passion' to be signified.\" It is necessary, therefore, for those who attack these things as a fortification of their own doctrines, to make clear in argument: what is this one nature and movement of the whole Lord, and how it is spoken of, and by which of the approved Fathers it is attested; and what are the two according to reference. And what is the one nature and movement of the parts according to appropriation likewise; and what are the two according to themselves—that is, these three pairs of natures and movements of the same one. And who has handed down that the same one movement signifies both—I mean activity and passion; and how, if both are according to them, the Son is not divided from the Father in every movement of his, as being naturally passible in every respect—if indeed the movement of God and Savior does not in some way or other signify both activity and passion together. For the Divine is by nature impassible, and unchangeable, and simple; or rather, it is exalted above all simplicity. And how again do they not, by the three pairs of movements, introduce twelve activities and passions, if indeed movement signifies both according to them?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":99,"ref":"p99","source":"καί τίς τῶν ἁγίων κατ᾿ ἀναφοράν ἤ κατ᾿ οἰκείωσιν τάς ἐπί Χριστοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ διεπρέσβευσε φύσεις;\n\nΤαῦτα δειξάτωσαν πρότερον ἐκ Πατρικῆς ἐπικρίσεως, καί εἶθ᾿ οὕτως αὐτοῖς ἡ τῶν οἰκείων ἐντεῦθεν κυρωθήσεται δογμάτων ὑπόληψις. Εἰ δέ ἀδυνάτως ἔχοιεν, τούτων λοιπόν ἀφέμενοι, μόνοις σύν ἡμῖν τοῖς αὐσεβῶς κεκριμένοις στοιχείτωσαν, ἔκ τε τῶν θεοφόρων τῆς καθολικῆς Ἐκκλησίας Πατέρων, καί τῶν ἁγίων οἰκουμενικῶν πέντε συνόδων· Θεόν φύσει κατά πάντα τέλειον, καί ἄνθρωπον φύσει κατά πάντα τέλειον, πλήν μόνης ἁμαρτίας, τόν αὐτόν καί ἕνα καί μόνον Κύριον καί Θεόν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν ὁμολογοῦντες· καί μή τῇ ἀναιρέσει τοῦ ἐπ᾿ ἀμφοῖν κατά πάντα φύσει τελείου, τήν θείαν ἤ τήν ἀνθρωπίνην τοῦ αὐτοῦ συνανέλωσι θέλησίν τε καί ἐνέργειαν γινώσκοντες, ὡς οὔτε ὅ ἦν ἀνάρχως καί ἀναιτίως, οὔτε ὅ γέγονεν ὕστερον δι᾿ αἰτίαν· ἤγουν τήν ἡμῶν σωτηρίαν, ἐμείωσεν ἤ ἠλλοίωσεν, ἤ ἐξηφάνισε κατά τι γοῦν ὅλως ὁ ὑπερούσιος Λόγος· ὁλικῶς δέ μᾶλλον καί τελείως, δίχα μόνης τῆς ἁμαρτίας, ἐν ἑαυτῷ τε καί δι᾿ ἑαυτοῦ, κατά πάντα τε καί ἐν πᾶσιν ἐφύλαξεν, αὐτά τε κυρίως, ὡς ἔφην, καθ᾿ ὕπαρξιν, ὤν φυσικήν· ὅθεν καί θελητικόν φύσει, καί ἐνεργητικός ὁ αὐτός καί μόνος καί εἷς Κύριος ἡμῶν καί Θεός, καθ᾿ ἑκατέραν αὐτοῦ φύσιν, ἐξ ὧν καί ἐν αἷς συνέστηκε, τῆς ἡμῶν σωτηρίας ἐστίν. Εἴπερ Θεός κατά φύσιν ἐξουσιαστικός ὑπάρχων, καί τῆς τῶν ἁπάντων ἐξουσίας","english":"And which of the saints, by reference or by appropriation, championed the natures in Christ God? Let them first demonstrate this from the Fathers' judgment, and then in this way their own assumption of doctrines will be confirmed for them from that source. But if they are unable, let them desist from these things and, with us alone who have been piously judged, let them align themselves with the God-bearing Fathers of the catholic Church and the five holy ecumenical councils, confessing the same one and only Lord and God Jesus Christ, perfect by nature in God in all things and perfect by nature in man in all things, except for sin alone; and let them not, by abolishing what is perfect by nature in all things in both, do away with his divine or his human will and activity, knowing that the supersubstantial Word neither diminished nor altered nor in any way at all obliterated either what he was without beginning and without cause, or what he became afterward through a cause—that is, our salvation—but rather wholly and perfectly, apart from sin alone, in himself and through himself, in all things and in all respects he preserved them, being these things properly, as I said, according to natural existence; whence also being by nature willing and active, the same one and only and single Lord our God, according to each of his natures, from which and in which he consists, is our salvation. Since God, being by nature authoritative, and of the authority over all things","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":100,"ref":"p100","source":"δημιουργός, οὐκ ἄνους γέγονεν ἄνθρωπος, ἤ ζωῆς ἄμοιρος τῆς καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς φυσικῆς, καί παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ τό εἶναι κατά δημιουργίαν λαχόντων· ἀλλά νοερός, ἤτοι θελητικός φύσει καί ἐνεργητικός κατ᾿ ἀλήθειαν ἐχρημάτισεν ἄνθρωπος, αὐτός ὁ φύσει καί μόνος Θεός· ὅλον με προσλαβών μετά τῶν ἐμῶν, ἵν᾿ ὅλῳ μοι τήν σωτηρίαν χαρίσηται· ὅλον λύσας τό κατάκριμα τῆς ἁμαρτίας ἐπειδή ἡ τό ἀπρόσληπτον, ἀθεράπευτον· ὅ δέ ἥνωται τῷ Θεῷ, τοῦτο καί σώζεται, καθά φησιν ὁ τῆς θεολογίας ἐπώνυμος.\n\nἈλλ᾿ ἐπειδή τούτοις δή τοις τῶν ἁγίων Πατέρων εὐσεβέσι διδάγμασι, τήν τῶν ἑτεροζυγούντων ἀποσκευαζομένοις παράλογον ἔνστασιν, ἑτέρωθεν ἡμῖν ἐπιφύονται· τήν τῶν ἡμετέρων εἰς ἡμετέραν καταδρομήν· μᾶλλον δέ, τήν τῶν ἀκεραιοτέρων συναρπαγήν, ποιούμενοι γραμμάτων προσαγωγήν, ἤγουν τῆς πρός Μαρῖνον, ὡς φασί, γεγονυίας ἡμῖν τόν πρεσβύτερον· καί τῆς πρός τόν Πύῤῥον ἐπιστολῆς, ἀναγκαῖον καί περί τούτων βραχέα εἰπεῖν· τήν ὑμετέραν ἐν πᾶσι πληροφοροῦντες ἁγιωσύνην, ὡς πρός Μαρῖνον μέν τόν πρεσβύτερον διαφόρως, περί διαφόρων ἐπεστάλκαμεν γραφικῶν κεφαλαίων· οὐ μήν γέ τοι καθ᾿ οἷον δήποτε τρόπον, ἤ λέλεκται ( ἡμῖν ) περί τῶν ἀντιῤῥόπων οὑτωσί, καί ἐναντίων δογμάτων· τῆς τε μιᾶς λέγω καί τῶν δύο, τουτέστι, τῶν πλαττομένων αὐτοῖς ἐπί τοῦ αὐτοῦ καί ἑνός Χριστοῦ τριῶν ἐνεργειῶν ἤ θελήσεων· ὡς ταύτας ἐπ'αὐτοῦ συνιστώντων ἡμῶν, ἐκείνοις ἐφάμιλλον, ἤ πρός ἕτερόν τινα παντελῶς. \"Εἰ γάρ ἅ κατέλυσα, ταῦτα πάλιν οἰκοδομῶ, παραβάτην ἑμαυτόν συνιστάνω», φησί τό σκεῦος τῆς ἐκλογῆς.","english":"the Creator, has not become a man without mind, or devoid of the natural life that is ours, of those who have received their being by creation from Him; but He has shown Himself to be a man intelligent, that is, by nature willing and truly active, He who is by nature the only God; taking up the whole of me together with what is mine, in order that He might grant salvation to the whole of me; having dissolved the whole condemnation of sin, since what is not assumed is also incurable; and what has been united to God, this is also saved, as says the one surnamed of theology.\n\nBut since by these pious teachings of the holy Fathers, which set aside the irrational insistence of those who yoke themselves with alien doctrines, they spring upon us from another quarter, making an assault with our own writings against us—or rather, a snatching away of the more simple-minded—bringing forward a document, namely the one to Marinus, as they say, the elder, which we wrote, and the letter to Pyrrhus, it is necessary to say a few things about these too, fully assuring your holiness in all things: that we have written to Marinus the elder in various ways about various scriptural chapters; yet in no way whatsoever have we spoken in this fashion about the opposing and contrary doctrines—I mean the one energy and the two, that is, the three energies or wills which they fabricate for the same one Christ—as though we were establishing these in Him, making them equal to those, or to any other whatsoever. \"For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor,\" says the vessel of election.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":101,"ref":"p101","source":"Ὅθεν καί οὑτωσί προφερομένην, ἤτοι πλαττομένην, ὡς ἐξ ἡμῶν δῆθεν πρός Μαρῖνον ἐπιστολήν, ἀλλοτρίαν οὖσαν πάντη καί οὐχ ἡμετέραν, ἡμεῖς τε αὐτοί διαῤῥίπτομεν, καί πάντας ὁμοίως ἡμῖν διαῤῥίπτειν παρακαλοῦμεν, τούς εὐσεβῶς ὁμολογοῦντας τόν Κύριον· ἵνα πᾶσαν τοῖς ἐναντίοις διατειχίσωμεν ἀφορμήν, προφάσεις προφασιζομένοις ἐν ἁμαρτίαις, καί τῆς οἰκείας ἀντιλογίας συγκάλυμμα, τήν καθ᾿ ἡμῶν ποιουμένοις συκοφαντίαν· οἵ ἐπειδή τῷ οἰκείῳ μή συνίστανται λόγῳ, τῇ τοῦ ἀληθοῦς προσβολῇ φθειρομένῳ, τῷ τοῦ ἡμετέρου δῆθεν γράμματος προσωπείῳ, τήν κατά τῶν ἀφελεστέρων ἑαυτοῖς ἀπεργάζονται δολίαν παρείσδυσιν· ἥν οὐκ ἄν πάθοιεν λοιπόν, ἤ δράσοιεν, οἱ τοῦ ψεύδους τό ἀληθές, τήν καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς περί τούτων ἀπολογίαν προκρίνοντες.\n\nΠρός δέ τόν Πύῤῥον πάλιν, γεγραφότα πρότερον ἡμῖν τόμον πολύστιχον, καί ἄγαν ἡμᾶς, οὐκ οἶδ᾿ ὅπως, ἐν τούτῳ τιμήσαντα· κατ᾿ ἐξέτασιν δέ, καί οὐκ ἀπόφασιν, ἐν αὐτῷ δή τῷ τόμῳ τόν περί μιᾶς καί δύο τοῦ αὐτοῦ ποιησάμενον λόγον ἐνεργειῶν· καί τήν ἡμετέραν οἷον ἐπιζητοῦντα, καί προσκαλούμενον περί ἑκατέρου λόγου κρίσιν τε καί ὑπόληψιν, εἰκότως καί ἡμεῖς αὐτόν ἐν προοιμίοις, τοῦ πρός αὐτόν ἡμετέρου γράμματος, ἀντετιμήσαμεν, ἀποστολικήν ἐκπληροῦντες παραίνεσιν. Τῆ τιμῇ γάρ ἀλλήλους προηγούμενοί φησιν ὁ θεῖος Ἀπόστολος· ὅπου γε καί τούς ἑτέρως ἔχοντας, ἤ ἐπιστέλλοντας πρός ἡμᾷς ἀγαπᾷν τε καί εὐλογεῖν ὁ θεῖος παρακελεύεται λόγος. Καί ἅμα σπουδή μοι καθειστήκει, μή ἐκτραχύνειν·","english":"Therefore, the letter to Marinus, which is being circulated, or rather fabricated, in this way, as if supposedly from us, since it is entirely foreign and not ours, we ourselves reject it, and we exhort all who piously confess the Lord to reject it just as we do, so that we may wall off every pretext from our opponents, who make excuses for their sins and use the slander against us as a cover for their own contradiction; for since they do not stand by their own argument, which is being destroyed by the assault of the truth, they accomplish their deceitful infiltration against the simpler folk under the mask of what is supposedly our writing. This they would no longer suffer or do, those who prefer the truth to falsehood, namely our defense concerning these matters.\n\nAnd again, to Pyrrhus, who previously wrote us a many-lined tome and in it honored us exceedingly, I know not how—yet by way of examination, and not of pronouncement, in that very tome he made his argument concerning the one and two energies of the same [Christ], and as it were seeking our judgment and opinion concerning each argument and inviting it—we too reasonably honored him in return in the preface of our letter to him, fulfilling the apostolic exhortation. For \"preferring one another in honor,\" says the divine Apostle; since indeed the divine word exhorts us to love and bless even those who hold otherwise or who write to us. And at the same time it was my earnest concern not to be harsh—","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":102,"ref":"p102","source":"ὁμαλίζειν δέ μᾶλλον τόν ἄνδρα, τοῖς εἰς αὐτόν ἐγκωμίοις, πρός συγκατάθεσιν ἰέναι τῶν εὐσεβῶς μοι δεδογματισμένων, κατά τήν τῶν ἁγίων Πατέρων διδασκαλίαν· ὅθεν καί οὕτω νενοηκέναι κατά τήν γεγονυῖαν αὐτῷ παρ᾿ ἐμοῦ συγγραφήν, τά ὑπ᾿ ἐκείνου μοι γραφέντα διωμολόγουν· παρορμῶν αὐτόν οἷον, ὡς ἔφην, καί προσκαλούμενος, εἰς τήν τοῦ εὐσεβοῦς ἐπίνευσιν λόγου, σωτηρίαν αὐτῶ μεγίστην προξενοῦντος, εἴγε τοῦτο στέρξας σύν ἡμῖν ὡμολόγησεν ( ὡμολογήσειεν), ὡς γεγράφαμεν· τουτέστι δύο τοῦ αὐτοῦ καί ἑνός Χριστοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ κατά φύσιν ἐνεργείας, ὥσπερ οὖν καί φύσεις ἡνωμένας ἀσυγχύτως καί ἀδιαιρέτως, θείαν καί ἀνθρωπίνην· ἄκτιστον καί κτιστήν· ἀλλ'οὐ μίαν καί τήν αὐτήν ὁπωσοῦν\n\nλεγομένην. Οὐ γάρ Πατρικός, αἱρετικός δέ μᾶλλον ὁ περί μιᾶς καί τῆς αὐτῆς ἐνεργείας ἤ θελήσεως ἤ φύσεως λόγος, ἐπί τοῦ αὐτοῦ καί ἑνός Κυρίου ἡμῶν καί Θεοῦ.\n\nΤῆς μέν οὖν πρός αὐτόν ἐκεῖνον, ἤγουν τόν Πύῤῥον, ἡμετέρας εὐφημίας τοιοῦτος ὁ τρόπος καθέστηκε, τῆς ἀντιῤῥόπου δόξης αὐτόν ἠρέμα διϊστᾷν ἐπειγόμενος, καί πρός τόν ὀρθόν ἐπαναβιβάζειν λόγον τῆς πίστεως. Εἰ δέ τις τοῦ καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς, διαμαρτάνων σκοποῦ, πρός τήν εὐφημίαν ἔτι δυσφορεῖ, τήν τῆς ἡμετέρας οἰκονομίας ἐν τούτῳ δή μάλιστα λόγον οὐκ ἀποδεχόμενος, παρείσθω δή τούτω, καί διαῤῥιπτέσθω κατά τό δοκοῦν ἡ εὐφημία, μηδέ ἡμῖν λοιπόν ἐπέραστος οὖσα, προσάντης δέ μᾶλλον μετά τήν τελείαν τἀνδρός ἐκτροπήν· κυρούσθω δέ σύν ἡμῖν τῶν πρός αὐτόν ὀρθοδόξως δογματισθέντων ἡ δύναμις. Ἔχετε, Πατέρες ἅγιοι, τῆς πληροφορίας διά τῆς ἡμετέρας ἀπολογίας τόν λόγον·","english":"Rather, to conciliate the man by praises addressed to him, and to bring him to agreement with what I have piously decreed according to the teaching of the holy Fathers; and hence also that he had understood in this way according to the treatise that came from me, I acknowledged the things written by him to me—urging him on, as I said, and calling him to assent to the pious word, which procures for him the greatest salvation, if only, having accepted this, he would confess with us, as we have written—that is, two natural energies of the same and one Christ, our God, just as also the natures are united without confusion and without division, divine and human, uncreated and created—but not one and the same, however it may be spoken of. For the account of one and the same energy, or will, or nature, in the case of the same and one Lord our God, is not that of the Fathers, but rather heretical.\n\nSuch, then, was the manner of our conciliation toward that man himself, that is, Pyrrhus, hastening gently to separate him from the opposing opinion and to lead him back up to the right account of the faith. But if anyone among those of our side, missing our purpose, is still displeased with the conciliation, not accepting in this the account of our economy—especially in this very matter—let him be set aside, and let the conciliation be cast aside as seems good to him, no longer being desirable to us either, but rather offensive after the man's complete turning away; and let the force of the things orthodoxly defined by us against him be confirmed with us. You have, holy Fathers, through our defense the account of your full assurance.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":103,"ref":"p103","source":"ἀλλ᾿ ἀνδρίζεσθε, καί κραταιοῦσθε πνεύματι, μή παρακλινόμενοι δεξιά ἤ ἀριστερά, πρός τῶν ἐναντίων ἀνδρῶν καί δογμάτων· ἀλλ᾿ ὁδῷ βασιλικῇ στηριζόμενοί τε καί ποδηγούμενοι παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ τοῦ εἰπόντος, Ἐγώ εἰμί ἡ ὁδός, καί ἡ ζωή, καί ἀλήθεια,σύμψυχοι, τό αὐτό φρονοῦντες,καί ὁ Θεός τῆς εἰρήνης ἔσται μετά πάντων ὑμῶν, εὐσεβῶς ἀεί κηρυττόμενος, καί ὁσίως παρ᾿ ὑμῶν λατρευόμενος· καί πέρας τῆς ἐνταῦθα μακαρίας πολιτείας τε καί ὁμολογίας, ἑαυτόν ἐκεῖσε μακαριωτέραν παρεχόμενος ὑμῖν κληροδοσίαν τε καί ἀνάπαυσιν· μεθ᾿ οὗ τῷ Πατρί σύν τῷ ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι, δόξα, τιμή, κράτος, προσκύνησις, νῦν καί ἀεί, καί εἰς τούς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. Ἀμήν.\n\nΙΣΟΝ ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗΣ ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΝ ΚΥΡΙΟΝ ΜΑΡΙΝΟΝ ΤΟΝ ΠΡΕΣΒΥΤΕΡΟΝ ΤΗΣ ΚΥΠΡΟΥ Ἴσον ἐπιστολῆς πρός τόν κύριον Μαρῖνον τόν πρεσβύτερον τῆς Κύπρου.\n\nΝόμῳ θείῳ κατά Θεόν εὐθυνόμενος, θεοτίμητε πάτερ, νόμον ὑπερεῖδες ἀνθρώπινον, κενώσει τό μέτριον ὑπεράρας, καί πτωχείᾳ τό ἐντελές μεγαλύνας τῆς ἐμῆς περί τε τό νοεῖν καί λέγειν ἀπειρίας, ἤ προπετείας, εἰπεῖν οἰκειότερον· οὐ γάρ αἰσχύνομαι τά ἐμά καί τῆς ἐμῆς ἀσθενείας, πάθη δεόντως ἐξαγορεύειν, καί τόσῳ προθυμίᾳ μᾶλλον ἀποκαλύπτειν, ἤ ὅσον φιλανθρωπίᾳ ἐπικαλύπτειν ἐσπούδασας. Τίς γάρ ποτ᾿ ἄν ἀλόγου λόγον οὕτω προσήκατο, καί φρενίτιδος νοῦν διανοίας ἐδέξατο, μή τί γε παντελῶς εἰπεῖν, ἀπεσέμνυνεν ὡς σύ τό ἐμόν, θεοτίμητε πάτερ, οὐχ ὅσον μόνον δι᾿ ἀγάπην παραδραμών τό ἀπαίδευτον, κατ᾿ ἄκρον ἐτίμησας·","english":"But be courageous and be strengthened in spirit, not turning aside to the right or to the left, away from opposing men and doctrines; but being established and guided in the royal way by him who said, I am the way, and the life, and the truth, being of one soul, thinking the same thing, and the God of peace will be with you all, being always piously proclaimed and holily served by you; and as the end of your blessed conduct and confession here, providing himself there as a more blessed inheritance and rest for you; with whom to the Father together with the Holy Spirit, glory, honor, might, worship, now and always, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.\n\nCopy of the letter to the lord Marinos the presbyter of Cyprus. Copy of the letter to the lord Marinos the presbyter of Cyprus.\n\nBeing guided according to God by divine law, O God-honored father, you looked beyond human law, transcending moderation by self-emptying, and magnifying perfection by poverty—you who have shown such zeal concerning my inexperience in understanding and speaking, or rather, to speak more fittingly, my rashness; for I am not ashamed fittingly to confess my own failings and those of my weakness, and to reveal them with as much zeal as you have been eager to cover them with loving-kindness. For who ever would have received the word of an irrational man in this way, and accepted the mind of a frenzied understanding—not to say anything at all—and reverenced it as you did mine, O God-honored father, not only passing over my lack of education out of love, but honoring it to the utmost—","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":104,"ref":"p104","source":"ὅ δή μέγιστον τῷ ἀκόσμῳ πρός εὐδοξίαν, ἀλλά καί ὅσον διά χάριν ἐπιβαλών τό αἰδέσιμον, ᾧ τήν οἰκείαν παγκαλῶς εἴωθας ὡραΐζειν διάνοιαν, ὑπερβολῇ κατεφαίδρυνας· ἐξ ὧν ὅ τε λόγος καί τρόπος συνίσταται τῆς ἀληθοῦς εὐγενείας, ἤ Θεοῦ συγγενείας, εἰπεῖν ἀληθέστερον ἤ καί οἰκειότερον· οὐ μᾶλλον μετεωρίζειν εἰδώς· οὐ γάρ πέφυκεν ἤ μετριάζειν ποιῶν· καί γάρ εἴωθέ πως ἀμεταβόλως ἑδράζειν πρός ὕφεσιν, τῇ ὑπερβολῇ τῶν οὐ προσόντων πλεῖον ἀποκαλύπτων τήν ἔνδειαν, καί γνωρίζων τήν γύμνωσιν· καί τῆ παραδείξει τῶν ὑπέρ ἀξίαν, αὐστηρότεραν ἐνιείς τῶν κατ' ἀξίαν τήν αἴσθησιν, ἡνίκα τοῦ τῆς ψυχῆς βάθους κατακρατήσας, τό μέγεθος τοῦ ἀπεμφαίνοντος ἰδεῖν, ἀπαρακαλύπτως ποιήσειεν· ὅ δή μάλιστα πεπονθώς, τῇ τῶν ὑμετέρων εὐχῶν διατρανώσει, θείων ἡψάμην θεσμῶν, οὕς λόγος οἰκονομίας τῆς ὑπέρ ἔννοιαν εἶδε προνοητικῶς συντηρεῖν καί προβάλλεσθαι τοῖς κατ᾿ ἐμέ χειραγωγίας προσδεομένοις καί χρήζουσιν.\n\nΚαί μετά βραχέα. Ἀμέλει τοι γοῦν τῶν τοῦ νῦν ἁγιοτάτου, Πάπα συνοδικῶν, ἐν τοσούτοις, ὅσοις γεγράφατε, κεφαλαίοις, οἱ τῆς βασιλίδος τῶν πόλεων ἐπελάβοντο· δυσί δέ μόνοις, ὤν, τό μέν ὑπάρχει περί θεολογίας, ὅτι τε φησίν εἶπεν, \" Ἐκπορεύσθαι κἀκ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον»· τό δέ ἄλλο, περί τῆς θείας σαρκώσεως· ὅτιπερ γέγραφε· \"Δίχα τόν Κύριον εἶναι τῆς προπατορικῆς ἁμαρτίας ὡς ἄνθρωπον». Καί τό μέν πρῶτος, συμφώνους παρήγαγον χρήσεις τῶνῬωμαίων Πατέρων· ἔτι γε μήν καί Κυρίλλου Ἀλεξανδρείας, ἐκ τῆς πονηθείσης αὐτῷ εἰς τόν εὐαγγελιστήν ἅγιον Ἰωάννην ἱερᾶς πραγματείας·","english":"Which is the greatest thing for the disorderly toward good repute, but also as much as by grace having laid on the venerable, with which you are accustomed beautifully to adorn your own mind, you have made radiant beyond measure; from which both the word and the manner of true nobility, or rather of kinship with God—to speak more truly and more properly—consists; not knowing rather to exalt; for it is not its nature either to moderate what it does; for it is somehow accustomed immutably to establish toward humility, by the excess of things not present revealing more the want, and making known the nakedness; and by the display of things beyond worth, instilling a stricter sense of things according to worth, whenever having taken hold of the depth of the soul, it should make one see the magnitude of what is unfitting, without veil; which indeed having especially suffered, by the clear manifestation of your prayers, I have touched the divine ordinances, which the word of the economy beyond understanding has seen fit providentially to preserve and to set before those after my measure who need and require hand-leading.\n\nAnd shortly after. At any rate, then, of the synodical chapters of the now most holy Pope, in as many as you have written, those of the queen of cities laid hold; but on two only, of which the one concerns theology, that he says he said, \"The Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son\"; and the other concerns the divine incarnation, that he has written, \"That the Lord is apart from the ancestral sin as a man.\" And the first, they produced concordant usages of the Roman Fathers; and moreover also of Cyril of Alexandria, from the sacred treatise labored by him on the holy evangelist John.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":105,"ref":"p105","source":"ἐξ ὧν, οὐκ αἰτίαν τόν Υἱόν ποιοῦντας τοῦ Πνεύματος, σφᾶς αὐτούς ἀπέδειξαν· μίαν γάρ ἴσασιν Υἱοῦ καί Πνεύματος τόν Πατέρα αἰτίαν· τοῦ μέν κατά τήν γέννησιν· τοῦ δέ, κατά τήν ἐκπόρευσιν· ἀλλ᾿ ἵνα τό δι᾿ αὐτοῦ προϊέναι δηλώσωσι· καί ταύτῃ τό συναφές τῆς οὐσίας καί ἀπαράλλακτον παραστήσωσι.\n\nΤῷ δέ δευτέρῳ, μηδεμιᾶς χρήζουσι τό παράπαν ἀπολογίας. Ποίᾳ γάρ ἐν τούτῳ ἀμφισβήτησις· εἰ καί τοῖς προφασιζομένοις νομίζεται διά τό δύστροπον. Ὅμως δ᾿ οὖν ἐξεδυσώπησαν, εἰπόντες «Μήτε τήν κατά νοῦν ἔχειν ἁμαρτίαν, καθ᾿ ἥν πρωτοπαθήσας φαίνεταί πως ὁ Ἀδάμ, μήτε τήν ἐξ αὐτῆς προϊοῦσαν διά σώματος πρᾶξιν τοῦ κακοῦ καί ἐνέργειαν».\n\nΟὕτοι μέν οὖν ταῦτα, περί ὧν οὐκ εὐλόγως ἀνεκλήθησαν· ἐκεῖνοι δέ περί ὧν καί μάλα δικαίως, οὐδεμίαν μέχρι καί νῦν πεποίηνται τήν ἀπολογίαν, ὅτι μηδέ τήν παρεισαχθέντων τῶν ὑπ᾿ αὐτῶν ἐκβολήν. Μεθερμηνεύειν δέ τά οἰκεῖα, τοῦ τάς ὑποκλοπάς χάριν διαφυγεῖν τῶν ὑποπιπτόντων κατά τήν ὑμετέραν κέλευσιν, παρεκάλεσα τούςῬωμαίους· πλήν ἔθους κεκρακηκότος οὕτω ποιεῖν καί στέλλειν, οὐκ οἶδα τυχόν εἰ πιστεῖεν. Ἄλλως τε καί τό μή οὕτως δύνασθαι διακριβοῦν ἐν ἄλλῃ λέξει σέ καί φωνῇ τόν ἑαυτῶν νοῦν ὥσπερ ἐν τῇ ἰδίᾳ καί θρεψαμένῃ, καθάπερ οὖν καί ἡμεῖς ἐν τῇ καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς τόν ἡμέτερον. Γενήσεται δέ πάντως αὐτοῖς, πείρᾳ τήν ἐπήρειαν μαθοῦσι, καί ἡ περί τούτου φροντίς. Τῷ δέ περί οὐσίας καί φύσεως, ὑποστάσεώς τε δή καί προσώπου, καί τῶν καθεξῆς κεφαλαίων, ἐνέτυχον σχέδει Θεοδώρου τοῦ τῆς Φαράν· καί ὡς ἐν εἰσαγωγῆς τρόπῳ τυχόν οὐκ ἀσυντελοῦσιν·","english":"From these things, they have shown themselves not to make the Son a cause of the Spirit; for they know the Father to be one cause of the Son and of the Spirit—of the one according to generation, of the other according to procession—but so that they might make clear the going forth through him, and thereby set forth the conjunction of essence and the invariability.\n\nBut to the second, they need no defense at all. For what dispute is there in this, even if it is thought so by those who make pretexts because of their perversity? Nevertheless, they have won them over, saying, \"Neither to have the sin according to the mind, according to which Adam appears in some way to have first suffered, nor the action and operation of evil proceeding from it through the body.\"\n\nThese men, then, said these things, concerning which they were not reasonably recalled; but those men, concerning which they were most justly so, have made no defense up to now, because not even the expulsion of the things introduced by them. But I asked the Romans to translate their own writings, in order to escape the thefts of those who fall under them according to your command; except that, since custom has prevailed to do so and to send, I do not know whether perhaps they would believe it. And besides, the fact that they cannot so accurately distinguish their own meaning in another diction and voice as in their own and the one that nurtured them, just as we also in our own [distinguish] our own. And it will certainly come to them, when they have learned the attack by experience, and the concern about this. But I encountered the work of Theodore of Pharan on essence and nature, and indeed on subsistence and person, and the following chapters; and as in the manner of an introduction, perhaps they are not without usefulness.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":106,"ref":"p106","source":"ἐν δέ τῷ περί προσώπου καί τῆς ὑποστάσεως λόγῳ, οὐ τοῖς περί τούτων κανόσι μᾶλλον, ἤ ἑαυτῷ φαίνεται στοιχήσας πως, ὑποστατικήν λέγοντι τήν ἐνέργειαν· ὅν καί τῆς οἰκείας δόξης καθηγητήν καί συνήγορον, οἱ τῆς ἐναντίας προβάλλονται· τήν πᾶσαν ἐξ αὐτοῦ καί τῶν αὐτοῦ ῥημάτων σχεδόν τυπώσαντές τε καί ὑπαγορεύσαντες Ἔκθεσιν. Καί γάρ κατά ταῦτα λόγον συνεσκίασέ πως καί ἡμαύρωσε, τῷ προσώπῳ δεδωκώς ὡς προσώπῳ τήν χαρακτηρίζουσαν τήν φύσιν ἐνέργειαν· οὐχί τόν πῶς καί ὁποῖον τῆς κατ᾿ αὐτήν ἐκβάσεως τρόπον· καθ᾿ ἥν ἡ διαφορότης τῶν τε πραττόντων καί τῶν πραττομένων γνωρίζεται, κατά φύσιν, ἤ παρά φύσιν ἐχόντων. Ὡς γάρ τι ὤν προηγουμένως, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχ ὥς τις ἕκαστος ἡμῶν ἐνεργεῖ· τουτέστιν, ὡς ἄνθρωπος· ὡς δέ τις, οἷον Παῦλος ἤ Πέτρος, τόν τῆς ἐνεργείας σχηματίζει τρόπον, ἐνδόσει τυχόν ἤ ἐπιδόσει, οὕτως ἤ ἐκείνως ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ κατά γνώμην τυπούμενος. Ὅθεν ἐν μέν τῷ τρόπῳ τό παρηλλαγμένον τῶν προσώπων κατά τήν πρᾶξιν γνωρίζεται· ἐν δέ τῷ λόγῳ, τό τῆς φυσικῆς ἀπαράλλακτον ἐνεργείας. Οὐ γάρ ὁ μέν μᾶλλον, ὁ δέ ἧττόν ἐστιν ἐνεργής ἤ λογικός· ἀλλ᾿ ἐπίσης ἅπαντες τόν τε λόγον ἔχομεν καί τήν τούτου κατά φύσιν ἐνέργειαν. Μᾶλλον δέ καί ἧττον· καί οὕτως ἤ ἐκείνως δίκαιος ἤ ἄδικος, τῷ τόν μέν τοῖς κατά φύσιν ἕψεσθαι πλέον· τόν δέ τούτων ἀφέψεσθαι. Τηρητέον δέ δι᾿ ἀκριβείας τούς περί τι παρεγκληθέντας. Ἐπειδή βιάζονταί πως καί ἕλκουσι τούς τε τῶν πραγμάτων ὅρους, καί τούς κανόνας πρός τό","english":"But in the account concerning person and hypostasis, he appears to have followed not so much the rules about these things as, in some way, himself, when he says that the activity is hypostatic. And those of the opposite party put him forward as a leader and advocate of their own opinion, since they have shaped and dictated almost the whole Exposition from him and from his words. For in accordance with these things he has in some way obscured and dimmed the account, having given to the person as person the activity that characterizes the nature—not the manner of how and of what sort its outcome is, according to which the difference both of those who act and of the things that are done is known, whether they are according to nature or contrary to nature. For as being something primarily, but not as each one of us acts—that is, as a man—but as a particular one, such as Paul or Peter, he forms the manner of the activity, perhaps by remission or by intensification, being thus or so shaped by him according to his judgment. Hence in the manner the difference of persons in action is known; but in the account, the invariability of natural activity. For one is not more and another less active or rational; but all equally have both the account and its activity according to nature. But more and less—and thus or so just or unjust—by the one following the things according to nature more, and the other departing from them. But those who have been accused concerning something must be guarded with precision. Since they in some way force and drag both the definitions of things and the rules toward the","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":107,"ref":"p107","source":"δοκοῦν, ὥσπερ ἐξ ἐπιτάγματος μεταφέροντες, ἵνα τά οἰκεῖα δῆθεν ἐκ παρατροπῆς ὑποστήσωσι.\n\nΤάς σταλείσας τετράδας, καίτοι μή κατά σχολήν μετιών, λέγω δή τάς περί ψυχῆς καί τῶν λοιπῶν κεφαλαίων, τό δοκοῦν περί αὐτῶν γνωρίζω. Τό γάρ τάχος τοῦ ἐξορμῶντος, οὐ συνεχώρει ταύτας διελθεῖν· ὅτι καί μετά πλείους ἡμέρας τοῦ καταλαβεῖν ἐν τῷ Βυζακίῳ, πρός τήν ἐμήν γέγονεν οὐδενίαν ἐν Καρθαγένῃ. Λοιπόν δέ καί εἰργομένῳ μοι κἀκ τῆς προσούσης μοι τῶν ὀμμάτων ὡς εἰπεῖν ἀδρανείας· ἐπεί καί τήν περί τούτων κέλευσιν ὑμῶν, ὡς τάχος ἠβουλόμην πληρῶσαι, πέπομφα. Ἡ κριθεῖσα τῆς μεταγραφῆς χάριν τοῦ τείχους οἰκονομία, τοῖς ἁγιωτάτοις ὑμῖν, τοῦ τήν ἑρμηνείαν ἔχοντος τοῦ εὐαγγελιστοῦ Ἰωάννου, κἀμοί τῷ ἡμετέρῳ λίαν πέφανται προσηνής, ὡς μή καταδρομῆς αἰτία γένηται κατά τοῦ ἐκθεμένου, τοῖς πάντα κατά τό δοκοῦν μεταλλεύειν οὐ καλῶς πειρωμένοις. ΕΚ ΤΗΣ ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗΣ ΤΗΣ ΕΝ ΡΩΜΗ ΓΡΑΦΕΙΣΗΣ Ἐκ τῆς ἐπιστολῆς τῆς ἐνῬώμῃ γραφείσης.","english":"...as it seems, transferring them as if by command, so that they might establish their own views, ostensibly by a distortion.\n\nAs for the fourfold sets that were sent, although I am not pursuing them at leisure—I mean the chapters concerning the soul and the remaining heads—I make known my view concerning them. For the speed of the one who dispatched them did not permit me to go through them; since even after many days, upon reaching Byzacium, it came to my utter insignificance in Carthage. Moreover, since I am also hindered by the weakness of my eyes, so to speak, that is upon me—for I sent your command concerning these matters as quickly as I wished to fulfill it. The arrangement decided upon for the sake of transcribing the wall has appeared very agreeable both to your most holy selves, who possess the interpretation of the evangelist John, and to me, my own self, so that it may not become a cause of attack against the one who set it forth, for those who attempt to mine everything according to their own view not well. From the letter written in Rome. From the letter written in Rome.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":108,"ref":"p108","source":"Ταῦτα γάρ τά πέρατα τῆς οἰκουμένης, καί οἱ τόν Κύριον εἰλικρινῶς καί ὀρθοδόξως πανταχοῦ γῆς ὀμολογοῦντες, ὥσπερ εἰς ἥλιον φωτός ἀϊδίου εἰς τήνῬωμαίων ἁγιωτάτην Ἐκκλησίαν καί τήν αὐτῆς ὁμολογίαν καί πίστιν, ἰθυτενῶς ἀποβλέπουσιν, ἐξ αὐτῆς τήν ἀπαστράπτουσαν αἴγλην προσδεχόμενοι, τῶν πατρικῶν καί ἁγίων δογμάτων, καθώς αἱ θεόληπτοι καί θεσπέσιοι εἰλικρινῶς καί πανευσεβῶς ἐξέθεντο ἅγιαι ἕξ σύνοδοι, ἐκφαντερικώτατα φάσκοντες τό σύμβολον τῆς πίστεως. Ἀπαρχῆς γάρ τῆς πρός ἡμᾶς καταβάσεως τοῦ σαρκωθέντος Θεοῦ Λόγου, μόνην κρηπῖδα καί θεμέλιον αἱ πᾶσαι πανταχοῦ τῶν Χριστιανῶν Ἐκκλησίαι, τήν αὐτόθι μεγίστην ἐκτήσαντό τε καί ἔχουσιν· ὡς οὐδαμῶς μέν κατισχυομένην κατά τήν αὐτήν τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἐπαγγελίαν, ὑπό ᾅδου πυλῶν· ἀλλ᾿ ἔχουσαν τάς κλεῖς τῆς εἰς αὐτόν ὀρθοδόξου πίστεως καί ὁμολογίας· καί τοῖς εὐσεβῶς προσερχομένοις ἀνοίγουσαν τήν ὄντως φύσει καί μόνην εὐσέβειαν· ἀποκλείουσαν δέ καί ἐμφράττουσαν πᾶν αἱρετικόν στόμα, λαλοῦν ἀδικίαν εἰς τό ὕψος. Καί γάρ ἅπερ αὐτός ὁ τῶν ὅλων δημιουργός καί Δεσπότης Κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, οἵ τε τούτου μαθηταί καί ἀπόστολοι, καί οἱ καθεξῆς ἅγιοι Πατέρες τε καί διδάσκαλοι καί μάρτυρες, ἱερουργηθέντες οἰκείοις ἔργοις τε καί λόγοις, ἀγῶσί τε καί ἱδρῶσι, καί πόνοις καί αἵμασι, καί τελευταῖον ἐξαισίοις θανάτοις διά τήν ἡμῶν τῶν εἰς αὐτόν πιστευόντων καθολικήν καί ἀποστολικήν Ἐκκλησίαν ἐθεμελίωσαν καί ᾠκοδόμησαν, διά δύο ῥημάτων ἀπονητί καί δίχα θανάτου (καμάτου), ὤ τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ μακροθυμίας καί ἀνοχῆς!","english":"For these are the ends of the inhabited world, and those who confess the Lord sincerely and orthodoxly everywhere on earth, as to a sun of everlasting light, look straight toward the most holy Church of the Romans and its confession and faith, receiving from it the flashing radiance of the paternal and holy doctrines, just as the six holy councils, divinely inspired and divinely uttered, sincerely and most piously set them forth, most manifestly declaring the symbol of the faith. For from the beginning of the descent toward us of God the Word made flesh, all the Churches of the Christians everywhere have acquired and hold it as their only foundation and cornerstone—the greatest Church there—as in no way overpowered, according to the Savior's own promise, by the gates of Hades, but holding the keys of the orthodox faith and confession in him, and opening to those who approach piously the truly natural and only piety, and shutting out and blocking every heretical mouth that speaks iniquity against the height. For the very things that the Creator and Master of all, our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and his disciples and apostles, and the holy Fathers and teachers and martyrs in succession, accomplished by their own works and words, struggles and sweats, toils and bloods, and finally by extraordinary deaths for the sake of our catholic and apostolic Church of those who believe in him, they founded and built; but by two words, without toil and without death—O the longsuffering and forbearance of God!","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":109,"ref":"p109","source":"καταλῦσαι σπουδάζουσι, καί ἀκυρῶσαι τό μέγα καί πάμφωτον καί πανύμνητον τῆς Χριστιανῶν ὀρθοδόξου θρησκείας μυστήριον. ΠΕΡΙ ΤΩΝ ΔΥΟ ΤΟΥ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ ΦΥΣΕΩΝ Περί τῶν δύο τοῦ Χριστοῦ φύσεων.\n\nα´. Ὁ Ἄρειος τάς τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις ὁμολογεῖ· ἀλλά τήν Μονάδα ἀρνεῖται· καί οὐ λέγει ὁμοούσιον τήν ἁγίαν Τριάδα. Ὁ δέ Σαβέλλιος, τήν Μονάδα ὁμολογεῖ· ἀλλά τήν Τριάδα ἀρνεῖται· τόν γάρ αὐτόν λέγει Πατέρα καί Υἱόν καί ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· ἡ δέ Ἐκκλησία τοῦ Θεοῦ, καί τήν Μονάδα ὁμολογεῖ, καί τήν Τριάδα κηρύττει. Ὁ Μακεδόνιος ὅμοια τῷ Ἀρείῳ πρεσβεύει· τό γάρ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα, κτίσμα ὑποτίθησιν· ἡ δέ Ἐκκλησία, ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί καί τῷ Υἱῷ τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον ἀνακηρύττει, καί Θεόν πῶς διαβεβαιοῖ. Ὁμοίως καί ἐπί τοῦ ἑνός τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος,\n\nΝεστόριος τήν φυσικήν διαφοράν λέγει· ἀλλά τήν ἕνωσιν οὐχ ὁμολογεῖ, οὐ γάρ λέγει ταύτην καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν γεγονέναι. Ὁ δέ Εὐτυχής, τήν μέν ἕνωσιν ὁμολογεῖ· τήν δέ κατ᾿ οὐσίαν διαφοράν ἀρνεῖται, καί σύγχυσιν τῶν φύσεων εἰσάγει. Ἡ δέ Ἐκκλησία, καί τήν καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν ἕνωσιν διά τό ἀδιαίρετον, καί τήν κατ᾿ οὐσίαν διαφοράν διά τό ἀσύγχυτον πρεσβεύει.","english":"they strive to destroy and to invalidate the great and all-radiant and all-praised mystery of the orthodox religion of the Christians. ON THE TWO NATURES OF CHRIST. On the two natures of Christ.\n\n1. Arius confesses the three hypostases, but denies the Monad, and does not call the holy Trinity consubstantial. But Sabellius confesses the Monad, but denies the Trinity; for he says that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are the same. But the Church of God both confesses the Monad and proclaims the Trinity. Macedonius holds the same opinion as Arius; for he supposes the Holy Spirit to be a creature. But the Church proclaims the Holy Spirit consubstantial with the Father and the Son, and confirms in what way he is God. Likewise also concerning the one of the holy Trinity,\n\nNestorius speaks of the natural difference, but does not confess the union, for he does not say that it has come about according to hypostasis. But Eutyches confesses the union, but denies the difference according to essence, and introduces a confusion of the natures. But the Church believes both the union according to hypostasis because of the indivisibility, and the difference according to essence because of the unconfusedness.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":110,"ref":"p110","source":"β´. Πῶς ἡ ἄκρα ἕνωσις καί ταυτότητα ἔχει, καί ἑτερότητα; Ἤ ταυτότητα οὐσιῶν καί ἑτερότητα προσώπων, καί τό ἔμπαλιν. Οἷον ἐπί τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος, ταυτότης μέν ἐστιν οὐσίας· ἑτερότης δέ προσώπων· μίαν γάρ οὐσίαν ὁμολογοῦμεν· τρεῖς δέ ὑποστάσεις. Ἐπί δέ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, ταυτότης μέν ἐστι προσώπου· ἑτερότης δέ οὐσιῶν· ἑνός γάρ ὄντος ἀνθρώπου, ἄλλης οὐσίας ἐστίν ἡ ψυχή, καί ἄλλης ἡ σάρξ. Ὁμοίως δέ καί ἐπί τοῦ Δεσπότου Χριστοῦ· ταυτότης μέν ἐστι, προσώπου· ἑτερότης δέ, οὐσιῶν· ἑνός γάρ ὄντος προσώπου, ἤτοι ὑποστάσεως, ἑτέρας οὐσίας ἐστίν ἡ θεότης, καί ἑτέρας ἡ ἀνθρωπότης. Ὥσπερ γάρ ἀδύνατον τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος ὁμολογεῖν μέν τήν ἕνωσιν, μή ἐκφωνεῖν δέ τήν διαφοράν· οὕτως ἀνάγκη πᾶσα ἐπί τοῦ ἑνός τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος, καί τήν ἕνωσιν καί τήν διαφοράν κηρύττειν. γ´. Ὥσπερ γάρ οὐ διά τῶν αὐτῶν σημαίνεται λέξεων, ἤ τε διαφορά καί ἡ ἕνωσις ἐπί τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος· ἀλλά διά τοῦ μέν λέγειν τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις, ἡ διαφορά· διά τοῦ ὁμολογεῖν δε μίαν οὐσίαν, ἡ ἕνωσις ὁμολογεῖται· οὕτω καί ἐπί τοῦ ἑνός τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος· διά μέν τοῦ γνωρίζειν τάς δύο φύσεις, ἡ διαφορά· διά δέ τοῦ κηρύττειν μίαν ὑπόστασιν σύνθετον, ἡ ἕνωσις ὁμολογεῖται. δ´. Ὥσπερ γάρ Ἄρειον ἀναθεματίζομεν, οὐχ ὡς κηρύττοντα ἐπί τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος τήν καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν διαφοράν· ἀλλ᾿ ὡς μή λέγοντα τήν φυσικήν ἕνωσιν· οὕτω καί Νεστόριον ἀναθεματίζομεν, οὐχ ὡς γνωρίζοντα τήν φυσικήν διαφοράν ἐπί τοῦ Χριστοῦ· ἀλλ᾿ ὡς μή λέγοντα τήν καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν ἕνωσιν. ε´. Ὥσπερ Σαβέλλιον ἀναθεματίζομεν, οὐχ ὡς κηρύττοντα ἐπί τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος τήν φυσικήν ἕνωσιν·","english":"2. How does the supreme union have both identity and otherness? Or identity of essences and otherness of persons, and the reverse. For example, in the Holy Trinity there is identity of essence and otherness of persons; for we confess one essence and three hypostases. In the case of man, there is identity of person and otherness of essences; for since he is one man, the soul is of one essence and the flesh of another. Likewise also in the case of the Lord Christ: there is identity of person and otherness of essences; for since the person, that is the hypostasis, is one, the divinity is of one essence and the humanity of another. For just as it is impossible to confess the union of the Holy Trinity without proclaiming the difference, so in the case of the one [member] of the Holy Trinity it is entirely necessary to preach both the union and the difference. 3. For just as the difference and the union in the Holy Trinity are not signified by the same words—but the difference by saying three hypostases, and the union by confessing one essence—so also in the case of the one [member] of the Holy Trinity: the difference by recognizing the two natures, and the union by proclaiming one composite hypostasis. 4. For just as we anathematize Arius, not as proclaiming difference according to hypostasis in the Holy Trinity, but as not affirming the natural union; so also we anathematize Nestorius, not as recognizing the natural difference in Christ, but as not affirming the union according to hypostasis. 5. Just as we anathematize Sabellius, not as proclaiming the natural union in the Holy Trinity,","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":111,"ref":"p111","source":"ἀλλ᾿ ὡς μή λέγοντα τήν καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν διαφοράν· οὕτως Εὐτυχέα ἀναθεματίζομεν, οὐχ ὡς μή λέγοντα τήν καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν ἕνωσιν ἐπί τοῦ Χριστοῦ· ἀλλ᾿ ὡς μή γνωρίζοντα τήν φυσικήν διαφοράν; στ´. Τήν κάθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν διαφοράν ἐπί τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος, καί τήν φυσικήν διαφοράν ἐπί τοῦ ἑνός τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος, οὐκ ἐν αἰσθήσει χρή λέγειν, ἀλλά νοῆσαι τοῖς τῆς διανοίας ὄμμασιν. Καί πῶς, ἐπί μέν τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος ἐκφωνεῖτε τάς τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις διά τήν καθ' ὑπόστασιν διαφοράν· ἐπί δέ τοῦ ἑνός τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος, οὐκ ἐκφωνεῖτε δύο φύσεις ἐν μιᾷ ὑποστάσει, διά τήν φυσικήν διαφοράν; ζ´. Ὥσπερ γιά τό ὁμοούσιον τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος, μίαν οὐσίαν· καί διά τό ἑτεροϋπόστατον τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις λέγεις· οὕτω διά τό ἑτερούσιον τοῦ Λόγου καί τῆς σαρκός, δύο οὐσίας· καί διά τό μή ἰδιοϋπόστατον, μίαν ὑπόστασιν λέγε. η´. Ὥσπερ ἐπί τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος τήν μίαν οὐσίαν, οὐκ ἐπί συγχύσει τῶν τριῶν ὑποστάσεων λέγομεν· οὔτε τάς τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις ἐπί ἀναιρέσει τῆς μιᾶς οὐσίας· οὕτως ἐπί τοῦ ἑνός τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος, τήν μίαν ὑπόστασιν, οὐκ ἐπί συγχύσει τῆν δύο φύσεων αὐτοῦ λέγομεν· οὔτε τάς δύο φύσεις, ἐπί διαιρέσει τῆς μιᾶς ὑποστάσεως.","english":"But not as if it did not speak of the difference according to person; thus we anathematize Eutyches, not as if he did not speak of the union according to person in Christ, but as one who does not recognize the natural difference. 6. The difference according to person in the Holy Trinity, and the natural difference in the one [Person] of the Holy Trinity, one must not speak of by sense perception, but understand with the eyes of the mind. And how is it that in the Holy Trinity you proclaim the three persons because of the difference according to person, but in the one [Person] of the Holy Trinity you do not proclaim two natures in one person because of the natural difference? 7. Just as because of the consubstantiality of the Holy Trinity you speak of one essence, and because of the distinctness of persons, three persons, so because of the difference of essence of the Word and the flesh, two essences, and because of the non-self-subsistence, speak of one person. 8. Just as in the Holy Trinity we speak of the one essence not to the confusion of the three persons, nor the three persons to the abolition of the one essence, so in the one [Person] of the Holy Trinity we speak of the one person not to the confusion of his two natures, nor the two natures to the division of the one person.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":112,"ref":"p112","source":"θ´. Ὁ μή λέγων ἐπί Χριστοῦ διά τήν τῶν φύσεων διαφοράν, τήν καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν ἕνωσιν, Νεστοριανός ἐστι· καί ὁ μή λέγων ἐν τῇ καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν ἑνώσει τήν φυσικήν διαφοράν, Εὐτυχιανιστής ἐστι· ὁ δέ καί τήν καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν ἕνωσιν, καί τήν φυσικήν διαφοράν κηρύττων ἐπί τοῦ ἑνός τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος, τήν βασιλικήν καί ἀμώμητον πίστιν κρατεῖ.\n\nι´. Ὁ τοίνυν λέγων καί διαφοράν καί ἕνωσιν ἐπί τοῦ Χριστοῦ, οὔτε τήν διαφοράν ἀναιρεῖ, οὔτε τήν ἕνωσιν συγχέει. Καί γάρ ὁ θεῖος Κύριλλος ἀναθεματίζει\n\nτούς διά τήν διαφοράν ἀναιροῦντας τήν καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν ἕνωσιν· καί ἡ οἰκουμενική σύνοδος ἀναθεματίζει τούς διά τήν καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν ἕνωσιν ἀναιροῦντας τήν φυσικήν διαφοράν ἐπί τοῦ ἑνός τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος. ΟΡΟΙ ΔΙΑΦΟΡΟΙ Ὅροι διάφοροι.\n\nΟὐσία καί φύσις, ταυτόν· ἄμφω γάρ κοινόν καί καθόλου, ὡς κατά πολλῶν καί διαφερόντων τῷ ἀριθμῷ κατηγορούμενα, καί μήποτε καθοτιοῦν ἑνί προσώπῳ περιοριζόμενα.\n\nἘνυπόστατόν ἐστι, τό κατά τήν οὐσίαν κοινόν, ἤγουν τό εἶδος, τό ἐν τοῖς ὑπ᾿ αὐτό ἀτόμοις πραγματικῶς ὑφιστάμενον, καί οὐκ ἐπινοίᾳ ψιλῇ θεωρούμενον. Ἄλλως, ἤ πάλιν ἐνυπόστατόν ἐστι, τό ἄλλῳ διαφόρῳ κατά τήν οὐσίαν εἰς ἑνός σύστασιν προσώπου καί μιᾶς γένεσιν ὑποστάσεως, συγκείμενόν τε καί συνυφιστάμενον, καί οὐδαμῶς καθ᾿ αὐτό γνωριζόμενον. Ὁμοούσιόν ἐστι τό τῆς αὐτῆς οὐσίας ἄλλῳ τυγχάνον, διάφορον δέ πρός τό αὐτό κατά τήν ὑπόστασιν ὄν· ὡς ἐπί τε ἀνθρώπου καί τῶν ἄλλων ἔχει εἰδῶν. Εἴ τι οὖν ἄλλῳ ταυτόν ὑπάρχει κατά τήν οὐσίαν, οὐ ταυτόν ὑπάρχει τῷ αὐτῶ καί κατά τήν ὑπόστασιν·","english":"9. He who does not say that in Christ, because of the difference of the natures, there is a union according to hypostasis, is a Nestorian; and he who does not say that in the union according to hypostasis there is a natural difference, is a Eutychian; but he who proclaims both the union according to hypostasis and the natural difference in the one of the holy Trinity, holds fast the royal and blameless faith.\n\n10. He, then, who speaks of both difference and union in Christ, neither destroys the difference nor confuses the union. For the divine Cyril anathematizes those who, because of the difference, destroy the union according to hypostasis; and the ecumenical council anathematizes those who, because of the union according to hypostasis, destroy the natural difference in the one of the holy Trinity. DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS. Different definitions.\n\nEssence and nature are the same; for both are common and universal, as being predicated of many things and things differing in number, and never in any way limited to one person.\n\nThat which is enhypostatic is the common according to essence, that is, the species, which really subsists in the individuals under it, and is not contemplated by mere thought. Otherwise, or again, that which is enhypostatic is that which, together with another different thing according to essence, is composed and co-subsists for the constitution of one person and the generation of one hypostasis, and is in no way known by itself. That which is consubstantial is that which is of the same essence as another, but is different from it in respect of hypostasis; as is the case with man and the other species. If, then, anything is the same as another according to essence, it is not the same as it also according to hypostasis;","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":113,"ref":"p113","source":"καί εἴ τι ἕν καί ἡνωμένον τῷ αὐτῶ τυγχάνει κατά τήν οὐσίαν, οὐχ ἕν οὔτε ἡνωμένον τῷ αὐτῷ τυγχάνει καί κατά τήν ὑπόστασιν· καί εἴ τι διαφοράν ἔχει πρός ἄλλο κατά τήν ὑπόστασιν, τοῦτο ἕνωσιν ἔχει πρός τό αὐτό κατά τήν οὐσίαν. Οὐσιώδης οὖν ἕνωσίς ἐστιν, ἡ τάς διαφόρους κατ᾿ ἀριθμόν καί πολλάς ὑποστάσεις εἰς μίαν καί τήν αὐτήν οὐσίαν συνάγουσα. Οὐσιώδης καί διαφορά τυγχάνει, λόγος καθ᾿ ὅν ἡ οὐσία, ἤγουν φύσις, ἀμείωτός τε καί ἄτρεπτος, ἄφυρτος ὁμοῦ καί ἀσύγχυτος διαμένει, καί τήν πρός ἄλλο κατ᾿ εἶδος ἕτερον εἰς μίαν ὑπόστασιν ποιουμένη σύνοδον, οὐδ᾿ ὅλως τῆς κατά φύσιν ἰδίας ἐξίσταται φύσεως.\n\nὙπόστασις καί πρόσωπον, ταυτόν· ἄμφω γάρ μερικόν τε καί ἴδιον, ὡς ἐφ᾿ ἑαυτῶν τήν περιγραφήν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἐν πλείοσι τήν κατηγορίαν φυσικῶς κεκτημένα.\n\nἘνούσιόν ἐστι τό μή μόνον ἐνθεωρούμενον ἔχον ἐφ᾿ ἑαυτοῦ τό τῶν ἰδιωμάτων ἄθροισμα, καθ' ὅ ἄλλο ἀπ᾿ ἄλλου γνωρίζεται, ἀλλά καί τό κοινόν τῆς οὐσίας πραγματικῶς κεκτημένον.","english":"And whatever is one and united to the same thing according to essence is not one nor united to the same thing also according to hypostasis; and whatever has a difference from another according to hypostasis, this has a union with the same according to essence. Essential union, therefore, is that which gathers the different in number and many hypostases into one and the same essence. Essential difference also is the principle according to which the essence, that is, the nature, remains without diminution and without change, unconfused and unmingled at once, and making the coming-together with another of a different species into one hypostasis, it does not at all depart from its own nature according to nature.\n\nHypostasis and person are the same; for both are particular and proper, as having their circumscription in themselves, but not naturally possessing their predication in many.\n\nThat is essential which has not only the aggregate of the properties contemplated in itself, according to which one is known from another, but also has the common [element] of the essence in reality.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":114,"ref":"p114","source":"Ὁμοϋπόστατόν ἐστι, τό εἰς μίαν καί τήν αὐτήν ὑπόστασιν ἄλλῳ συντεθειμένον· διάφορον δέ πρός τό αὐτό κατ᾿ οὐσίαν τυγχάνον· ὡς ἐπί τε ψυχῆς καί σώματος ἔχει, καί τῶν ἄλλων ὅσα φύσεως ἑτερότητι διαφέροντα, καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν ἥνωται. Εἴ τι οὖν ἄλλῳ καθ᾿ ἕνωσιν συντεθέν, ταυτόν ὑπάρχει κατά τήν ὑπόστασιν, τουτέστιν, ὑπόστασις μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ γέγονε μία, ἕτερον τῷ αὐτῷ κατά τήν οὐσίαν ἐστί. Καί εἴ τι ἕν καί ἡνωμένον ἄλλῳ τυγχάνει κατά τήν ὑπόστασιν, τοῦτο οὐχ ἕν οὔτε ὁμογενές ἐστι τῷ αὐτῷ καί κατά τήν οὐσίαν. Καί εἴ τι συντεθειμένον ἄλλῳ διαφοράν ἔχει κατά τήν οὐσίαν, τοῦτο ἕνωσιν ἔχει πρός τό αὐτό κατά τήν ὑπόστασιν. Ὑποστατική οὖν ἕνωσίς ἐστιν, ἤ τάς διαφόρους οὐσίας ἤγουν φύσεις εἰς ἕν πρόσωπον, καί μίαν καί τήν αὐτήν ὑπόστασιν συνάγουσά τε καί συνδέουσα. Ὑποστατική δέ διαφορά, τυγχάνει λόγος, καθ᾿ ὅν ἡ κατά τό ἄθροισμα τῶν ἐνθεωρουμένων ἰδιωμάτων τῷ κοινῷ τῆς οὐσίας ἑτερότης, τέμνουσα κατ᾿ ἀριθμόν ἄλλον ἀπ᾿ ἄλλου, τήν τῶν ἀτόμων ποιεῖται πληθύν. Σχετική ἕνωσίς ἐστι, ἡ τάς διαφόρους γνώμας εἰς ἕν συνάγουσα θέλημα. Σχετική δέ διαφορά ἐστιν ἡ τό ἕν θέλημα γνώμης ἑτερότητι διατέμνουσα κίνησις.","english":"That which is co-hypostatic is that which has been composed with another into one and the same hypostasis, while being different from it according to essence; as is the case with soul and body, and all other things that, differing by the otherness of nature, are united according to hypostasis. If, then, anything has been composed with another by union, it is the same according to hypostasis—that is, it has become one hypostasis with it—and it is other than the same thing according to essence. And if anything is one and united to another according to hypostasis, this is not one nor of the same kind as the same thing also according to essence. And if anything composed with another has a difference according to essence, this has a union with the same thing according to hypostasis. Hypostatic union, then, is that which gathers together and binds the different essences, that is, natures, into one person and one and the same hypostasis. Hypostatic difference is the principle according to which the otherness, in relation to the common essence, of the aggregate of the properties contemplated in it, dividing one from another by number, produces the multitude of individuals. Relative union is that which gathers different opinions into one will. Relative difference is the motion that divides the one will by the otherness of opinion.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":115,"ref":"p115","source":"Σχετική ἕνωσίς ἐστι, φιλική συνδιάθεσις, ἤ θελημάτων ὁμονοητική σύμπνοια καί ἐπίνευσις. Σχετική διαφορά ἐστι, γνώμης ἑτερότης, ἤ θελημάτων ἀνομοιότης, ἤ διαίρεσις διαθέσεως.\n\nΣυγχυτική ἕνωσίς ἐστιν, ἡ ἐξ ὑποστάσεων εἰς ὅλου τινός κατά σύνοδον γινομένη σύνθεσις, ἥ τις τήν τῶν μερῶν ἑαυτῆς μετά τήν ἕνωσιν ἐν εἴδει καί σχήματι, σωζομένην οὐκ ἔχει τό συνόλον ὕπαρξιν· ἀλλ᾿ ἠφανισμένην ὁμοῦ καί πεφυρμένην καί ἄγνωστον, καί τῶν κατ᾿ αὐτήν συνδεδραμηκότων οὐδεμίαν οὐδαμῶς κέκτηται διαφοράν, τήν οὐσιώδη τούτων ἰδιότητα διασημαίνουσαν. Διαίρεσίς ἐστι, τομή διαμπάξ ἀνά μέρος τιθεῖσά τε καί χωρίζουσα καί καθ᾿ ἑαυτήν θεωρεῖσθαι παρασκευάζουσα, κατά τε οὐσίαν καί ὑπόστασιν, τήν ἑκάστου πράγματος ὕπαρξιν.\n\nὙποστάσεως ἴδιόν ἐστι, τό καθ᾿ ἑαυτήν ὁρᾶσθαι, καί τῶν ὁμοειδῶν κατ᾿ ἀριθμόν διαστέλλεσθαι. Ἐνυποστάτου ἴδιόν ἐστι, ἤ τό μετ᾿ ἄλλου διαφόρου κατά τήν οὐσίαν ἐν ὑποστάσει γνωρίζεσθαι καθ᾿ ἕνωσιν ἄλυτον· ἤ τό ἐν ἀτόμοις φυσικῶς τυγχάνειν καθ' ὕπαρξιν.","english":"Relative union is a friendly co-disposition, or a concordant agreement and consent of wills. Relative difference is a diversity of opinion, or a dissimilarity of wills, or a division of disposition.\n\nConfusive union is the composition that comes about from hypostases into some whole by combination, which after the union does not have the existence of its whole preserved in species and shape, but rather has it vanished together and confounded and unknown, and it possesses in no way any difference of the things that have run together in it, which would signify their essential property. Division is a cutting that places and separates things throughout in some part and prepares them to be contemplated by themselves, according to both essence and hypostasis, the existence of each thing.\n\nIt is proper to a hypostasis to be seen by itself and to be distinguished in number from things of the same kind. It is proper to that which is enhypostatic either to be known with another different in essence in a hypostasis according to an indissoluble union, or to exist naturally in individuals according to existence.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":116,"ref":"p116","source":"Οὐσίας ἴδιον, τό ἐν πᾶσι καί πάντων φυσικῶς κατηγορεῖσθαί τε καί προφαίνεσθαι. Ἐνουσίου ἴδιον, τό πραγματικῶς ὑφίστασθαι, καί φέρειν ἁπάντων ἐφ᾿ ἑαυτοῦ τῶν προσωπικῶν ἴδιωμάτων τούς ἀληθεῖς χαρακτῆρας. Δύναμίς ἐστιν, ἔνυλος ἐνέργεια· ἐνέργεια, ἄϋλος δύναμις. Ἤ πάλιν, ἐνέργειά ἐστι δυνάμεως φυσικῆς ἀποτέλεσμα.\n\nΘέλημα φυσικόν ἐστιν, οὐσιώδης τῶν κατά φύσιν συστατικῶν ἔφεσις. Θέλημα γνωμικόν ἐστιν, ἡ ἐφ᾿ ἑκάτερα τοῦ λογισμοῦ αὐθαίρετος ὁρμή τε καί κίνησις.\n\nΔιαφορά ἐστι λόγος, καθ᾿ ὅν ἡ πρός ἄλληλα τῶν σημαινομένων ἑτερότης σώζεσθαι πέφυκε, καί τοῦ πῶς εἶναι δηλωτικός. Ταυτότης ἐστίν ἀπαραλλαξία, καθ᾿ ἥν ὁ τοῦ σημαινομένου λόγος τό πάντη κέκτηται μοναδικόν, μηδενί τρόπῳ διαφορᾶς γνωριζόμενον. ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΙΚΟΣ ΤΟΜΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΔΟΓΜΑΤΙΚΟΣ,... ΕΚΘΕΣΙΝ ΗΡΑΚΛΕΙΟΥ... ΣΕΡΓΙΟΥ...\n\nΠνευματικός τόμος καί δογματικός, ἀποδεικνύς τήν κατά καινοτομίαν γεγονυῖαν ἐπείσακτον ἔκθεσιν Ἡρακλείου τοῦ βασιλέως, ἐξ ὑποστολῆς Σεργίου τοῦ Κωνσταντινουπόλεως προέδρου, ἀπᾴδουσα μέν τῶν ἱερῶν Λογίων τε καί Πατέρων· συνᾴδουσα δέ τοῖς ἀνιέροις αἱρετικοῖς τοῖς τήν τε σύγχυσιν ἄμα, καί τήν διαίρεσιν τερατολογοῦσιν ἐπί τοῦ κατά Χριστόν τόν Θεόν ἡμῶν μυστηρίου. Γραφεῖσα ἀπόῬώμης πρός Στέφανον τόν ἁγιώτατον ἐπίσκοπον Δώρων, τελοῦντα ὑπό τόν ἅγιον καί ἀποστολικόν θρόνον τῆς ἁγίας Χριστοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν πόλεως. Νυκτί μέν τόν παρόντα βίον, μύλωνι δέ τήν τούτου κίνησιν, καί κλίνῃ τήν ἀνάπαυσιν ἀπεικάσας ὁ Κύριος, τῶν ἐν ἑκατέροις ὄντων (μύλωνί τε λέγω καί κλίνῃ) τόν μέν αἵρεσθαι, τόν δέ ἀφίεσθαι διωρίσατο.","english":"It is a property of essence to be predicated of all things and of each individually, and to manifest itself naturally. It is a property of that which has essence to subsist really and to bear in itself the true characters of all personal properties. Power is embodied activity; activity is bodiless power. Or again, activity is the result of natural power.\n\nNatural will is the essential desire of the constituents of nature. Gnomic will is the self-chosen impulse and movement of the reason toward either side.\n\nDifference is the principle according to which the otherness of the things signified toward one another is naturally preserved, and it is indicative of how they are. Identity is invariability, according to which the principle of the thing signified possesses the wholly unique, being known by no mode of difference. Spiritual and dogmatic tome,... an exposition of Heraclius... of Sergius...\n\nA spiritual and dogmatic tome, demonstrating that the novel and imported exposition of the emperor Heraclius, composed at the instigation of Sergius, president of Constantinople, is discordant with the sacred Oracles and Fathers, but concordant with the unholy heretics who monstrously assert both confusion and division concerning the mystery of Christ our God. Written from Rome to Stephen, the most holy bishop of the Dory, serving under the holy and apostolic throne of the holy city of Christ our God. The Lord, likening the present life to night, its motion to a mill, and rest to a bed, ordained that of those in either—I mean the mill and the bed—one is taken and the other left.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":117,"ref":"p117","source":"Καί αἵροντα (αἵρεσθαι) μέν τυχόν, τόν ἐκείνης μέν διά θεωρίας, ταύτης δέ διά πράξεως ἀπολυθέντα· καί μήτε περιγραφῇ διαστημάτων, ἐν οἷς ὁρᾶται τῶν ὁρωμένων ἡ κίνησις, μήτε θρύψει παθῶν, ἐν οἷς ἡ ἀνάπαυσις, ἐναπομείναντα κατά διάθεσιν· ἀφίεσθαι δέ, τόν τούτοις αὐθαιρέτως ἐνισχημένον, διά τό τῆς ψυχῆς φιλήδονόν τε καί φιλομετέωρον. Τί δέ κρατεῖσθαί με τόν ἡμέτερον δοῦλον πείρᾳ πρότερον, καθάπερ ἀκοῇ τήμερον μεμεθηκότες, θεολαμπεῖς καί πανάριστοι, πῶς ἄν οἷς γεγράφατε συμπαθῶς εἵλεσθέ γε πρός ὕφεσιν οὕτως ἀχθῆναι τοῦ\n\nπτωχοῦ τε καί πένητος, οἱ τοσοῦτον ἀπό γῆς ἀρθέντες κατά θεοῦ χάριν, καί ὑψωθέντες, ὥστε τόν βίον τῷ λόγῳ, καί τόν νοῦν τῷ Κυρίῳ τῶν τῇδε, καί ὑπέρ τῶν τῇδε διᾶραι· τῷ ἀρχετύπῳ τήν εἰκόνα προσοικειούμενοί τε καί ἑνίζοντες· ἤ μᾶλλον εἰπεῖν ἀληθέστερον, ἔνδειξιν ἐθέλοντες ὕψους ποιεῖσθαι τήν αὐθαίρετον ὕφεσιν τῆς ὑπερτάτης ὑμῶν καλλονῆς, ὡς ἄν τῷ περιόντι καί ἡμᾶς ἀγάγοιτε πρός τό μέτρον τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου, κενώσει τῇ πρός ἡμᾶς τό τῆς οἰκείας δόξης ἀπεριγράφως ὕψος ἐπιδεικνύντος· ἐφ᾿ ᾧ τε μεταπλάσαι τοσοῦτον ἡμᾶς ἐπιποθέστερον, ὅσῳπερ ἄν σαρκί δι' ἡμᾶς αὐτός ἑαυτόν ἐπλαστούργησε πρός τό ταπεινότερον· φύσει γενόμενος ἄνθρωπος δίχα τροπῆς καί συγχύσεως, ὁ διαφερόντως φιλάνθρωπος· ἐλλείψας οὐδέν εἰς πρόσληψιν τῶν ἡμετέρω, ἵνα μή καί ἑαυτῷ τήν χάριν, καί ἡμῖν ἐλλείψῃ τήν σωτηρίαν, οὐχ ὅλην τῇ φύσει διδούς, ὡς μή ὅλην τήν φύσιν λαβών· ἀλλά κατ᾿ ἐκεῖνο μειώσας ἐκείνην, καθ᾿ ὅπερ ἄν οὐ προσείληφε ταύτην. \"Τό γάρ ἀπρόσληπτον, ἀθεράπευτον», φησίν ὁ ἱέγας Γρηγόριος.","english":"And perhaps they are released—those who have been set free from the one through contemplation and from the other through action—and who have not remained in their disposition either by a circumscription of intervals, in which the movement of things seen is seen, nor by a breaking of passions, in which is rest; but those who have been willfully entangled in these things are let go, because of the soul's love of pleasure and love of lofty things. But why should our own servant be held fast, having first been tested by experience, just as we have learned today by report, O divinely illumined and all-excellent ones—how could you, in the things you have written, have compassionately chosen to be brought thus to the abasement of the poor and needy, you who have been so greatly lifted up from the earth by the grace of God and exalted, so as to pass through life by reason and the mind to the Lord of things here and on behalf of things here, assimilating and unifying the image to the archetype; or rather, to speak more truly, wishing to make the voluntary abasement of your supreme beauty a demonstration of height, so that by your abundance you might lead us also to the measure of God the Word, who in his emptying toward us shows forth the boundless height of his own glory; and for which reason he desires so much the more earnestly to refashion us, inasmuch as he himself for our sake molded himself in the flesh to the lowlier state, having become man by nature without change and without confusion, he who is surpassingly philanthropic; having fallen short in nothing for the assumption of what is ours, lest he should fall short both of grace for himself and of salvation for us, not giving the whole to the nature, as though not having taken the whole nature; but diminishing that one in that respect in which he had not assumed it. \"For what is not assumed is not healed,\" says the great Gregory.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":118,"ref":"p118","source":"Πῶς γάρ ὁ ὑπερούσιος δι᾿ ἡμᾶς σαρκωθείς Θεός Λόγος ἐκ Πνεύματος ἁγίου καί Μαρίας τῆς Ἀειπαρθένου καί Θεομήτορος προσλήψει σαρκός ψυχήν ἐχούσης τήν νοεράν τε καί λογικήν, νέος τε χρηματίσας φύσει καί γενόμενος ἄνθρωπος, καινουργήσει τόν πάλαι, μή δι᾿ ὅλου καί ὅλον λαβών, μόνης δίχα τῆς ἁμαρτίας, ἐξ ἧς ἡ παλαίωσις· καί δι᾿ ἥν ὁ θάνατος κατεκρίθη τῆς φύσεως, τροφήν ἔχων τοσοῦτον ἡμᾶς, ὡς ἐκείνης γεγεύμεθα, τοῦ ξύλου πικρῶς ἐμφορηθέντες τῆς παραβάσεως. Πῶς δέ κενωθείς ὁ αὐτός ἀναστήσει τόν πεπτωκότα, μή δι᾿ ὅλου καί ὅλον ἐξ αὐτῆς ἄκρας συλλήψεως ἑνώσας ἑαυτῷ καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν, δίχα μόνου τοῦ ὀλισθήματος, ἐξ οὗ τό σύντριμμα, καί δι᾿ ὅ τό ἐπιτίμιον; Ταύτῃ τοι ψυχήν νοεράν καί λογικήν μετά τοῦ συμφυοῦς αὐτῇ σώματος, τουτέστι τέλειον ἄνθρωπον παντός μώμου χωρίς προσλαβών, καί ἑνώσας ἑαυτῷ καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν, αὐτός ὁ ὑπέρ φύσιν Θεός, καί τήν αὐτῆς φυσικήν λαβών, εἶχε πάντως αὐτεξούσιον θέλησιν. Εἰ παραβάντες τήν ἐντολήν δίχα θελήσεως, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ θελήσεως δίχα, παρέβημεν, ἐδεόμεθα τῆς κατ᾿ αὐτήν ἰατρείας· τῇ προσλήψει τοῦ ὁμοίου τό ὅμοιον, αὐτοῦ δή τοῦ σαρκωθέντος Θεοῦ θεραπεύοντος· αὐτήν δ᾿ ἄν καί τήν ταύτης προσλαβών λογικήν τε καί ζωτικήν εἶχεν ἐνέργειαν· ᾗ τήν ἁμαρτίαν, ὡς εἴθε μή ποτ᾿ ἄν, λογισάμενοί τε καί ἐνεργήσαντες, ἐχρήζομεν τῆς κατ' αὐτήν σωτηρίας, τῇ προσλήψει μολυσμοῦ παντός ταύτην ἀποκαθαίροντος, καί ὅλην τῇ σαρκώσει θεουργοῦντος τήν ἡμετέραν φύσιν.","english":"For how would the God the Word, who is beyond being, having become incarnate for our sake from the Holy Spirit and from Mary the Ever-Virgin and Mother of God, by the assumption of flesh having a soul both intellectual and rational, having been called new by nature and having become man—how would he renew the old, if he had not taken it wholly and entirely, apart from sin alone, from which comes the oldness, and through which death was condemned upon our nature, having food to such a degree that we taste of it, having been bitterly filled with the tree of transgression? And how would the same one, having emptied himself, raise up the fallen, if he had not united it to himself wholly and entirely in hypostasis from the very first conception, apart from the slip alone, from which comes the crushing, and through which the penalty? In this way, then, having assumed a soul intellectual and rational together with the body naturally united to it—that is, a perfect man without any blemish—and having united it to himself in hypostasis, he himself, God beyond nature, also having taken its natural will, possessed it altogether self-determining. If, having transgressed the commandment without will—but not without will—we transgressed, we needed the healing according to it: by the assumption of the like, the like, the very God who became incarnate healing it. And he would also have taken its rational and life-giving activity; by which, having reasoned and acted upon sin—as would that it had never been—we needed the salvation according to it, by the assumption of that which purifies it from all defilement, and deifies our whole nature by the incarnation.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":119,"ref":"p119","source":"Εἰ γάρ οὐσιωδῶς ταῦτα ἔχουσαν ταύτην ἐδημιούργησε Θεός ὤν ὁ Λόγος, τήν τε θέλησίν φημι καί τήν ἐνέργειαν, καί τήν μέν αὐτεξούσιον, τήν δέ ἐνεργοῦσαν παρέστηκε, δῆλον ὡς οὕτω τήν φύσιν λαβών ἥνωσεν ἑαυτῷ τό καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν, ὡς ἀπαρχῆς ταύτην ἐδημιούργησε, τουτέστι θελητικήν φύσει καί ἐνεργητικήν· ἵνα μή τήν φύσιν μόνον παθοῦσαν, ἀλλ' οὐ καί τάς αὐτῆς ἐμφύτους δυνάμεις προσείληφεν, οὐδ᾿ ἄν τήν φύσιν προσείληφεν, ἀλλά τήν οἰκονομίαν ἐφάντασεν. Ἀδύνατον γάρ τήν ἡμετέραν, ἤ τῶν ὄντων ἑτέρων εἶναι ποτ᾿ ἄν ἤ ὀνομάζεσθαι φύσιν, τῶν αὐτῆς ἐμφύτων δίχα δυνάμεων, αἷς οὐσιωδῶς πᾶς χαρακτηρίζεσθαι πέφυκεν. Ὅθεν οὐκ ἀνεθέλητος ἡ ἡμετέρα φύσις ἐπεί μηδέ ἀνθρώπου. Οὔτε μήν ἀνενέργητος, ἐπεί μηδέ ἄψυχος. Εἰ δέ ἀνεθέλητος ἦν καί ἀνενέργητος, τό καθ'᾿ἡμᾶς, ὥς τισι τῶν πάλαι καί νῦν ἔδοξεν αἱρετικῶν, οὐδέ καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς ὅλως γέγονεν ὁ ὑπέρ ἡμᾶς, μή πιστούμενος τό ἡμέτερον τοῖς ἡμετέροις, καί οἷς αὐτός ἀρχῆθεν δημιουργήσας ἐχαρακτήρισε φυσικῶς, αὐτεξούσιον καί ἐνεργόν ποιήσας κατά φύσιν, τόν ἄνθρωπον. Καίτοι τούτων ἑκατέρων ἀναντιῤῥήτως προσειληφέναι πιστοῦται τήν δύναμιν, οἷς ἄνθρωπον δι᾿ ἡμᾶς εἰσάγει τόν ὑπερούσιον Λόγον θέλοντά τε καί ἐνεργοῦντα τῶν ἁγίων Εὐαγγελίων ἡ σύνταξις, πῆ μέν βοῶσα· Καί περί τετάρτην","english":"For if God the Word, being God, created this nature having these things substantially—I mean the will and the operation, the one self-determining and the other active—it is clear that he took the nature in this way and united it to himself according to hypostasis as he created it from the beginning, that is, a nature willing and active by nature; so that he did not take only the nature as passive, but did not also take its natural powers, nor would he have taken the nature, but would have made the economy a mere appearance. For it is impossible for our nature, or that of any other beings, ever to be or to be called a nature apart from its own innate powers, by which every nature is naturally characterized substantially. Hence our nature is not without will, since it is not without humanity. Nor is it without operation, since it is not without soul. But if it were without will and without operation, as it seemed to some of the heretics both of old and now, then he who is above us would not have become wholly according to us, not being believed to be ours by means of what is ours, and by those things with which he himself, having created from the beginning, naturally characterized man, making him self-determining and active by nature. And yet he is faithfully acknowledged to have undeniably taken the power of both of these, in that the composition of the Holy Gospels introduces the supersubstantial Word, who wills and acts, as a man for our sake, crying out in one place: And about the fourth","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":120,"ref":"p120","source":"φυλακήν τῆς νυκτός ἔρχεται πρός αὐτούς περιπατῶν ἐπί τῆς θαλάσσης, καί ἤθελε παρελθεῖν αὐτούς· πῆ δέ· Καί ἀναστάς ἐκεῖθεν εἰς τά ὅρια Τύρου καί Σιδῶνος, καί εἰσελθών εἰς οἰκίαν, οὐδένα ἤθελε γνῶναι, καί οὐκ ἠδυνήθη λαθεῖν· καί πάλιν· Ἐκεῖθεν ἐξελθόντες παρεπορεύοντο διά τῆς Γαλιλαίας, καί οὐκ ἤθελεν ἵνα τις γνῷ· καί· Τῇ ἐπαύριον ἤθελεν ἐλθεῖν εἰς τήν Γαλιλαίαν. Καί μετά ταῦτα πάλιν· Περιεπάτει ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἰς τήν Γαλιλαίαν, οὐ γάρ ἤθελε ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ περιπατεῖν, ὅτι ἐζήτουν αὐτόν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι ἀποκτεῖναι· καί· Ποῦ θέλεις ἑτοιμάσωμέν σοι τό πάσχα φαγεῖν; καί· Ἔδωκαν αὐτῷ ὄξος μετά χολῆς μεμιγμένον, καί γευσάμενος οὐκ ἠθέλησε πιεῖν. Ταῦτα γάρ, φημί δή τό Ἤθελε παρελθεῖν αὐτούς, καί, Ἤθελε ἐξελθεῖν, καί Οὐκ ἤθελε περιπατεῖν, καί Θέλειν φαγεῖν τό Πάσχα, καί μή θέλειν τό ὄξος πιεῖν, τήν καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς ἀνθρωπίνην αὐτοῦ πιστοῦται θέλησιν καί ἐνέργειαν. Οἷον τό μέν θέλειν καί οὐ θέλειν παρελθεῖν, ἤ φαγεῖν, ἤ βαδίζειν, ἤ πιεῖν, προδήλως ἐστί θέλησις, δι᾿ ἧς φύσει θελητικός ὤν ἐγνωρίζετο. Τῷ δέ γεύσασθαι καί φαγεῖν, καί ἐξελθεῖν, καί μεταβατικῶς πορεύεσθαι καί βαδίζειν, δηλαδή τήν ἐνέργειαν ἐνεργητικός ὑπάρχων ἐδείκνυτο, καθ᾿ ὅ φύσει δι᾿ ἡμᾶς ὕστερον γέγονεν ἄνθρωπος, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ καθ᾿ ὅπερ ὑπῆρχεν ἀνάρχως δι᾿ ἑαυτόν φύσει Θεός. Ἐπεί μηδέ πέφυκεν, ᾖ Θεός ἦν καί Θεοῦ κατά φύσιν Υἱός ὁ Λόγος, σωματικῶς ἐθέλειν τι καί ἐσθίειν, ἤ μεταβατικαῖς κινήσεσι τοπικῶς περιστέλλεσθαι, πανταχοῦ καί ὑπέρ τό πᾶν ἀπειράκις ἀπείρως ὑπάρχων·","english":"He comes to them walking on the sea during the night watch, and he wished to pass by them; and again: And rising up from there into the borders of Tyre and Sidon, and entering a house, he wished no one to know, and he could not escape notice; and again: Going out from there they passed through Galilee, and he did not wish anyone to know; and: On the next day he wished to go into Galilee. And after these things again: Jesus walked in Galilee, for he did not wish to walk in Judea, because the Jews were seeking to kill him; and: Where do you wish that we prepare for you to eat the Passover? and: They gave him vinegar mixed with gall, and having tasted it he did not wish to drink. For these things—I mean \"he wished to pass by them,\" and \"he wished to go out,\" and \"he did not wish to walk,\" and \"to wish to eat the Passover,\" and \"not to wish to drink the vinegar\"—confirm his human will and operation according to us. For instance, the willing and not willing to pass by, or to eat, or to walk, or to drink, is plainly a act of will, through which he was recognized as being by nature willing. But by tasting and eating, and going out, and traveling and walking in a way that involves change of place—that is, he was shown to be one who operates by his operation—insofar as by nature for our sake he later became man, but not insofar as he existed without beginning for his own sake as God by nature. Since it is not natural, insofar as he was God and the Word, Son of God by nature, to will something bodily and to eat, or to be encompassed locally by movements involving change of place, he who exists everywhere and beyond the whole, infinitely and unboundedly;","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":121,"ref":"p121","source":"οὕτω δι᾿ ἄν καί τήν θείαν αὐτόν καί πατρικήν ὑπερουσίως ἔχοντα θέλησιν καί ἐνέργειαν παριστῶσα (ἡ Γραφή) διδάσκει σαφῶς· Ὥσπερ ὁ Πατήρ ἐγείρει τούς νεκρούς, καί ζωοποιεῖ, οὕτω καί ὁ Υἱός οὕς θέλει ζωοποιεῖ. Κἀνταῦθα τοίνυν, τό μέν τούς νεκρούς ἐθέλειν ζωοποιεῖν, τήν τοῦ αὐτοῦ θεϊκήν μαρτύρεται θέλησιν· αὐτό δέ τό ζωοποιεῖν, τήν παντουργόν αὐτοῦ κυρίως ἐνέργειαν. Καί ἁπλῶς, εἴ τιπερ ἄλλο τοιοῦτο, τῆς ἐξῃρημένης τῶν ὄντων ἐξήρτηται φύσεως, εἰς τήν ταύτης, ὡς οἷόν τε, δήλωσιν. Ἀλλά τούτοις μέν αὐτός, ἑαυτόν διά τῶν αὐτοῦ μαθητῶν κατ' ἄμφω τάς αὐτοῦ φύσεις, ἐξ ὧν καί ἐν αἷς συνέστηκε, θελητικόν ὑπάρχοντα φύσει καί ἐνεργητικόν παρίστησι τῆς ἡμῶν σωτηρίας ὁ Λόγος· οἱ δέ μετ᾿ ἐκείνους ἐκείνων διάδοχοι, καί τῆς ἐν σαρκί τοῦ Λόγου θεοφανείας ἐκφάντορες, θεόκριτοι τῆς καθολικῆς Ἐκκλησίας Πατέρες, ἑκατέραν ὁμοίως τοῦ αὐτοῦ, τήν τε θείαν καί τήν ἀνθρωπίνην φύσιν· οὐ μόνον δέ, ἀλλά καί τήν θέλησιν καί τήν ἐνέργειαν κηρύττοντες, τάδε μεγαλοφώνως φασίν. Ὁ μέν γάρ τῆς ἀθανασίας ἐπώνυμος, ἐν τῷ περί σαρκώσεως καί Τριάδος λόγῳ· \"Καί ὅταν λέγῃ, Πάτερ, εἰ δυνατόν, παρελθέτω ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ τό ποτήριον τοῦτο, πλήν μή τό ἐμόν, ἀλλά τό σόν γενέσθω θέλημα· καί πάλιν· Τό μέν πνεῦμα πρόθυμον, ἡ δέ σάρξ ἀσθενής, δύο θελήματα ἐνταῦθα δείκνυσι· τό μέν ἀνθρώπινον, διά τήν ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκός, παραιτεῖται τό πάθος, τό δέ θεϊκόν αὐτοῦ πρόθυμον». Γρηγόριος δέ ὁ τῆς θεολογίας ἐπώνυμος ἐν τῷ περί Υἱοῦ δευτέρῳ λόγῳ·","english":"Thus the Scripture, presenting him as having the divine and paternal will and energy in a manner beyond being, teaches clearly: As the Father raises the dead and gives life, so also the Son gives life to whom he wills. Here, then, the willing to give life to the dead bears witness to his divine will, while the giving of life itself bears witness to his all-accomplishing energy in the proper sense. And simply put, whatever else of this kind belongs to the transcendent nature of beings, it serves for the demonstration of this nature, as far as possible. But by these things he himself, through his own disciples, in accordance with both of his natures—from which and in which he consists—presents himself as being by nature willing and active for our salvation, the Word. And those after them, their successors, and the expositors of the divine manifestation of the Word in the flesh, the God-chosen Fathers of the catholic Church, proclaiming alike both natures of the same one, the divine and the human—and not only that, but also the will and the energy—say these things with a great voice. For the one named for immortality, in his discourse on the incarnation and the Trinity: \"And when he says, Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless not my will but yours be done; and again: The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak—here he shows two wills: the human one, on account of the weakness of the flesh, declines the passion, while his divine one is willing.\" And Gregory, the one named for theology, in the second discourse on the Son:","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":122,"ref":"p122","source":"\" Ἕβδομον λεγέσθω, τό καταβεβηκέναι ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ τόν Υἱόν, οὐχ ἵνα ποιῇ τό θέλημα τό ἑαυτοῦ, ἀλλά τοῦ πέμψαντος. Εἰ μέν οὖν μή περί τοῦ κατεληλυθότος ταῦτα ἐλέγετο, εἴποιμεν ἄν ὡς περί τοῦ ἀνθρώπου τυποῦσθαι τόν λόγον, οὐ τοῦ κατά τόν Σωτῆρα νοουμένου. Τό γάρ ἐκείνου θέλημα, οὐδέ ὑπεναντίον Θεῷ θεωθέν ὅλον, ἀλλά τοῦ καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς· ὡς τοῦ ἀνθρωπίνου θελήματος, οὐ πάντως ἑπομένου τῷ θείῳ, ἀλλ᾿ ἀντιπίπτοντος ὡς τά πολλά καί ἀντιπαλαίοντος».\n\nὉ δέ τούτου ὁμώνυμος τῆς Νυσσαέων γενόμενος καθηγητής, μᾶλλον δέ τῆς οἰκουμένης Διδάσκαλος, ἐν τῷ εἰς τό Πάσχα λόγῳ· \"Προσέρχεται ὁ λεπρός διεῤῥυηκός ἤδη καί ἠχρειωμένος τῷ σώματι. Πῶς γίνεται ἐπί τούτῳ παρά τοῦ Κυρίου ἡ ἴασις; Ἡ ψυχή θέλει, τό σῶμα ἅπτεται, δι᾿ ἀμφοτέρων φεύγει τό πάθος. Ἀπῆλθε\n\nγάρ, φησίν, ἀπ' αὐτοῦ παραχρῆμα ἡ λέπρα». Καί αὖθις ὁ αὐτός ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ λόγῳ· \"Πάλιν τούς ἐν πολλοῖς χιλιάσι κατά τήν ἔρημον αὐτῷ προσεδρεύοντας, ἀπολῦσαι μέν νήστεις οὐ θέλει· ταῖς χερσί δέ διακλᾷ τούσς ἄρτους. Ὁρᾷς πῶς δι᾿ ἀμφοτέρων συμπαρομαρτοῦσα ἡ θεότης δημοσιεύεται, τῷ τε ἐνεργοῦντι σώματι, καί τῇ ὁρμῇ τοῦ ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ γινομένου θελήματος;\" Ἐν δέ τοῖς κατ᾿ Εὐνομίου τοῦ δυσσεβοῦς πονηθεῖσι δευτέρου λόγου· \"Πῶς ὁ Κύριος τόν κόσμον ἑαυτῶ καταλλάσσων, ἐπεμέριζε ψυχῇ τε καί σώματι τήν παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ γενομένην τοῖς ἀνθρώποις εὐεργεσίαν, θέλων μέν διά τῆς ψυχῆς, ἁπτόμενος δέ διά τοῦ σώματος;\" Καί αὖθις ὁ αὐτός ἐν τοῖς κατά Ἀπολιναρίου φησίν·","english":"Let this be said as the seventh: that the Son has come down from heaven, not to do his own will, but the will of the one who sent him. If, then, these things were not said concerning the one who has come down, we would say that the statement is being figuratively shaped concerning the man, not understood as concerning the Savior. For that one's will—deified wholly and not even opposed to God—is not the same as ours; it is as of the human will, which does not altogether follow the divine, but for the most part resists and struggles against it.\n\nBut the one of the same name who became the leader of the Nyssaens, or rather the Teacher of the inhabited world, in his discourse On the Pascha: \"The leper comes forward, already wasting away and useless in body. How does the healing come about for him from the Lord? The soul wills, the body touches, and through both the suffering flees. For, he says, the leprosy departed from him immediately.\" And again the same in the same discourse: \"Again, those in many thousands in the desert who sit at his feet, he does not wish to send away fasting; but with his hands he breaks the loaves. Do you see how the divinity, accompanying through both, is made public—both by the body that works and by the impulse of the will that comes to be in the soul?\" And in the second discourse of the works composed against the impious Eunomius: \"How does the Lord, reconciling the world to himself, distribute to soul and body the benefaction that came from him to men—willing through the soul, touching through the body?\" And again the same in the works against Apolinarius says:","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":123,"ref":"p123","source":"\" Ἐπειδή τοίνυν ἄλλο τό ἀνθρώπινον θέλημα, καί τό θεῖον ἄλλο, φθέγγεται μέν ὡς ἐκ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου τό τῇ ἀσθενείᾳ τῆς φύσεως πρόσφορον, ὁ τά ἡμέτερα πάθη οἰκειωσάμενος· ἐπάγει δέ τήν δευτέραν φωνήν, τό ὑψηλόν τε καί θεοπρεπές βούλημα κυρωθῆναι παρά τό ἀνθρώπινον ὑπέρ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου σωτηρίας θέλων. Ὁ γάρ εἰπών· μή τό ἐμόν, τό ἀνθρώπινον τῷ λόγῳ ἐσήμανε· προσθείς δέ, Τό σόν, ἔδειξε τό συναφές τῆς ἑαυτοῦ πρός τόν Πατέρα Θεότητος, ἧς οὐδεμία θελήματός ἐστι διαφορά, διά τήν κοινωνίαν τῆς φύσεως». Ὁ δέ τόν τῆς βασιλίδος καταφαιδρύνας θρόνον Ἰωάννης ὁ θεῖος, ἐν τῷ ἐπιγεγραμμένῳ λόγῳ, Πρός τούς ἀπολειφθέντας τῆς συνάξεως, καί τό ὁμοούσιον εἶναι τόν Υἱόν τῷ Πατρί ἀπόδειξις, οὗ ἀρχή, Πάλιν Ἱπποδρομίαι, καί πάλιν ὁ σύλλογος ἡμῖν ἐλάττων γέγονεν· \" Ὁρᾷς πῶς καί τήν προτέραν αὐτοῦ ἡλικίαν προανεφώνησεν; ἐρώτησον τοίνυν τό αἱρετικόν, Θεός δειλιᾷ καί ἀναδύεται; καί ὀκνεῖ καί λυπεῖται; κἄν εἴπῃ, ὅτι Ναί, ἀπόστηθι λοιπόν, καί στῆσον αὐτόν κάτω μετά τοῦ διαβόλου, μᾶλλον δέ κἀκείνου κατωτέρω, οὐδέ γάρ ἐκεῖνος τολμήσει τοῦτο εἰπεῖν. Ἐάν δέ εἴπῃ, ὅτι Οὐδέν τούτων ἄξιον Θεοῦ· εἰπέ, ὅτι Οὐκοῦν οὐδέ εὔχεται Θεός. Χωρίς γάρ τούτων, καί ἕτερον ἄτοπόν ἐστ᾿ ἄν τοῦ Θεοῦ τά ῥήματα ᾖ. Οὐτε γάρ ἀγωνιᾷν μόνον ἐμφαίνει τά ῥήματα, ἀλλά δύο θελήματα, ἕν μέν Υἱοῦ, ἕν δέ Πατρός, ἐναντία ἀλλήλοις. Τό γάρ εἰπεῖν· Οὐχ ὡς ἐγώ θέλω, ἀλλ' ὡς σύ, τοῦτο ἐμφαίνοντός ἐστι. Τοῦτο δέ οὐδέ ἐκεῖνοί ποτε συνεχώρησαν·","english":"Since, therefore, the human will is one thing and the divine will another, he speaks as from the human side that which is suited to the weakness of nature, having made our passions his own; and he brings forward the second utterance, willing that the lofty and God-befitting purpose be ratified, in preference to the human will, for the salvation of the world. For the one who said, \"Not my will,\" signified the human will by that word; and having added, \"Your will,\" he showed the conjunction of his own Godhead with the Father, of which there is no difference of will, because of the communion of nature. But John the divine, who made radiant the throne of the queen, in the discourse entitled \"To Those Left Behind from the Assembly,\" which is also a proof that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, whose beginning is \"Again the Hippodrome,\" and again our assembly has become smaller: \"Do you see how he also proclaimed his former age beforehand? Ask the heretic, then: Does God shrink and recoil? And does he hesitate and grieve? And if he says, 'Yes,' then stand aloof and set him down below with the devil, or rather lower even than he; for not even he will dare to say this. But if he says, 'None of these things is worthy of God,' say: 'Then neither does God pray.' For apart from these things, it would be another absurdity if the words were God's. For the words indicate not only agony, but two wills, one of the Son and one of the Father, contrary to each other. For to say, 'Not as I will, but as you will,' is the mark of one indicating this. But not even they ever conceded this.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":124,"ref":"p124","source":"ἀλλ' ἡμῶν ἀεί λεγόντων τό, Ἐγώ καί ὁ Πατήρ ἕν ἐσμέν, ἐπί τῆς δυνάμεως, ἐκεῖνοι ἐπί τῆς θελήσεως εἰρῆσθαι τοῦτό φασι, λέγοντες, Πατρός καί Υἱοῦ μίαν εἶναι βούλησιν. Εἰ τοίνυν Πατρός καί Υἱοῦ μία βούλησίς ἐστι, πῶς φησιν ἐνταῦθα· Πλήν οὐχ ὡς ἐγώ θέλω, ἀλλ' ὡς σύ; Ἄν μέν γάρ ἐπί τῆς θεότητος τό εἰρημένον ᾖ τοῦτο, ἐναντιολογία τις γίνεται, καί πολλά ἄτοπα ἐκ τούτου τίκτεται. Ἄν δέ ἐπί τῆς σαρκός, ἔχει λόγον τά εἰρημένα, καί οὐδέν γένοιτ᾿ ἄν ἔγκλημα. Οὐ γάρ τό μή θέλειν ἀποθανεῖν τήν σάρκα, κατάγνωσις. Φύσεως γάρ ἐστι τοῦτο. Αὐτός γάρ τά τῆς φύσεως ἅπαντα χωρίς ἁμαρτίας ἐπιδείκνυται, καί μετά πολλῶν τῆς περιουσίας, ὥστε τά τῶν αἱρετικῶν ἐμφράξαι στόματα. Ὅταν οὖν λέγῃ, Εἰ δυνατόν, παρελθέτω ἀπ' ἐμοῦ τό ποτήριον τοῦτο, καί, Οὐχ ὡς ἐγώ θέλω, ἀλλά ὡς σύ, οὐδέν ἕτερον δείκνυσιν, ἀλλ᾿ ἤ ὅτι σάρκα ἀληθῶς περιβέβληται φοβουμένην θάνατον. Τό γάρ φοβεῖσθαι θάνατον, καί ἀναδύεσθαι καί ἀγωνιᾷν, ἐκείνης ἐστί. Νῦν μέν οὖν αὐτήν ἐρήμην ἀφίησι, καί γυμνήν τῆς οἰκείας ἐνεργείας, ἵνα αὐτῆς δείξας τήν ἀσθένειαν, πιστώσηται αὐτῆς καί τήν φύσιν· νῦν δέ αὐτήν ἀποκρύπτει, ἵνα μάθῃς ὅτι οὐ ψιλός ἄνθρωπος ἦν. Ὥσπερ γάρ εἰ διά παντός τά ἀνθρώπινα ἐδείκνυτο, τοῦτο ἄν ἐνομίσθη· οὕτως εἰ διά παντός τά τῆς Θεότητος ἐπετέλει, ἠπιστήθη ἄν ὁ τῆς οἰκονομίας λόγος. Διά τοῦτο καί ποικίλλει, καί ἀναμίγνυσι καί τά ῥήματα καί τά πράγματα, ἵνα μήτε τῇ Παύλου Σαμωσατέως, μήτε τῇ Μαρκίωνος καί Μανιχαίου νόσῳ καί μανίᾳ παράσχῃ πρόφασιν. Διά τοῦτο καί προλέγει τό ἐσόμενον ὡς Θεός, καί ἀναδύεται πάλιν ὡς ἄνθρωπος».","english":"But since we are always saying, \"I and the Father are one,\" in respect of power, they say that this was spoken in respect of will, claiming that the Father and the Son have one will. If, then, the Father and the Son have one will, how does he say here: \"Nevertheless, not as I will, but as you\"? For if this saying were spoken in respect of the divinity, some contradiction arises, and many absurdities are begotten from this. But if it is in respect of the flesh, what is said is reasonable, and no accusation could arise. For not to wish to die is not a condemnation of the flesh. For this belongs to nature. For he demonstrates all the things of nature without sin, and with many of the things of abundance, so as to stop the mouths of the heretics. When, therefore, he says, \"If it is possible, let this cup pass from me,\" and, \"Not as I will, but as you,\" he shows nothing other than that he has truly been clothed with flesh that fears death. For to fear death, and to shrink back and to be in agony, belongs to that flesh. Now, then, he leaves it destitute, and stripped of its own activity, in order that, having shown its weakness, he may also confirm its nature; and now he conceals it, in order that you may learn that he was not a mere man. For just as, if he had shown the human things throughout, this would have been supposed; so, if he had accomplished the things of the divinity throughout, the account of the economy would have been disbelieved. For this reason he also varies, and mingles both the words and the deeds, in order that he may give no pretext to the disease and madness of Paul of Samosata, nor to that of Marcion and Manichaeus. For this reason he also foretells what is to come as God, and shrinks back again as man.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":125,"ref":"p125","source":"Τί δέ καί ὁ τῆς Ἀλεξανδρέων καθηγητής Κύριλλος ἐν τῷ εἰκοστῷ τετάρτῳ τοῦ Θησαυροῦ κεφαλαίῳ παιδεύει, σαφῶς ἐπακούσωμεν· \" Ὅταν οὖν φαίνεται δειλιῶν τό θάνατον, καί λέγων· Εἰ δυνατόν, παρελθέτω ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ τό ποτήριον τοῦτο, ἐννόει πάλιν ὅτι δειλιῶσα τόν θάνατον ἡ σάρξ, ἐδιδάσκετο φορουμένη ὑπό τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου μηκέτι τοῦτο πάσχειν· ἔλεγε γάρ πρός τόν Πατέρα· Οὐχ ὡς ἐγώ θέλω, ἀλλ᾿ ὡς σύ. Οὐκ ἐφοβεῖτο μέν γάρ καθό Λόγος ἐστί καί Θεός τόν θάνατον αὐτός, ἀλλ᾿ εἰς τέλος διεξάγειν οἰκονομίαν ἠπείγετο. Τοῦτο γάρ ἐστι τό θέλημα τοῦ Πατρός. Ἐχει δέ καί τό μή θέλειν ἀποθανεῖν, διά τό παραιτεῖσθαι τήν σάρκα τό θάνατον φυσικῶς». Οὗτος δέ τόν μέγαν εὐαγγελιστήν Ἰωάννην ὑπομνηματίζων φησίν, \" Ὁ αὐτός τόν ἐπί τούτῳ λόγον ἀποιήσατο ὁ Χριστός, διδάσκων, ὅτι τό ὑπέρ πάντων τεθνᾶναι θελητόν μέν ἔχει, διά τό βεβουλῆσθαι τήν θείαν φύσιν· ἀνεθέλητον δέ, διά τά ἐπί τῷ σταυρῷ πάθη. Καί τό ὅσον ἦκεν εἰς τήν σάρκα παραιτουμένην τό θάνατον, τά τοιαῦτά φησιν».","english":"But let us also hear clearly what Cyril, the teacher of the Alexandrians, teaches in the twenty-fourth chapter of the Treasury: \"When, then, he appears to shrink from death and says, 'If it is possible, let this cup pass from me,' understand again that the flesh, shrinking from death, was being taught, when borne by God the Word, no longer to suffer this; for he said to the Father, 'Not as I will, but as you.' For he did not fear death himself as being the Word and God, but he was hastening to carry the economy through to the end. For this is the will of the Father. He has also the not willing to die, because the flesh naturally declines death.\" And this same Cyril, commenting on the great evangelist John, says, \"Christ made the same statement about this, teaching that the dying for all has something willed, because the divine nature has willed it, and something not willed, because of the sufferings on the cross. And as far as it concerned the flesh declining death, he says such things.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":126,"ref":"p126","source":"Ὁ δέ Γαβαλῶν ἐπισκοπήσας Σευεριανός ὁ θεσπέσιος, εἰς τό, Πάτερ, παρελθέτω τό ποτήριον τοῦτο ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ· καί εἰς τό, Πάτερ, σῶσόν με ἀπό τῆς ὥρας ταύτης. \"Προλαβών ὁ Κύριος ἐμφράττει τῶν αἱρετικῶν τά στόματα, ἵνα δείξῃ ὅτι τό πολυπαθές τοῦτο ἐνεδύσατο σῶμα, τό ἀγωνιῶν τό θάνατον· τό τρέμον τοῦ θανάτου τήν βίαν· τό λυπούμενον καί ταραττόμενον πρός τό τοῦ βίου τέλος. Λέγει· Νῦν ἡ ψυχῇ μου τετάρακται. Περίλυπός ἐστι ἡ ψυχή μου ἕως θανάτου· οὐχ ἡ θεότης μου· ἀπαθές γάρ τό Θεῖον καί ἀτάρακτον καί ἀδειλίατον. Τό γάρ πνεῦμα, φησίν ὁ Κύριος, πρόθυμον· ἡ δέ σάρξ ἀσθενής. Ὥστε δύο θελήματα ἐμφαίνει· τό μέν, θεῖον· τό δέ, ἀνθρώπινον».\n\nἈλλ᾿ οἶμαι ἱκανῶς δεδεῖχθαι τοῖς θεοφόροις τόν περί τε δυάδος θελημάτων τοῦ αὐτοῦ λόγον, καί ἄλλου καί ἄλλου, καί θείου καί ἀνθρωπίνου θελήματος, καί τοῦ θελητόν εἶναι καί ἀνεθέλητον τῷ Σωτῆρι τόν θάνατον· τό μέν, διά τό ὅπερ ἦν ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς· τό δέ, διά τό ὅπερ ὕστερον γέγονε· Ἀρκτέον δῆτα καί τοῦ περί διαφορᾶς ἐνεργειῶν, καί δυάδος λόγου, κατά τάξιν ἡμῖν ταῖς τῶν θεηγόρων, καί τοῦτο ἐπισφραγίζουσι μαρτυρίαις Πατέρων. Αὐτίκα γοῦν ὁ μέγας ὁμολογητής καί διδάσκαλος Ἀμβρόσιος, ὁ Μεδιολάνων ἀρχιεπίσκοπος, ἐν τῷ πρός Γρατιανόν δευτέρῳ λόγῳ, τάδε διέξεισιν· \" Ἴσος οὖν ἐν τῇ μορφῇ, ἐλάττων δέ ὁ αὐτός ἐν τῇ προσλήψει τῆς σαρκός, καί τῷ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου πάθει. Ποίῳ γάρ τρόπῳ δύναται ἡ αὐτή ἐλάττων εἶναι καί ἴση φύσις; πῶς δέ εἰ ἐλάττων ἐστίν, ἡ αὐτή ὁμοίως ποιεῖ ἅπερ ὁ Πατήρ ποιεῖ; Ποίῳ γάρ τρόπῳ ἡ αὐτή ἐνέργεια ἐκ διαφόρου ἐστίν οὐσίας;","english":"Severianus, the wondrous bishop of Gabala, in his homily on \"Father, let this cup pass from me\" and on \"Father, save me from this hour\": \"The Lord, anticipating, stops the mouths of the heretics, to show that he put on this body capable of much suffering, the body that agonizes at death, that trembles at the violence of death, that is grieved and troubled at the end of life. He says: 'Now my soul is troubled.' 'My soul is deeply grieved even to death'—not my divinity, for the Divine is impassible and undisturbed and fearless. For 'the spirit,' says the Lord, 'is willing, but the flesh is weak.' So he reveals two wills: the one divine, the other human.\"\n\nBut I think it has been sufficiently demonstrated by the God-bearing Fathers that the account concerning the duality of wills in the same Word—both one and another, both divine and human will—and that death was both willed and not willed by the Savior: willed because of what he was from the beginning, not willed because of what came to be later. We must now begin, in order, the account concerning the difference of operations and the duality, sealing this too with the testimonies of the Fathers who speak of God. For instance, the great confessor and teacher Ambrose, archbishop of Milan, in the second book of his work To Gratian, sets forth the following: \"He is equal in form, but the same is lesser in the assumption of the flesh and in the suffering of the man. For in what way can the same nature be both lesser and equal? And how, if it is lesser, does the same do the works that the Father does? For in what way is the same operation from a different substance?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":127,"ref":"p127","source":"μή γάρ οὕτω δύναται ἡ ἐλάττων, ὥσπερ ἡ μείζων ἐνεργεῖν; ἤ δύναται μία ἐνέργεια εἶναι, ὅπου διάφορός ἐστιν οὐσία;\" Καί μήν ὁ τῆς Ἱεροσολυμιτῶν ἱεράρχης Κύριλλος ὁ ἀοίδιμος, ἐν τῷ εἰς τό εὐαγγελικόν ῥητόν λόγῳ ἔνθα ὁ Κύριος τό ὕδωρ οἶνον ἐποίησεν, οὖ ἡ ἀρχή· \"Θαῦμα καί τοῦτο θαῦμα ἐγενήθη. Ἐθαυματούργησεν· ἔδειξεν τήν διπλῆν ἐνέργειαν, πάσχων μέν ὡς ἄνθρωπος, ἐνεργῶν δέ ὡς Θεός ὁ αὐτός· οὐ γάρ ἄλλος καί ἄλλος, εἰ καί ἄλλως καί ἄλλως».\n\nΟὕτω δέ καί ὁ τῆς μεγάληςῬωμαίων ἔξαρχος Ἐκκλησίας Λέων ὁ παναλκής καί πανίερος, ἐν τῷ πρός τόν ἐν ἁγίοις Φλαβιανόν κατά Νεστορίου καί Εὐτυχοῦς τῶν δυσωνύμων δογματικῷ τόμῳ· \" Ἐνεργεῖ γάρ ἐν ἑκατέρᾳ μορφῇ μετά τῆς θατέρου κοινωνίας, ὅπερ ἴδιον ἔσχηκε· τοῦ μέν Λόγου κατεργαζομένου τοῦθ᾿ ὅπερ ἐστί τοῦ Λόγου· τοῦ δέ σώματος ἐκτελοῦντος ἅπερ ἐστί τοῦ σώματος· καί τό μέν αὐτῶν, διαλάμπει τοῖς θαύμασι· τό δέ, ταῖς ὕβρεσιν ὑποπέπτωκεν». Ὁ δέ τό στόμα χρυσοῦν, μᾶλλον δέ Χριστοῦ κεκτημένος Ἰωάννης, ἐν τῷ λόγῳ εἰς τήν Χήραν, τήν τά δύο λεπτά προσενέγκασαν ἐν τῷ Γαζοφυλακίῳ, οὖ ἡ","english":"For can the lesser not act just as the greater does? Or can there be one activity where the essence is different?\" And indeed the wondrous hierarch of Jerusalem, Cyril, in his discourse on the Gospel passage where the Lord made the water wine, whose beginning is: \"This too became a wonder. He worked wonders; he showed the twofold activity, suffering as a man, yet acting as God, the same one; for it is not one and another, even if in one way and another way.\"\n\nSo too the all-strong and all-holy Leo, exarch of the great Church of the Romans, in his doctrinal tome to the saint Flavian against the ill-named Nestorius and Eutyches: \"For he acts in each form with the communion of the other, which each has as its own: the Word accomplishing what is the Word's, the body performing what is the body's; and one of them shines forth in miracles, the other falls under insults.\" And John, who possessed the golden mouth—or rather, Christ's—in his discourse on the Widow who offered the two mites in the treasury, whose","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":128,"ref":"p128","source":"ἀρχή· \" Ἁπλῆ μέν ἡ τῆς νηστείας προσηγορία. Καί ἐν μέν τοῖς ἄλλοις τῶν συναφθεισῶν φύσεων διάφορος ἡ ἐνέργεια τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος, καί τῆς θεότητος διάφορος ἡ ἰσχύς. Οἶόν τι λέγω· Κάτω κοπιᾷ, καί ἄνω συγκροτεῖ τά στοιχεῖα· Κάτω πεινᾷ, καί ἄνωθεν ὑετούς χορηγεῖ. Κάτω δειλιᾷ, καί ἄνω βροντᾷ. Κάτω δικαστηρίῳ παρέστηκε, καί ἄνωθεν ἑαυτόν θεωρεῖ. Περί δέ τήν ἐλεημοσύνην, συντρέχει τό τῆς διπλῆς ἐνεργείας. Ὁ γάρ ἄνωθεν ἐκ τῶν Χερουβίμ βραβεύων τοῖς ἐλεήμοσιν, οὗτος πρό τοῦ Γαζοφυλακίου καθήμενος δοκιμάζει τούς φιλανθρώπους». Ὁ δέ αὐτός ἐν τῷ εἰς Θωμᾶν τό ἀπόστολον κατά Ἀρειανῶν λόγῳ· \"Ταῦτα ἀκούσας, ἐκάθαρα τήν ψυχήν ἀπιστίας· ἀπεδυσάμην τήν ἀμφίβολον γνώμην, ἀνέλαβοςν τό πεπεισμένον, ἠψάμην τοῦ σώματος χαίρων καί τρέμων. Ἐξήπλωσα μετά τῶν δακτύλων καί τῆς ψυχῆς ὄμμα, καί δύο λοιπόν ἐνεργειῶν ᾐσθόμην». Ἀλλά δή καί ὁ σοφώτατος Κύριλλος ὁ τῆς Ἀλεξανδρέων πρόεδρος, ἐν τῷ τριακοστῷ δευτέρῳ τοῦ Θησαυροῦ κεφαλαίῳ· \"Οὐ γάρ δή που μίαν εἶναι φυσικήν τήν ἐνέργειαν δώσομεν Θεοῦ καί ποιήματος· ἵνα μήτε τό ποιηθέν, εἰς τήν θείαν ἀνάγωμεν οὐσίαν· μήτε μήν τῆς θείας φύσεως τό ἐξαίρετον, εἰς τόν τοῖς γενητοῖς πρέποντα κατάγωμεν τόπον. Ὧν γάρ ἡ ἐνέργεια, καί ἡ δύναμις ἀπαραλλάκτως μία, τούτοις ἀνάγκη καί τήν τοῦ γένους ἑνότητα σώζεσθαι».","english":"Beginning: 'The name of fasting is simple. And in the other cases of the natures that have been conjoined, the activity of the humanity is different, and the power of the divinity is different. What I mean is this: below he toils, and above he holds the elements together; below he hungers, and from above he supplies the rains; below he fears, and above he thunders; below he stands before a tribunal, and from above he beholds himself. But in the matter of almsgiving, the [work] of the double activity runs together. For the one who from above, from the Cherubim, judges in favor of the merciful—this same one, seated before the treasury, tests the lovers of humanity.'\" And the same [Cyril], in his discourse against the Arians on Thomas the apostle: \"Having heard these things, I cleansed my soul of unbelief; I put off the doubtful opinion, I took up the convinced [faith], I touched the body rejoicing and trembling. I stretched out my fingers together with the eye of my soul, and I perceived two activities henceforth.\" But indeed also the most wise Cyril, president of the Alexandrians, in the thirty-second chapter of the Treasury: \"For surely we will not grant that the natural activity of God and of a made thing is one; so that neither should we refer the thing made up to the divine essence, nor again should we bring down the pre-eminence of the divine nature to the place befitting things generated. For those whose activity and power are one without variation, for these it is necessary that the unity of their kind also be preserved.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":129,"ref":"p129","source":"Ταῦτα μέν οἵδε διαπρυσίως οἱ τῆς εὐσεβείας Πατέρες, οὕς ἐκ πολλῶν ἤ ἀπείρων, καί παντός οἷον, γραφικῶς εἰπεῖν, τοῦ τῶν μαρτύρων νέφους, κατ᾿ ἐπιδρομήν, τόν τοῦ γράμματος περιστελλόμενοι προκεκομίκαμεν ὄγκον, εἰς ἐναργεστάτην ἀπόδειξιν τῆς αὐτῶν περί τοῦ παντός Σωτῆρος ἀληθογνωσίας Χριστοῦ. Καθ᾿ ἥν ὁρμηθέντες, ταῖς ἁγίαις Ἐκκλησίαις πνευματοκινήτως παρέδωκαν δύο καθάπερ τοῦ αὐτοῦ καί ἑνός τάς φύσεις, οὕτως ἰσαρίθμους ταῖς φύσεσι, τά τε τοῦ αὐτοῦ θελήματα καί τάς ἐνεργείας πρεσβεύειν, καί ἄλλην καί ἄλλην, καί θείαν καί ἀνθρωπίνην θέλησιν καί ἐνέργειαν, εἰς δήλωσιν τῶν ἐξ ὧν, ἐν οἶς τε καί ἅπερ ἐστίν ὁ αὐτός οὐσιώδους διαφορᾶς. Τήν τε φαντασίαν ὁμοῦ καί τήν σύγχυσιν, καί σύν ταύταις παντελῶς τήν διαίρεσιν ἀποσκευαζομένης, ὡς ἑνί καί τῷ αὐτῷ δι᾿ ἡμᾶς σαρκωθέντι Θεῷ Λόγῳ, ἐξ ὧν ἐστι πραγματικῶς καί ἀνεπιθολώτως γνωριζούσης (γνωριζομένης) καθ᾿ ἕνωσιν τήν ἀδιάσπαστον. Διαφορᾶς γάρ οὐσιώδους ἐπί τῆς καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν ἄκρας ἑνώσεως ἀσυγχύτως οὐ γνωριζομένοις, αὐτῶν τε τῶν ἡνωμένων, καί τῶν προσόντων αὐτῷ φυσικῶς, οὐ δέ τῆς ἑνώσεως ἀσυγχύτως γνωρισθήσεται λόγος.","english":"These things the Fathers of piety knew full well, whom we have brought forward in summary from the many or rather countless, and, so to speak, from the whole cloud of martyrs, setting aside the bulk of the letter, for the most vivid demonstration of their true knowledge concerning Christ the universal Savior. Moved by this, they handed down to the holy Churches, moved by the Spirit, that just as there are two natures of the same one and only Christ, so there are wills and activities of the same one equal in number to the natures, and that one should hold another and another will and activity, both divine and human, to make clear the essential difference of the things from which, in which, and what he is. And this sets aside together both the fantasy and the confusion, and along with these, entirely, division, since it recognizes, as for the one and same God the Word who became flesh for our sake, from what things he truly and undefiledly is, according to the indivisible union. For since the essential difference is not confusedly recognized in the supreme union according to hypostasis, neither of the things united nor of the things that belong to him naturally, neither will the account of the union be confusedly recognized.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":130,"ref":"p130","source":"Οἱ δέ τῆς ἐναντίας καί ἀντιπάλου μοίρας, τό ἔμπαλιν. Ἀπολινάριος μέν γάρ ὁ δυσσεβής, οὕτως φησίν ἐν τῷ ἐπιγεγραμμένῳ αὐτῷ λόγῳ. \"Ἀπόδειξις περί τῆς θείας σαρκώσεως τῆς καθ᾿ ὁμοίωσιν ἀνθρώπου· καί οὐ μνημονεύουσιν ὅτι τό θέλημα τοῦτο ἴδιον εἴρηται, οὐκ ἀνθρώπου, τοῦ ἐκ γῆς, καθώς αὐτοί νομίζουσιν, ἀλλά Θεοῦ τοῦ καταβάντος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ». Ὁ δέ αὐτός πάλιν ἀβέλτερος, \" Ἐν τῷ ἐπιγεγραμμένῳ· Αὐτήν ἐπιφάνειαν τήν ἔνσαρκον τοῦ Θεοῦ· Εἷς γάρ ὁ Χριστός θεϊκῷ θελήματι μόνῳ κινούμενος, καθό καί μίαν οἴδαμεν αὐτοῦ τήν ἐνέργειαν, ἐν διαφόροις θαύμασι καί παθήμασι τῆς μιᾶς αὐτοῦ φύσεως προϊοῦσαν. Θεός γάρ ἔνσαρκός ἐστι, καί πιστεύεται· καί μετά βραχέα». Καί τό· Πάτερ, εἰ δυνατόν, ἀπελθέτω τό ποτήριον τοῦτο ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ· πλήν μή τό ἐμόν, ἀλλά τό σόν θέλημα γενέσθω, οὐκ ἄλλου καί ἄλλου θελήματος ἔμφασιν ἔχει, μή συμβαινόντων ἀλλήλοις, ἀλλ᾿ ἑνός καί τοῦ αὐτοῦ· θεϊκῶς μέν ἐνεργουμένου· οἰκονομικῶς δέ παραιτουμένου τον θάνατον· ἐπεί Θεός ἦν σαρκοφόρος ὁ τοῦτο λέγων· μηδεμίαν ἐν τῷ θέλειν ἔχων διαφοράν». Ὁ δέ ἐκείνου τῆς ἀσεβείας μαθητής καί διάδοχος, καί φερωνύμως τῷ τῆς ἀληθείας λόγῳ πολέμιος, Πολέμων ὁ αἱρετικός, ἐν τῷ πρός τούς ἁγίου Πατέρας Ἀντιῤῥητικῷ, τάδε δυστρόφως φησίν· \" Ὁ Λόγος γάρ Θεός ἦν ὁ Χριστός, καί","english":"But those of the opposite and hostile faction say the reverse. For Apollinarius the impious says thus in the discourse inscribed by him: \"Demonstration concerning the divine incarnation of God in the likeness of man; and they do not remember that this will is said to be his own, not of the man from the earth, as they suppose, but of God who came down from heaven.\" And the same foolish man again: \"In the work inscribed: The Incarnate Manifestation of God: For Christ is one, moved by the divine will alone, inasmuch as we know his activity also to be one, proceeding in various miracles and sufferings of his one nature. For he is God incarnate, and is believed [to be so]; and shortly after.\" And the words: Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless not my will, but your will be done — these do not contain an indication of one will and another, not agreeing with each other, but of one and the same will: divinely indeed energizing, but economically declining death; since he who said this was God bearing flesh, having no difference in willing. But his disciple and successor in impiety, and, as his name suggests, an enemy of the word of truth, Polemon the heretic, in his Antirrhetic against the holy Fathers, says these things perversely: \"For the Word was God, Christ, and","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":131,"ref":"p131","source":"τελειότητι σαρκός ἑνωθείς καί γενόμενος ἄνθρωπος οὐ τόν τρεπτόν νοῦν ἑαυτῷ καταμίξας, θελήματι φυσικῷ ἐπί τἀναντία κινούμενον, ἑαυτῷ δέ μᾶλλον γενόμενος νοῦς, ἀτρέπτῳ θελήματι θεϊκῷ πάντα πεποιήκεν. Ἀλλ᾿ οὐ τό μέν θεῖον, τό δέ, θεωθέν, κατά τόν Καππαδόκην Γρηγόριον, ἐπεί τρεπτόν. Τό γάρ θεωθῆναι δυνηθέν, καί γεωθῆναι πάντως ἠδύνατο, κατά τόν πρῶτον Ἀδάμ». Καί ἐν ἕκτῃ τῶν πρός τόν Τιμόθεον αὐτῷ γεγραμμένων γεγραμμένων ἐπιστολῇ, τόν αὐτῷ συνεργάτην, καί τῆς ἀσεβείας συλλήπτορα πονηρόν· \" Ὁ δύο θελήματα λέγων Χριστοῦ, κατά τούς πάλαι καί νῦν φησαμένους, ἤ τόν ἕνα δύο τινάς εἰσάγει Χριστούς, ἀλλήλων οὐ φύσει μόνον, ἀλλά δή καί ἀπεχθείᾳ διηρημένους· ἤ τόν αὐτόν ἑαυτῷ διδάσκει μαχόμενον. Ἔνθα γάρ δυάς, πάντως διαίρεσις».\n\nἈλλά καί Θεσμίστιος, ὁ τῆς μέν Σευήρου συμμορίας ὑπασπιστής, τῆς δέ τῶν Ἀγνοητῶν ἔξαρχος κακοφροσύνης, ἐν κεφαλαίῳ με´ τοῦ λόγου δευτέρου τῶν κατά τοῦ ἐπιδοθέντος τόμου Θεοδώρᾳ τῇ βασιλίδι παρά Θεοδοσίου τοῦ αἱρεσιάρχου, τῶν ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ κατονομασθέντων αἱρετικῶν, τάδε θεοστυγῶς· \" Οὐ γάρ ἐπεί τε καί ἱερός Ἀθανάσιος δύο θελήματα ἔφη τόν Χριστός δεικνύναι, κατά τόν τοῦ πάθου καιρόν, ἤδη καί δύο θελήσεις αὐτῷ περιθήσωμεν· καί ταύτας μαχομένας ἀλλήλαις, κατά τούς σούς τούτους συλλογισμούς· ἀλλ᾿ εἰσόμεθα εὐσεβῶς, τήν ὡς ἑνός μίαν θέλησιν τοῦ Ἐμμανουήλ, πῆ μέν, ἀνθρωπίνως κινεῖσθαι, πῆ δέ θεοπρεπῶς». Ὁ δ᾿ αὐτός πάλιν συσάντητος αἱρετικός, ἐν κεφαλαίῳ νβ´, λόγῳ γ´τῆς κατακολούθου τοῦ συμφυλέτου τῆς αὐτοῦ δυσσεβείας γεγονυ«ας αὐτῷ πραγματείας·","english":"...having been united to the perfection of the flesh and having become man, not mixing with himself the mutable mind, which is moved by natural will toward things contrary, but rather having become mind to himself, he did all things by an immutable divine will. But it is not that the one is divine and the other deified, according to Gregory the Cappadocian, since it is mutable. For what was able to be deified was certainly also able to be made earth, according to the first Adam.\" And in the sixth letter written by him to Timothy, that wicked fellow-worker and accomplice of his impiety: \"He who says that Christ has two wills, according to those who have spoken both formerly and now, either introduces two Christs, separated from each other not only by nature but indeed also by hatred, or teaches that the same person is at war with himself. For where there is a duality, there is certainly division.\"\n\nBut also Themistius, the shield-bearer of Severus's faction and the leader of the Agnoetae's folly, in the forty-fifth chapter of his second discourse against the tome delivered to the empress Theodora by the heresiarch Theodosius, concerning the heretics named by him, says these things in a God-hating manner: \"For it is not because the sacred Athanasius said that Christ showed two wills at the time of the passion that we should therefore attribute two wills to him, and these at war with each other, according to these syllogisms of yours; but we shall piously understand that the one will, as of one person, of Emmanuel is moved in one respect humanly, and in another respect divinely.\" And the same accursed heretic again, in the fifty-second chapter, the third discourse of the sequel of the treatise which became his fellow-tribesman of his own impiety...","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":132,"ref":"p132","source":"\" Μίαν φημί τοῦ Ἐμμανουήλ τήν γνῶσιν καί τήν ἐνέργειαν, καθά καί τήν θέλησιν. Σκόπει οὖν οὕτως· Ὁ ἄτρεπτος, ὡς Θεός, ὁ παντός πάθους ἀνώτερος, ἀνθρωποπρεπῶς κινηθείς κατά τήν θέλησιν, παραιτεῖται τό πάθος· θεοπρεπῶς δέ πάλιν πρός τό πάθος ἀναθαῤῥεῖ, καί διά σαρκός τούτων ἑκάτερον». Καί ταῦτα μέν οἴδε δυστρόπως.\n\nΟἱ δέ τούτων ἐπίσης καί τῆς ἀληθείας ἀντίφρονες, τούς τῆς διαιρέσεως λέγω καθηγητάς, πρός τήν ἴσην ἐκείνοις καί τήν αὐτήν περί τε θελήματος ἑνός καί μιᾶς ἐνεργείας συνελαυνόμενοι κακοδοξίαν· οἱ καί τήν ἐν σχέσει γνωμικήν ἐπρέσβευον ἕνωσιν, τάδε περιβομβοῦσι. Θεόδωρος μέν ὁ κακόφρων καί δύσερις, ὁ τήν Μομψουεστινῶν ληϊσάμενος, ἐν τοῖς εἰς τά θαύματα παρεξηγηθεῖσιν αὐτῷ λόγου δευτέρου· \"Θέλω, καθαρίσθητι, πρός τόν λεπρόν εἰπών ὁ Σωτήρ, ἔδειξε μίαν εἶναι τήν θέλησιν, μίαν τήν ἐνέργειαν, κατά μίαν καί τήν αὐτήν ἐξουσίαν προαγομένην, οὐ λέγω φύσεως, ἀλλ᾿ εὐδοκίας, καθ᾿ ἥν ἡνώθη τῷ Θεῷ Λόγῳ ὁ κατά πρόγνωσιν, ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυΐδ ὕστερον γενόμενος ἄνθρωπος, ἐξ αὐτῆς μήτρας τήν πρός αὐτόν ἐνθιάθετον ἔχων οἰκείωσιν».","english":"I say that the knowledge and the activity of Emmanuel are one, just as also the will. Consider it thus: the immutable one, as God, who is above every passion, having been moved in a manner befitting man according to the will, declines the passion; and again, in a manner befitting God, he takes courage against the passion, and through the flesh he does each of these. And these things he knows in a distorted way.\n\nBut those who are equally opposed to these things and to the truth—I mean the teachers of division—being driven to the same and identical evil doctrine as those concerning one will and one activity, who also championed the gnomic union in relation, babble these things. Theodore, the evil-minded and contentious, who plundered the things of the Mompsuestians, in his second discourse on the miracles that he misinterpreted: \"I will; be cleansed,\" the Savior said to the leper, showing that the will is one, the activity one, brought forth according to one and the same authority—I do not say of nature, but of good pleasure—according to which the one who was foreknown, later becoming man from the seed of David, was united to God the Word, having from the very womb an implanted affinity toward him.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":133,"ref":"p133","source":"Ὁ δέ τῆς ἐκείνου μανίας ὀπαδός καί διάδοχος, Νεστόριος ὁ ἀλητήριος, ἐν τῇ λεγομένῃ αὐτῷ Ἐμφανεῖ μυήσει λόγου δευτέρου τῆς κατ᾿ αὐτήν πραγματείας τάδε κακούργως· \" Ἀσυγχύτως φυλάττομεν τάς φύσεις, οὐ κατ᾿ οὐσίαν, γνώμῃ δέ συνημμένας, δι᾿ ὅ καί μίαν αὐτῶν τήν θέλησιν, ἐνέργειάν τε καί δεσποτείαν ὁρῶμεν, ἀξίας ἰσότητι δεικνυμένας. Ὁ γάρ Θεός Λόγος ἀναλαβών ὅν προώρισεν ἄνθρωπον, τῷ τῆς ἐξουσίας λόγῳ πρός αὐτοῦ προεκρίθη, διά τήν προγνωσθεῖσαν διάθεσιν». Ὁ δ᾿ αὐτός αὖθις παράφρων ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ λόγου τετάρτου· ἡ Οὐκ ἄλλος ἦν ὁ Θεός Λόγος, καί ἄλλος ὁ ἐν ᾧ γέγονεν ἄνθρωπος. Ἕν γάρ ἦν ἀμφοτέρων τό πρόσωπον ἀξίᾳ καί τιμῇ, προσκυνούμενον παρά πάσης τῆς κτίσεως, μηδενί τόπῳ ἤ χρόνῳ ἑτερότητι βουλῆς καί θελήματος διαιρούμενον. Ἀλλά μήν καί Παῦλος ὁ Πέρσης ψευδοδιάκονος ὤν τῆς Νεστορίου μιαρωτάτης αἱρέσεως, ἐν τῷ Περί κρίσεως αὐτοῦ λόγῳ, τάδε σύν ἐκείνοις φθέγγεται θεομαχῶν. \" Ἐπειδή κατ᾿ οὐσίαν ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου πρός ὅν ἀνέλαβεν ἄνθρωπον οὐ","english":"The follower and successor of that man's madness, the vagabond Nestorius, in the so-called Manifest Instruction of the second discourse of his work on that subject, writes these things maliciously: \"We preserve the natures without confusion, not united according to essence but according to will, which is why we see them as having one will, one activity, and one dominion, shown by an equality of worth. For God the Word, having taken up the man whom He foreordained, was preferred before him by the word of authority, on account of the disposition foreknown.\" And the same madman again in the fourth discourse of the same work: \"God the Word was not one and the man in whom He became man another. For the person of both was one in worth and honor, worshiped by all creation, divided by no place or time in difference of counsel and will.\" But indeed also Paul the Persian, being a false deacon of the most abominable heresy of Nestorius, in his discourse On Judgment, speaks these things together with them, fighting against God: \"Since according to essence the [union] of God the Word with the man whom He took up [is] not","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":134,"ref":"p134","source":"γέγονεν ἕνωσις, μία φύσις οὐ γέγονεν. Εἰ δέ μία φύσις οὐ γέγονεν, μία μονοπρόσωπος ὁ Χριστός οὐκ ἔστιν ὑπόστασις· οὐκοῦν κατ' εὐδοκίαν ἡ ἕνωσις, βουλῆς καί γνώμης ταυτότητι κρατουμένη, ἵνα καί τό διάφορον τῶν φύσεων ἀσύγχυτον δείκνυται, καί τό τῆς εὐδοκίας μυστήριον μονάδι βουλήσεως διαδείκνυται».\n\nΟἷς, ὡς ὁρᾶτε, πανάριστοι, τάτε γράμματα, καί πρό τούτων διασκοποῦντες τά δόγματα, λίαν ἐν πᾶσι ὁμόφωνάς τε καί ὁμόλογος, ἤ, οὐκ οἶδ᾿ ὅπως, νῦν διά τάς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν ἐπεισφρήσασα κατά τῆς ἀμωμήτου πίστεως καθέστηκεν ἕνωσις, τό ἕν ἐπί Χριστοῦ θέλημα κυροῦσα, καί τήν μίαν ἐνέργειαν ὁμοίως τοῖς ἄφροσι. Τό μέν ἕν θέλημα διά τοῦ λέγειν· \" Ὅθεν τοῖς ἁγίοις Πατράσιν ἐν ἅπασι, καί ἐν τούτῳ κατακολουθοῦντες, ἕν θέλημα τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁμολογοῦμεν». Τήν δέ μίαν ἐνέργειαν, διά τοῦ φάσκειν· \" Ἀλλά γάρ καί ἕπεσθαι ταύτῃ, τουτέστι τηρήσει τῶν δύο ἐνεργειῶν, τό καί δύο πρεσβεύειν θελήματα». Καί γάρ εἰ ἕπεσθαι τῇ ἐνεργείᾳ τά θελήματα διορίζεται, πᾶσά πως ἀνάγκη, τοῦ ἑπομένου πρός αὐτῆς κυρωθέντος, λέγω δή τοῦ ἑνός θελήματος, κυροῦσθαι καί τό ἡγούμενον, ἤγουν τήν μίαν ἐνέργειαν. Ταύτην γάρ ἐπειγομένη σοφιστικῶς τῇ μιᾷ θελήσει συνεισαγαγεῖν, ἕπεσθαι τῇ ἐνεργείᾳ τήν θέλησιν κατά δόξαν ἐθέσπισεν. Διό καί Πατέρας οἶδεν οἷς ἐν τούτῳ καί πᾶσι κατηκολούθησεν, οὐ τούς ὄντως, ἀλλά τούς μηδ᾿ ὅλως ἁγίους. Οὐ γάρ δήπου ποτ᾿ ἄν περί ἑνός θελήματος φήσειέ τις Ἀθανάσιον τόν ἀοίδιμον, διαῤῥήδην βοῶντα καθάπερ φθάσαντες παρέστημεν ἡ Δύο θελήματα ἐνταῦθα δείκνυσι· τό μέν, ἀνθρώπινον, τό δέ, θεϊκόν».","english":"a union has occurred, but a single nature has not occurred. And if a single nature has not occurred, Christ is not a single-person hypostasis; therefore the union is by good pleasure, being secured by identity of counsel and opinion, so that both the difference of the natures is shown to be without confusion and the mystery of the good pleasure is displayed by a unity of will.\n\nTo these things, as you see, most excellent men, both the writings and, before these, the doctrines, when you examine them, are in all respects very harmonious and in agreement—or, I know not how, now through our sins a union has crept in against the blameless faith, ratifying the one will in Christ and the one activity, just like the foolish. The one will, by saying: \"Therefore, following the holy Fathers in all things and in this also, we confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ.\" And the one activity, by asserting: \"But indeed also to follow this, that is, the observance of the two activities, and to hold that there are also two wills.\" For if the wills are distinguished as following the activity, by every necessity, when that which follows has been ratified by it—I mean the one will—that which leads, namely the one activity, must also be ratified. For hastening sophistically to introduce this along with the one will, he decreed in opinion that the will follows the activity. Therefore he also knows as Fathers those whom he followed in this and in all things—not the true ones, but those not holy at all. For surely no one would ever say concerning one will that the celebrated Athanasius did so, who cries out clearly, as we have already set forth: \"Here he shows two wills: the one human, the other divine.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":135,"ref":"p135","source":"Οὐ Γρηγόριον τόν Θεολόγον, περί τοῦ ἀνθρωπικοῦ τοῦ Σωτῆρος θελήματος λέγοντα· \"Τό γάρ ἐκείνου θέλειν, οὐδέ ὑπεναντίον Θεῷ, θεωθέν ὅλον». Οὐ τόν ὁμώνυμον αὐτῷ Νυσσαέων καθηγητήν· \" Ἡ ψυχή θέλει, τό σῶμα ἅπτεται, φάσκοντα», καί· \"Τῷ ἐνεργοῦντι σώματι, καί τῇ ὁρμῇ τοῦ ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ γινομένου θελήματος». Καί· \"Θέλων μέν διά τῆς ψυχῆς, ἁπτόμενος δέ διά τοῦ σώματος», καί, \" Ἄλλον τό ἀνθρώπινον θέλημα, καί τό θεῖον ἄλλον, καί εἰπών· Μή τό ἐμόν, τό ἀνθρώπινον τῷ λόγῳ ἐσήμανεν· προσθείς δέ, Τό σόν, ἔδειξε τό συναφές τῆς ἑαυτοῦ πρός τόν Πατέρα θεότητος».\n\nΟὐ τόν Χρυσόστομον Ἰωάννην, παιδεύοντα· \"Οὐ γάρ ἀγωνιᾷν μόνον ἐμφαίνει τά ῥήματα, ἀλλά δύο θελήματα. Καί ἄν μέν ἐπί τῆς θεότητος τό εἰρημένον ἦν τοῦτο, ἀντιλογία τις γίνεται. Ἄν δέ ἐπί τῆς σαρκός, ἔχει λόγον τά εἰρημένα. Οὐ γάρ τό μή θέλειν ἀποθανεῖν τήν σάρκα κατάγνωσις· φύσεως γάρ ἐστι τοῦτο. Αὐτός δέ τά τῆς φύσεως ἅπαντα χωρίς ἁμαρτίας ἐπιδείκνυται, καί μετά πολλῆς τῆς περιουσίας». Οὐ Κύριλλον τόν Ἀλεξανδρείας σοφῶς ἐκδιδάσκοντα· \"Τοῦτο γάρ ἦν τό θέλημα τοῦ Πατρός, εἰς τέλος διεξαγαγεῖν τήν οἰκονομίαν. Ἔχει δέ καί τό μή θέλειν ἀποθανεῖν, διά τό παραιτεῖσθαι τήν σάρκα τόν θάνατον φυσικῶς». Καί· \"Θελητόν μέν ἔχει τό ὑπέρ πάντων τεθνάναι, διά τό βεβουλῆσθαι τήν θείαν φύσιν· ἀνεθέλητον δέ διά τήν σάρκα παραιτουμένην τόν θάνατον φυσικῶς». Οὐ Σευεριανόν τόν ( τῶν Γαβάλων πρόεδρον, μαρτυρούμενον, \" Ὥστε δύο θελήματα ἐμφαίνει· τό μέν θεῖον· τό δέ ἀνθρώπινον».","english":"Not Gregory the Theologian, who speaks concerning the human will of the Savior: \"For his willing is in no way contrary to God, being wholly deified.\" Not his namesake, the leader of the Nyssenes: \"The soul wills, the body touches,\" he says; and \"to the body that acts, and to the impulse of the will that arises in the soul.\" And: \"willing through the soul, touching through the body,\" and, \"One thing is the human will, and another the divine,\" and having said, \"Not my will,\" he signified the human by the word; and having added, \"Your will,\" he showed the conjunction of his own divinity with the Father.\n\nNot John Chrysostom, who teaches: \"For the words display not only agony, but two wills. And if what was said were concerning the divinity, it becomes a contradiction. But if it is concerning the flesh, what is said has reason. For not to wish to die is not a condemnation of the flesh; for this belongs to nature. But he demonstrates all the things of nature without sin, and with great abundance.\" Not Cyril of Alexandria, who wisely teaches: \"For this was the will of the Father, to carry the economy through to the end. And he has also the not willing to die, because the flesh naturally shrinks from death.\" And: \"He has as willed the dying for all, because the divine nature has so willed; and as not willed, because the flesh naturally shrinks from death.\" Not Severian, the president of the Gabali, who is testified: \"So that he displays two wills: the one divine, the other human.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":136,"ref":"p136","source":"Ἀλλ᾿ οὐδέ περί μιᾶς ὁμολογίας τόν μέγαν ὁμολογητήν Ἀμβρόσιον, ἐμφρόνως κηρύττοντα, \"Ποίῳ γάρ τρόπῳ ἡ αὐτῇ ἐνέργεια διαφόρου ἐστίν οὐσίας. Μή γάρ δύναται μία ἐνέργεια εἶναι, ὅ που διάφορος οὐσία ἐστίν». Οὐ Κύριλλον τόν Ἱεροσολύμων, παρεγγυώμενον, \" Ἔδειξε τήν διπλῆν ἐνέργειαν, πάσχων μέν, ὡς ἄνθρωπος, ἐνεργῶν δέ, ὡς Θεός ὁ αὐτός». Οὐ Λέοντα τόν θεῖον, ἀποφωνοῦντά τε συνετῶς, \" Ἐνεργεῖ γάρ ἑκατέρα μορφή μετά τῆς θατέρου κοινωνίας, ὅπερ ἴδιον ἔσχηκεν. Οὐ τόν Χρυσόστομον αὖθις. Καί ἐν μέν τοῖς ἄλλοις, τῶν συναφθεισῶν φύσεων διάφορος ἡ ἐνέργεια, τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος καί τῆς\n\nθεότητος· περί δέ τήν ἐλεημοσύνην, συντρέχει τό τῆς διπλῆς ἐνεργείας· καί δύο λοιπόν ἐνεργειῶν ᾐσθόμην». Οὐ Κύριλλον ὁμοίως τόν Ἀλεξανδρείας ἱερώτατον καθηγητήν, \"Οὐ γάρ μίαν δήπου εἶναι φυσικήν τήν ἐνέργειαν δώσομεν Θεοῦ καί ποιήματος».\n\nΤούτους, ἤ τινας τούτων, οὐχ ἁγίους, οὔτε μήν ἐγκρίτους εἶναι διαγορεύει τῆς Ἐκκλησίας μυσταγωγούς· ἀλλά καί τήν αὐτῶν περί τε θελήματων δύο καί ἐνεργειῶν περίδοξον ὁμολογίαν, δυσσεβῆ τυγχάνειν, καί ἀλλοτρίαν τοῦ Χριστιανικοῦ δόγματος ἀποφαίνεται. Πιστοῦται γάρ τάδε φάσκουσα τόν λόγον ἡμῖν. Ὡσαύτως δέ καί τήν τῶν δύο ἐνεργειῶν ῥῆσιν πολλούς σκανδαλίζειν, ὡς μήτε τινί τῶν ἁγίων καί ἐγκρίτων τῆς Ἐκκλησίας μυσταγωγῶν εἰρημένην, ἀλλά γάρ καί ἕπεσθαι αὐτῇ τό δύο πρεσβεύειν θελήματα ἐναντίως πρός ἄλληλα ἔχοντα· καί ἐντεῦθεν δύο, τούς τἀναντία θέλοντας εἰσάγεσθαι·","english":"But neither does it [the Church] speak concerning one confession of the great confessor Ambrose, who wisely proclaims: \"For in what way is the same activity of a different essence? For one activity cannot be, where the essence is different.\" Nor Cyril of Jerusalem, who enjoins: \"He showed the double activity, suffering as man, and working as God, the same one.\" Nor the divine Leo, who declares wisely: \"For each form works in communion with the other, that which is proper to it.\" Nor again Chrysostom. And in other matters, the activity of the united natures is different, of the humanity and of the divinity; but concerning almsgiving, the matter of the double activity concurs; and thenceforth I perceived two activities.\" Nor Cyril, the most sacred teacher of Alexandria, similarly: \"For we will surely not grant that the natural activity of God and of the creature is one.\"\n\nThese men, or certain of them, it [the Church] declares are not holy, nor indeed approved guides of the Church's mysteries; but also their glorious confession concerning two wills and activities it pronounces to be impious and alien to the Christian doctrine. For it confirms these things, saying to us the following. Likewise also the phrase of the two activities scandalizes many, as not having been spoken by any of the saints and approved guides of the Church's mysteries, but also that there follows upon it the belief in two wills that are contrary to one another; and from this, that those who will contrary things introduce two [wills].","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":137,"ref":"p137","source":"ὅπερ δυσσεβές ὑπάρχει καί ἀλλότριον τοῦ Χριστιανικοῦ δόγματος\" Ἰδού σαφῶς, καί γυμνῇ τῇ κεφαλῇ, τό δή λεγόμενον, οὐχ ἁγίων ὑπάρχειν, οὔτε μήν ἐγκρίτων ὁρίζεται τῆς Ἐκκλησίας μυσταγωγῶν, τό δύο πρεσβεύειν θελήματα, καί τάς κατ᾿ αὐτήν ἡγουμένας ἰσαρίθμους αὐτοῖς ἐνεργείας· δυσσεβῶν δέ μᾶλλον, ὡς δυσσεβές, καί ἀλλότριον, ᾗ φησι, τοῦ Χριστιανικοῦ δόγματος· καί δύο τούς τἀναντία ( θέλοντας ἐπεισάγον τοῖς ταῦτα κηρύττουσιν. Ἤγουν τά δύο θελήματα, καί τάς ἰσαρίθμους αὐτοῖς ἐνεργείας πνευματοκινήτοις Πατράσιν, οἷς οὐδέ ἥλατο κατακολουθεῖν, ἤ ἁγίους τούτους ἀποκαλεῖν, ἤ ὅλως κατ' ἐκείνους σύν ἐκείνοις ταῦτα πρεσβεύειν, εἰς τήν τοῦ κατά σάρκα Χριστοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ μυστηρίου βεβαίωσιν. Ἀλλά τίσι καί τίνας τούς περί ὧνκαί οἷς ἔφησεν τήν τῆς μιᾶς ἐνεργείας εἰρῆσθαι φωνήν, καί ἀκολουθεῖν ἐν τούτῳ καθά καί ἐν πᾶσι πρός τό ἕν θέλημα Χριστοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ ὁμολογεῖν, οἵ τε περιφανῶς ὄντες διεδείχθησαν, οἵ τε τῆς συγχύσεως πρόμαχοι καί τῆς διαιρέσεως ἡγεμόνες.","english":"This is impious and alien to the Christian doctrine.\" Behold, clearly and with uncovered head, as the saying goes, he defines that it belongs neither to saints nor to the approved mystagogues of the Church to hold the two wills and the activities corresponding in number to them; but rather to the impious, as being impious and, as he says, alien to the Christian doctrine; and he introduces two who will the opposite things among those who proclaim these things. That is, the two wills and the activities equal in number to them, [he says] belong to Spirit-moved Fathers, whom he did not even deign to follow, or to call them saints, or at all, in accordance with them and together with them, to hold these things for the confirmation of the mystery of Christ God according to the flesh. But to whom and which ones did he say the voice concerning the one activity was spoken, and to follow in this, as in all things, in confessing the one will of Christ God—both those who were shown manifestly to be [such], and the champions of confusion and the leaders of division.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":138,"ref":"p138","source":"Οἷον, οὐκ ἀπεικῶς γάρ εἰς πίστωσιν καί αὖθις ἐπιτόμως ἐπιδραμεῖν, Ἀπολινάριος ὁ δυσσεβής τάδε θεομαχῶν· Εἷς γάρ ὁ Χριστός, θεϊκῷ θελήματι μόνῳ κινούμενος, καθό καί μίαν οἴδαμεν αὐτοῦ τήν ἐνέργειαν, καί μηδεμίαν ἔχων ἐν τῷ θέλειν διαφοράν. Πολέμων ὁ τῆς ἀληθείας πολέμιος. \"Ἀτρέπτῳ θελήματι θεϊκῷ πάντα πεποίηκεν· ἀλλ᾿ οὐ τό μέν, θεῖον· τό δέ, θεωθέν, κατά τόν Καππαδόκην Γρηγόριον». Καί, \" Ὁ δύο θελήματα λέγων Χριστοῦ, κατά τούς πάλαι καί νῦν φυσωμένους, ἤ τόν ἕνα δύο τινάς εἰσάγει Χριστούς, ἤ τόν ἑαυτῷ διδάσκει μαχόμενον. Θεμίστιος ὁ ἀθέμιτος, Ἀλλ᾿ ἰσώμεθα τήν ὡς ἑνός μίαν θέλησιν τοῦ Ἐμμανουήλ, πῆ μέν, ἀνθρωπικῶς κινεῖσθαι, πῆ δέ, θεοπρεπῶς· καί, Μίαν φημί τοῦ Ἐμμανουήλ, τήν γνῶσιν καί τήν ἐνέργειαν, καθά καί τήν θέλησιν. Θεόδωρος ὁ θεόπληξ, Ἔδειξε μίαν εἶναι τήν θελησιν, μίαν τήν ἐνέργειαν, κατά μίαν καί τήν αὐτήν ἐξουσίαν προαγομένην. Νεστόριος ὁ πάμπληξ, Διό καί μίαν αὐτῶν τήν θέλησιν, ἐνέργειάν τε καί δεσποτείαν ὁρῶμεν. Παῦλος ὁ καί τήν γνώμην Πέρσης, Κατ᾿ εὐδοκίαν ἡ ἕνωσις, βουλῆς καί γνώμης ταυτότητι κρατουμένη· καί, Τό τῆς εὐδοκίας μυστήριον μοναδικῆς βουλήσεως διαδείκνυται. Τούτους δή τούς ἐναγεῖς καί ἀλάστορας, Πατέρας ἁγίους ὁρίζεται. ( Τούτοις ἐγκρίτους οἶδε τῆς Ἐκκλησίας μυσταγωγούς, οἶς ἐν πᾶσι, κἄν τούτῳ κατακολουθήσασα, καί μίαν Χριστοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ συνοριζομένη θέλησιν καί ἐνέργειαν, τόν τῆς οἰκονομίας ὁμοίως αὐτοῖς συγχεῖ τε καί διατέμνει λόγον.","english":"For example—since it is not unfitting to run through the evidence again briefly—the impious Apollinaris, fighting against God, says these things: \"For Christ is one, moved by the divine will alone, inasmuch as we know his activity also to be one, and having no difference at all in willing.\" Polemon, the enemy of the truth: \"By an unchangeable divine will he made all things; but not one thing divine and another deified, according to Gregory the Cappadocian.\" And: \"He who says that Christ has two wills, like those puffed up both formerly and now, either introduces two Christs instead of one, or teaches one who fights against himself.\" Themistius the lawless: \"But let us heal the one will of Emmanuel as of one person, moved in one respect humanly and in another divinely\"; and, \"I say that the knowledge and activity of Emmanuel are one, just as also the will.\" Theodore the God-stricken: \"He showed that the will is one, the activity one, brought forth according to one and the same authority.\" Nestorius the utterly blinded: \"Therefore we see their will, activity, and dominion to be one.\" Paul, who is a Persian also in his opinion: \"The union is by good pleasure, held fast by identity of counsel and opinion\"; and, \"The mystery of good pleasure is shown to be of a single will.\" These abominable and accursed men he defines as holy Fathers. (These he knows as approved mystagogues of the Church, and in all things, even in this, having followed them and defining together with them one will and activity of Christ God, he likewise confounds and cuts in two the doctrine of the economy.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":139,"ref":"p139","source":"Πῶς οὖν, τά τῶν ἐναντίων φρονοῦσα, φρονεῖν ἑτέρως ὑπείληφεν, ἀναλλάξ τιθεμένη τάς ψήφους· καί τοῦ ὄντος τό μή ὅν αἱρουμένη τε καί προκρίνουσα. Καί γάρ ἀληθείας οὐκ ἀδικίας κρινούσης, παντί που σαφές, ὡς ἐκεῖνος ἐκείνοις ὑπάρχων σύμφωνος καί ὁμόλογος, οὐχ ὁ λέγων ἅ μή λέγουσιν, ἀλλ᾿ πρεσβεύων ἅ δογματίζουσιν. Εἴπερ ἀσυμφωνία μέν τό ἑτερόδοξον, συμφωνία δέ, τό\n\nὁμόδοξον οἶδε χαρακτηρίζειν. Καίτοι μαρτύρεταί πως καί αὐτή, βοῶσα, μή δύο τετολμηκέναι θελήματα φάναι ποτ᾿ ἄν τόν μιαρόν Νεστόριον· ἀλλά αὐτοβουλίαν, τουτέστιν, ἕν θέλημα, τῶν πλαττομένων αὐτῷ δύο προσώπων ὁμολογεῖν. Εἰ τοίνυν καί κατά ταύτην, οὐ δύο μέν, ἕν δέ θέλημα πρεσβεύει Νεστόριος· τοῦτο δέ καί Ἀπολινάριος, καί οἱ ἀπ᾿ ἐκείνων δυσσεβεῖς ἅπαντες, καί μέντοι καί μίαν ἐνέργειαν, ὡς ὁ λόγος ἀπέδειξεν, ἀναμφηρίστως ἄρα δύο μέν ἡμᾶς λέγοντας κατά τούς θείους Πατέρας, ἑτερόφρονας πάντη· μίαν δέ λέγουσαν ἑαυτήν ὁμόφρονα Νεστορίῳ τε καί Ἀπολιναρίῳ, καί τοῖς ἀμφ᾿ αὐτοῖς οὖσαν, οἷς δογματίζει παρέστηκε· καί τούς μέν θείους παραγραφομένην, ὡς ἔφην, τούς δέ ἐναγεῖς, οἰκείους Πατέρας ἐπιγραφομένην.","english":"How, then, does she who holds the views of the opponents suppose that she thinks otherwise, rearranging the votes and choosing and preferring what is not over what is? For since truth, not injustice, judges, it is surely clear to everyone that that one is in agreement and accord with those men—not the one who says what they do not say, but the one who champions what they dogmatize. If indeed disagreement characterizes heterodoxy, and agreement characterizes orthodoxy. And yet she herself in some way testifies, crying out, that the abominable Nestorius never dared to say there are two wills, but rather self-will, that is, one will, of the two persons he fabricates, as he confesses. If, then, according to this view, Nestorius champions not two wills but one—and Apollinaris too, and all the impious who follow them, and indeed also one activity, as the argument has demonstrated—then without doubt, when we say two, according to the divine Fathers, she is entirely of a different mind; but when she says one, she is of one mind with Nestorius and Apollinaris, and is among those around them, and stands by what they dogmatize; and she strikes out the divine Fathers, as I said, while inscribing the accursed ones as her own fathers.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":140,"ref":"p140","source":"Τίνος δέ ταύτην, ἤ ποίας ἐκβιασαμένης αἰτίας, κατά τῆς εὐσεβοῦς εἰσκεκόμικεν ὁμολογίας; Εἰ μέν ὡς οὐκ ἐχόντων πίστιν ἡμῶν, ψευδής ὁ λόγος· Χριστιανοί γάρ καί πρό ταύτης ἅπαντες, οἱ τόν ὀρθόν λόγον πρεσβεύοντες. Εἰ δέ ὡς ἐχόντων, φευκτός ὁ τρόπος, τό περιττόν, ὡς κίβδηλος, ἐπεισάγων, ᾧ τήν αὐτῶν συσκιαζοντες πανουργίαν, καί οὐδενός οὐδέ μίαν συνόδου καθάπαξ, ἤ Πατρός, ἤ Γραφῆς χρῆσιν προκομίζειν, εἰς τήν τῶν οἰκείων ἔχοντες μαρτυρίαν, ταῦτά φασι, πλαττόμενοι τῆς εὐσεβείας τά ( δόγματα, ἅ παρεδώκασιν ἡμῖν οἱ ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς αὐτόπται, καί ὑπηρέται τοῦ Λόγου γενόμενοι, καί οἱ τούτων μαθηταί καί διάδοχοι καθεξῆς, θεόπνευστοι τῆς ἀληθείας διδάσκαλοι· ταὐτόν δέ εἰπεῖν, αἱ ἅγιαι και οἰκουμενικαί ε´σύνοδοι τῶν μακαριωτάτων καί θεοφόρων Πατέρων. Ἀλλ᾿ εἰ ταῦτα παρέδωκαν, τίς ἡ ἀπόδειξις, ἤ πόθεν ἐκείνοις τῶν τοιούτων δογμάτων ἡ πίστωσις; Ἄλλως τε τάς ἁγίας προσεχόντων ἡμῶν καί ὁμολογούντων συνόδους, δῆλον ὡς τῶν ἐπεισάκτων κίβδηλος ἡ ἐφεύρεσις. Εἰ δέ μή ταῦτα τῶν ἁγίων συνόδων, τίς ὁ τοῦ δράματος ὄγκος, κλήσει τῶν πανευφήμων τό δύσφημον ἐπικάμπτων, ὡς ἄν δέλεαρ ᾗ τοῖς ἁπλουστέροις εἰς τήν τῆς ἀληθείας ἀπόστασιν, τῶν περιδόξων Πατέρων τε καί συνόδων ἡ προσηγορία, τοῖς ἑτερόφροσιν ἄνωθεν ἐξ ἀρχῆς εὐμηχάνως ἐξηυρημένη, πρός τέ τήν τῶν οἰκείων, ὡς ἔφην, συγκάλυψιν, καί τῶν ὑπαγομένων δολεράν οἶον ὑφαρπαγήν.","english":"By whom, or compelled by what cause, has she introduced this against the pious confession? If it is on the grounds that we do not have faith, the statement is false; for all were Christians even before this, those who champion right reason. But if on the grounds that we do have it, the manner is to be shunned, since it introduces something superfluous, as counterfeit, by which, darkening their own villainy, and not bringing forward at all any single use of a council, or of the Father, or of Scripture, for the testimony of their own views, they say these things, fabricating the doctrines of piety which those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and became servants of the Word handed down to us, and their disciples and successors in order, God-inspired teachers of the truth; and to say the same thing, the holy and ecumenical five councils of the most blessed and God-bearing Fathers. But if they handed these down, what is the proof, or from where is the assurance to them of such doctrines? Especially since we attend to and confess the holy councils, it is clear that the invention of the imported doctrines is counterfeit. But if these things are not of the holy councils, what is the bulk of the drama, bending the ill-sounding by the name of the all-praised, so that it may be a bait for the simpler sort unto apostasy from the truth, the appellation of the illustrious Fathers and councils, ingeniously devised from the beginning by those of different mind, both for the concealment of their own views, as I said, and for the deceitful, as it were, snatching away of those led under.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":141,"ref":"p141","source":"Ὅθεν εἰς παντελῆ τῶν τοιούτων κατάργησιν, λέγω δή τῶν κατά καιρούς τάς ἀπατηλάς ἐξερευνώντων ἐξερευνήσεις κατά τῆς πίστεως, καί συνοδικός ὁρίζεται κάλλιστα νόμος τῆς ἁγίας ἐν Χαλκηδόνι συνάξεως τῶν μακαρίων Πατέρων, ὧδέ πη κελευόμενος· \" Ὥρισεν ἡ ἁγία καί οἰκουμενική σύνοδος, ἑτέραν πίστιν μηδενί ἐξεῖναι προφέρειν, ἤγουν συγγράφειν ἤ συντιθέναι, ἤ φρονεῖν ἤ διδάσκειν ἑτέρους· τούς δέ τολμῶντας ἤ συντιθέναι πίστιν ἑτέραν ἤγουν προκομίζειν, ἤ διδάσκειν ἤ παραδιδόναι ἕτερον σύμβολον, τοῖς ἐθέλουσιν ἐπιστρέφειν εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν τῆς ἀληθείας ἐξ Ἑλληνισμοῦ ἤ Ἰουδαϊσμοῦ, ἤγουν ἐξ αἱρέσεως οἱασδηποτοῦν, τούτους, εἰ μέν εἶεν ἐπίσκοποι ἤ κληρικοί, ἀλλοτρίους εἶναι τούς ἐπισκόπους τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς, καί τούς κληρικούς τοῦ κλήρου· εἰ δέ μονάζοντες ἤ λαϊκοί εἶεν, ἀναθεματίζεσθαι αὐτούς».\n\n( Τίς οὖν ἄρα τῶν ὁποσοῦν ᾐσθημένων Θεοῦ, καί τῆς αὐτοῦ παμφαοῦς δόξης ἐξηρτημένων, παρ᾿ οὗ, καί δι᾿ οὗ, καί εἰς ὅν ἡ σωτηρία τῶν εὐσεβῶς ὁμολογούντων αὐτόν, ἔτ᾿ ἄν τήν διά τῶν θεσπεσίων λογίων τε καί Πατέρων ἄνωθεν καί ἐξ ἀρχῆς παραδεδομένην ἡμῖν ὀρθόδοξον πίστιν ἀπολιπεῖν, καί προκρῖναι τήν πρόσφατον καινοτομίαν· καθ᾿ ἧς, ὥσπερ δή καί πάσης ἑτέρας παρά τόν εὐσεβῆ λογισμόν ἐξηυρημένης τοῖς ἑτερόφροσιν, ὁ τῆς ἐγκρίτου καί συνοδικῆς ἀρᾶς ἔνθεσμος ἐξενήνεκται τῶν ἐν Χαλκηδόνι συνειλεγμένων ἁγίων Πατέρων, ὡς ὁ λόγος ἀπέδειξεν· αἱ μή που τῆς οἰκείας καταναρκήσας ζωῆς, τῆς ἀπό Θεοῦ δόξης τήν ἀλλοτρίωσιν προτετίμηκε.","english":"Therefore, for the complete abolition of such things—I mean of those who from time to time search out the deceitful speculations against the faith—the synodal law of the holy assembly of the blessed Fathers at Chalcedon is most excellently ordained, being commanded somewhat as follows: \"The holy and ecumenical council has ordained that it be permitted to no one to bring forward another faith, that is, to write or compose or think or teach others; but those who dare to compose another faith, that is, to bring forward or teach or hand down another creed, whether they be from Hellenism or Judaism, that is, from any heresy whatsoever, wishing to turn to the knowledge of the truth—these, if they be bishops or clerics, the bishops are to be alien to the episcopate and the clerics to the clergy; but if they be monks or laymen, they are to be anathematized.\"\n\nWho, then, of those who have in any way perceived God and are attached to His all-radiant glory, from whom and through whom and unto whom is the salvation of those who piously confess Him—who would ever abandon the orthodox faith handed down to us from on high and from the beginning through the divine oracles and Fathers, and prefer the recent innovation? Against which, as indeed against every other thing devised by the heterodox contrary to pious reasoning, the lawful curse of the approved and synodal assembly of the holy Fathers gathered at Chalcedon has been pronounced, as the argument has shown—unless perhaps, having grown slack in their own life, they have preferred alienation from the glory of God.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":142,"ref":"p142","source":"Διό δή πράγμασιν αὐτοῖς θεώμενοι, Δέσποτα, καί κατανοοῦντες πρόοδον οὖσαν φανερῶς ἀναφανδόν καί προκήρυξιν, εἴς τε θεοσεβείας ἁπάσης ἀνατροπήν, καί τῆς τοῦ Μονογενοῦς ἐξάρνησιν ἀληθοῦς\n\nἐπιγνώσεως, ἐσχάτης τε πλάνης καί τοῦ τελευταίου θηρός, κατά τήν τῶν ταῦτα φρονούντων ἁγίων ἀνδρῶν, ἐξ ἐπιπνοίας θείας καί μακαριωτάτης ἐλλάμψεως προαγόρευσιν, εἰς ἡμετέραν φρουράν τῶν τά τέλη τῶν αἰώνων κατειληφότων, ταύτην δή τήν ἐπείσακτον καινοτομίαν παντί σθένει τῆς ἑαυτῶν ἕκαστος καρδίας τηρήσωμεν, ὡς ἄν μή συναπαχθῶμεν ἀπεριμερίμνως οἶον καί ἀτημελῶς, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἐμβριθῶς λίαν καί ἀνδρικῶς κατά πάσης ἀσεβείας ἱστάμενοι, λογισμούς, Γραφικῶς εἰπεῖν, καθαιροῦντες, καί πᾶν ὕψωμα ἐπαιρόμενον κατά τῆς γνώσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ. Ταύτῃ τοι καί αὐτός ὁ τῶν ὅλων Σωτήρ Κύριος ἡμῶν καί Θεός, φιλανθρώπως ἡμᾶς ἀσφαλιζόμενος· Τότε, φησίν, ἐάν τις ὑμῖν εἴπῃ· Ἰδού ὦδε ὁ Χριστός, ἰδού ὦδε· μή πιστεύσητε, τάς κιβδήλους περί αὐτοῦ τῶν ἐπιλόξων, καί διαφόρους πίστεις καί ὑπολήψεις, τοῦ κατ᾿ αὐτόν ποῤῥωτάτω μυστηρίου διαπεμπόμενος, καί τούς οἰκείου ὀπαδούς ἀλλοτρίας ἁπάσης ( δόξης ) ἀνείργων, ( αἷς τό εἰλικρινές τῆς εἰς αὐτόν ὁμολογίας ἐκταράττειν εἰώθασιν ἄμα καί πολεμεῖν, οἱ τόν τρόπον ἐριστικοί καί ἀντίφρονες· ὡς ἄν μή ποτ᾿ ἄν ὁ εὐσεβής καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς καί φιλόθεος νοῦς τινι τούτων ἁλούς, ἀποπέσῃ ἀληθείας, πιθανότητι μύθων παραῤῥυείς, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἀποδείξει πατρικῶν λόγων βεβαιωθείς. Γρηγορεῖτε γοῦν καί προσεύχεσθε, παρεγγυᾷ, διά τοῦτο πάλιν ὁ λόγος ἡμῖν, ἵνα μή εἰσέλθητε εἰς πειρασμόν·","english":"Therefore, observing these things in the actual facts, O Master, and perceiving that this is manifestly and openly a procession and a proclamation, both to the overthrow of all piety and to the denial of the true knowledge of the Only-begotten, and of the last deception and the final beast, according to the foretelling of the holy men who hold these things, by divine inspiration and most blessed illumination, for our guarding—we who have attained the ends of the ages—let each of us keep this imported innovation with all the strength of his own heart, so that we may not be led away carelessly, as it were, and negligently, but rather standing very firmly and manfully against all impiety, casting down reasonings, as Scripture says, and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God. For this reason our Lord and God, the Savior of all, also, in His love for mankind, secures us: Then, He says, if anyone says to you, 'Behold, here is the Christ, behold, here,' do not believe—sending forth the counterfeit and various beliefs and suppositions about Him of the deceitful, far removed from the mystery that is according to Him, and restraining His own followers from every alien opinion, with which those who are contentious and contrary in manner are accustomed both to disturb and to war against the sincerity of the confession in Him; so that the pious and God-loving mind among us may never, caught by any of these, fall away from the truth, being swept aside by the persuasiveness of myths, but rather confirmed by the demonstration of the fathers' words. Watch therefore and pray, He enjoins—for this reason the word comes to us again—that you may not enter into temptation.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":143,"ref":"p143","source":"ἐγρηγόρσει μέν, τήν περί τοῦτο νῆψιν, προσευχῇ δέ, τήν αὐτοῦ κατά χάριν ἀντίληψιν βουλόμενος ἡμῖν ἐμποιῆσαι. Πειρασμόν δέ τόν ἐκ πλάνης, οὐκ ἀνάγκης φησίν ἐνταῦθα, εἰς ὅν οἴκοθεν, οὐχ ἑτέροθεν εἰσαγόμεθα, τῆς εὐθείας παρεκκλινόμενοι τρίβου καί βασιλικῆς· ἥν εὐθυτομοῦντες αὐτοί θεοδήγητοι, καί τούς κατ᾿ ἐμέ τόν ὑμέτερον ἐπ᾿ ἀμφοτέρων χωλανάντας τῶν ἰγγύων σοφῶς ὁδηγήσατε, πρός τό ἄσκιον ἀνακομίζοντες φῶς καί ἀνέσπερον, τῆς τοῦ λόγου θειοτάτης ὁμολογίας καί πολιτείας, πρός τήν ἐκεῖθεν ἀμοιβήν ἀποβλέποντες. Ἐπεί καί νόμος παρακελεύεται θεῖος τούς καθ᾿ ὑμᾶς δυνατούς τῶν ἀσθενούντων τά βάρη βαστάζειν, καί οὕτω τόν νόμον ἀναπληροῦν. Βαρύ δέ βάρος ὑπέρ τι ἄλλο καθέστηκε τῶν δυσχερῶν, ἡ περί τῶν αὐτῶν διαφορία λόγων, ἐγγινομένη τοῖς νηπιωδεστέροις, χρόνων τε καί προσώπων ὑπαλλαγαῖς, ἀπάτῃ τυχόν, ἤ ἀπειλῇ τῶν κολακευόντων, σαινόντων ἤ ἀκριβούντων· καί ἐν καιρῷ μάλιστα τῆς τοῦ παντός ἀνωμαλίας, ἀσχέτως ἐπιφυομένων. Χεῖρα τοιγάρτοι συμπαθῶς ὀρέγοντες τῷ ὑμετέρῳ μή διαλείποιτε πρόσφυγι, τοῦτο μέν λόγῳ καθαίροντες ἐπιστημόνως· τοῦτο δέ προσευχῇ στηρίζοντες φιλανθρώπως, καί αὐτῷ προσοικειοῦντές τε καί προσάγοντες, τῷ παρ᾿ ὑμῶν ὀρθῶς τε προσκυνουμένῳ καί πιστευομένῳ Θεῷ Λόγῳ καί παμβασιλεῖ τῶν αἰώνων, νῦν τε καί κατά τήν αὐτοῦ φοβεράν ἐπιφάνειαν· ᾧ σύν Πατρί καί ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι, τιμή, κράτος, δόξα, προσκύνησις, εἰς τούς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. Ἀμήν. ΠΕΡΙ ΤΩΝ ΔΥΟ ΘΕΛΗΜΑΤΩΝ ΤΟΥ ΕΝΟΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ ΤΟΥ ΘΕΟΥ ΗΜΩΝ Περί θελημάτων β´ τοῦ ἑνός Χριστοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν.","english":"...wishing to instill in us, by wakefulness, vigilance concerning this, and by prayer, his own assistance according to grace. But the temptation that comes from error, he says here, not from necessity, into which we are led from ourselves, not from elsewhere, turning aside from the straight and royal path; which, cutting straight ahead ourselves, divinely guided, and those who, like me your suppliant, limp on both feet, guide wisely, bringing them back to the unshadowed and never-setting light, looking toward the recompense from there, of the most divine confession and conduct of the Word. Since indeed a divine law enjoins that those who are strong among you bear the burdens of the weak, and thus fulfill the law. But a heavy burden beyond any other of difficulties is the disagreement of words about the same things, arising in the more childish, by changes of times and persons, perhaps by deceit, or by threat of those who flatter, fawn, or scrutinize; and especially in the time of the disorder of the whole, when they rush on uncontrollably. Therefore, do not cease compassionately extending a hand to your suppliant, at one time cleansing by word knowledgeably, at another strengthening by prayer philanthropically, and making him familiar and bringing him near to the God Word and King of all ages, rightly worshiped and believed by you, now and at his fearful manifestation; to whom, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, be honor, might, glory, worship, unto the ages of ages. Amen. ON THE TWO WILLS OF THE ONE CHRIST OUR GOD. Concerning the two wills of the one Christ our God.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":144,"ref":"p144","source":"( Ἄλλα μέν ἄλλοις εἰς ἀσφάλειάν τε ὁμοῦ καί κόσμον τεχνικῶς ἐπινενόηνται, σχήματά τε καί εἴδη· καί τούτοις ἐμπρέπειν δοκοῦσι τῷ φαινομένῳ, τοῦ κρυπτομένου δι᾿ ἄνοιαν καταναρκήσαντες· σοί δέ, Πάτερ ἡγιασμένε, πρός ἀδιάστατον ἤδη μετενεγκόντι βίον τόν λογισμόν, ἡ ἄτεχνος καί παντός εἴδους καί σχήματος ὑπερέχουσα, πρός κάλλος ἤρκεσε καί φρουράν ἀρετή, τοσοῦτον ὡραΐζουσά σου πρός τῷ ἀφανεῖ, καί τό πᾶσιν ὁρώμενον, ὅσον πόθον τοῦ λυομένου καί κόσμου ( κοσμικοῦ ) τόν ἱστάμενον, καί οὔ ποτε κόρον ἔχοντα προετίμησας. Μᾶλλον δέ τοσοῦτον ἀποδεικνύσα, καθώς θέμις, προσῳκειωμένον Θεῷ καί ὅμοιον, ὅσον ὕλης καί τῶν περί ταύτην ἠλλοτριωμένον πάντη κατά σχέσιν ἀπέφηνε καί ἀνόμοιον. Ἔνθεν σοι καί τό ἀνάλωτον πρός τά δρῶντα κακῶς περίεστιν. Οὐ γάρ\n\nπέφυκε πρός ἐκείνων πάσχειν ὁ γνώμῃ πεπονθώς τά καλά, καί πρός ἐκείνων δι᾿ ὅλου κρατούμενος, πόθου τε πλήρωσιν εἰληφώς, τήν ἐφ᾿ ἑαυτῷ τοῦ ποθουμένου τελείαν ἐκνίκησιν, καί παύλαν κινήσεως τήν ἀεικίνητον στάσιν, καθ᾿ ἥν ὁ πάλαι τῆς φύσεως κρατήσας ἐξαφανίζεται θάνατος, οὐχ ἠττωμένης τούτῳ διά παραβάσεως. Οὐ γάρ ἔτι σάλον ὑφίστασαι, διά τήν ἐπικρατήσασαν χάριν τοῦ Πνεύματος, ὑφ᾿ ἧς τῷ ἀντέχεσθαι κατ᾿ εὐχάς ἀντεχόμενος, καί τάς ταύτης ἐπιστημόνως ἐξανύων τρίβους, ὑποδεικνύεις μέν κατ᾿ ἐνέργειαν, ὅσαι βασιλικαί καί θεῖαι τυγχάνουσιν, τοῖς πρός ἀπλανῆ τρίβον τήν τῆς εὐσεβείας ἰθυπορεῖν βουλομένοις· τούτων δέ τάς παρ᾿ ἑκάτερον ( ἐκτροπάς διορίζεις· καί τῶν μέν τάς ἠπειλημένας ἀνίας· τῶν δέ τάς ἐπηγγελμένας ἱεράς ἀμοιβάς ὑποφαίνεις·","english":"Other things—forms and shapes—have been devised by skill for the safety and adornment of different people, and these seem to suit what is visible, since those who hide themselves have been worn down by folly. But for you, holy Father, who have now transferred your reason to an unceasing life, unadorned virtue, surpassing every form and shape, has sufficed for beauty and for guard, adorning what is visible in you as much as what is unseen, in proportion to your preference for the standing and never-satiated desire over the dissolving world—the worldly world. Rather, as is right, it shows you to be so closely united and like to God as it has proved you wholly estranged from and unlike matter and the things around it in disposition. Hence you also possess invulnerability against those who act wickedly. For he who in his judgment has suffered good things does not by nature suffer at their hands, and he who is wholly mastered by them has received the fulfillment of desire, the perfect conquest of the desired object in himself, and as cessation of motion the ever-moving stand, in which the death that once ruled nature is destroyed, since nature is not defeated by it through transgression. For you no longer undergo tossing, because the grace of the Spirit has prevailed, by which, holding fast in prayers to him who is held fast, and knowingly completing his paths, you show in action how many royal and divine paths there are for those who wish to walk straight toward the unerring path of piety. And you distinguish the deviations on either side of these; and of the one you reveal the threatened pains, of the other the promised sacred rewards.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":145,"ref":"p145","source":"ὡς ἄν δέει καί πόθῳ πρός τήν ἔνθεον ἀγάγοις τελείωσιν. Καί σοῦ τήν ἐργασίαν ἀποθαυμάσας ἐπαινῶ προσηκόντως τήν σύνεσιν· μᾶλλον δέ τήν περί ἑκατέρα καταπλαγείς εὐτονίαν, τόν δυναμοῦντά σε καί σοφίζοντα δοξάζω Θεόν, λιπαρῶν ταῖς αὐταῖς χρῆσθαι μεθόδοις πρός τούς ἐνδεεῖς φρενῶν, καί μή κάμνειν· οὐ γάρ ἔχει κάματον ἡ ἀρετή, πάντων οὖσα κατεργαστική τῶν καλῶν, μέχρις ὅτου νοῦν ἐμποιήσῃς Χριστοῦ, καί τά βάθη τοῦ Πνεύματος διερευνᾷν ἐκπαιδεύσῃ, οὗ καί τά ἐμφανῆ, πᾶσαν τῶν ὄντων περιγράφει σοφίαν καί δύναμιν, καί τήν ἐν μυστηρίῳ λαλουμένην ἀποκαλύπτει, τοῖς κατά σέ προσθεμένοις αὐτῷ, καί μηδέν εἰς συμβίωσιν τούτου προκρίνασι τιμιώτερον. Ἀλλ᾿ ἐπειδή τήν πασῶν πρωτίστην ὁμοίως καί τελευταῖαν, ὡς πραγωγόν καί σφραγίδα περιλάμπουσαν ἀρετήν κεκτημένος· λέγω δή τήν ταπείνωσιν, πυθέσθαι κατηξίωσας τόν σόν οἰκέτην καί μαθητήν, διά τόν περί φυσικοῦ θελήματος ὁρισμόν, ὅν ὁ εὐλαβής πεποίηκε μοναχός, εἰ εὖ ἔχει, ἤ μή, φήσας, \"Δύναμιν ὑπάρχειν τοῦ κατά φύσιν ὄντος ὀρεκτικήν, καί τῶν οὐσιωδῶς τῇ φύσει προσόντων συνεκτικήν πάντων ἰδιωμάτων». Καί, ὅτι ἄλλο τοῦτο, καί τό γνωμικόν ἄλλο, καλῶς ἔχειν ὑπολαμβάνω, καί τῆς τῶν θεοκρίτων οὐκ ἀπᾴδοντα διδασκαλίας Πατέρων, εἰ καί τισιν ἐνομίσθη μή οὕτως ἔχειν, θέλησιν καί θεληθέν ἤ θελητόν ἰσχυριζομένοις τό θέλημα τούς Πατέρας ὁρίζεσθαι. Καί τίς οὕτως ὁρίζεται, καί ποῖος τῶν Πατέρων, ἠδέως ἄν ἠρόμην αὐτούς.","english":"So that by fear and longing you might lead them to divine perfection. And having marveled at your work, I praise your understanding as is fitting—or rather, struck with wonder at your vigor in both respects, I glorify the God who strengthens and makes you wise, entreating you to use the same methods toward those lacking in understanding, and not to grow weary; for virtue has no weariness, since it is the accomplisher of all good things, until you implant the mind of Christ and train them to search out the depths of the Spirit—whose manifest things also encompass all the wisdom and power of beings, and reveal what is spoken in mystery—for those who have attached themselves to him in accordance with you, and have preferred nothing more honorable for fellowship with him. But since, possessing as you do the virtue that is first of all and likewise last, as both producer and seal shining forth—I mean humility—you have deigned to ask your servant and disciple, concerning the definition of natural will which the pious monk has made, whether it is sound or not, saying: \"There exists a power of the nature that is, capable of desiring, and cohesive of all the properties that belong essentially to the nature.\" And that this is one thing and the gnomic [will] another, I consider to be sound and not discordant with the teaching of the God-judged Fathers, even if some have thought it not so, insisting that the Fathers define will and the willed or the willable as the will. And who defines it thus, and which of the Fathers, I would gladly ask them.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":146,"ref":"p146","source":"Εἰ γάρ οὕτως, τί ποτε ἄλλο τοῦτο καθέστηκεν, ἤ διάλληλος δεῖξις, ἡ τόν αὐτοῦ καθ᾿ ἑαυτόν μή διευκρινοῦσα λόγον, ( ἀλλ᾿ ἑκατέρου τόν αὐτόν δι᾿ ἑκατέρου τιθεμένη παρά τό εἰκός, καί προΐσχουσα, ὅπερ ὑπάρχει τό, θέλησιν ὁρίζειν τό θέλημα, καί τοῦτο αὖθις ἐκείνην. Ἀντιστρέφει γάρ πρός τόν οἰκεῖον ὅρον τά ὁριζόμενα. Ὅτι γάρ καί θέλησιν τό θέλημα λέγουσιν, δῆλον. Οὐ μήν ὡς ὁρισμόν θελήματος τοῦτό φασι. Τίς γάρ ὁ δεῖξαι δυνάμενος· ἐπεί καί βουλήματος βούλησις, καί κίνησις αὖθις κινήματος, καί ἀνθρώπου ἀνθρωπότης ἔσται, κατά τούς λέγοντας, ὁρισμός. Εἴτε δέ οὕτως, εἴτ᾿ ἐκείνως σημαίνουσι τό σημαινόμενον, οὐδαμῶς τήν ὕπαρξιν αὐτοῦ παραβλάπτουσι, εἴτε κίνησις, εἴτε οὐσία τό δηλούμενον ᾗ. Καί γάρ εἰ τοῦτο, πάντων καθολικῶν ἅμα καί μερικῶν διαπεσεῖται πάντως ἡ ὕπαρξις. Διαφόροις γάρ ἐν πᾶσι προσχρώμεθα σημασίαις. Κἀκεῖνο δέ φημι, ὡς εἰ καί θέλησιν τό θέλημα προσαγορεύουσιν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐδαμῶς θεληθέν ἤ θελητόν. Πῶς γάρ ταυτόν ἔφεσις, καί ἐφετόν; Εἰ γάρ τοῦτο, πρός τί κινηθήσεται, αὐτό τοῦτο κυρίως ὑπάρχουσα πρός ὅπερ ἄν καί κινεῖται, καί μή ἄλλο παρ᾿ ἐκεῖνο τήν φύσιν τυγχάνουσα; Μέση γάρ αὕτη τῶν ἄκρων σχέσις ἐστίν· ἑνωποιοῦσα μέν ταῦτα δι᾿ ἑαυτῆς, οὐ συμβαίνουσα δέ τούτοις κατά τήν ὕπαρξιν. Καί μάρτυς ὁ θεῖος καί μέγας Γρηγόριος, τό θεληθέν καί γεννηθέν, οὐκ εἰς ταυτόν ἄγων τῇ θελήσει καί τῇ γεννήσει καθάπαξ· ἀλλά διά τούτων ὡς σχέσεων φυσικῶν, ἀνάγων ἐπί τόν γεννῶντα καί θέλοντα.","english":"For if so, what else is this but a reciprocal demonstration, one that does not clarify its own account in itself, but rather, contrary to what is reasonable, posits the same thing for each through the other and puts forward precisely this: that the will defines the willing, and this again that. For things defined revert to their own proper boundary. That they call the willing \"will\" is clear. Yet they do not say this as a definition of will. For who is able to demonstrate it? Since then, according to those who say so, the willing of counsel would be a definition, and again a movement of a movement, and the humanity of a man. But whether they signify the thing signified in this way or in that, they in no way harm its existence, whether the thing indicated be a movement or an essence. For if so, the existence of all universals and particulars alike will utterly collapse. For we employ different significations in all things. And I say this too, that even if they call the willing \"will,\" they in no way call it willed or desirable. For how are impulse and the desirable the same? For if so, toward what will it be moved, being itself properly that toward which it is also moved, and not having its nature as something other than that? For this is a middle relation between the extremes, uniting these through itself, yet not coinciding with them in existence. And the divine and great Gregory is a witness, who does not bring the willed and the begotten into identity with the will and the generation once for all, but through these, as natural relations, leads back to the one who begets and wills.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":147,"ref":"p147","source":"Εἰ γάρ μήτε τήν ἀναφοράν τοῦ θεληθέντος ἤ γεννηθέντος πρός τήν θέλησιν καί τήν γέννησιν ποιῆσαι κατεδέξατο, καίτοι μέσης κατά φύσιν οὔσης, \"Οὐ γάρ ἕπεται πάντως, φησί, πῶς ἔμελλεν εἰς ταὐτόν ἀγαγεῖν, καί ἕν εἶναι ταῦτα διαγορεύειν».\n\nἌλλως τε· εἰ θέλημά φασι τό θεληθέν, θεληθέν δέ καί θελητόν κατά φύσιν ἡμεῖς· Θεοῦ γάρ κτίσμα τυγχάνομεν, οὐκ ἄλλο λοιπόν ἤ μόνον ἡμᾶς θέλημα κατά φύσιν ἔχει Θεός, γινόμενόν τε καί ἀπογινόμενον, καθά καί ἡμεῖς· πρίν δέ εἶναι, παντός ὤν θελήματος ἔρημος. Τό αὐτό δέ καί ἐπί ἡμῶν συναχθήσεται, καί οἰκεῖον ( μέν ἡμῖν καί φυσικόν οὐ προσέσται, μόνον δέ τό ἔξωθεν θεληθέν, ὄν τε καί μή ὄν· καλόν καί μή τοιοῦτον, περιπλασθήσεται· πῶς ( πρός) δέ καί θεληθέν τε τῶν ἐκτός ὑπάρχει. Διά γάρ τόν πρός αὐτό θελήσει κινούμενον, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ δι᾿ αὐτό λέγεται, θεληθέν καί θελητόν. Ὡς ἐάν μηδέν θελήσῃ τῶν ὄντων, ὁ τήν φυσικήν θέλησιν ἔχων, οὐδέν αὐτῷ θεληθέν ἤ θελητόν. Τίς οὖν ὁ λόγος τοῖς θέλημα τό θεληθέν ἰσχυριζομένοις ὑπάρχειν, ἤ λέγεσθαι πρός τῶν ἁγίων Πατέρων ἀποφαινομένοις;","english":"For if he did not deign to make the reference of the thing willed or begotten to the will and the begetting, although it is naturally intermediate, \"For it does not follow at all, he says, how he was going to bring them into the same thing, and declare that these are one.\"\n\nBesides, if they say that the thing willed is will, and we are by nature both willed and willing; for we happen to be a creature of God, it remains that God has nothing else than only us as a natural will, coming to be and ceasing to be, just as we do; but before we exist, he is destitute of every will. The same will also be gathered in our case, and what is proper and natural to us will not be present, but only the thing willed from outside, both being and not being; good and not such, will be wrapped around; and how also the thing willed belongs to things external. For because of the one moved toward it by will, but not because of it, it is called willed and willing. So if the one having the natural will wills nothing of existing things, nothing is willed or willing to him. What then is the account for those who insist that the thing willed is will, or is said to be so by the holy Fathers who declare it?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":148,"ref":"p148","source":"Ἔστω δέ καί οὕτω λεγόμενον κατ᾿ αὐτούς, οὐ γάρ περί διαφορᾶς ὀνομάτων ἡμῖν, ἀλλ' εὐσεβῶν νοημάτων ὁ λόγος· ἐκεῖνο δέ προσηκόντως ἐρομένοις ἀποκριθῶσιν, εἰ ἄλλο κατά φύσιν ἐστί τό θεῖον πρός τό ἀνθρώπινον θέλημα· καί ἄλλο πρός ἐκεῖνο τοῦτο, κἄν εἰ μυρίως καλῆται καί ὀνομάζηται· τοῦτο διδάξωσι, καί κραδαινομένην ἡμῶν ἐπί τῷ ἀγνώστῳ στηρίζωσι τήν διάνοιαν· καί οἱ λίαν αὐτῶν ταῖς ὀνοματοθεσίαις δυσχεράνομεν, ἀλλ᾿ εἴ τι καί παρ᾿ ἑαυτῶν ἐν τούτοις συνεισενέγκομεν. Εἰ γάρ ἄλλο καί ἄλλο κατ᾿οὐσίαν οὐκ ἔστι, δῆλον ὡς ἕν φύσει καί ταὐτόν. Καί εἰ τοῦτο, καί ἡ φύσις ἐξ ἀνάγκης μία καί ἀπαράλλακτος. Οὗ γάρ ἑτερότης φυσική θελημάτων οὐκ ἔστιν, οὐδ' οὐσίας τό παράπαν καί φύσεως. Εἰ δέ ἄλλο φύσει καί ἄλλο, διάφορα πάντως· καί εἰ διάφορα, πῶς τόν ἐν πόσῳ τούτων ἀριθμόν οὐχ ὁμολογῆσαι χρεών; Ἡ γάρ τούτου ἐξάρνησις, αὐτῆς τε πάμπαν ἀφανισμόν, καί τῶν διαφερόντων, ὡς οὐκ ὄντων, ἐργάζεται. Πῶς γάρ καί εἶναι δυνατόν καί μή ἀριθμεῖσθαι, καί δι᾿ ἥντινα τήν αἰτίαν; ἤ πῶς ὄντα μέν κατά φύσιν, οὐκ ἀριθμούμενα δέ τά θελήματα τήν αὐτήν, εἴπερ εὐλόγως μή παύσοιντο τοῦ ἀριθμεῖσθαι καὐταί αἱ φύσεις; Τό γάρ ἐπ᾿ ἐκείνων καλόν, ἐμφύτων ὄντων καί συστατικῶν τῶν πραγμάτων, καί ἐπ᾿ αὐτοῖς ὑπάρχειν προσήκει τοῖς πράγμασι, καί ἤ κἀκ τούτων ἀνέλωσι τόν ἀριθμόν, ὡς ὅτι ( κατ᾿ αὐτούς λυμαινόμενον, ἤ μηδαμῶς παραβλάπτοντα, καί ἐπ᾿ ἐκείνων περιληφθῇ. Πρός δήλωσιν τῆς ἑνούσης αὐτοῖς ἐμφύτου διαφορᾶς, δι᾿ ἥν αὐτῷ κἄν ταῖς οὐσίαις προσχρώμεθα·","english":"Let this also be said in their own terms—for our argument concerns not the difference of names but pious thoughts—and let them answer appropriately when asked this: whether the divine will is by nature one thing and the human will another, and whether the latter is one thing in relation to the former, even if it is called and named in countless ways. Let them teach this and steady our mind, which is shaken over what is unknown; and we shall be greatly vexed by their naming conventions—unless we too have contributed something of our own in these matters. For if one thing and another are not different in essence, it is clear that they are one in nature and the same. And if so, then the nature is necessarily one and without variation. For where there is no natural otherness of wills, there is not at all any otherness of essence and nature either. But if one thing is by nature and another is another, they are altogether different; and if they are different, how can one not confess the number of them in quantity? For the denial of this brings about the complete destruction of the number itself and of the things that differ, as though they did not exist. For how can they both exist and not be numbered, and for what reason? Or how can the wills, being by nature, not be numbered, if indeed the natures themselves would not reasonably cease from being numbered? For the good that applies to those things, being innate and constitutive of the realities, ought also to exist in the realities themselves; and either they must abolish number in these things too, as though it were (according to them) harmful, or as in no way injurious, and it would be included in those things as well. For the manifestation of the innate difference residing in them, on account of which we also apply it to the essences themselves—","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":149,"ref":"p149","source":"ἤ δείξωσι, πῶς μή ἀναίρεσιν πάντωνς ἤ σύγχυσιν, τοῦ κατά ἄνθρωπον φυσικοῦ τοῦ Σωτῆρος θελήματος ἀπεργάζονται, διά τῆς κατά τόν ἀριθμόν παραιτήσεως.\n\nΚαί πῶς τέλειος ἄνθρωπος ὁ σαρκωθείς Λόγος, θελήματος ἐκτός φυσικοῦ; Τό γάρ θεωθῆναι τῇ πρός Θεόν ἑνώσει, καθά καί τήν φύσιν αὐτήν τῆς λογικῶς τε καί νοερῶς ἐψυχωμένης σαρκός, τῆς κατ᾿ οὐσίαν ὀντότητος οὐκ ἐξίστησιν· ὥσπερ οὐδέ τῆς οἰκείας τόν σίδηρον, ἡ ἄκρα καί δι᾿ ὅλου πρός τό πῦρ συνανάκρασίς τε καί ἕνωσις· ἀλλά πάσχει μέν τά πυρός, ἐπειδή πῦρ τῇ ἑνώσει γεγένηται· βρίθει δέ πάλιν κατά φύσιν, καί τέμνει, ὅτι μή τῆς οἰκείας λώβην πέπονθε φύσεως, ἤ φυσικῆς ἐνεργείας ἐξέστη τό σύνολον· καίτοι μετά πυρός ὑπάρχων κατά τήν αὐτήν καί μίαν ὑπόστασιν, καί ἀδιαστάτως δρῶν, τά τε κατά φύσιν ἰδίαν· λέγω δέ τήν τομήν· καί τά καθ᾿ ἕνωσιν αὖθις, ὅπερ ἐστίν ἡ καῦσις. Αὐτοῦ γάρ ὑπάρχει, καθάπερ καί τοῦ πυρός ἡ τομή, διά τήν ἄκραν τούτων αἰς ἄλληλα περιχώρησίν τε καί ἀντίδοσιν· καί οὔτε τήν φύσιν αὐτοῦ, φημί δέ τοῦ σιδήρου, κἄν μετά πυρός ὁρᾶται, κωλυόμεθα τό παράπαν ὀνομάζειν ἤ ἀριθμεῖν, οὔτε τήν φυσικήν ἐνέργειαν, εἰ καί μετά καύσεως καθορᾶται, καί μηδεμίαν ἔχει πρός ταύτην διάστασιν, ἀλλ᾿ ἑνοειδῶς σύν αὐτῇ τε καί ἐν αὐτῇ διαφαίνεται καί γνωρίζεται. Τίς οὖν ὁ λόγος, τοῦ τό φυσικῶς τῇ φύσει προσόν μή ἀριθμεῖν, τουτέστι τό θέλημα, καί ταύτῃ τό καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς ἀτελές τῷ ὑπερτελεῖ καί προτελείῳ Θεῷ Λόγῳ σεσαρκωμένῳ προσμαρτυρεῖν, καίτοι πάντων ἐπίσης, εὐδοκίᾳ Πατρός, καί συνεργείᾳ Πνεύματος ἁγίου διά τήν ἡμῶν σωτηρίαν,","english":"Or let them show how they do not accomplish the destruction or confusion of all things—namely, of the natural human will of the Savior—by their rejection of it in respect of number.\n\nAnd how is the incarnate Word a perfect man, apart from a natural will? For being deified by union with God does not remove from the nature itself of the rationally and intellectually ensouled flesh its substantial entity; just as neither does the extreme and thorough commingling and union with fire remove from iron its own properties. But it suffers the things of fire, because it has become fire by union; yet again it weighs down according to nature, and it cuts, because it has not suffered the loss of its own nature, nor has it departed at all from its natural activity—although it exists with fire according to the same and one hypostasis, and acts inseparably both the things proper to its own nature (I mean cutting) and again the things according to union, which is burning. For cutting belongs to it, just as burning belongs to the fire, because of their extreme mutual interpenetration and interchange; and we are not at all prevented from naming or numbering either its nature (I mean that of the iron), even though it is seen with fire, or its natural activity, even though it is observed with burning and has no separation from it, but is seen and known uniformly together with it and in it. What, then, is the reason for not numbering what naturally belongs to nature—that is, the will—and thereby ascribing to the supremely perfect and pre-perfect God the Word incarnate what is imperfect according to us, although all things equally, by the good pleasure of the Father and the cooperation of the Holy Spirit, for our salvation,","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":150,"ref":"p150","source":"καθ᾿ ἕνωσιν τήν ἀδιάστατον τῶν τῆς φύσεως κεκοινωνηκότι, καθάπερ οὖν καὐτῆς τελείως τῆς φύσεως, πλήν μόνης τῆς ἁμαρτίας, ( ὅτι μηδέ τῆς φύσεως ἦν, ἀλλά γνώμης, παρά τόν λόγον καί τόν νόμον κεκινημένης τῆς φύσεως, ἐκτροπή καί ὀλίσθημα;\n\nΚαί μοι δεόντως μάλιστα τούτου γε χάριν ὁ λεχθείς ἐπιστήσας φαίνεται μοναχός, τοῦ φυσικοῦ τό γνωμικόν διαστείλας θελήματος. Τό μέν γάρ, κατά τόν αὐτοῦ καλῶς ἔχοντα ὁρισμόν, Δύναμις ὑπάρχει τοῦ κατά φύσιν ὄντος ὀρεκτική. Πᾶν γάρ εἴ τι τῶν ὄντων καί μάλιστα λογικῶν, φυσικῶς τοῦ κατά φύσιν ὄντος ὀρέγεται, καί τούτου παρά Θεοῦ λαβόν κατ᾿ οὐσίαν ἔχει τήν δύναμιν, πρός σύστασιν τήν ἑαυτοῦ. Εἰ γάρ τοῦ κατά φύσιν ὄντος οὐκ ἔχει τήν ὄρεξιν, τοῦ μηδαμῶς ὄντος, πόθεν καί πῶς, μηδόλως ὕπαρξιν ἤ κίνησιν ἔχοντος; Μόνον γάρ ἀδρανές τό μή ὄν καί ἀνούσιον· καί οὐδαμῶς οὐδέ μία τούτου δύναμις ἐν τοῖς οὖσιν ὑπάρχει, καί κίνησις. Τό δέ, αὐθαίρετος ὁρμή καθέστηκε, τάς ἐφ᾿ ἑκάτερα ποιουμένη παρεκτροπάς· καί οὐ φύσεως ὑπάρχον ἀφοριστικόν, ἀλλά προσώπου κυρίως καί ὑποστάσεως. Καί τοῦτό γε διαγνούς ὁ διῃρημένος καί ἀνθρωπολάτρης Νεστόριος, γνωμῶν ἕνωσιν ἀσεβῶς ἐδογμάτισεν· ἵν᾿ ἑκατέραν δι᾿ ἑκατέρας ὑπόστασιν ἐπικυρώσῃ, καί ὁ ψιλός ἄνθρωπος αὐτῷ τηρηθῇ, γνώμῃ τινί καί αὐθαιρέτῳ κινήσει τῇ πρός τόν Θεόν Λόγον, ὡς αὐτός φησι, τήν ἕνωσιν ποιησάμενος, ἐξ ἧς καί τήν ταυτοβουλίαν συνίστησιν, ἤ πολυβουλίαν, εἰπεῖν οἰκειότερον· ὅσῳ καί καθ᾿ ἑκάστης τοῦ γνωμικοῦ θελήματος κίνησιν, κατά μέρος ἐκ τῶν ἀτελῶν ἐπί τά ἐντελῆ κατ᾿ αὐτόν ἴεται, φερομένη τε καί προκόπτουσα·","english":"through union with it, having partaken of the things of nature in an undivided union, just as indeed of nature itself perfectly, except for sin alone (because it was not of nature but of the will, when nature was moved contrary to reason and law, a deviation and a slip?\n\nAnd rightly, especially for this reason, the aforementioned monk appears to have paid attention, having distinguished the will of choice from the natural will. For the one, according to his well-stated definition, is a power desirous of what exists according to nature. For if any of existing things, and especially of rational beings, naturally desires what exists according to nature, it has this power from God by essence, for its own constitution. For if it does not have the desire for what exists according to nature, how and from where would it have desire for what in no way exists, having no existence or motion at all? For only non-being is inert and without substance; and no power at all of it exists among existing things, nor motion. But the other is a self-chosen impulse, making deviations to either side; and it is not a defining property of nature, but properly of person and hypostasis. And Nestorius, the divided one and man-worshipper, having discerned this, impiously dogmatized a union of wills, so that through each he might confirm each hypostasis, and the mere man might be preserved for him, having made the union, as he himself says, by some will and self-chosen motion toward God the Word, from which he also establishes sameness of will, or rather, more properly speaking, multiplicity of will; inasmuch as at each motion of the will of choice, he advances in his view from imperfect things to perfect things, being carried along and progressing.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":151,"ref":"p151","source":"ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἐξ αὐτῆς τῆς ἀφράστου συλλήψεως, ὅλης τελείως μετά τῶν αὐτῆς ἁπάντων, πρός ὅλην καί τά κατ᾿ αὐτήν ἅπαντα, τήν ἡμετέραν φύσιν τῆς τοῦ Λόγου θεότητος, καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν μίαν καί τήν αὐτήν ἑνωθείσης. Ὡς ἄν τοίνυν καί τό ἐνελές διακριβώσῃ τῆς φύσεως ἐπί τοῦ σαρκωθέντος Θεοῦ, καί τό ἀντικείνενον διαῤῥίψῃ ὁ λεχθείς μοναχός· τό μέν φυσικόν ὥρισεν ἐπ᾿ αὐτοῦ· τό δέ γνωμικόν ἀποδιώρισε θέλημα, μήτε τῇ διαιρέσει χώραν δούς τῷ στασιάζειν ἐν ( τούτῳ, μήτε τῇ φαντασίᾳ παρείσδυσιν, τῷ μή ὑπάρχειν ἐκεῖνο. Εἰ δέ τις τυχόν ἰσχυρίζεται, μή ἄν ἄλλως ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ δυνατόν, ἤ κατ᾿ ἐναντίωσιν τά δύο θελήματα λέγεσθαι· εἰ μέν ὡς κατ᾿ οὐσίαν διάφορα, κἀγώ δέχομαι, εἰ δέ ὡς ἀντικείμενα, ψευδής ὁ λόγος. Οὐ γάρ εἴ τι διάφορον πάντως καί ἀντικείμενον. Τό γάρ ἀντικείμενον, γνώμης παραλόγως δηλαδή κινουμένης· τό δέ τό δέ διάφορον, φύσεως λόγῳ κρατουμένης ἔργον καθέστηκε· καί τό μέν φύσεως στασιαστικόν, τό δέ προδήλως συστατικόν. Διαφορά τοιγαροῦν οὐσιώδης, εἰς σύστασιν τῶν ἐν τῇ φύσει πράγμάτων ἐστίν, οὐ μή ἐναντίωσις, (ἀλλά ) πρός τήν τούτων διάλυσιν. Οὐ γάρ ἔχει ἡ φύσις τό παρά φύσιν· οὐδέ λόγος οὐδείς τοῦ στασιάζοντος.","english":"But not from that ineffable conception itself, with all its own properties wholly and perfectly united to our whole nature and all that belongs to it, in one and the same hypostasis, to the divinity of the Word. So then, in order that the said monk might both ascertain precisely what is complete in the nature of the incarnate God and cast aside what is opposed, he defined what is natural in him, and he set apart the gnomic will, giving no place to division so as to cause faction in this, nor allowing intrusion to imagination by reason of that thing's not existing. But if perhaps someone insists that the two wills cannot be spoken of otherwise than by way of opposition: if indeed as differing in essence, I too accept it; but if as opposed, the statement is false. For not everything that is different is altogether also opposed. For the opposed is the work of a judgment moved irrationally, while the different is the work of a nature governed by reason; and the one is factional to nature, the other manifestly constitutive. Essential difference, therefore, exists for the constitution of the things in nature, not opposition, but for their dissolution. For nature does not possess what is contrary to nature, nor is there any account of what is in faction.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":152,"ref":"p152","source":"Ἄλλως τε, εἰ τά δύο θελήματα πάντως ἐναντία καί ἀντικείμενα, πῶς ἐπί τε τῶν φύσει καί ὑποστάσει διῃρημένων λογικῶν, οὐ τοῦτο πάντη τε καί πάντως συμβαίνει. Συννεύομεν γάρ ἔστιν ὅτε τούτοις, καίτοι γνωμικοῖς οὖσι, καί Θεῷ, καί ἀγγέλοις, καί ἀλλήλοις, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ διά τοῦτο τῆς γνώμης ἤδη, καί τοῦ κατ᾿ αὐτήν θελήματος, διαπεπτώκαμεν. Εἰ γάρ τούτων, καί τῆς πρός τούς ἄλλους δηλονότι συννεύσεως, εἴπερ ἕως ταύτην ἔχομεν, καί τῶν ἄλλων γνωμικῶν ἀντεχόμεθα. Εἰ οὖν ἐνταῦθα τοῦτο, καί οὐδαμῶς ἀντίταξις καθορᾶται, καίτοι σωζομένων ὑπάρξει τε καί ἀριθμῷ τῶν γνωμικῶν θελημάτων, καί τήν φιλικήν ἐν σχέσει διάθεσιν· πῶς ἐπί τοῦ αὐτοῦ καί ἑνός σαρκωθέντος Θεοῦ Λόγου, καί τελείως δι᾿ ἡμᾶς ἐνανθρωπήσαντος, ἐν τοῖς φυσικῶς προσοῦσιν αὐτῷ κατ᾿ οὐσίαν θελήμασιν, ἐναντίωσις ἔσται. Πῶς δέ ταῦτά φασιν ἐναντία, δι᾿ αὐτόν γε τόν ἀριθμόν, ἤ καί δι᾿ αὐτό τό ὑπάρχειν. Εἰ δέ διά τοῦτο, καί τήν φύσιν ἀνέλωσι τῆς σαρκός, ἀντικειμένην τῷ Λόγῳ διά τήν ὕπαρξιν. Πολλῷ γάρ ἰσχυρότερον, ὡς πᾶσιν εὔδηλον, εἰς ἀντίταξιν,","english":"Besides, if the two wills are altogether contrary and opposed, how is it that in the case of rational beings divided by nature and hypostasis this does not happen in every way and altogether? For we sometimes agree with them, though they are gnomic, and with God, and with angels, and with one another, yet not for this reason have we already fallen away from the gnome and the will according to it. For if [we agree] with these, and evidently with the agreement toward others, so long as we hold to this, we also cleave to other gnomic [beings]. If, then, here this is so, and no opposition at all is observed, although the gnomic wills are preserved in existence and number, and the friendly disposition in relation—how, in the case of the same and one incarnate God the Word, who became man perfectly for our sake, will there be opposition in the natural wills that belong to him according to essence? And how do they say these are contrary, either by reason of the number itself, or by reason of existence itself? But if for this reason they also abolish the nature of the flesh, as opposed to the Word by reason of existence—for much more strongly, as is evident to all, toward opposition,","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":153,"ref":"p153","source":"τό ὑποκείμενον τοῦ ἐν ὑποκειμένῳ ( καθέστηκεν. Εἰ δέ διά μόνον τόν ἀριθμόν, καί τούτου τάς φύσεις ἐρήμους ποιήσωσι, καί μηδέ μίαν αὐτῶν ἀριθμείτωσαν; παραιτείσθωσαν δέ καί πάλιν αὐτόν διά τήν αὐτήν, κἀπί τῶν τῆς μιᾶς καί ἀνάρχου θεότητος τριῶν ὑποστάσεων, ἵνα μή κἀκείνη στασιάζῃ πρός ἑαυτήν, ἀλλ᾿ ἄτοπόν γε τῷ μηδέν ὄντι τό σύνολον, οὐκ οὐσία, οὐ ποιόν, οὐκ ἄλλο τι τῶν ὄντων, ἰσχύν τοσαύτην ἀποκληροῦν· ἀτοπώτερον δέ, καί τήν ὕπαρξιν αὐτήν τοῦ φυσικοῦ θελήματος αἰτιᾶσθαι, κἀντεῦθεν τήν ἀναίρεσιν αὐτοῦ κατασκευάζειν. Καί ταῦτα, τῶν ἄλλων ἐν τῇ φύσει πρωτίστην οὖσαν φυσικῶν ἰδιωμάτων καί κινημάτων ἔμφυτον δύναμιν. Κατά ταύτην γάρ μόνην, τοῦ εἶναι καί ζῇν, καί κινεῖσθαι, καί νοεῖν, καί λαλεῖν, καί αἰσθάνεσθαι, καί μετέχειν τροφῆς, ὕπνου τε καί ἀναπαύσεως, καί μή ἀλγύνεσθαι, μηδέ θνήσκειν, καί ἁπλῶς ἁπάντων τῶν συνιστώντων τήν φύσιν, ἔχειν τελείως τάς ἕξεις, καί τῶν λυμαινομένων τάς στερήσεις, φυσικῶς ἐφιέμεθα.","english":"The subject of what is in a subject has been established. But if it is only by number, and they make their natures destitute of this too, and count not even one of them? And let them again reject him for the same reason, and also in the case of the three hypostases of the one and unoriginate Godhead, so that that too may not be at variance with itself. But it is absurd to assign such great strength to what is nothing at all—not substance, not quality, not anything else of things that exist—and it is more absurd still to blame the very existence of the natural will and from this to contrive its abolition. And this, when it is the first of all other natural properties and an innate power of natural motions. For by this alone we naturally desire to have perfectly the states of being, living, moving, thinking, speaking, perceiving, and partaking of food, sleep, and rest, and of not being in pain nor dying, and simply of all things that constitute nature, and the privations of those things that corrupt it.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":154,"ref":"p154","source":"Καί μοι φαίνεται κἀν τούτῳ προσηκόντως ποιήσας, κατά τόν αὐτοῦ ὁρισμόν ὁ εὐλαβής μοναχός, καί προσθείς τό· \" Καί τῶν οὐσιωδῶς τῇ φύσει προσόντων, συνεκτικήν πάντων ἰδιωμάτων». Πάντα γάρ ἀεί συνέχει, καί συνέχειν ἐφίεται, καί οὐδενός ἔχειν τήν στέρησιν, τό οὐσιῶδες ἐν ἡμῖν καί ἔμφυτον θέλημα· μᾶλλον δέ ἡμεῖς, δι᾿ αὐτοῦ τε καί κατ᾿ αὐτό· καί οἶμαι τόν καί ποσῶς τοῦ ὄντος, ἀλλά μή τοῦ δοκοῦντος λόγον ποιούμενον συνθήσεσθαι πάντως δή, καί ὡς ἄνθρωπον τόν σαρκωθέντα Θεόν φυσικόν ἔχειν καί ἀνθρώπινον θέλημα· καί τῶν ἀπηριθμημένων ἕκαστον θέλειν κατ᾿ αὐτό φυσικῶς, πρός πίστωσιν τῆς νοερῶς αὐτοῦ καί λογικῶς ἐψυχωμένης σαρκός, εἴπερ τέλειος ἄνθρωπος γέγονε, μηδενί τῶν ἡμετέρων λειπόμενος, πλήν μόνης τῆς ἁμαρτίας· ἀλλά πάντα ἔχων ὅσα καί ἡμεῖς, ἀπαραλείπτως τό κατά φύσιν συστατικά τῆς ἡμετέρας οὐσίας, ὥσπερ οὖν καί τά τῆς ἀνάρχου καί θείας, δι᾿ ὧν ἄνθρωπον ἑαυτόν ὁμοῦ καί Θεόν ( ὄντα κυρίως ἐγνώριζε, καί τήν πρός ἡμᾶς, καί τόν Πατέρα τελείως φυσικήν συγγένειαν διασώζοντα μετά τήν ἕνωσιν.","english":"And in this too the devout monk appears to me to have acted fittingly, according to his own definition, and to have added: \"and of the things that belong essentially to nature, being comprehensive of all properties.\" For the essential and innate will in us always holds all things together, and desires to hold them together, and to have the deprivation of nothing—or rather, we do, through it and according to it. And I think that one who makes account even in some measure of what is, and not of what seems, will certainly agree that the incarnate God, as man, has both a natural and a human will, and wills each of the things enumerated naturally according to it, as a confirmation of his flesh ensouled with intellect and reason, if indeed he has become a perfect man, lacking in none of our things except sin alone; but having all things that we also have, without omission, the constituents of our essence according to nature, just as also those of the unoriginate and divine essence, through which he knew himself to be truly both man and God, and preserved perfectly after the union the natural kinship both toward us and toward the Father.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":155,"ref":"p155","source":"Τό γάρ δή λέγειν, ὡς ἐν τῷ καιρῷ μόνῳ τοῦ σωτηρίου πάθους, ἡνίκα τό ἡμέτερον ἐτύπου πραγματικῶς ἐν ἑαυτῷ, καί ὡς ἄνθρωπος παρῃτεῖτο τόν θάνατον, δύο θελήματα ἔχων ἐδείκνυτο, ἀποφαντικόν, οὐκ ἀποδεικτικόν μοι δοκεῖ. Πῶς γάρ ἐν τούτῳ μόνῳ τῷ καιρῷ, καί μή πρό τούτου, καί δι᾿ ἥντινα τήν αἰτίαν. Εἰ μέν γάρ εἶχε τότε, καί ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς εἶχεν ἐξ οὖ γέγονεν ἄνθρωπος, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχ ὕστερον ἐσχεδίασεν· εἰ δέ ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς οὐκ εἶχεν, οὐ δέ κατά τόν καιρόν τοῦ πάθους, ἀλλά μόνον ἐφάντασε τήν παραίτησιν, καί πρός ταύτῃ τά λοιπά δι᾿ ὧν σεσώσμεθα, οἷον τό δάκρυον, τήν εὐχήν, τήν λύπην, τήν ἀγωνίαν, τόν σταυρόν, τόν θάνατον, τήν ταφήν· ἑνός γάρ ἀκυρουμένου τῶν ἐν αὐτῷ καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς φυσικῶν σωζομένων, οὐδέ τά ἄλλα στήσεται. Πῶς γάρ οὐκ ἐκεῖνο μέν, ταῦτα δέ; Καί τίς ὁ λόγος; ἐναντίωσις δέ ποῖα τό προσεύχεσθαι, καί φυσικῆς ἐκουσίως; τῆς κατά τήν σάρκα λέγω, πρόσδειξιν ἀσθενείας ποιεῖσθαι διά τῆς συστολῆς, καί μή ἀντιτείνειν ὅλως, ἀλλά λέγειν· Εἰ δυνατόν. Καί· Μή τί ἐγώ θέλω, ἀλλ᾿ εἴ τι σύ· καί συνάπτειν τῇ συστολῇ τήν ἰσχυράν κατά τοῦ θανάτου καί πρόθυμον κίνησιν; Ἐτύπου μέν γάρ πραγματικῶς ἐν ἑαυτῷ τό ἡμέτερον, διά τῆς φυσικῆς πρός μικρόν ἀγωνίας ἵνα καί ταύτης ἡμᾶς ἐλευθερώσῃ, καί τῆς οἰκείας σαρκός τήν φύσιν πιστώσηται, καί πᾶσι καθαράν τήν οἰκονομίαν φαντασίας ἐργάσηται· παρίστη δέ πάλιν εὐθύς τήν κατά τοῦ θανάτου μεγίστην ὁρμήν, καί τήν ἄκραν τοῦ κατ᾿ αὐτόν ἀνθρωπικοῦ, πρός τό οἰκεῖον αὐτοῦ καί Πατρικόν θέλημα, συμφυίαν καί ἕνωσιν, τῷ ἐπικρῖναι τοῦτο καί φάσκειν· Μή τό ἐμόν, ἀλλά τό σόν γενέσθω.","english":"For the claim that only at the time of the saving Passion, when he was realistically forming what is ours in himself, and as a man was declining death, he was shown to have two wills—this claim seems to me declarative, not demonstrative. For how only at this time, and not before it, and for what reason? If he had it then, he also had it from the beginning, from when he became man, and did not acquire it later; but if he did not have it from the beginning, neither did he have it at the time of the Passion, but only made a show of the refusal, and along with it the rest of the things through which we are saved—the tear, the prayer, the grief, the agony, the cross, the death, the burial. For if one of the natural things in him that are ours is invalidated, the others will not stand either. For how is it not that one, and these? And what is the reason? And what sort of opposition is it to pray, and voluntarily to make a demonstration of natural weakness—I mean that according to the flesh—by shrinking back, and not to resist at all, but to say: \"If it is possible.\" And: \"Not what I will, but what you will\"; and to join to the shrinking back the strong and eager movement against death? For he was realistically forming what is ours in himself through the natural struggle for a little while, so that he might free us from it too, and confirm the nature of his own flesh, and make the economy clear of all fantasy for all; and again he immediately set forth the greatest impulse against death, and the extreme coalescence and union of the human will in him with his own and the Father's will, by deciding this and saying: \"Not my will, but yours be done.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":156,"ref":"p156","source":"Ταύτῃ μέν τήν διαίρεσιν ἀπωθούμενος, ἐκείνῃ δέ πάλιν τήν σύγχυσιν.\n\n( Εἰ δέ, ὅτι ἀλλοτε φαίνεται τοῦ θέλειν ἔμφασιν πεποιημένος, ἤ κατά τόν καιρόν τοῦ πάθους, ταῦτά φασι, τοῦτο καί περί τῆς ἐμφύτου νοήσεως εἴποιεν, καί ἄνουν αὐτόν κατασκευάσουσιν. Οὐ γάρ φαίνεται λέξας ὅτι νενόηκα. Καί περί ὀσφρήσεως ὁμοίως, καί τῶν λοιπῶν καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς φυσικῶν, ὧν μνημονεύσας οὐκ ἀναγέγραπται. Ἤ καί περί τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτῆς, ὡς οὐ πρότερον οὔσης καθ᾿ ὕπαρξιν, ἀφ᾿ οὗ γέγονεν ἄνθρωπος, ἀλλ᾿ ἤ μόνον ὁπόταν αὐτῆς ἐμνημόνευσεν. Οὐ πρό πολλοῦ γάρ τοῦ πάθους τοῦτο πεποιηκώς ἀνηγόρευται. Ἤ τοίνυν σχεδιασθεῖσαν αὐτήν αὐτίκα εἴπωσιν, ὅτι μή πολλάκις καί ἀπ' ἀρχῆς αὐτῆς ἐμνημόνευσεν· ἤ τοῦτο μή λέγοντες, ἀλλ᾿ \" Ἅμα σάρξ, ἅμα Θεοῦ Λόγου σάρξ ἔμψυχος, λογική». κατά τόν μέγαν Ἀθανάσιον δογματίζουσι, καί τό φυσικόν ὡς ἀνθρώπου τοῦ Σωτῆρος θέλημα, μή κατά τόν καιρόν εἶναι τοῦ πάθους λέξουσι μόνον, εἰ καί μνήμην αὐτίκα τούτου πεποίηκεν· ἀλλ᾿ ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς ὡς ἀνθρώπῳ καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς φυσικῶς τῷ Σωτῆρι συνουσιωμένον· καί παύσοιντο λοιπόν οὐκ ἐν καιρῷ τά τοιαῦτα κινοῦντές τε καί συνάγοντες. Καιρός γάρ ὁ παρών αἱμάτων διά τάς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ δογμάτων ἐστί· καί θρήνων ἰσχυρῶν, εἰς Θεοῦ δυσώπησιν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ σοφιστικῶν ἀντιῤῥήσεων, εἰς περισσοτέραν καθ᾿ ἡμῶν ἀγανάκτησιν.","english":"By this rejecting division, and by that again confusion. (But if they say these things because he appears at one time to have made mention of willing, or at the time of the Passion, they could say this also concerning the innate understanding, and they will construct him as mindless. For he does not appear to have said that he understood. And similarly concerning smell, and the rest of our natural faculties, which he mentioned but are not recorded. Or also concerning the soul itself, as not existing beforehand in subsistence from the time he became man, but only whenever he mentioned it. For it was not long before the Passion that he is recorded to have done this. Either, then, they will say that it was created instantly, because he did not often mention it even from its beginning; or, not saying this, but dogmatizing according to the great Athanasius that \"at once flesh, at once the flesh of God the Word, ensouled, rational,\" they will say that the natural will as of the man, the Savior, is not only at the time of the Passion, even if he made mention of it then, but from the beginning was naturally consubstantial with the Savior as man; and they would cease from now on raising and collecting such things out of season. For the present time is one of bloodshed because of our sins, but not of doctrines; and of strong lamentations, for the appeasement of God, but not of sophistical contradictions, for greater indignation against us.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":157,"ref":"p157","source":"Ἔπεισι δέ μοι θαυμάζειν καί περί ἐνεργείας, ὡς μίαν ταύτην ἐπί Χριστοῦ σογματίζουσι, τῇ πρός τό ἄτομον, ὡς αὐτοί φασιν, ἀποσκοπήσει καί ἀναφορᾷ. Καί ἵνα παρῶ λέγειν, ὡς οὐδέν τῶν φυσικῶν ὡς εἰς ἄτομον προηγουμένως, ἀλλά τήν τούτου φύσιν τε καί οὐσίαν ἔχει τήν ἀναφοράν. Τίς γάρ ἄνευ τῶν φυσικῶς προσόντων τῇ φύσει δυνάμεων, ἐνεργεῖν τι δύναιτ᾿ ἄν; ἤ πόθεν αὐτῷ τό ἐνεργεῖν ἤ δύνασθαι, πάρεξ τῆς φύσεως; Ἐκεῖνο δέ ἐρωτῆσαι βούλομαι· πρός ἀναίρεσιν ἄρα τῶν φυσικῶν ἐνεργειῶν ταύτην προΐσχοντο, ἤ τί; Εἰ γάρ ἐπ᾿ ἀναιρέσει, πῶς, πότε καί ποῖα κατά τήν ἐκείνων ἀπόπαυσιν εἴη τό παράπαν ἐνέργεια; ( ὡς γάρ φύσεων οὐκ οὐσῶν, καί τό ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀφανίζεται πάντως, ἡ σύνθετος λέγω ὑπόστασις· οὕτω καί τῶν φυσικῶν ἐνεργειῶν οὐκ οὐσῶν, οὐδ᾿ ἄλλη τό σύνολον ἔσται. Καί οὐ λέγω τοῦτο, ὡς ἄλλης ἐνεργείας ἐκ τῶν φυσικῶν συνισταμένης. Οὐδέ μία γάρ τῶν ἐν ὑποκειμένῳ σύνθεσις· Ὅτι μηδέ τήν καθ᾿ ἑαυτά τό σύνολον ὕπαρξιν, ἀλλα τό εἰκαῖον παριστᾷ. Ὡς εἰ τάς κυρίως κατά φύσιν οὔσας οὐκ εἶναι λέγουσι, πῶς ὑπάρξει τό μηδαμῶς ὄν; Τίς γάρ ἐστι ὑποστατικήν λέγων ἐνέργειαν, καί πόθεν τοῦτο, καί παρά τίνος λαβόντες πρσφέρουσιν; Εἰ δέ τοῦτο τυχόν ἀποφαίνονται, σύνθετον δέ τήν ὑπόστασιν ὁμολογοῦσι πρός ἥν ἀναφέρεται, καί τῶν ἐναντίων καί ἀντικειμένων δεκτικήν· θνητήν γάρ καί ἀθάνατον, ὁρατήν καί ἀόρατον, περιγραπτήν καί ἀπερίγραφον, ἄναρχον καί ὑπό ἀρχήν, ἔσται τοῦτο κατά τό εἰκός καί ἡ ἐνέργεια. Καί πῶς ἄλλως, ἤ καθ᾿ ἕξιν δηλονότι καί στέρησιν; καί τά μέν, ὡς οὖσα, πείσεται, τά δέ, ὡς μή οὖσα, παρυποστήσει.","english":"It comes to me to wonder also about activity, how they dogmatize that it is one in Christ, by their looking toward and reference to the individual, as they say. And to pass over saying that none of natural things has its reference primarily to the individual, but rather his nature and essence. For who, without the powers naturally belonging to nature, could be able to do anything? Or whence would he have the doing or the being able, apart from nature? But I wish to ask this: do they bring this forward for the abolition of natural activities, or what? For if for abolition, how, when, and what sort of thing would activity be at all, according to their cessation? (For as, when natures are not, the composite—I mean the hypostasis—that is from them is wholly done away, so too when natural activities are not, neither will any other at all exist. And I do not say this as though another activity were composed from the natural ones. For no composition of any of the things in a subject exists; because it presents neither existence in itself at all, but rather something random. As if they say that the things properly according to nature are not, how will that which is in no way exist? For who is it that speaks of a hypostatic activity, and whence this, and from whom having received it do they bring it forward? But if perhaps they declare this, and confess that the hypostasis to which it refers is composite, and receptive of contraries and opposites—for mortal and immortal, visible and invisible, circumscribed and uncircumscribed, without beginning and under beginning—this will likely be the activity also. And how otherwise than according to habit and privation? And some things it will undergo as being, and others it will bring into subsidiary existence as not being.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":158,"ref":"p158","source":"Πῶς δέ καί ὁ τοιαύτην ἔχων ἐνέργειαν, κατά τό αὐτό καί οὐκ ἄλλο καί ἄλλο, ὅτι μηδέ ἐκείνη, τά ὅμοια πείσεται; προσφυῶς γάρ ἔχειν τῇ οἰκείᾳ ἐνεργείᾳ τόν ἐνεργοῦντα, κἀκείνη τούτῳ, πᾶσα ἀνάγκη. Καί πῶς Θεός, ὁ ἕξει, καί μή φύσει Θεός; Πῶς δέ ἄνθρωπος, ὁ στερήσει, καί μή οὐσίᾳ κυρίως τοῦτο ὑπάρχων; Τίς δέ φύσις ἀνενέργητος, ἤ φυσικῆς ἐνεργείας ἐκτός; Ὡς γάρ οὐδαμῶς ὑπάρξεως ἔρημος, οὕτως οὐδέ δυνάμεως φυσικῆς. Εἰ δέ ταύτης ἀμοιρεῖ, καί τῆς ὑπάρξεως ἀμοιρήσειεν ἄν. Τό γάρ ἀδύναμον, ὡς ἀδρανές πάντη μόνον ἐστί τό μή ὄν. Πᾶν γάρ εἴ τι τῶν ὄντων, συστατικήν ἔχει διαφοράν, τήν ἔμφυτον κίνησιν τῷ γένει συμπαραλαμβανομένην, καί ποιοῦσαν τοῦ ὑποκειμένου τόν ὁρισμόν, δι᾿ οὗ ὅτι ἐστί καί τί ἐστι κυρίως γνωρίζεται, πρός τέ τά ὁμοειδῆ τό ἀπαράλλακτον ἔχον, καί τό διάφορον αὖθις πρός τά ἑτεροειδῆ· καί εἰ τοῦτο, πῶς δυνατόν φυσικῇ δυνάμει ἀμοιροῦντα ( κατά σάρκα, τόν ἐνανθρωπήσαντα Λόγον ἄνθρωπον τέλειον, ἤ ὅλως ἄνθρωπον χρηματίζειν. Οὐ γάρ δίχα φυσικῆς ἐνεργείας ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ὥσπερ οὐδ᾿ ἄλλη φύσις τῆς οἰκείας καί οὐσιώδους. Ἡ γάρ","english":"And how could one who has such an activity, being the same and not one thing and another, not also suffer the same things as that activity? For it is entirely necessary that the one who acts be naturally related to his own activity, and that activity to him. And how is he God, who will have it, and not God by nature? And how is he man, who has it by privation, and not properly being this by essence? And what nature is without activity, or outside natural activity? For just as it is in no way destitute of existence, so neither is it destitute of natural power. But if it lacks this, it would also lack existence. For the powerless thing, as wholly inert, is only that which is not. For every one of existing things, if it is anything, has a constitutive difference, the innate motion being taken together with the genus, and making the definition of the subject, through which it is known properly both that it is and what it is, having invariability toward things of the same kind, and again difference toward things of another kind; and if this is so, how is it possible for those lacking natural power—according to the flesh, the Word who became man, a perfect man, or a man at all—to be called so? For man is not without natural activity, just as no other nature is without its own and essential activity. For the","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":159,"ref":"p159","source":"ἔλλειψις ταύτης, ἤ οὐδέ φύσιν εἶναι ποιεῖ τήν φύσιν, ἤ τάς πάσας ἀλλήλαις ταυτόν, καί ἀντί πάντων μίαν, τῇ ἀπολείψει τῆς συνιστώσης συμφυρείσας δι᾿ ὅλου συγχυθείσας. Εἰ γάρ οὐκ ἀνέργητον λέγουσι τό καθ' ἡμᾶς τόν Λόγον, δῆλον ὡς ἔμφυτον καί ἀνθρωπίνην ἐνέργειαν ἔχοντα τοῦτόν φασι. Πῶς γάρ ἄν ἄλλως; Οὐ γάρ ἐνεργεῖν δυνατόν φυσικῆς ἐνεργείας χωρίς· ὥσπερ οὐδέ ὑπάρχειν οὐσίας δίχα καί φύσεως. Ἀλλ' οὐδέ μίαν μόνον, ἄν περ ᾗ τήν φύσιν διπλοῦς, τήν ἔμφυτον ἔχειν ἐνέργειαν τόν ἐνεργοῦντα, πᾶσα ἀνάγκη· ἐπεί καί φύσιν μίαν πάντως τόν ὑφεστῶτα, κἄν σύνθετος ᾗ τήν ὑπόστασιν. Εἰ γάρ διά τήν σχέσιν ἐκεῖνο, διά τήν αὐτήν πάντως καί τοῦτο. Μοναδικῶς γάρ ἐπ' ἀμφοῖν ταύτην φερομένην ὁρῶμεν. Ἥ τε γάρ ἐνέργεια πρός τόν ἐνεργοῦντα, καί πρός τόν ὑφεστῶτα πάλιν ἡ φύσις ἀνάγεται. Χρή τοίνυν εἴπερ διά τήν ἕνωσιν καί τό μοναδικόν τοῦ προσώπου, μίαν τοῦ ἐνεργοῦντός φασι τήν ἐνέργειαν, μίαν διά τοῦτο καί φύσιν τοῦ ἐφεστῶτος διαγορεύειν, ἵνα μή σχετικήν τήν ἕνωσιν δογματίζοντες φωραθεῖεν, ἐνεργειῶν ταύτην, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχί καί φύσεων λέγοντες. Οὐ γάρ πρός ὑπόστασιν ταύτας αὐτούς ἑνοῦν δυνατόν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐσίαν καί φύσιν ὅσον ἐπί ταῖς φυσικαῖς ἐνεργείαις, οὐκ εἰς ἄλλο τι πλήν ἐνεργείας πρός αὐτόν ἑνουμένας. Ἐπεί ὥσπερ ἡ τούτων φυσική διαφορά, δύο τούς ἐνεργοῦντας ποιεῖ κατ᾿ αὐτούς, οὕτω δήπου πάντως, καί ἡ τῶν οὐσιῶν ἔμφυτος ἑτερότης, δύο τούς ὑφεστῶτας συνάξει. Ἤ τοίνυν πρός μίαν φύσιν καί ταύτας συμφύρωσιν· ἤ μηδαμῶς ἐκείναις, οὐσίαις τε οὔσαις φυσικῶς καί ἀριθμουμέναις, διαίρεσιν ἐπεισφρήσωσιν.","english":"The lack of this either makes nature not to be nature, or makes all natures the same as one another and, instead of all, one, wholly confounded and confused together by the loss of what constitutes them. For if they do not say that the Word according to us is without activity, it is clear that they say he has a natural and human activity. For how could it be otherwise? For it is not possible to act without natural activity, just as it is not possible to exist without substance and nature. But neither is it possible for the one who acts to have only one innate activity, if he is double in nature—this is entirely necessary; since the one who subsists is also altogether one nature, even if he is composite in hypostasis. For if that is so because of the relation, certainly this is so for the same reason. For we see this borne out in both cases in a single way. For activity is referred to the one who acts, and nature in turn is referred to the one who subsists. It is necessary, then, if indeed because of the union and the singularity of the person they say the activity of the one who acts is one, to declare for this reason also that the nature of the one who subsists is one, lest, by dogmatizing a relational union, they be caught saying this of activities but not also of natures. For they cannot unite these to the hypostasis, but substance and nature, as far as natural activities are concerned, are united to him for nothing other than activity. Since just as the natural difference of these makes, according to them, two who act, so surely also the innate otherness of substances will bring together two who subsist. Either, then, they confound these also into one nature; or else they will in no way introduce division into those which are naturally substances and are numbered.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":160,"ref":"p160","source":"Ὅπερ γάρ ἐν ἐκείναις οὐ γίνεται, οὐδέ ἐν ταύταις συμβαίνῃ ποτ᾿ ἄν. Ἀλλά δηλοῦται ( μέν ἡ φυσική διαφορά, διά τοῦ κατ᾿ αὐτάς ἀριθμοῦ· ἐξίσταται δέ ἡ διαίρεσις διά τῆς ἄκρας ἑνώσεως. Οὐ γάρ δυνατόν θείαν ἤ ἀνθρωπίνην φύσιν, ὅτι κἄν ἔστι γνωρίσαι, μή ὅτι γε διαφέρειν πρός ἄλλην, οὐσιώδους ἐνεργείας ἐκτός. Ὅρος γάρ τοῦ πράγματος, ὁ λόγος τῆς οὐσιώδους δυνάμεως κυρίως ἐστίν· ἧς ἀναιρουμένης, συναναιρεῖται πάντως καί τό ὑποκείμενον. Καί διά τοῦτο ταύτας ὁμολογοῦμεν ἐπί τοῦ σαρκωθέντος Λόγου φυσικῶς σωζομένας· τήν μέν, ἐν τῇ σαρκός προσβολῇ τῶν θείων· τήν δέ πάλιν, ἐν τῇ πείρᾳ τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων ἐξουσιαστικῶς δεικνυμένην· ἵνα καί τάς φύσεις, ὧν εἰσίν οὐσιώδεις ἐνέργειαι, ταύταις συνομολογήσωμεν. Τίνι δέ δῆλον οὐκ ἔστιν, ὡς ἐπί μέν οὐσίας καί φύσεως τῆς αὐτῆς, διαφοράν ὑπάρξεως ἤ φυσικῆς ἐνεργείας, οὐκ ἔστιν ἰδεῖν; Οὐδεμία γάρ πρός ἑαυτήν διαφέρει· τοῦτο γάρ πως ἀμήχανον. Ἐν ἀτόμῳ δέ καί προσώπῳ πάντη τε καί πάντως, εἴπερ σύνθετον· καί διαφόρους τε γάρ φύσεις, τάς ἐξ ὧν συνέστηκεν, καθορῶμεν, καί τάς φυσικάς κινήσεις, αἷς ἐνεργοῦν κατά φύσιν γνωρίζεται, τήν οἰκείαν πιστούμενος ὕπαρξιν, καί ἄλλο καί ἄλλο τά ἐξ ὧν ἐστι, διά τῆς κατ᾿ ἄλλο καί ἄλλο φυσικῆς ἐνεργείας πραγματικῶς παριστᾷ, δι᾿ οὗ, τοῦ πρός αὐτό, φημί δέ τό ἄτομον, ἀποσκοποῦντος, καί τάς φύσεις ἑκοντί παρατρέχοντος, διά τό τάς φυσικάς ἀνελεῖν ἐνεργείας, τήν καταδρομήν, οὐ μᾶλλον ἐν τούτῳ βαροῦσαν, ἤ συνεργοῦσαν εὑρίσκομεν. Εἰ γάρ οὐκ εἰς μίαν φυσικήν τό ἄτομον περικλείεται πάντως ἐνέργειαν, ὥσπερ οὖν οὐδέ φύσιν·","english":"For what does not happen in those cases could never happen in these either. But the natural difference is made clear through the number proper to them, while the division is removed through the utmost union. For it is not possible for a divine or a human nature—even if it can be known, let alone differ from another—to exist apart from essential activity. For the definition of the thing is properly the principle of its essential power; and when this is removed, the subject is certainly removed along with it. And for this reason we confess that these are naturally preserved in the incarnate Word: the one shown in the contact of the divine with the flesh, and the other again shown authoritatively in the experience of human things—so that we may also confess together the natures whose essential activities these are. And to whom is it not clear that in the same essence and nature it is impossible to see a difference of existence or of natural activity? For nothing differs from itself; for this is in some way impossible. But in an individual and a person—altogether and in every way, if indeed it is composite—we both observe the different natures of which it is composed, and the natural motions by which, acting according to nature, it is known, confirming its own existence, and it really presents the things of which it consists as one and another through natural activity in one respect and another, by which—I mean that which looks toward the individual itself and deliberately runs past the natures, in order to abolish the natural activities—we find the assault weighing no more in this than cooperating. For if the individual is not wholly enclosed within one natural activity, just as it is not within one nature either—","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":161,"ref":"p161","source":"τίς γάρ ὁ λέγων, ἤ παραστῆσαι δυνάμενος; δῆλον ὡς ταῖς κατ᾿ αὐτό φύσεσιν ἤγουν οὐσίαις, ἰσαρίθμους ἔχει τάς οὐσιώδεις κινήσεις, καί οὐδείς ἀντερεῖ. Καί παρῶ λέγειν, ὡς οὐδέ ἄτομον κυρίως τό κατά Χριστόν σύνθετον λέγεται πρόσωπον. Οὐ γάρ σχέσιν ἔχει πρός τήν ἐκ τοῦ γενικωτάτου γένους διά τῶν ὑπάλληλα καθιεμένην γενῶν πρός τό εἰδικώτατον εἶδος διαίρεσιν, καί ἐν αὐτῷ τήν οἰκείαν πρόοδον περιγράφουσαν. Ὅθεν ( διά τοῦτο, κατά τόν σοφώτατον Κύριλλον, τό Χριστός ὄνομα, οὔτε ὅρου δύναμον ἔχει· οὐδέ γάρ ἄτομον ἐστι, πρός εἶδος ἐστι πολλῶν ἀριθμῷ διαφερόντων κατηγορούμενον, οὔτε μήν τήν τινός οὐσίαν δηλοῖ. Οὐδέ γάρ ἄτομον ἐστί, πρός εἶδος ἤ γενός ἀναγόμενον, ἤ κατ᾿ οὐσίαν ὑπό τούτων περιγραφόμενον· ἀλλ᾿ ὑπόστασις σύνθετος, τήν φυσικήν τῶν\n\nἄκρων διαίρεσιν ἐν ἑαυτῇ κατ᾿ ἄκρος ταυτίζουσα, καί εἰς ἕν ἄγουσα τῇ τῶν οἰκείων ἑνώσει μερῶν. Εἰ δέ τυχόν, τοῖς διά τοῦ μή ἀνενέργητον εἶναι κατά σάρκα τόν Κύριον τήν ἔμφυτον αὐτοῦ καί ἀνθρωπίνην ὁμολογοῦσιν ἐνέργεια, τό μή καί ἀνυπόστατον εἶναι συνάγουσι, τήν ὑπόστασιν ἐπηρεάζειν ἐστίν. Οὐ γάρ ὑπόστασιν εἶναι ποιεῖ, τό μή ἀνυπόστατον εἶναι τήν φύσιν. Ὥσπερ οὐδέ σχῆμα πᾶν εἴ τι σῶμα, τό μή ἀσχημάτιστον εἶναι τό σῶμα· οὐδέ γέννησιν, οὐδέ ὅρασιν(1), τό μή ἀγέννητον, ἤ οὐκ ἀόρατον εἶναι, τό γεννητόν ἤ ὁρατόν. Καί ἁπλῶς πὰν εἴ τι ἄλλο μή εἶναι τοῦθ᾿ ὅπερ οὐκ ἔστιν ἀποφασκόμενον, σχέσιν εἶναι ποιεῖ· τό, περί ὅ αὐτή φυσικῶς θεωρεῖται, καταφασκόμενον.","english":"For who is there that says this, or is able to demonstrate it? It is clear that the natural, that is, the essential, motions are equal in number to the natures or essences themselves, and no one will contradict this. And I pass over saying that not even properly is the composite person according to Christ called an individual. For it does not have a relation to the division that descends from the most general genus through the subordinate genera down to the most specific species, and that circumscribes its own procession within it. Hence, for this reason, according to the most wise Cyril, the name Christ neither has the force of a definition—for it is not an individual predicated of a species of many things differing in number—nor indeed does it signify the essence of something. For it is not an individual reduced to a species or genus, or circumscribed by these according to essence; but it is a composite hypostasis, which identifies within itself the natural division of the extremes at the extremes, and leads them into one by the union of its own parts. But if perhaps, to those who confess his innate and human energy by reason of the Lord's not being inactive according to the flesh, they draw the conclusion that it is also not without hypostasis, this is to do violence to the hypostasis. For its not being without hypostasis does not make the nature to be a hypostasis. Just as neither does every shape, if a body has it, make the body not to be without shape; nor does generation, nor sight, make it not to be unbegotten, or not invisible, to be begotten or visible. And simply, whatever else is denied to be that which it is not, makes a relation; that which is affirmed of it is what is naturally contemplated concerning it.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":162,"ref":"p162","source":"Ἄλλως τε, καί εἰ τοῦτο τυχόν ἦν, ὁπότε οὐκ ἔστιν, οὐδέν ἦν πρός τάς φυσικάς ἐνεργείας, ἐπίσης οὐκ ἀποβαλλομένας ταῖς ὑποστάσεσι, παρά τῶν ἁγίων Πατέρων· οὔτε διαιρούσας εἰς δύο τόν ἕνα, καθάπερ αἱ ὑποστάσεις ποιοῦσι. Τίς γάρ ὁ δεῖξαι συνάμενος ἄν, ὅτι μή καλόν ἐπί δηλώσει τῆς οὐσιώδους διαφορᾶς τάς φυσικάς ἐνεργείας πρεσβεύειν ἐπί τοῦ αὐτοῦ; καί τίνος χάριν καί πῶς, καί τίς ὁ τοῦτο διοριζόμενος λόγος, ἤ Πατήρ ἔγκριτος, ἀλλά ( ἵνα ) μή ἀποφήνωνται μόνον; Εἰ γάρ τάς φυσικάς ἐνεργείας ὁμολογεῖν οὐ καλόν, οὐδέ τάς φύσεις αὐτάς. Ἤ πῶς ταύτας μέν, οὐκ ἐκείνας δέ; Εἰ δέ ἄμφω καλόν, τίνος χάριν ἐντεξάγονται τῷ καλῷ, καί τήν ὑπόστασιν τῷ μή ἀνυποστάτῳ τῆς φύσεως κατασκευάζουσιν; Εἰ γάρ ὥσπερ τάς ὑποστάσεις, οὕτω καί τάς ἐνεργείας κακιζομένας τοῖς ( Πατράσιν ἐγνώριζον, οὐκ ἀπεικός ταύτας διέῤῥιπτον. Εἰ δέ ταύτας κηρύττοντας, καί θείαν καί ἀνθρωπίνην ὁμολογοῦντας ἐνέργειαν, ὥσπερ οὖν καί φύσιν, καί ὁμολογεῖν παρακελευομένους γινώσκομεν, ὑπόστασιν δέ θείαν ἤ ἀνθρωπίνην οὐδένα καθ᾿ ὁτιοῦν οὐδαμῶς, ἤ μόνον τόν διῃρημένον καί ἀνθρωπολάτρην Νεστόριον, διατί ἄρα, εἴπερ οὐκ ἀπόβλητος αὐτοῖς ἡ τῶν ἁγίων διδασκαλία, κατ᾿ αὐτῆς τά τοιαῦτα σοφίζονται, εἰς τήν τῶν φυσικῶν ἐνεργειῶν ἀποσκευήν; Τίνος δέ ἄλλου τό ταῦτα καί οὕτως συνάγειν ἐστί, πλήν Σεβήρου τοῦ σοφιστοῦ καί παράφρονος, τοῦ καί τά οἰκεῖα σπουδῇ καταλύοντος, καί τῶν εὐσεβῶν οὐδαμῶς κατισχύοντος, διά τό τῆς ἀληθείας περιφανές, εἰ καί τῷ ἀναιδεῖ μηχανᾶται τρόπῳ τῶν σοφιστικῶν ληρημάτων;","english":"Besides, even if this happened to be the case, when it is not, it was nothing in relation to the natural activities, which are not equally rejected along with the hypostases by the holy Fathers; nor do they divide the one into two, as the hypostases do. For who is able to show that it is not good to honor natural activities for the demonstration of essential difference in the same one? And for whose sake, and how, and what is the reason that determines this, or an approved Father, but (only) so that they may not merely deny? For if it is not good to confess the natural activities, neither is it good to confess the natures themselves. Or how these, but not those? But if both are good, for whose sake are they brought in alongside the good, and establish the hypostasis in the non-hypostatic of nature? For if they knew that the activities were reproached by the Fathers just as the hypostases were, it would not be unreasonable for them to cast these aside. But if we know that they proclaim these and confess divine and human activity, just as also nature, and urge us to confess, but no one at all in any way confesses a divine or human hypostasis, except only the divided and man-worshipping Nestorius, why then, if indeed the teaching of the saints is not to be rejected by them, do they devise such things against it, for the dismissal of natural activities? And whose else is it to gather these things and in this way, except Severus the sophist and madman, who also zealously destroys his own things, and in no way prevails over the pious, because of the manifestness of the truth, even if he contrives in a shameless manner with sophistical babblings?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":163,"ref":"p163","source":"Εἰ γάρ τό μή ἀνυπόστατον εἶναι τήν φύσιν(2), ὐπόστασιν ταύτην ποιεῖ, πάντως δήπου κατά τό ἀκόλουθον, καί τό μή ἀνούσιον τήν ὑπόστασιν ὑπάρχειν, οὐσίαν ταύτην παρίστησι. Καί οἱ τοῦτο λέγοντες, πῶς τόν τε τῆς θεολογίας οὐ διαιροῦσι λόγον, ταῖς τῶν ἰσαρίθμων ὑποστάσεων φύσεσιν; εἴπερ οὐσία πάντως αἱ μή ἀνούσιοι καατ᾿ αὐτούς ὑποστάσεις· καί τό τῆς οἰκονομίας οὐ συγχέουσι, τῷ τῆς φύσεως μοναδικῷ διά τήν μίαν ὑπόστασιν; Ἑαυτοῖς γοῦν στοιχοῦντες, καί τά τοιαῦτα καθ᾿ ἑαυτῶν δογματίσουσι. Τοῖς δέ τάς φυσικάς ἐνεργείας ὁμολογοῦσι, τό καί οὕτω ταύτας συνάγειν, χάρις ἐστί, διά πάντων ἑαυτοῖς τό ἀληθές συναγείρουσι κατά τήν τῶν ἁγίων παράδοσιν, καθ᾿ ἥν τό μή ἀνυπόστατον, οὐχ ὑπόστασιν εἶναι τήν φύσιν ποιεῖ, ἀλλ' ἐνυπόστατον· ἵνα μή ὡς συμβεβηκός, ἐπινοίᾳ μόνῃ λαμβάνηται, ἀλλ᾿ ὡς εἶδος πραγματικῶς θεωρῆται. Οὕτω δε καί τό μή ἀνούσιον, οὐκ οὐσίαν ποιεῖ τήν ὑπόστασιν, ἀλλ᾿ ἐνούσιον παριστᾷ, ἵνα μή ψιλόν ἰδίωμα ταύτην, ἀλλά μετά τοῦ ἐν ᾧ τό ἰδίωμα κυρίως γνωρίζωμεν. Ὥσπερ οὖν ἐκεῖ τό ἐνυπόστατον δηλοῖ τό ἐνύπαρκτον· ἐνύπαρκτον δέ ἐστι τό οὐσιώδους καί φυσικῆς μετέχον ὑπάρξεως· οὕτω κἄνταῦθα τό ἐνεργόν ἤγουν ἐνεργητικόν, τό ἐνδύναμον ( σημαίνει κυρίως. Ἐνδύναμον δέ ἐστι, τό οὐσιώδη καί φυσικήν ἔχον τήν δύναμιν. Οὐκοῦν τό μή ἀνυποστάτους ἤ ἀνενεργήτους ἐπί Χριστοῦ τάς φύσεις ὁμολογεῖν, οὐκ ἔστιν ὑποστάσεις ἤ ἐνεργοῦντας συνάγειν, ἀλλά τάς οὐσιώδεις αὐτῶν καί φυσικάς ὑπάρξεις τε καί ἐνεργείας ὀρθοδόξως ὁμολογεῖν, εἰς τήν τοῦ ἐξ αὐτῶν, καί ἐν αὐταῖς ὄντος καί κατ' αὐτάς·","english":"For if being without hypostasis makes the nature a hypostasis, then surely, by consequence, being without substance makes the hypostasis a substance. And those who say this, how do they not divide the account of theology by the natures of the equal-numbered hypostases, if indeed according to them the hypostases that are not without substance are substance? And how do they not confuse the account of the economy by the singularity of nature on account of the one hypostasis? Following themselves, they will dogmatize such things against themselves. But to those who confess the natural activities, there is gratitude that they also gather these together in this way, gathering the truth for themselves through all things according to the tradition of the saints, according to which being without hypostasis does not make the nature a hypostasis, but enhypostatic, so that it is not taken by mere conception as an accident, but is contemplated really as a form. Thus also being without substance does not make the hypostasis a substance, but presents it as enousios, so that we may know it not as a bare property, but properly together with that in which the property is. Just as therefore there being enhypostatic makes clear what is inherent—and what is inherent is what partakes of substantial and natural existence—so also here the active, that is the energizing, properly signifies the powerful. And the powerful is what has substantial and natural power. Therefore to confess that the natures in Christ are not without hypostasis or without activity is not to gather hypostases or agents, but to confess orthodoxly their substantial and natural existences and activities, unto that which is from them and in them and according to them.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":164,"ref":"p164","source":"φημί δέ τάς φύσεις, καθ᾿ ἕνωσιν τήν ἀδιάσπαστον ἐνεργοῦντος Θεοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένου, πίστωσιν ἀληθῆ καί βεβαίωσιν.\n\nΤίνι δέ λόγῳ, πολλάς μέν αὐτοί, καί ἀριθμοῦ πλείους εἰς ἕνα καί τόν αὐτόν ἀναφέροντες τάς ἐνεργείας, τῷ λέγειν, Πᾶσαν θείαν καί ἀνθρωπίνην ἐνέργειαν· τό γάρ, πᾶσαν, οὐ μίαν οὐδέ δύο καθάπαξ, οὐδέ τρεῖς, ἀλλά ἀπείρους καί ἀριθμόν ὑπεραιρούσας ὑποβάλλει νοεῖν, ὥσπερ οὖν καί τό πάντα καί πᾶν· διαίρεσιν οὐδαμῶς ὑποπτεύουσιν· ταύτην δέ κατά τῶν τάς φυσικάς δύο, κατά τούς θείους Πατέρας ὁμολογούντων, μέχρι τοῦ γινώσκειν τήν διαφοράν, οὐκ οἶδ᾿ ὅπως καί διατί, μετά τῶν ἐνεργούντων συνάγουσιν; Εἰ γάρ αἱ πολλαί καί διάφοροι κατά φύσιν, τόν ἕνα καί τόν αὐτόν εἰς πολλά ἐνεργοῦντας οὐ διαιροῦσι καί τέμνουσι, πῶς αἱ δύο; Καί τίς ὁ μᾶλλον τήν καταδρομήν ὡς οὐκ εὔλογον αἰτιώμενος; Εἰ γάρ ἐπί τόν αὐτόν καί τοῦ αὐτοῦ ταύτας οὐκ ἔλεγον καί ἀνέφερον, καί τῇ πρός ἀλλήλας δι᾿ ὅλου περιχωρήσει συμφυείσας ἀλλήλαις, καί καθ᾿ ἕνωσιν τήν ἀδιάσπαστον ἐν αὐτῷ σωζομένας, καί πρός αὐτοῦ, κατ' ἄλλο μέντοι καί ἄλλο κινουμένας ἐνοειδῶς, δι᾿ ὧν τήν τε τῶν θαυμάτων θεϊκῶς προὐβάλλετο δύναμιν, ὡς φύσιν Θεός, καί τήν πεῖραν τῶν παθημάτων θέλων, ὡς ἄνθρωπος φύσει δι᾿ ἡμᾶς κατεδέχετο, ἦν ἄρα καί οὐκ ἀπίθανος αὐτῶν ἡ καταδρομή. Νῦν δέ τοῦτο μή λεγόντων, ἀλλά τοῦ αὐτοῦ ταύτας καί εἰς τόν αὐτόν ἀναγόντων, πόθεν καί πῶς τούς ἐνεργούντας συνάγουσι; Καί διατί, εἴπερ εὔλογον, μή πρότερον ἑαυτοῖς τούς πολλούς, ὅσον ἐπί ταῖς πολλαῖς ἐνεργείαις;","english":"I say that the natures are a true confirmation and assurance, by the inseparable union of God the Word incarnate who acts.\n\nBut by what account do they themselves, who refer many and more than number [activities] to one and the same [agent], by saying \"every divine and human activity\"—for \"every\" suggests to the mind not one, nor two altogether, nor three, but infinite and surpassing number, just as \"all things\" and \"every\"—in no way suspect division; but this [division] against those who confess the two natural [activities], according to the divine Fathers, up to knowing the difference, I know not how and why, they join together with those who act? For if the many and different according to nature do not divide and cut the one and the same who acts in many, how do the two? And who is more to blame the attack as not reasonable? For if they did not say and refer these to the same and of the same, and by their mutual interpenetration wholly fused together, and by the inseparable union preserved in him, and moved by him, in one way and another, in a unified manner, through which he divinely put forth the power of wonders, as God by nature, and willingly the experience of sufferings, as man by nature for us he accepted, then their attack would have been not unconvincing. But now, since they do not say this, but refer these to the same and to the same, whence and how do they join together those who act? And why, if indeed it is reasonable, do they not first [join] to themselves the many, as far as the many activities?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":165,"ref":"p165","source":"Ὡς γάρ ( αἱ δύο τούς δύο, οὕτω δήπου πρός ἀνάγκης καί αἱ πολλαί τούς πολλούς. Εἰ δέ τοῦτο, πῶς ἐκεῖνο συνιδεῖν οὐκ ἔχω, οἶμαι δέ οὐδέ ἄλλος τις τῶν τό ἀληθές τοῦ δοκεῖν προτιμώντων.\n\nΠῶς δέ πάλιν αὐτοῖς ὥσπερ ἀντιφατικῶς, ἐπ᾿ αὐτοῦ κατά τῶν πολλῶν ἡ μία προΐσχεται; Καί τίνα ταύτην καί πῶς δογματίζουσιν; Οὐ γάρ οἷόν τε τόν αὐτόν καί πολλάς ἔχειν, καί μίαν. Εἰ γάρ πολλάς, οὐ μίαν· καί εἰ μίαν, πῶς αὖθις πολλάς; Ἤ γάρ ταύτας ἐκείνη πάντως, ἤ ταύτην ἐκεῖναι διώσονται, κατά τόν ἐκείνων λόγον, καθ᾿ ὅν τήν μίαν ἐπ᾿ ἀνατροπῆ τῶν φυσικῶν δύο προβάλλονται. Εἰ δέ τυχόν, ὡς ἐκ πολλῶν ἀποτελουμένην τήν μίαν φασίν, οὐκ ἔχει φύσιν, ὡς λέλεκται, τά ἐν ὑποκειμένῳ συντίθεσθαι. Ἀλλ᾿ οὔτε πάλιν τήν μίαν ἐκ πολλῶν, εἰς πολλάς ἐπιτέμνεσθαι. Πρότερον οὖν τάς πλείους αὐτοί διά τῆς μιᾶς ἐνεργείας ἀνέλωσιν, ἵνα μή πολλούς τούς ἐνεργοῦντας καθ᾿ ἑαυτῶν εἰσάγωσιν. Καί διά τῶν πολλῶν αὖθις τήν μίαν, ἵνα μή συνουσίωσιν δογματίσωσι, καί οὕτω κατά τῶν τάς δύο περσβευόντων, ἄνπερ οὐκ ἀδρανῶς ἔχοιεν, πολεμήσωσιν. Οὐ γάρ οἷόν τε παντελῶς ἄλλοις ἐπιφυῆναι, τούς σφᾶς αὐτούς μετά τῶν οἰκείων ἀνατρέποντας, οὐδενός ἄλλου καθάπαξ ἐν τούτῳ προσδεηθέντας. Τό γάρ ἔχον βάσιν, τό ὄν, πρός αὐτοῦ παγίως ἑδράζεται, μηδαμόθεν τήν οἱανοῦν πάσχον διάπτωσιν. Καί γάρ ἐκεῖνο μόνον ἀκμαῖον ὄντως καί ἰσχυρόν, τό τήν ἀλήθειαν ἔχον κρατύνουσαν· ἀλλ᾿ οὐ τό παρ᾿ ἄλλου, μή τι γε παρ᾿ ἑαυτοῦ, τήν λύσιν δεχόμενον.","english":"For just as the two [natures imply] the two [activities], so surely by necessity the many [natures imply] the many [activities]. But if this is so, how I cannot comprehend that other point, and I think no one else among those who prefer the truth to seeming can either.\n\nBut how again, as it were in contradiction to them, is the one [activity] set forth in his case against the many? And what is this one, and how do they dogmatize it? For it is not possible for the same one both to have many and to have one. For if many, not one; and if one, how again many? For either that one will altogether drive out these many, or these many will drive out that one, according to their account, by which they put forward the one to overturn the two natural [activities]. But if perhaps they say that the one is constituted out of many, it is not natural, as has been said, for things in a subject to be composed together. But neither again is it [natural] for the one to be cut up out of many into many. So let them first abolish the many by means of the one activity, so that they do not introduce many agents against themselves. And again by means of the many [abolish] the one, so that they do not dogmatize consubstantiality, and thus make war against those who champion the two, if indeed they are not inert. For it is not possible for those who overthrow themselves along with their own [arguments] to assail others completely, since they need nothing else at all in this matter. For that which has a foundation, that which is, is firmly established by itself, suffering no fall from any direction whatsoever. For that alone is truly vigorous and strong which has the truth prevailing in it; but not that which receives its dissolution from another—let alone from itself.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":166,"ref":"p166","source":"Τούτων γοῦν ἀφεμένους, προσήκει πάντως εὐσεβοῦντας ἡμᾶς, καί ἑκατέρας τῶν ἐν τῷ ἑνί σεσαρκωμένῳ Θεῷ Λόγῳ σωζομένης φύσεως πραγματικῶς ὁμολογοῦντας τήν ὕπαρξιν, καί τήν ἔμφυτον ὁμολογεῖν πάντως ἐνέργειαν, ὥσπερ οὖν καί τό θέλημα· καί διά τῆς περί ἑκάτερον, τό θεῖον ὁμοῦ καί τό ἀνθρώπινον, ( εὐσεβοῦς τοῦ αὐτοῦ καί ἀληθεστάτης δόξης, καί τῶν προσόντων αὐτῷ φυσικῶς τήν ὀρθόδοξον τῶν ἁγίων Πατέρων κρατύνειν διδασκαλίαν, οἵ περί αὐτοῦ ταῦτα καί φρονεῖν καί λέγειν ταῖς ἁγίαις τοῦ Θεοῦ καθολικαῖς Ἐκκλησίαις παραδεδώκασι· καί μηδέν ἐξαρνεῖσθαι τῶν ἅπερ ἦν ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς καί δι᾿ ἡμᾶς γέγονεν ὕστερον, καί τῶν χαρακτηριζόντων αὐτά φυσικῶς πάντων ἰδιωμάτων. Τέλειον γάρ τά ἑκάτερα, καί ἐν ἑκατέραις τόν αὐτόν ἐδογμάτισαν, καί ἀνελλιπῶς τήν ἑκατέρου τῶν ἐξ ὧν ὑπῆρχε διασώζοντα φυσικήν ἰδιότητα, καί κατά πάντα ὅμοιον ἡμῖν, καί ὁμοίως κατά θέλησιν πεπειραμένον, χωρίς μόνης τῆς ἁμαρτίας.\n\nΤούτων οὖν ἐπακούοντες τῶν μακαρίων φωνῶν, οὐδέν οὔτε τῶν ἡμετέρων καί φυσικῶν, οὔτε τῶν πατρικῶν καί θείων, ἐπί τοῦ αὐτοῦ τό παράπαν ἀρνούμεθα· ἀλλά διαφόρους φύσεις καί φυσικάς ἐνεργείας, καί οὐσιώδη θελήματα, τουτέστι δύο, τόν αὐτόν ἔχειν πρεσβεύομεν. Οὔτε γάρ ἡ καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς, οὔτε μήν ἡ πατρική φύσις, οὐσίας ἐκτός, ἤ ἐμφύτου θελήματος ἤ ἐνεργείας καθέστηκε. Καί εἰ τοῦτο, δῆλον ὡς ὁ ἐκ τούτων, θεότητός φημι καί ἀνθρωπότητος, κατά μίαν καί τήν αὐτήν ὑπόστασιν ὑφεστώς, καί Θεός ὁ αὐτός κυρίως ὑπάρχων καί ἄνθρωπος, ὁμοούσιος ἡμῖν ἐστι καί ὁμοεργής, καί τήν αὐτήν ἔμφυτον θέλησιν ἔχων κατά τήν ἀνθρωπότητα·","english":"Setting these things aside, it is altogether fitting that we, in piety, both confess the existence of each of the two natures in the one incarnate God the Word in reality, and altogether confess the natural activity, just as also the will; and through the pious and most true opinion concerning each of the two—the divine together with the human—belonging to the same, and to confirm the orthodox teaching of the holy Fathers concerning the properties that belong to him naturally, who handed down to the holy catholic Churches of God both to think and to speak these things concerning him; and to deny nothing of what was from the beginning and came to be later for our sake, and of all the properties that naturally characterize them. For they taught that he is perfect in both, and the same in both, and that he preserves without diminution the natural property of each of the two from which he existed, and that he is in all things like us, and likewise tempted in will, apart from sin alone.\n\nHearing these blessed utterances, therefore, we deny absolutely nothing, either of our own natural properties or of the paternal and divine ones, in the same one; but we believe that the same one has different natures and natural activities and essential wills, that is, two. For neither our nature nor the paternal nature is apart from essence, or from natural will or activity. And if this is so, it is clear that the one who exists from these—I mean divinity and humanity—subsisting in one and the same hypostasis, and being the same God truly and man, is consubstantial with us and works as we do, and has the same natural will according to his humanity.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":167,"ref":"p167","source":"καί ὁμοούσιος τῷ Πατρί καί ὁμοεργής, καί τήν αὐτήν θέλησιν κεκτημένος κατά τήν θεότητα, καί ὅλος συγγενής τοῖς ἄνω κατά πάντα τά συγγενῶς ἔχοντα καί ὅλως συγγενής τοῖς κάτω κατά πάντα τά συγγενῶς ἔχοντα, χωρίς μόνης τῆς ἁμαρτίας. Καί ὁ μή οὕτω πρεσβεύων, τούς ταῦτα κηρύσσοντας οὐ παραδέχεται θεολήπτους Πατέρας· ἀλλά δῆλός ἐστι τίνας καί ποίους. Γένοιτο δέ πάντας ἡμᾶς, τῇ μεσιτείᾳ τῶν θεοτεύκτων ὑμῶν προσευχῶν, ἐν τῷ ναῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ, τῇ καθολικῇ καί ἀποστολικῇ Ἐκκλησίᾳ, διά παντός φρουρουμένους ψυχῇ τε καί σώματι, ταύτην τήν εἰλικρινῆ καί ὀρθόδοξον τοῦ μεγάλου Θεοῦ καί Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν, πρεσβεύειν ὁμολογίαν ἔμπροσθεν αὐτοῦ καί πάσης τῆς ( κτίσεως, καί ἀντί πάντων, καί πρό πάντων αὐτῷ προσκομίσαι κατά τήν αὐτοῦ πανένδοξον ἐπιφάνειαν, καί πρός αὐτοῦ τῆς ἴσης καταξιωθῆναι καί μετασχεῖν τῶν τοῖς ἀνεπαισχύντως ἔμπροσθεν ἀνθρώπων ὁμολογοῦσιν αὐτόν, ἐπηγγελμένων αἰωνίων τε καί μακαρίων δώρων, καί πείρᾳ κατ᾿ εὐχάς ἀπολαῦσαι, ὧν νῦν πίστει καταξιωθέντες γεγεύμεθα, εὐχαῖς καί πρεσβείαις τῆς πανενδόξου καί παναγίας ἀχράντου δεσποίνης ἡμῶν Θεοτόκου καί Ἀειπαρθένου Μαρίας, καί πάντων τῶν ἁγίων. Ἀμήν.","english":"and consubstantial with the Father and co-worker with him, and having the same will according to the divinity, and wholly akin to the things above in all things that are akin, and wholly akin to the things below in all things that are akin, apart from sin alone. And he who does not so believe does not accept the God-inspired Fathers who proclaim these things; but it is clear what kind and sort of men they are. But may it come to pass for us all, through the mediation of your God-wrought prayers, that we, guarded in soul and body at all times in the temple of God, the catholic and apostolic Church, may believe this sincere and orthodox confession of our great God and Savior before him and all creation, and may offer it to him on behalf of all and before all at his all-glorious appearing, and may be deemed worthy by him of the equal gifts and may partake of the eternal and blessed gifts promised to those who confess him unashamedly before men, and may enjoy in experience, according to our prayers, those things of which we have now been deemed worthy by faith and have tasted, through the prayers and intercessions of our all-glorious and all-holy and undefiled Lady, the Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary, and of all the saints. Amen.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":168,"ref":"p168","source":"ΣΧΟΛΙ 1. Τό μέν ἀόρατον τοῦ βλεπομένου ἀπόφασίς ἐστι. Καταφασκόμενον δέ οὐ πρός τήν ὅρασιν, ἀλλά τό ὁρατόν καταφάσκεται· ὅπερ ἐστί σχέσις τοῦ μή ἀοράτου, ἤτοι πρός ὅ τήν σχέσιν ἔχει τό μή ἀόρατον. Τῆς δέ ὁράσεως οὐ τό μή ἀόρατον, ἀλλά ἡ τύφλωσις σχέσις, πρός ἥν καταφάσκεται.\n\n2. Πρός τούς λέγοντας, μή εἶναι φύσιν ἀνυπόστατον· ἀντιστρεπτέον, τό, μηδέ ὑπόστασιν ἀνούσιον. Εἶτα ἐπακτέον, ὅτι ὥσπερ τό μή ἀνούσιον τήν ὑπόστασιν λέγειν, οὐκ οὐσίαν ταύτην παρίστησιν ὑπάρχειν. Οὕτω γάρ διαιρεῖν καί συγχεῖν ἐστι, τό μέν τῆς θεολογίας, τό δέ τῆς οἰκονομίας μυστήριον. Οὕτως οὐδέ τό λέγειν τήν φύσιν μή ἀνυπόστατον, τήν ὑπόστασιν εἰσάγει. ΠΕΡΙ ΟΡΩΝ ΔΙΑΣΤΟΛΩΝ Περί ὅρων διαστολῶν.\n\n( Ἡ τῶν ὄντων πᾶσα διαστολή, ἤ κατ᾿ ἐναντίωσιν(1), ἤ κατά τό ἀντικεῖσθαι, ἤγουν διαιρεῖσθαι, ἤ ἀναιρεῖσθαι, γίνεται. Οἷον αἰσθητά καί νοητά ἐναντίωσιν ἔχουσιν ὡς ἑτερούσια, οὐκ ἀντίκειται δέ ἀλλήλοις. Οὐ γάρ ἀναιρετικά ἀλλήλων εἰσίν ταῦτα, καί διά τοῦτο δέχονται τήν κατ᾿ ἐναντίωσιν διαστολήν πρός ἑαυτά, ἤγουν διαίρεσιν· ζωή δέ καί θάνατος ἔχουσι διαστολήν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ κατ' ἐναντίωσιν, ἀλλά τήν ἀντικειμένην, ἤγουν ἀναιρετικήν. Ἡ γάρ θατέρου θέσις θατέρου γίνεται ἀφαίρεσις· καί ἡ τοῦ ἑνός ὕπαρξις τοῦ ἄλλου ἀνυπαρξία καθέστηκεν. Εἴ τι οὖν προηγουμένως ἀντίκειται ἄλλῳ, ἐφεπομένως πάντως καί ἠναντίωται· εἴ τι δέ προηγουμένως ἄλλῳ ἠναντίωται, ἐφεπομένως οὐδόλως ἀντίκειται. Καί σαφέστερον εἰπεῖν, αἱ μέν οὐσίαι διά τάς ἐνούσας αὐταῖς διαφοράς,","english":"SCHOLIA 1. The invisible is a negation of the visible. But what is affirmed is not affirmed in relation to sight, but the visible is affirmed; which is a relation of the non-invisible, that is, toward that to which the non-invisible has its relation. But of sight, it is not the non-invisible but blindness that is a relation, toward which it is affirmed.\n\n2. Against those who say that there is no nature without hypostasis: one must convert it, that neither is there a hypostasis without essence. Then one must add that, just as to say that the hypostasis is not without essence does not establish that this essence exists, so too to divide and confuse is the mystery of theology on the one hand and of economy on the other. Thus not even to say that nature is not without hypostasis introduces the hypostasis. ON DEFINITIONS AND DISTINCTIONS. Concerning definitions and distinctions.\n\nEvery distinction of beings comes about either by contrariety or by opposition, that is, by division or by destruction. For example, sensible and intelligible things have contrariety as being of different essence, but they are not opposed to each other. For these are not destructive of each other, and for this reason they admit the distinction by contrariety in relation to themselves, that is, division; but life and death have a distinction, yet not by contrariety but by the opposed, that is, the destructive kind. For the positing of the one is the removal of the other; and the existence of the one is the non-existence of the other. If then something is primarily opposed to another, it is certainly also consequently contrary to it; but if something is primarily contrary to another, it is in no way consequently opposed to it. And to speak more clearly, the essences, through the differences inherent in them,","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":169,"ref":"p169","source":"τήν πρός ἀλλήλας κατ᾿ ἐναντίωσιν διαστολήν ἐπιδέχονται, ὡς ψυχή καί σῶμα, καί τά κατ᾿ οὐσίαν διαφέροντα πάντα· τά δέ περί τήν οὐσίαν, ἤγουν ποιότητες, τήν κατά τό ἀντικεῖσθαι ἔχουσι διαστολήν, ὡς ζωή καί θάνατος, καί εἴ τι τοιοῦτον. Ἀναιρετικά γάρ ἀλλήλων ταῦτα προδήλως εἰσίν.\n\nΣΧΟΛΙΟΝ Ἐναντίωσιν, τήν διαίρεσιν νόει· τό δ᾿ ἀντικεῖσθαι, τήν ἀναίρεσιν φρόνει. Ἡ μέν γάρ αὐτῶν ἐστιν ἐν ταῖς οὐσίαις, τό δ᾿ ἐμπέφυκε τοῖς περί τήν οὐσίαν· καί τῶν μέν, ἄμφω συντρέχει θαυμασίως, ἀναίρεσίς τε καί διαίρεσις πάλιν. Ἡ δ᾿ αὖ διαιρεῖν, οὐκ ἀναιρεῖν ἰσχύει.\n\nΟΡΟΙ ΕΝΩΣΕΩΝ Ὅροι ἑνώσεων.\n\n( Ἡ κατ᾿ οὐσίαν ἕνωσις, ἐπί τῶν ὑποστάσεων, τουτέστι τῶν ἀτόμων.\n\nἩ καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν ἕνωσις, ἐπί τῶν οὐσιῶν, τουτέστι ψυχῆς καί σώματος. Ἡ κατά σχέσιν ἕνωσις, ἐπί τῶν γνωμῶν, εἰς ἕν θέλημα. Ἡ κατά παράθεσιν ἕνωσις, ἐπί τῶν σανίδων.\n\nἩ κατά ἁρμονίαν ἕνωσις, ἐπί τῶν λίθων.\n\nἩ κατά κράσιν ἕνωσις, ἐπί τῶν ὑγρῶν οἴνου καί ὕδατος καί τῶν τοιούτων. Ἡ κατά φύρσιν ἕνωσις, ἐπί τῶν ξηρῶν καί τῶν ὑγρῶν, ἀλεύρου καί ὕδατος Ἡ κατά σύγχυσιν ἕνωσις, ἐπί τῶν τηκτῶν, κηροῦ καί πίσσης, καί τῶν τοιούτων.","english":"They admit of a distinction from one another by way of opposition, as soul and body, and all things that differ in essence; but the things pertaining to essence, that is, qualities, have their distinction according to contrariety, as life and death, and anything of that sort. For these are plainly destructive of one another.\n\nSCHOLION. Understand opposition as division; but think of contrariety as destruction. For the one of these is in the essences, while the other is implanted in the things pertaining to essence; and in the case of the former, both wonderfully coincide—destruction and again division. But the latter has power to divide, not to destroy.\n\nDEFINITIONS OF UNIONS. Definitions of unions.\n\n(Union according to essence, in the case of hypostases, that is, of individuals.\n\nUnion according to hypostasis, in the case of essences, that is, of soul and body. Union according to relation, in the case of wills, into one will. Union according to juxtaposition, in the case of planks.\n\nUnion according to harmony, in the case of stones.\n\nUnion according to mixture, in the case of liquids, wine and water and the like. Union according to commingling, in the case of dry and wet things, flour and water. Union according to confusion, in the case of things melted, wax and pitch, and the like.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":170,"ref":"p170","source":"Ἡ κατά σωρείαν ἕνωσις, ἐπί τῶν ξηρῶν, σίτου καί κριθῆς, καί τῶν τοιούτων. Ἡ κατά συναλοιφήν ἕνωσις, ἐπί τῶν ἀποσπωμένων, καί αὖθις ἀποκαθισταμένων· οἷον λαμπάδος ἐκ πυρός προερχομένης, καί πάλιν ἀποκαθισταμένης.\n\nἩ κατ᾿ οὐσίαν ἕνωσίς, ἐστιν ἐπί τῶν ἑτεροϋποστάτων. Ἡ καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν ἕνωσίς ἐστιν ἐπί τῶν ἑτερουσίων. ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΥ ΜΟΝΟΘΕΛΗΤΟΥ... ΠΑΥΛΟΥ ΑΡΧ. ΚΩΝ/ΛΕΩΣ ΕΡΩΤΗΣΕΙΣ... ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΥ ΜΟΝΟΘΕΛΗΤΟΥ ΔΙΑΚΟΝΟΥ ΒΥΖΑΝΤΙΟΥ ΡΗΤΟΡΟΣ, ΚΑΙ ΣΥΝΟΔΙΚΑΡΙΟΥ ΠΑΥΛΟΥ ΑΡΧΙΕΠΙΣΚΟΠΟΥ ΚΩΝΣΤΑΝΤΙΝΟΥΠΟΛΕΩΣ ΕΡΩΤΗΣΕΙΣ ΠΡΟΣ ΜΑΞΙΜΟΝ ΤΟΝ ΟΜΟΛΟΓΗΤΗΝ ( Πρώτη ἀπορία Θεοδώρου διακόνου Βυζαντίου ῥήτορος, καί συνοδικαρίου Παύλου ἀρχιεπισκόπου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως. Εἰ κατ᾿ αὐτόν τῷ θελήματι λόγον, καί τήν ἄγνοιαν κατηγόρησαν οἱ Πατέρες ἐπί Χριστοῦ, ἀνάγκη τούς μή κατ᾿ οἰκείωσιν ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ θεωρεῖσθαι λέγοντας τό θέλημα, καί ἀγνοεῖν αὐτόν λέγειν. Καί πῶς Θεός, ὁ τά μέλλοντα μή εἰδώς; Ἀλλά καί ψιλόν αὐτόν εἰσάγειν ἄνθρωπον, κατά τήν ἤδη τῶν Ἀγνοητῶν κατακριθεῖσαν αἵρεσιν. Εἰ δέ τήν ἐντεῦθεν ἀτοπίαν ὑποστελλόμενοι, τήν ἄγνοιαν κατ᾿οἰκείωσιν λέγουσιν, ὥσπερ καί τήν ἐγκατάλειψιν, καί τήν ἀνυποταξίαν, κατά τόν ὅμοιον τρόπον καί τό θέλημα λεγέτωσαν. Τῷ γάρ θελήματι καί τήν ἄγνοιαν οἱ Πατέρες συνέταξαν, τόν αὐτόν αὐτῇ φυλάξαντες λόγον· ὥς φησιν Ἀθανάσιος μέν ἐν τῇ κατ' Ἀρειανῶν αὐτοῦ βίβλῳ, Γρηγόριος δέ ὁ Θεολόγος, ἐν τῷ περί Υἱοῦ πρώτῳ λόγῳ, καί ἄλλοι ἐν ἄλλοις συγγράμμασι.","english":"Union by heaping up applies to dry things, wheat and barley and the like. Union by coalescence applies to things that are drawn apart and again restored, as when a torch comes forth from fire and is restored again.\n\nUnion according to essence applies to things that are distinct in subsistence. Union according to subsistence applies to things that are distinct in essence. Of Theodore the Monothelite... Questions of Paul, Archbishop of Constantinople... Questions of Theodore the Monothelite, Deacon of Byzantium, Rhetor and Synodical Notary, and of Paul, Archbishop of Constantinople, to Maximus the Confessor (First difficulty of Theodore, Deacon of Byzantium, Rhetor and Synodical Notary, and of Paul, Archbishop of Constantinople. If the Fathers accused ignorance in Christ according to the same account as the will, then those who say that the will is contemplated in Christ not according to appropriation must also say that he is ignorant. And how is he God, who does not know the future? But they also introduce him as a mere man, according to the heresy of the Agnoetae, which has already been condemned. But if, shrinking from the absurdity that follows, they say that ignorance is according to appropriation, just as abandonment and insubordination, let them in like manner also speak of the will. For the Fathers ranked ignorance together with the will, preserving the same account for it; as Athanasius says in his book Against the Arians, and Gregory the Theologian in the first discourse On the Son, and others in other writings.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":171,"ref":"p171","source":"Τοῦ αὐτοῦ δευτέρα ἀπορία.\n\nΕἰ πᾶσα λέξις καί φωνή μή τοῖς Πατράσιν εἰρημένη καινοτομία προδήλως καθέστηκεν, δυοῖν ἀνάγκη θάτερον, ἤ δεῖξαι τῶν Πατέρων οὖσαν φωνήν, τό φυσικά λέγειν ἐπί Χριστῷ θελήματα· ( ἤ δεῖξαι μή δυνάμενοι, ἴστωσαν τῷ τῶν Πατέρων ὀνόματι τήν ἑαυτῶν καινοτομοῦντες διδασκαλίαν. Εἰ δέ, τάς ἑτέρας αὐτῶν φωνάς πρός τόν ἴδιον νοοῦντες σκοπόν, τήν τοιαύτην τίθενται ὀνοματοποιΐαν. Εἰ δέ τό δεύτερον μεμπτόν, ἄρα καί τό πρῶτον. ΠΡΟΣ ΜΑΡΙΝΟΝ ΠΡΕΣΒΥΤΕΡΟΝ ΕΠΙΛΥΣΙΣ ΤΩΝ ΠΡΟΤΕΤΑΓΜΕΝΩΝ ΑΠΟΡΙΩΝ ΥΠΟ ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΥ ΔΙΑΚΟΝΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΡΗΤΟΡΟΣ, ΛΥΣΙΣ Α'.\n\n( Αἱ παρά τοῦ ῥήτορος πεύσεις, ἁγιώτατε καί θεοτίμητε πάτερ, οὐ μᾶλλον τό εὔλογον ἔχουσι τῆς ἀπορίας, ἤ τό παράλογον ἐνδείκνυνται τῆς ἀπορίας· ἔκ τε τοῦ ψεύδους αὐτοῦ, καί τῆς ἐπ᾿ ἀνατροπῇ τῆς θείας τοῦ Μονογενοῦς σαρκώσεως ἕριδος. Οὐ γάρ ατά τόν αὐτόν τῷ θελήματι λόγον, ὥς φησι, καί τήν ἄγνοιαν ἐπί Χριστοῦ κατηγόρησαν οἱ Πατέρες. Τίς γάρ ὁ τοῦτο δεῖξαι δυνάμενος, εἰ καί οὗτοι τά μηδαμῶς ὄντα, καθώς ἔθος αὐτοῖς, οὐκ ἀναπλάττονται μόνο, ἀλλά καί τολμηρῶς καθ' ἑαυτῶν προκομίζουσιν; Ἤ οὕτω δ᾿ ἄν ἀγνοίας καί θελήματος ὁ αὐτός ἔσται λόγος, εἰς ταὐτόν ἄγων ἀλλήλοις τά πάντη κυρίως ἀσύμβατα· εἴπερ ἡ μέν, τήν τοῦ ὄντος ἀναίρεσιν· τό δέ, τήν τοῦ ὄντος θέσιν παρίστησιν, ὅ δή προδήλως ἀμήχανον, ὥς οὐδέ τό παράπαν ἀλλήλαις ἕξις ὑπάρχει καί στέρησις. Οὐδέ γάρ ἐπειδή τήν ἀπό τῶν Ἀρειανῶν προτεινομένην, καί ταύτην ὁ θεῖος καί μέγας Γρηγόριος καταριθμεῖ· φημί δή τήν ἄγνοιαν, ἤδη ταὐτόν οὖσαν ἀπέφηνεν, τῷ θελήματι.","english":"The same author's second difficulty.\n\nIf every phrase and expression not spoken by the Fathers is plainly a novelty, one of two things must follow: either one must show that the phrase is the Fathers', namely, that they speak of natural wills in Christ; or, being unable to show this, let them know that under the name of the Fathers they are innovating their own teaching. But if, understanding other phrases of theirs according to their own purpose, they set down such a coinage of terms—if the second is blameworthy, then so is the first. To Marinus the Presbyter, a Solution of the Foregoing Difficulties by Theodore the Deacon and Rhetor, Solution 1.\n\nThe inquiries made by the rhetor, most holy and God-honored father, do not so much contain the reasonableness of the difficulty as they display the irrationality of the difficulty, both from its own falsehood and from its strife aimed at the overthrow of the divine incarnation of the Only-Begotten. For the Fathers did not charge ignorance upon Christ according to the same account as the will, as he says. For who is able to show this, even if these men, as is their custom, not only invent things that in no way exist but also boldly bring them forward against themselves? Or would the account of ignorance and of will thus be the same, leading into the same thing those things that are in every way properly incompatible with each other—since the one presents the destruction of what exists, and the other the positing of what exists, which is plainly impossible, just as habit and privation do not in any way belong to each other. For neither, because the divine and great Gregory enumerates the ignorance advanced by the Arians—I mean this same ignorance—has he thereby declared it to be the same as the will.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":172,"ref":"p172","source":"Τοῦ θελήματος γάρ ῥητῶς, οὐδέ κατά τόν τόπον παντελῶς ἐμνημόνευσεν, ἐν ᾧ ταῦτα διέξεισι, \"Σύ δέ μοι, λέγων, καταρίθμει πρός ταῦτα τά τῆς ἀγνωμοσύνης ῥήματα τό, Θεός μου, καί Θεός ὑμῶν· καί τό, μείζων, τό, ἔκτισεν, τό, ( ἡγίασε», καί τά ἑξῆς. Εἰ δέ ὅτι συμπαρέλαβε μόνο, εἰς ταὐτόν ἄγειν τήν ἄγνοιαν τῷ θελήματι τυχόν ἐπιχειροῦσιν ἔσται δήπου πάντως, καί τό, Θεός μου, καί Θεός ὑμῶν· καί τό, μείζων, παρά τοῦ Πατρός εἰρημένον, καί τό κτίζειν καί ἁγιάζειν ταὐτόν τῇ ἀγνοίᾳ κατ᾿ αὐτούς διά τήν σύνταξιν, ἐπειδή καί ταῦτα τῇ ἀγνοίᾳ συντέταχεν. Εἰ δέ τοῦτο διανοίας καθέστηκε παρατροπή, κἀκεῖνο μειζόνως ἐκτροπή τῶν ταῦτα λογιζομένων, μή τι γε λέγειν ἤ γράφειν ἐπιχειρούντων. Ἄλλως τε δέ, εἰ ἀγνοίας καί θελήματος ὁ αὐτός καθέστηκε λόγος, ἤ τά φύσει θέλοντα πάντως, καί ἀγνοοῦσιν, ἤ τά φύσει ἀγνοοῦντα, πάντως καί θέλουσιν· οὐκοῦν καί Θεός κατά φύσιν θέλων, ἀγνοίας περιπεσεῖται πάθει, καί ἄψυχα πάντα κατά φύσιν ἀγνοοῦντα, θελήματι κινηθήσεται φυσικῷ. Εἰ δέ τοῦτο, καί Χριστός αὐτός ὁ ἐκ θεότητος ὑφεστώς καί ἀνθρωπότητος, κατ᾿ οἰκείωσιν, ὥς φασιν αὐτοί, τήν τε ἄγνοιαν καί τό θέλημα ἔχων, ἕξει που πάντως φύσει κατά τοῦ θείου θελήματος καί τήν ἄγνοιαν. Καί σιωπῶ λέγειν, ὡς εἰ καί διά τήν οἰκείωσιν ἐσφαλμένως· ἀλλ᾿ ὅμως οὗπερ κατηγωνίσαντο συνηγοροῦντες ἐδείχθησαν, καί αὐτοί δύο συνιστῶντες θελήματα, τό τε κατά φύσιν λέγω, καί τό κατ᾿ οἰκείωσιν·","english":"For he did not expressly mention the will, nor indeed at that place entirely, where he sets these things out, saying, \"But you, count up for me against these the words of ignorance: 'My God, and your God'; and 'greater'; 'he created'; 'he sanctified,' and what follows.\" But if, because he included only these, they attempt perhaps to bring ignorance into identity with the will, then surely it will also be the case that \"My God, and your God,\" and \"greater,\" spoken by the Father, and creating and sanctifying, are by their reckoning the same as ignorance, because of the arrangement, since he has also arranged these together with ignorance. But if this is a perversion of thought, that too is a greater deviation on the part of those who reckon these things, let alone those who attempt to say or write them. And besides, if the same account holds for ignorance and will, then either things that by nature will also surely are ignorant, or things that by nature are ignorant also surely will; consequently God, who by nature wills, will fall into the affliction of ignorance, and all inanimate things, which by nature are ignorant, will be moved by a natural will. And if this is so, Christ himself, who subsists from divinity and humanity, having ignorance and will by appropriation, as they themselves say, will surely also have ignorance by nature, against the divine will. And I pass over saying that, even if by appropriation, they are mistaken; but nevertheless they have been shown to be advocates of that very thing against which they fought, themselves establishing two wills—I mean the will according to nature and the will according to appropriation.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":173,"ref":"p173","source":"ἅπερ δύο προδήλως τυγχάνουσι, σύν ταῖς ἰσαρίθμοις ἀγνοίαις, ὅ καί παράλογον, διττήν ἐπί Χριστοῦ δοξάζειν τήν ἄγνοιαν, τοῦ μηδέ μίαν ἔχοντος, πᾶσαν δέ πάντως ἐξαφανίζοντος, εἴπερ ἐστί Θεοῦ σοφία καί δύναμις. Οἰκείωσιν δέ, ποίαν ἄρα φασί; Τήν οὐσιώδη, καθ' ἥν τά προσόντα φυσικῶς ἕκαστον ἔχοντα οἰκειοῦται διά τήν φύσιν· ἤ τήν σχετικήν, καθ᾿ ἥν τά ἀλλήλων φυσικῶς στέργομέν τε καί οἰκειούμεθα, μηδέν τούτων αὐτοί πάσχοντες ἤ ἐνεργοῦντες; Ἀλλ᾿ εἰ μέν τήν πρώτην, ἐκεῖνοι μᾶλλον ψιλόν ἀπέφηναν ἄνθρωπον, ( τόν σαρκωθέντα Θεόν, ὡς τοῦτον ἀγνοοῦντα φυσικῶς δογματίζοντες. Εἰ\n\nδέ τήν δευτέραν, οὐδέ ἄνθρωπον ὅλως, ἀλλ᾿ ἄσαρκον μόνον Θεόν, ὡς ἐν ψιλῇ σχέσει τά τῆς σαρκός, καί οὐχ ὡς ἀνθρώπου τά φυσικά φυσικῶς οἰκειούμενον μετά τοῦ εἶναι καί μένειν Θεόν. Ἐπει δήπερ ἐν ᾧ τήν ἄγνοιαν τίθησι, καί τά φυσικά πάντα τοῦ σαρκωθέντος Θεοῦ καταριθμεῖ σαφῶς ὁ διδάσκαλος· οἷον τό ὑπνοῦν, τό πεινεῖν, τό διψεῖν, τό κοπιᾷν, τό δακρύειν, τό ἀγωνιᾷν, τό ὑποδύεσθαι, τόν σταυρόν, τόν θάνατον· μεθ᾿ ὧν καί τήν ἔγερσιν, καί τήν ἀνάληψιν, οἷς καί σέσωκεν, ἐκουσίως ταῦτα κατά φύσιν δεξάμενος ὑπέρ ἡμῶν καί παθών. Εἰ οὖν ταῦτα κατά τήν ἐν σχέσει ψιλήν οἰκείωσιν ἐπί Χριστοῦ γεγενῆσθαι δοξάζουσι, καί οὐ φυσικά ὡς ἀνθρώπου τοῦ σαρκωθέντος εἶναι Λόγου πρεσβεύουσι, τί λοιπόν Ἀπολιναρίῳ καί Μάνεντι καταλείψωσι;","english":"These two things are plainly what they are, together with the ignorances equal in number—which is also absurd—to suppose a twofold ignorance in Christ, who has not even one, but utterly abolishes every one, if indeed he is the wisdom and power of God. But what, then, do they say this appropriation is? The essential one, according to which each thing naturally possesses and appropriates what belongs to it because of its nature? Or the relational one, according to which we naturally cherish and appropriate what belongs to one another, while ourselves neither suffering nor doing any of these things? But if they mean the first, those men have rather declared him a mere man, dogmatizing that the incarnate God is ignorant by nature. But if the second, then not even a man at all, but only a fleshless God, as though he appropriated the things of the flesh in mere relation, and not the natural properties as of a man, naturally, while also being and remaining God. For in the very place where he posits the ignorance, the teacher also clearly enumerates all the natural properties of the incarnate God: such as sleeping, being hungry, being thirsty, being weary, weeping, being in agony, submitting, the cross, death—with which also the resurrection and the ascension, by which he also saved, having willingly accepted these things according to nature for our sake and suffered them. If, then, they hold that these things came about in Christ according to a mere relational appropriation, and do not preach that they are natural to the incarnate Word as a man, what is left for them to leave to Apollinaris and Manes?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":174,"ref":"p174","source":"Σεβῆρον γάρ ὑπερῆραν τῇ ἀσεβείᾳ, μᾶλλον ὑπεραυδήσαντες, ὡς οὐ τοσοῦτον κατεξαναστάντα τῆς ἀληθείας, ἀλλά τῇ τῶν φυσικῶν ἰδιωμάτων ῥήσει προσκεχρημένον, εἰ καί τήν φύσιν ἀθετεῖ τῆς σαρκός, πρός μίαν τάς διαφόρους φύσεις ἐκθλίβων. Ταῦτα γάρ ἕψεται τοῖς τά ἄμικτα μίσγουσι, καί τόν Πατρικόν διωθουμένοις καί παρακλέπτουσι νοῦν, ὅστις εὐκρινῶς ἅπαντα τίθεται κατά τάξιν τήν πρέπουσαν. Ὅθεν ὁ πανεύφημος καί θεοφόρος διδάσκαλος ἐν τῷ περί Υἱοῦ δευτέρῳ λόγῳ, τάδε διέξεισι περί ἀγνοίας, ὥσπερ κανόνι τινί καί τύπῳ διοριζόμενος, κἄν αὐτά τό πρῶτον ἡμῖν ἀνερμηνεύτως εἰς μέσον προήγαγον, τόν ἀκροατήν ὑφαρπάζοντες· \" Ἦ πᾶσιν εὔδηλον, ὅτι γινώσκει μέν ἀνερμηνεύτως ὡς Θεός, ἀγνοεῖν δέ φησιν ὡς ἄνθρωπος, ἄν τις τό φανόμενον χωρίσῃ τοῦ νοουμένου. \" Τίθεται οὖν τήν μέν ἄγνοιαν, τῇ κατ᾿ ἐπίνοιαν διαστολῇ τῶν οὐσιῶν μόνον ἐκδέχεσθαι· τά δέ φυσικά θελήματα, καί πᾶν τι ἄλλο φυσικόν δίχα μόνης τῆς ἁμαρτίας, τῇ καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν ἑνώσει τῶν φύσεων αὐτοῦ τοῦ σαρκωθέντος Λόγου γνωρίζειν, εἰς τήν τῶν ἐξ ᾧν, καί ἐν οἷς, καί ἅπερ ὑπάρχει κυριωτάτην ( βεβαίωσιν. Εἰ τοίνυν τήν μέν ἄγνοιαν ἐν τῇ κατ᾿ ἐπίνοιαν διαστολῇ θεωροῦμεν, οὐδ᾿ αὐτοῦ κυρίως ἐστίν, ὅ μήτε ἡμῶν κατά φύσιν ὡς συστατικόν, εἰ καί ἡμῶν εἶναι λέγεται διά τήν ἀρχαίαν παράβασιν, οἷον ἡ ἄγνοια, ἡ ἐγκατάλειψις, ἡ παρακοή, τό ἀνυπότακτον. Τίς γάρ ἡμῶν ἐν τούτοις φύσεως λόγος, ἤ τῆς οὐσίας συστατικός; Διόπερ οὐδέ Χριστοῦ ταῦτα κατηγοροῦμεν, ὡς Χριστοῦ παντελῶς, οὐδέ εἴ τι ἄλλο, καθώς ἔφην, τῶν ἐν τῇ κατ᾿ ἐπίνοιαν διαστολῇ γνωριζομένων· καί μάλα εἰκότως.","english":"For they surpassed Severus in impiety, or rather they spoke more arrogantly than he, as if he had not so greatly risen up against the truth, but had merely employed the wording of natural properties, even if he rejects the nature of the flesh, squeezing the different natures into one. For these things follow those who mix the unmixed and who thrust aside and stealthily steal the Father's meaning, which clearly sets all things in their proper order. Hence the all-praiseworthy and God-bearing teacher, in the second discourse On the Son, sets out the following concerning ignorance, as if defining it by some rule and pattern, even though they first brought these things before us without interpretation, snatching the hearer away: \"Is it not evident to all that as God he knows without interpretation, but says he is ignorant as man, if one separates what appears from what is understood?\" He lays down, then, that ignorance is to be understood only in the distinction of the essences according to conception; but the natural wills, and every other natural thing except sin alone, he recognizes in the hypostatic union of the natures of the incarnate Word himself, for the most authoritative confirmation of the things from which, and in which, and what he is. If, then, we behold ignorance in the distinction according to conception, it is not properly his either, since it is not ours by nature as constitutive, even if it is said to be ours because of the ancient transgression—such as ignorance, abandonment, disobedience, insubordination. For what principle of nature, or constitutive principle of essence, is there in these for us? Therefore we do not predicate these of Christ either, as of Christ entirely, nor any other of the things known in the distinction according to conception, as I said; and very reasonably so.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":175,"ref":"p175","source":"Εἰ γαρ οὐκ ἐν διαστολῇ τόν σεσαρκωμένον γινώσκομεν Λόγον, οὐδέ κατ᾿ ἐπίνοιαν ψιλήν φανταζόμεθα, ἀλλ᾿ ἐν ἄκρᾳ τῇ καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν ἑνώσει τῶν φύσεων ὄντα πιστεύομεν· δῆλον ὡς οὐδέ τι τῶν ἐν διαιρέσει κατ᾿ ἐπίνοιαν λαμβανομένων, αὐτοῦ τό παράπαν ἐστίν· ἀλλ᾿ ἐκεῖνα κυρίως αὐτοῦ καί μόνα πρεσβεύομεν, τά ὅσαπερ φυσικά τυγχάνει μετά τῆς φύσεως, καί λώβης ὄντα τῆς καθ᾿ ἁμαρτίαν ἐκτός, ἑνότητι προσώπου, καί τῆς κατ᾿ αὐτόν μιᾶς ὑποστάσεως, πραγματικῶς σωζόμενά τε καί ὁμολογούμενα τοῖς εὐσεβέσιν.\n\nΟὐκοῦν εἰ μέν οὐ φυσικόν τό θέλημα, καί τῆς ἡμετέρας οὐσίας συστατικόν, παραστήσωσιν. Εἰ δέ φυσικόν· θελητικός γάρ φύσει ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ἤ καί αὐτό μετά τῶν ἄλλων τοῦ σαρκωθέντος Λόγου κατ᾿ οὐσίαν ὡς ἀνθρώπου γεγενημένου, καί θελητικοῦ κατ' ἄμφω τάς ἐξ ὧν συνέστηκε φύσεις ὑπάρχοντος, καί ἔστι καί γνωρίζεται, ἤ καί τά ἄλλα φυσικά μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ, φημί δή τοῦ κατά φύσιν θελήματος, ἐν τῇ κατ' ἐπίνοιαν διαιρέσει, ψιλῶς, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ κυρίως καί πραγματικῶς γνωρισθήσονται, καί ἔσται κατ᾿ αὐτούς, ἡ τῆς ὅλης οἰκονομίας θεωρία καί μύησις· μᾶλλον δέ αὐτή κυρίως ἡ σάρκωσις, κατά διαίρεσιν αὐτοῖς λαμβανομένη καί φαντασίαν, μηδενός φυσικοῦ τούτοις ἐν Χριστῷ καθ᾿ ἕνωσιν ὁμολογουμένου, μή δ᾿ αὐτῆς τό παράπαν τῆς φύσεως. Οὗ γάρ τι φυσικόν οὐκ ἔστιν, οὔτε φύσις ἔσται ποτέ ἄν. Ὥσπερ ἔνθα κυρίως ἡ φύσις, τά κατ᾿ αὐτήν ἀπαραλείπτως δίχα μόνης τῆς ἁμαρτίας. ( Διόπερ οὐδέ μία τούτοις κατά τῆς ἀληθείας πρόφασις ἔσται. Περῄρηται γάρ πᾶσα, καί διά πάντων ἐπίνοια, πρός τό ταύτην, εἴ γε βούλοιντο, περιχαρῶς","english":"For if we do not know the incarnate Word in distinction, nor do we imagine him by a mere conception, but believe that he exists in the highest union of the natures according to subsistence, it is clear that not even any of the things taken by conception in division belongs to him at all; but we honor as his properly and only those things which are natural together with the nature, and which are outside the corruption that is according to sin, being really saved and confessed by the pious in the unity of person and of the one subsistence according to him.\n\nTherefore, if they show that the will is not natural and constitutive of our essence—but if it is natural (for man is by nature willing), then either it too, together with the other things of the incarnate Word, who became man according to essence, and who is willing according to both the natures from which he is composed, both is and is known, or else the other natural things together with it—I mean the will according to nature—will be known in the division according to conception merely, but not properly and really, and according to them the contemplation and initiation of the whole economy will be—or rather, the incarnation itself will properly be, taken by them in division and fantasy, since no natural thing is confessed by them in Christ according to union, nor even the nature itself at all. For where there is no natural thing, neither will there ever be a nature. Just as where the nature is properly, the things according to it are without omission, apart from sin alone. (Therefore there will be no pretext for them against the truth. For every conception has been removed, and through all things, toward this, if indeed they should wish, gladly","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":176,"ref":"p176","source":"ἀσμενίσαι, καί ἡμῖν εἰλικρινῶς συνομολογεῖν· ἀλλά μή τοῖς ὡς ἐξ ἀράχνης τῆς κατ᾿ αὐτούς ἀδρανοῦς διανοίας ἐπερείδεσθαι λόγοις, τούς εἰς αὐτόν ὀρθοδόξως πιστεύοντας, ὅτι ἐξ ᾧν ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός, ἐν αὐτοῖς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός· καί ἐν οἷς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός, ταῦτά ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός· Ἔστιν οὖν Θεός καί ἄνθρωπος ἐν ταὐτῷ ὁ Χριστός· ἔστι δέ καί ἐν θεότητι καί ἐν ἀνθρωπότητι· ἥνωτο δέ καί ἐκ θεότητος καί ἐξ ἀνθρωπότητος.\n\nΤοῦ αὐτοῦ ἁγίου Μαξίμου ἐπίλυσις τοῦ δευτέρου ἀτόπου. Περί τοῦ δεῖξαι φυσικά λέγειν τά θελήματα τούς Πατέρας, τότε δείξομεν, ὅτ᾿ ἄν ἐπαΐειν δυνηθῶσιν ἤ βουληθῶσιν, εἰπεῖν οἰκειότερον, οἱ πρός πάντα τά θεῖα καί πατρικά τήν ἀκουστικήν τῆς ψυχῆς ἀποβύσαντες δύναμιν. Εἰ γάρ ταύτην ὡς ἔκ τινος πάθους ἀνακαθάραι βουληθῶσι τῆς ἔριδος, καί τρανῶς, ἤ μᾶλλον ἀπροσπάθως, τό τῆς διανοίας ὄμμα κατά λόγον ἑρεῖσαι τῇ τῆς πατροπαραδότου διδασκαλίας πολυφώτῳ καί ἱερᾷ λαμπηδόνι, συνήσουσι πάντως ὡς φυσικά θελήματα κατονομάζουσιν· ἔκ τε τοῦ διαῤῥήδην ἅπαντας κοινῇ λέγειν τε καί διδάσκειν, \"Φυσικήν τε ὄρεξιν, καί ἔμφυτον ὄρεξιν, καί φυσικῶς ἔχουσαν τό μή θέλειν ἀποθανεῖν τήν σάρκα· κατάγνωσις φύσεώς ἐστι γάρ τοῦτο. Καί πῶς ἄν φησι κοινόν ἀμφοτέρων τό θέλημα; ποῦ δ᾿ ἄν ἡ τῆς φύσεως διαφορότης τῷ ἑνί θελήματι διαφαίνοιτο; Ἀνάγκη γάρ πᾶσα σύνδρομον εἶναι τῇ φύσει τήν βούλησιν, καί τήν φύσιν μή βουλομένην ἀποθανεῖν, ἀλλά τῆς παρούσης ἀντεχομένην ζωῆς. Καί ὥσπερ τό πεινεῖν καί διψεῖν οὐκ ἔγκλημα, οὐδέ τό τῆς παρούσης ζωῆς ἐφίεσθαι. Καί ὅτι φύσει γάρ ἔγκειται τό φίλτρον τό περί τά παρόντα». Καί τό·","english":"and to acknowledge it sincerely with us; but not to rely on words spun from their own feeble mind as from a spider's web—those who believe orthodoxly in him—that from the things of which Christ consists, Christ is in them; and in those in whom Christ is, these things are Christ. Christ is therefore God and man in the same; he is both in divinity and in humanity; and he was united both from divinity and from humanity.\n\nOf the same holy Maximus, a solution of the second absurdity. Concerning the demonstration that the Fathers speak of the wills as natural, we shall show when they are able to understand, or, to speak more properly, when they wish to—those who have stopped up the hearing power of the soul against all divine and paternal things. For if they wish to cleanse this from strife as from some passion, and to fix the eye of the mind clearly, or rather without attachment, according to reason upon the many-lighted and sacred radiance of the teaching handed down from the Fathers, they will surely understand that they name natural wills; both from the fact that all in common plainly say and teach, \"Natural desire, and innate desire, and the flesh's naturally having the not-wishing to die—this is a condemnation of nature. And how, he says, could the will be common to both? Where would the difference of nature be made manifest in the one will? For it is entirely necessary that the volition run together with the nature, and that the nature not wish to die, but cling to the present life. And just as to hunger and thirst is not a reproach, nor to desire the present life. And that by nature the love for present things is implanted.\" And the passage:","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":177,"ref":"p177","source":"\" Ἐχούσης τῆς σαρκός, ἥν δι' ἡμᾶς ἀνέλαβε μετά πάντων τῶν αὐτῇ προσόντων φυσικῶς, καί τό παραιτεῖσθαι τόν θάνατον». Ταῦτα Ἀθανασίου, καί Βασιλείου, καί ( Γρηγορίου, καί Ἰωάννου, καί Θεοφίλου, καί Κυρίλλου, τῶν ἀοιδίμων, τά δόγματα, καί τῶν ἄλλων ἐγκρίτων Πατέρων. Τίς ἡ ὑπέρ ταῦτα μείζων ἀπόδειξις, ὡς φυσικά θελήματα διαγορεύουσι; Ποία δέ καί παρά τίνων ἀντιλογία, μηδεμιᾶς ἐν τούτοις τοῖς λεγομένοις οὔσης ἀμφιβολίας, ἤ τῆς οἱασοῦν ἐπικρύψεως; Ἡμεῖς μέν οὖν ἐντεῦθεν οὐ λέξεις καινοτομοῦμεν, ὡς οἱ δι᾿ ἐναντίας φασίν, ἀλλά πατρικάς ὁμολογοῦμεν φωνάς· οὐδέ πρός τόν ἴδιον νοοῦντες σκοπόν τάς ὀνοματοποιίας τιθέμεθα· τολμηρόν γάρ τοῦτο, καί τῆς αἱρετικῆς ἔργον καί μανικῆς διανοίας ἐφεύρεσις· ἀλλ᾿ ὡς ὑπ᾿ αὐτῶν τῶν ἁγίων ἐνοήθησαν καί ἐλέχθησαν, ταύτας εὐσεβῶς προκομίζομεν. Αὐτοί δέ τίνα καί πόθεν ἕξουσι χώραν, εἰς τό μή πάντως οὕτω νοεῖν, ἀλλ᾿ ἑτέρως καί παρά ταῦτα δοξάζειν, εἴγε βούλοιντ᾿ ἄν ὅλως εὐσεβεῖν, καί τῆς πατρικῆς μή παρεκκλίνεσθαι διδασκαλίας; Εἰ γάρ ὑποστατικά, τουτέστι προσωπικά ἕξουσι πάντως τά φυσικά δυσωπούμενοι, καί τήν προσωπικήν ἑτερότητα συνεισάξουσιν, ἤ τά παρά φύσιν, καί τήν ἔκπτωσιν τῶν οὐσιῶν δογματίζουσιν, εἰς ἀνυπαρξίαν τάς φύσεις, ἤ μᾶλλον ἑαυτούς, συνελάσαντες. Καί γάρ τι τῶν προσωπικῶν, καί τῶν παρά φύσιν, εἴπέρ τι τοιοῦτον δώσωμεν ὅλως εἰπεῖν, οὐκ ἔστιν· ὅτι μηδέ καθόλου γινώσκεται, μετά τήν τῶν κατ᾿ οὐσίαν ἀποφοίτησιν θελημάτων.","english":"Since the flesh which he took on for our sake has, with all that naturally belongs to it, also the capacity to refuse death. These are the doctrines of Athanasius, Basil, Gregory, John, Theophilus, and Cyril, the renowned, and of the other approved Fathers. What greater proof than these is there that they proclaim natural wills? And what contradiction is there, or from whom, when there is no ambiguity in these statements, nor any concealment of any kind? We, then, do not innovate words, as those of the opposite party claim, but we confess the voices of the Fathers; nor do we set down our terminology with an eye to our own purpose; for this is rash, and the work of a heretical and manic mind, an invention; but as they were understood and spoken by the saints themselves, so we piously bring them forward. But what place, and from where, will they themselves have, so as not to understand in this way altogether, but to believe otherwise and contrary to these things—if indeed they wish to be pious at all, and not to deviate from the teaching of the Fathers? For if, put to shame, they will altogether hold the natural [wills] to be hypostatic, that is, personal, they will also introduce personal otherness; or [they will hold them to be] contrary to nature, and they will dogmatize the fall of essences, having driven natures—or rather themselves—into non-existence. For nothing of things personal, or of things contrary to nature—if we grant at all that anyone says any such thing—exists; since it is not known at all, after the departure of the wills that are according to essence.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":178,"ref":"p178","source":"Εἴτε γάρ θεῖον καί ἀνθρώπινον, εἴτε θεοῦν καί θεούμενον, εἴτε κτιστόν καί ἄκτιστον, εἴτε καί ὅπως ποτέ καλεῖν ἐθέλοιεν, φυσικά, καί οὐκ ἄλλως τά ἐπί Χριστοῦ θελήματα κατονομάζειν εὐσεβῶς ἐναγόμεθα, τήν φυσικήν ἑτερότητα τῶν ἐξ ὧν συνέστηκε διασημαίνειν ἐθέλοντες. Εἰ γάρ ἀνάγκη πᾶσα σύνδρομον εἶναι τῇ φύσει τήν βούλησιν κατά τούς Πατέρας, καί οὐκ ἔστιν κοινόν δηλαδή ἀμφοτέρων τῶν οὐσιῶν τό θέλημα λέγειν, οὔτε ἡ τῆς φύσεως διαφορότης τῷ ἑνί θελήματι διαφαίνεται, δῆλον ὡς πάντως δύο φυσικά ἀνάγκη τά θελήματα λέγειν· ἵνα, κατά τούς Πατέρας, ἡ τῶν οὐσιῶν ἐπί Χριστοῦ διαφορότης ἀσυγχύτως\n\nκαί ἀδιαιρέτως γνωρίζηται. Τίς ( οὖν αὐτοῖς πρός ταῦτα λόγος, ἤ τίνα τήν ὀνοματοποιΐαν ἑαυτοῖς ἀναπλάσοιντο, κατά τόν ἴδιον τά πατρικά νοοῦντες σκοπόν; Ποῖα δέ ἄρα τόν εὐσεβῆ ἑλέσθαι βούλοιντ᾿ ἄν, τῶν φυσικῶν ἀποπίπτοντα θελημάτων, τά προσωπικά; Καί τίς οἴσει τήν ἐν προσώποις τοῦ ἑνός κατατομήν; Ἀλλά τά παρά φύσιν. Καί τίς ὅ τῆς κακίας καί τῆς ἀνυπαρξίας ἐνέγκῃ βάραθρον, εἰς ὅπερ ἑαυτούς κατά μικρόν συνελαύνουσι; Πλήν, ἐκεῖνο χάριν ἑαυτοῖς, ὅτι τόν ἀριθμόν τῶν θεληματων πολεμεῖν ἐφέμενοι, περί τήν τούτων φυσιολογίαν ἐτράπησαν, ἥν τυχόν καί παραχωροῦμεν, ὡς θέλοιεν ὀνομάζειν, τοῦ κατά ταῦτα διαπίπτοντες ἀριθμοῦ, μέχρις ἄν ἐκ τῆς ἀκαταλλήλου κλήσεως μεταμαθόντες τό ἄτοπον, καί εἰς ὅπερ ἄν αὐτοῖς ἄγει τέλος ἀπρόσφορον, πεισθεῖεν καὐτοί φυσικά θελήματα κατά τούς Πατέρας ὁμολογεῖν.","english":"For whether they wish to call them divine and human, or deifying and deified, or created and uncreated, or by whatever name at all, we are piously constrained to name the wills in Christ as natural and not otherwise, desiring to signify the natural distinctness of the things of which he is composed. For if it is altogether necessary, according to the Fathers, that the will be concurrent with the nature, and it is evidently not possible to say that the will is common to both essences, nor is the difference of nature made manifest through one will, it is clear that one must in every way speak of two natural wills, so that, according to the Fathers, the difference of the essences in Christ may be known without confusion and without division. What account, then, will they give to these things, or what name-making will they fashion for themselves, understanding the things of the Fathers according to their own purpose? And which would they rather choose, falling away from the natural wills to the personal ones? And who will endure the cutting off of the one into persons? But rather the things contrary to nature. And who will bear the abyss of evil and of non-existence, into which they gradually drive themselves? Nevertheless, let that be granted them for their own sake, that, eager to fight against the number of the wills, they have turned to the natural philosophy of these, which we perhaps even concede, as they might wish to name it, since they fall short of the number in these matters, until, having learned again from the incongruous calling the absurdity, and being persuaded themselves, they confess natural wills according to the Fathers, even to whatever unsuitable end it leads them.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":179,"ref":"p179","source":"Τίς δέ καί τήν τούτων περιφοράν μή θαυμάσειε; Ὅπως τε περιόδοις τισί καί διαύλοις ἀποκεχρημένοι, τό μέγα τῆς περί ἡμᾶς θείας οἰκονομίας ἀποσκευάζειν μηχανῶνται μυστήριον; Ποτέ μέν γάρ κατά τῶν φυσικῶν ἐνεργειῶν τό θέλημα προσκομίζοντες, δι᾿ ἑνός, ᾗ φασιν, ἑαυτοῖς συνεισάγοντες τήν μίαν, κατά τῶν δύο μετῆλθον ἐνέργειαν· ποτέ δέ τήν ἄγνοιαν κατά τῶν θελημάτων, ὡς ταύτῃ συναποβαίνοντος τοῦ θελήματος, τῶν ἐκτός εἶναι λογιζομένου. Ποτέ τήν πάντων τῶν φυσικῶν τελείαν ἀπόφασιν, διά τῆς οἰκειώσεως, καί τοῦ μυστηρίου, καθώς ἔφην, τήν ὅλην ἀνατροπήν· ἐν σχέσι ψιλῇ τούτων αὐτοῖς ἁπάντων ἐπ᾿ αὐτοῦ λαμβανομένων, καί οὐ φυσικῶς ὡς ἀνθρώπου τοῦ σαρκωθέντος Θεοῦ καθ᾿ ἔνωσιν γνωριζομένων· δέον μή τῆς ἀληθείας ἐξίστασθαι· συννεύειν δέ μᾶλλον αὐτῇ διά πάντων καί συνηγορεῖν, κατά τήν ἀπαράλειπτον τῶν τοῦ αὐτοῦ καί ἑνός Χριστοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμῶν φύσεων, καί τῶν προσόντων ταῖς φύσεσι πίστωσιν εἰλικρινῆ καί βεβαιωτάτην ὁμολογίαν· ᾧ ἡ δόξα σύν Πατρί καί ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι, εἰς τούς ἀπεράντους αἰῶνας. Ἀμήν.","english":"And who would not marvel at their circuit? And how, having availed themselves of certain cycles and double courses, do they contrive to do away with the great mystery of the divine economy concerning us? For sometimes, bringing the will against the natural energies, they pass over to one energy against the two, introducing to themselves, as they say, the one through one; and sometimes ignorance against the wills, as though the will went down along with it, reckoning it to be outside of things. Sometimes the perfect denial of all natural things, through appropriation and the mystery, as I said, the whole overthrow; all these things being taken by them in bare relation to him, and not being known naturally as of the incarnate God as a man according to union; when it is necessary not to depart from the truth, but rather to concur with it through all things and to speak in its behalf, according to the unomitted faith of the same and one Christ our God in his natures, and a sincere and most firm confession of the things that belong to the natures; to whom be the glory with the Father and the Holy Spirit, unto the endless ages. Amen.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":180,"ref":"p180","source":"ΤΟΜΟΣ ΔΟΓΜΑΤΙΚΟΣ ΠΡΟΣ ΜΑΡΙΝΟΝ ΠΡΕΣΒΥΤΕΡΟΝ ( Ὧν ὁ λόγος ἀρεταῖς ὡραΐζεται, τούτων ὁ νοῦς γνωστικαῖς ἐπιλάμπεται χάρισιν, ἐξιστώσαις λήθης ἁπάσης αὐτόν, ὥσπερ ἐκεῖνον ἀπάτης ἐκεῖναι, καί πρός μύησιν ἀγούσαις τοῦ κρυφίου τοσοῦτον, ὅσον αὐτοῦ δι᾿ ἡμᾶς ἐκφανθέντος πρός μίμησιν ἐπανάγουσι. Τοῦτο ἐν Πνεύματι ἁγίῳ παρέδειξας, οἷς αὐτός ἁμιλλώμενος ἐμμελείᾳ τρόπων ἱερῶν καί ἱερωτέρων πράξεων, θεοτίμητε Πάτερ, ὑπερέχεις τοσοῦτον τήν εὐφημίαν, ὅσον καί ἱκανός προσβαλεῖν τήν εὐτονία, πέρας μέν δρόμου ποιούμενος τήν ἐπέκτασιν, καί λόγου τήν ἐπί τόν Λόγον ἀεικίνητον ἄνοδον, ἵνα καί φύσιν ὑπερβῇς, καί τύπους ἅπαντας διαῤῥήψῃς, καί καθαρῶς τῷ καθαρωτάτῳ προσομιλήσῃς, κατά τήν ἐκ πάντων καί πρός ἅπαντας ὑποστολήν ἑαυτοῦ, καί τελείαν ἐν σχέσει διάβασιν·","english":"Dogmatic Tome to Marinus the Presbyter ( Those whose discourse is adorned by virtues, their mind is illumined by gnostic graces, which remove from it all forgetfulness, just as those other things removed deceit from that man, and lead it to initiation into the hidden mystery to the same extent that they lead it back to imitation of him who was revealed for our sake. This you have shown forth in the Holy Spirit, O God-honored Father, you who strive in these things by the melody of sacred manners and holier deeds, and surpass praise as far as you are also able to approach with vigor, making the limit of your course its extension, and of your word its ceaseless ascent toward the Word, so that you might transcend nature, and burst through all types, and converse purely with the purest, according to your own withdrawal from all things and toward all things, and your perfect passage in relation.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":181,"ref":"p181","source":"ἥτις τήν ἀόριστον εὔροιαν προξενεῖ κατά χάριν πειγράφουσάν τε πᾶν ὁριστόν καί ὑπερβαίνουσαν, καί εἰς τά Ἅγια τῶν ἁγίων, ἔνθα πρόδρομος ὑπέρ ἡμῶν εἰσῆλθε τό καθ' ἡμᾶς ὁ ὑπέρ ἡμᾶς Ἰησοῦς ἀπρίξ χωρῆσαι παρασκευάζουσαν, τόν ἀπό δόξης εἰς δόξαν πρακτικῶς αὐτῷ δι᾿ ἀρετῆς συναναβαίνοντα, καί τούς οὐρανούς ἀπό γνώσεως εἰς γνῶσιν ἐπιστημονικῶς διερχόμενον, καί τῇ ( κρυφιομύστῳ καί πολυφωνοτάτῳ σιγῇ, κατά πᾶσαν νοερῶς ἐνεργείας ἀπόλειψιν, ἀγνώστως ἐντυγχάνοντα τῷ Πατρί τῶν πνευμάτων, ᾧ διά χάριτος καί τῆς περί τά ἱερουργά μακαρίας σπουδῆς ὑπερφυῶς ἀναχθείς, ἀνάγεις τούς κατ᾿ ἐμέ κάτω κειμένους, χεῖρά τε συμπαθῶς ὀρέγων διά τοῦ γράμματος, καί λόγον διά τῆς ἐν τούτῳ κρυπτομένης νοήσεως, πείθων τε διά σπουδῆς ὑπεξίστασθαι τῶν ἐξιστάντων Θεοῦ, καί μόνην ἀσχέτως τήν αὐτοῦ καί πρός αὐτόν ἑνωτικήν ἐξ ὅλης καρδίας (τιμᾷν, ἀσκεῖν, προτιμᾷν,) ἀγάπην, καθ᾿ ἥν, ὡς ἁπλῆν καί ἀνείδεον, πᾶσαν διπλόην, καί σχήματος","english":"which by grace procures the boundless flow of grace, and which presses upon every defined limit and surpasses it, and prepares one to press firmly into the Holy of Holies, where Jesus, who is above us, entered as forerunner on our behalf in accordance with what we are, ascending together with him practically through virtue from glory to glory, and passing scientifically through the heavens from knowledge to knowledge, and in the mystically hidden and most articulate silence, according to every cessation of noetic activity, unknowably encountering the Father of spirits, to whom, led up supernaturally by grace and by your blessed zeal for sacred rites, you lead up those who lie below, as I do, and compassionately extend a hand through your letter, and a word through the meaning hidden in it, persuading them through zeal to withdraw from the things that estrange from God, and to honor, practice, and prefer only his unifying love, and that toward him, with the whole heart, without attachment, according to which, as simple and formless, it rejects all duplicity and every form","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":182,"ref":"p182","source":"ἐπικάλυψον αὐτῆς τε διανοίας, καί τοῦ φαινομένου διακρούσασθαι παρακελεύῃ, καί τήν μακαρίαν ὄντως, καί τῶν μακαρίων ἐκφαντορικήν ἀρετήν κατορθοῦν, ἥνα ταῖς σαῖς ἱερωτάταις στηριζόμενος προσευχαῖς δυνηθείην ἐξανύσαι, εὐπερίστατον ἁμαρτίαν ἀπολιπών.\n\nἘπεί δέ μοι καί πρός ἐργασίαν αὖθις ἐγείρων τό λογισμόν καί τό χώρημα τῆς ψυχῆς πάσης ἀγνοίας διακαθάραι βουλόμενος, ἐκέλευσάς μοι διερευνῆσαι τοῦ τῆς ἀναστάσεως φερωνύμως θειοτάτου καί μεγάλου Καθηγητοῦ τῆς ἁγίας Θεουπολιτῶν Ἐκκλησίας, ταὐτόν δέ φαναι τῆς οἰκουμένης ἁπάσης, τόν κατά τοῦ Διαιτητοῦ λόγον· μᾶλλον δέ Διαιρέτου, κυρίως εἰπεῖν, ὅσῳ καί Θεοῦ καί ἡμῶν τελείως χωρίζει δι᾿ ἄκρας μεταβολῆς καί συμφύρσεως, τόν δι᾿ ἡμᾶς ἀνθρωπήσαντα Θεόν, καί τοῦ Πατρός ὁμοούσιον γέννημα Κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, πῶς ἐπ᾿ αὐτοῦ μίαν φησί τήν ἐνέργειαν, καίτοι φυσικάς δογματίζων τάς ἐνεργείας· αὐτόν γε αὐτῆς ὡς οἰκείας φωνῆς προΐσχομαι σιφόν ἑρμηνευτήν καί διδάσκαλον, οὐκ ἄλλο τε ταύτην εἶναι διοριζόμενον, ἤ τήν τῶν ἐμφύτων ἐνεργειῶν ἀδιάσπαστον ἕνωσιν, καί τό ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀποτέλεσμα, τό ἔργον φημί καί τήν πρᾶξιν, ὡς ἐνδεικτικήν τούτων ὑπάρχουσαν καί δηλωτικήν, εἴ τις κατά τήν ἐνέργειαν ( κεκοινώνηκε κλήσεως, ἅ τε δή μερικόν τι κυρίως οὔσα καί καθολικόν. Καθ᾿ ὅσον γάρ ἐκ τῆς κατά ἰδιότητα φυσικήν οὐσιώδους ἐνεργείας προάγεται μερικοῦ τάξιν ἐπέχει, ὥσπερ οὖν πάλιν κἀκείνη προάγουσα καθολικοῦ.","english":"Cover its thoughts, and you urge me to thrust aside what appears and to set right the truly blessed virtue that reveals the blessed, so that, supported by your most sacred prayers, I might be able to accomplish it, having left behind sin that is easily surrounded.\n\nAnd since, rousing my reasoning again to work and wishing to cleanse thoroughly the capacity of my soul from all ignorance, you commanded me to investigate the account concerning the Adjudicator—or rather the Divider, to speak rightly, insofar as he completely separates both God and us by an extreme change and confusion—of the most divine and great Teacher of the holy Church of the God-dwellers, who is named after the resurrection, and, to say the same, of the whole inhabited world: the account against the Adjudicator concerning our Lord Jesus Christ, the God who became man for our sake and the consubstantial offspring of the Father—how he says that in him there is one activity, although he dogmatically affirms that activities are natural. I myself put forward him as a clear interpreter and teacher of this very voice as his own, defining that this is nothing other than the indivisible union of the innate activities and the result from them—I mean the work and the action—as being indicative and declarative of these, if one in activity has shared in the calling, both as it is properly a particular thing and as it is universal. For insofar as it proceeds from the essential activity according to natural propriety, it holds the rank of a particular; just as, in turn, that one also, proceeding, holds the rank of a universal.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":183,"ref":"p183","source":"Πέφυκε γάρ τά μέν ἰδικά τῆς κλήσεως κοινωνεῖν τῶν γενικῶν, τά δέ καθόλου τῆς ὑπάρξεως κατηγορεῖσθαι τῶν μερικῶν, οὐ μήν τε τῆς κλήσεως κοινωνεῖν, ἵνα διά ταύτης ἐξιδιάζηταί πως καί εἰς μερικοῦ τάξιν λογίζηται. Τό γοῦν ἀποτέλεσμα, καθώς ἔφην, αὐτῶν δύο τῶν ἐμφύτων ἐνεργειῶν, ἤγουν τήν πρᾶξιν, ὡς ἀμφοτέρας καθ᾿ ἕνωσιν αὐτῶν συλλαβοῦσαν, ἐκ τοῦ κατ᾿ αὐτάς προσαγορεύσας ὀνόματος ὁ διδάσκαλος, μίαν εἶπεν ἐνέργειαν, διά τό μηδέν θεῖον ἤ ἀνθρώπινον κεχωρισμένως ἐπιτελεῖσθαι, ἀλλ᾿ ἐξ ἑνός καί τοῦ αὐτοῦ συμφυῶς ἅμα καί ἡνωμένως προάγεσθαι, κατά τήν ἐν τούτοις ἐνιαίαν περιχώρησιν· οὐ μήν γε διά τοῦτο εἶπε μίαν αὐτοῦ κατ᾿ ἰδιότητα φυσικήν τήν οὐσιώδη ἐνέργειαν· ὥσπερ οὐδ᾿ οὐσίαν μίαν καί φύσιν δι᾿ αὐτό γε τό τοῦ ἑνός προσώπου μοναδικόν, οὐδετέρας τῶν ἐξ ὧν συνετέθη μετέχουσαν. Σώζεται γάρ κἀν τῇ ἑνώσει τῶν φύσεων ἡ κατ᾿ οὐσίαν διαφορά, συναποσώζουσα κυρίως αὐτῇ καί τήν τῶν οὐσιωδῶς προσόντων ταῖς φύσεσι.","english":"For it is natural that the specific things of the calling share in the generic, and that the universal things of existence are predicated of the particular—yet not so as to share in the calling, so that through this it might in some way be made particular and be reckoned in the rank of a particular. At any rate, the result, as I said, of the two natural energies—that is, the action—since it has conceived both together in their union, the Teacher, calling it from the name derived from them, said it was one energy, because nothing divine or human is accomplished separately, but from one and the same thing it is brought forth naturally at once and unitedly, according to the single mutual interpenetration in these; yet he did not for this reason say that his essential energy was one by natural peculiarity—just as neither did he say there was one essence and nature because of the very singularity of the one person, sharing in neither of those from which it was composed. For even in the union of the natures the difference according to essence is preserved, rightly preserving together with it also that of the things that essentially belong to the natures.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":184,"ref":"p184","source":"Καί τοῦτο διαγορεύων ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ τοῦ κατά Διαιτητοῦ πονηθέντι λόγῳ, μετά τό λίαν ἐπιστημόνως προδιαστείλασθαι περί τε ἰδιότητος φυσικῆς τῆς πρός ἐνέργειαν ἐπιτηδείως ἐχούσης, καί αὐτῆς ἐνεργείας τῆς εἰς ἔργον καί πρᾶξιν ἐκ τῆς ἐπιτηδειότητος προϊούσης, οὕτως διέξεισι· \"Διό μίαν μέν τήν ἐνέργειαν ἐπί Χριστοῦ», καί τήν αἰτίαν ἐπάγει, διά τό μηδέν θεῖον ἤ ἀνθρώπινον κεχωρισμένως ἐπιτελεῖσθαι, \"καί ἡμεῖς φαμέν». Ὡς δέ τόν τῆς ἑνώσεως λόγον ταύτῃ παρέδειξε, τόν τῆς οὐσιώδους διαφορᾶς ἐπάγων, φησίν, \"Οὐ μίαν δέ αὐτοῦ τήν ἰδιότητα, μή γένοιτο· οὐ γάρ ἡ αὐτή θεότητος ἰδιότης καί ἀνθρωπότητος»· ἡ πρός ἐνέργειαν δηλαδή φυσικήν ἐπιτηδείως ἔχουσα, κατ᾿ αὐτόν. Καί ( παρακατιών αὖθις, \"Καί ἄλλως δέ τό αὐτό καθόλου φάναι, μίαν μέν τῶν συνελθουσῶν τήν ἐκ τῶν ὁποίων δή φύσεων ἐνέργειαν εἶναι, τῇ κοινωνίᾳ δηλονότι τῆς ἑνώσεως καί τοῦ συμπεράσματος αὐτοῦ, πᾶσα νάγκη· μίαν δέ αὐτῶν τήν ἰδιότητα λέγειν συγχύσεως ἄνευ, τάχα δέ καί ἐφ᾿ ὧν τῇ συγχύσει χώρα παντελῶς ἀνεπινόητος». Φανέστατα γοῦν διά τῶν οἰκείων τήν ἑαυτοῦ ἔννοιαν ἐσαφήνισεν ὁ Πατήρ, οὐκ οὐσιώδη μίαν τήν ἐπί Χριστοῦ φήσας ἐνέργειαν, ἵνα μή σύγχυσις αὐτοῦ τοῖς μέρεσιν ἐπάγηται καί φυρμός· οὐχ ὑποστατικήν τό σύνολον, ἵνα μή τῶν ἄκρων αὐτῷ χωρισμός γένηται καί διάστασις· Πατρός ἀνάρχου φημί καί ἀχράντου μητρός· Ὑποστάσει γάρ, καί τοῖς ὑποστατικοῖς ἐκείνων σαφῶς διακρίνεται. Ἀλλά τί φησιν; Μία τῇ κοινωνίᾳ τῆς","english":"And stating this in the very discourse composed by the Dietetes, after having most learnedly distinguished beforehand concerning natural propriety—that which is disposed toward activity—and concerning the activity itself which proceeds from that disposition into work and action, he sets it out thus: \"Therefore one activity in Christ,\" and he adds the reason, because nothing divine or human is accomplished separately, \"and we also affirm this.\" And as he has shown the principle of union in this way, bringing in the principle of essential difference, he says, \"But not one is his propriety—may it not be! For the propriety of divinity and of humanity is not the same\"—that is, the natural propriety disposed toward activity, according to him. And going on again, \"And to speak the same universally in another way, that there is one activity of the natures that came together, from whatever natures they may be, is entirely necessary, by the communion of the union and of its result, obviously; but to speak of one propriety of them without confusion—and perhaps also in cases where room for confusion is altogether inconceivable.\" Most clearly, then, through his own words the Father made his own meaning plain, not saying that the activity in Christ is one in essence, lest confusion and mingling be brought upon his parts; nor altogether one in hypostasis, lest there be a separation and division of the extremes for him—I mean of the unbegun Father and the undefiled mother; for by hypostasis, and by their hypostatic properties, he is clearly distinguished. But what does he say? One by the communion of the","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":185,"ref":"p185","source":"ἑνώσεως καί τοῦ συμπεράσματος, ὅπερ ἔργον καί πρᾶξιν ἐνωτέρω διώρισε, μήτε τοῖς φύρειν ἐθέλουσι, μήτε μήν τοῖς χωρίζειν παρείσδυσιν τήν οἱανοῦν δεδωκώς· ἀλλά τούς μέν ἀπελάσας, τῷ γνωρίζειν, τί μέν προηγουμένως καί κατά φύσιν ἴδιον τῆς κατ' αὐτόν ἀνθρωπότητος· τί δέ τῆς ὑπερουσίου θεότητος· τούς δέ προπωσάμενος, τῷ μηδεμίαν ἐπί τοῦ αὐτοῦ καί ἑνός διϊστᾷν ἤ χωρίζειν ἐνέργειαν. Τό γάρ ὄνομα τῆς ἐνεργείας κοινῶς ἐπί τε ἁπλῆς ὁμοίως καί τῆς ἐν σχέσει θεωρουμένης κινήσεως, ἤ αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἀποτελέσματος λαμβανόμενον, φυρμόν οὐκ ἐπάγει τοῖς πράγμασιν, ἕως ἄν εὐκρινής ἡ τῶν νοουμένων διασάφησις γένηται, καθ᾿ ἥν τά τε θατέρα φύσεων οὐσιωδῶς προσδεδραμηκυιῶν ἀδιαιρέτως φυλάττομεν, καί τά θατέρας ἴδια τῆς θατέρας ἀσυγχύτως γνωρίζομεν διά τήν ἕνωσιν, καί ἀμφοτέρων τοῦ ἐξ αὐτῶν ὅλου διά τήν ὕπαρξιν, οὔτε κατά τοῦτο συμφύροντες, οὔτε μήν κατ᾿ ἐκείνας χωρίζοντες, ἀλλ᾿ οὐσιῶν μέν ὅρους κρατοῦντες τήν διαφοράν, λόγοις δέ μιᾶς καί τῆς αὐτῆς ὑποστάσεως τήν ἕνωσιν διασφίγγοντες. Οὕτω γοῦν, καί διά ταῦτα οὗτος, καί πᾶς ἄλλος εἴ τις ἔγκριτος καί θεῖος Πατήρ, ὡς ἤδη φαίνομαι γεγραφώς, μίαν ἐπί Χριστοῦ τήν ἐνέργειαν καί δύο, τό μέν τήν ἕνωσιν ἀποσκοπῶν τῆν κατά φύσιν ἐνεργειῶν, ὥσπερ οὖν καί ( τῶν φύσεων· τό δέ, τήν οὐσιώδη τούτων διαφοράν. Καί ὧδε μέν ταῦτα.","english":"Of union and of the conclusion, which he distinguished above as work and action, he has given no entrance of any kind either to those who wish to confuse or indeed to those who separate; but he drove the former away by recognizing what is primarily and by nature proper to the humanity according to him, and what belongs to the superessential divinity; and he pushed back the latter by distinguishing or separating no activity upon the same and one [subject]. For the name of activity, taken commonly both of simple motion alike and of motion contemplated in relation, or of the result itself, does not introduce confusion into the things, so long as the clear distinction of the things understood has been made, according to which we keep indivisibly the things that have essentially belonged to one of the natures and know without confusion the properties of the one and of the other because of the union, and those of both belong to the whole composed of them because of existence, neither confounding them in this respect nor indeed separating them in respect of those, but holding fast the difference by the definitions of the essences, and securing the union by the accounts of one and the same hypostasis. Thus, then, and for these reasons, this man, and every other approved and divine Father, as I have already shown myself to have written, [speaks of] one activity in Christ and two, aiming in the one case at the natural union of the activities, just as also of the natures, and in the other at their essential difference. And so much for these matters.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":186,"ref":"p186","source":"Περί δέ τῆς εἰς τήν χρῆσιν ἑρμηνείας τοῦ θεολόγου καί μεγάλου τῆς Ἐκκλησίας (ἀληθείας) κήρυκος Γρηγορίου, τήν «Παρά τοῦ ἀνθρώπου τυποῦσθαι τόν λόγον φάσκουσαν οὐ τοῦ κατά τόν Σωτῆρα νοουμένου. Τό γάρ ἐκείνου θέλειν, οὐδέ ὑπεναντίον Θεῷ θεωθέν ὅλον», λίαν μέν εὐσεβοῦς ἠρτημένης ὁρίζομαι διανοίας, ὑπέρ ἧς καί ἐξ ἧς ἐσπουδάσθη τῷ φιλοπόνῳ, μικρόν δέ περί τό τῆς λέξεως ἀκριβές ἐνδεοῦς, ᾧ καί μᾶλλον ἐπιδρομάς, ἤ καταδρομάς εἰπεῖν ἀληθέστερον, οἱ πάντα εὔκολοι καί παχεῖς μηχανῶνται ποιεῖν, καί οὐδέν οὕτως αὐτοῖς περισπούδαστον, ὡς τό καί τά λίαν πάντοθεν ἠσφαλισμένα, καί μηδεμίαν αὐτοῖς ὑπανοίγοντα χώραν κατά τοῦ λόγου, διερευνᾶσθαι καί μωμοσκοπεῖν, μήτοιγε ψιλῆς πόθεν δραξάμενοι φωνῆς, καί ταύτης ἐξ ἀπλάστου προαγομένης καί καθαρᾶς διανοίας, ἐπί τό μέν ἐπικυροῦν καί συνιστᾷν τῆς ἐξ ἡμῶν προληφθείσης ἐψυχωμένης σαρκός, (ἤγουν τοῦ κατά τόν Σωτῆρα ἀνθρωπίνου) τό οὐσιῶδες θέλημα καί φυσικόν, ἐκ τοῦδε τοῦ θεολήπτου Πατρός τό λέγειν· \"Τό γάρ ἐκείνου θέλειν σοφόν καί περιεσκεμμένον», ἐξ οὗ τῆς πρός τό φύσει Θεῖον αὐτοῦ καί Πατρικόν ἡ οὐσιώδης δείκνυται διαφορά, μηδαμῶς ἐπιφυῆναι σύγχυσιν παραχωροῦσα τῷ κατά Χριστόν μυστήριῳ.","english":"Concerning the interpretation of the use of the phrase by Gregory, the theologian and great herald of the Church (of truth), which says, \"The word is formed by the man, not of the one understood in accordance with the Savior. For his willing, being wholly deified, is not even contrary to God\" — I determine that it depends on a thoroughly pious understanding, for which and from which it was earnestly studied by the diligent man, but that it is slightly deficient in the precision of the expression; and it is rather on this point that those who are facile in everything and coarse contrive to make incursions, or rather, to speak more truly, descents, and nothing is so earnestly sought by them as to scrutinize and to fault-find even the things that are secured on every side and open no room at all against the word — let alone when they have seized upon some bare phrase, and this too brought forth from an unformed and pure understanding — in order to confirm and establish the essential and natural will of the ensouled flesh assumed by us (that is, of the human [nature] in accordance with the Savior), from this God-inspired Father's saying, \"For his willing is wise and circumspect,\" from which the essential difference from his divine and paternal [will] by nature is shown, allowing no confusion whatsoever to encroach upon the mystery according to Christ.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":187,"ref":"p187","source":"Τό δέ γε παροξυτόνως ὡς ἐξ ἀντιγράφων τινῶν ἐκφωνεῖν τό θεωθέν ὅλον, καί μή μᾶλλον ὀξυτόνως, δέοι τοῦ μή τό ἕν εἰσαχθῆναι θέλημα πρός τῶν ἐναντίων, λαβήν δίδωσι καθ᾿ ἡμῶν, ὡς σχετικήν καί ὑποστατικήν ὑποφαινόντων, καί οἷον χάριτι καί ἀξίᾳ τήν ἕνωσιν, τῷ καί τούς ἁγίου ἐκ Θεοῦ προηγουμένως κινεῖσθαί τε καί ἐνεργεῖσθαι, διά τήν ὁλικήν αὐτῶν πρός τε Θεόν καί τά θεῖα σύννευσιν καί διάθεσιν. Ἡ γάρ ( ὀξύτονος τοῦ θεωθέν φράσις, οὔτε εἰς ταυτόν οὐσιώδους καί φυσικοῦ θελήματος ἄγει τό, ὡς ἀνθρώπου κατά τόν Σωτῆρα θέλειν, (τίς γάρ ὁ δεῖξαι δυνάμενος;) καί τήν ἄκραν ἕνωσίν τε καί συμφυΐαν παρίστησι. Τῶν γάρ πρός τι τυγχάνον τό θεωθέν, ὥσπερ οὖν καί τό πυρωθέν καί φωτισθέν, καί ὅσα τοιαῦτα, συνεισάγει πάντως ἑαυτῷ καί τό πρός ὅ τήν ἀναφοράν, ὅπερ ἐστί τό θεοῦν, τό πυροῦν καί τό φωτίζον, τῆς σχέσεως ἔχει, ὡς μή μᾶλλον ἐκεῖθεν ἤ ἔνθεν τόν τε λόγον κρατύνεσθαι τῆς διαφορᾶς καί τῆς ἄκρας ἑνώσεως. Οὐδέ γάρ τό μή ὑπεναντίον εἶναι πρός ἕνωσιν αὔταρκες· πᾶν γάρ εἴ τι φυσικον, καί ἀδιάβλητον, οὐκ ἐναντίον μέν, οὐ πάντως δέ καί ἡνωμένον Θεῷ. Τό δέ θεωθέν πάντη τε καί πάντως ἡνωμένον, καί τήν οὐσιώδη διαφοράν οὐδαμῶς ἐξιστοῦν, ὅσῳ καί ἀσύγχυτον ὑπάρχει κατά τήν ἕνωσιν.","english":"But to pronounce \"the deified whole\" with the grave accent on the final syllable, as some copies do, and not rather with the acute accent, would give our opponents a handle for introducing the single will, as though they were indicating a relational and hypostatic union, and a union as it were by grace and worth, since even the saints are moved and energized by God in a pre-eminent way because of their whole inclination and disposition toward God and things divine. For the acute-accented expression \"the deified\" does not lead to the same thing as essential and natural will—namely, the willing as a man in accordance with the Savior (for who is able to demonstrate this?)—and it sets forth the extreme union and coalescence. For \"the deified,\" being one of the things relative to something—just as \"the fired\" and \"the illuminated\" and all such terms—necessarily brings in along with itself also that toward which it has its reference, which is the deifying, the firing, and the illuminating; it has this by relation, so that the account of the difference and of the extreme union is not confirmed more from that side than from this. For not even being non-opposed to union is sufficient; for everything that is natural and irreproachable is indeed not opposed, but it is not in every way also united to God. But \"the deified\" is in every way and altogether united, and in no way does it set aside the essential difference, inasmuch as it remains unconfused in the union.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":188,"ref":"p188","source":"Εἰ δέ τις ἐρεῖ· Καί εἰ μηδέν φυσικόν ὑπεναντίον, πῶς περί τοῦ καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς ἐμφύτου θελήματος, εἴπερ αὐτοῦ, καί οὐκ ἄλλου τυχόν, ἐμνημόνευσεν ὁ Πατήρ, καί οὐ πάντως εἴρηκεν ἑπομένου Θεῷ, ἀλλ᾿ \"Ἀντιπίπτοντος ὡς τά πολλά καί ἀντιπαλαίοντος;\" Ἤ γάρ οὐ φυσικόν ὡς ἀντίπαλον, ἤ οὐκ ἀντίπαλον ὡς ὄν φυσικόν. Καί ἄλλο λοιπόν ὡς ἐν ποιότητι φυσικῇ πρός τό θέλειν τοῦ κατά τόν Σωτῆρα ἀνθρωπίνου καθέστηκεν· εἴπερ τοῦτο μέν, οὐδαμῶς· ἐκεῖνο δέ, ὑπεναντίον. Φαμέν, ὅτιπερ καθό μέν φυσικόν, οὐχ ὑπεναντίον· καθό δέ μή φυσικῶς πρός ἡμῶν κινεῖται, σαφῶς ὑπεναντίον, καί ὡς τά πολλά ἀντιπίπτον, ᾧ καί τό ἁμαρτάνειν ἐφέπεται. Τῷ γάρ κατά παράχρησιν τῆς κινήσεως τρόπῳ, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ τῷ κατά φύσιν τῆς δυνάμεως λόγῳ, τό παρά λόγον καί νόμον ὑφίσταται· ἐπεί προσφυῶς τυπούμενόν τε καί κινούμενον, εἰ καί τό ἡνωμένον πρός Θεόν οὐκ ἔχει, ἀλλά γε τό συμβαῖνον καί μή ἀντιπίπτον. Ὡς γάρ οὐδείς ἐν τῇ φύσει λόγος τοῦ ὑπέρ φύσειν, οὕτως οὐδέ τοῦ παρά φύσιν καί στασιάζοντος. Ἔνθεν οὐδέ ὡς οὐχ ( ἕπεται πάντη τε καί πάντως ἀπεφήνατο ὁ διδάσκαλος, ἀλλ᾿ ἐκόλασε φήσας· \" Ὡς οὐ πάντως, καί ὡς τά πολλά», ᾧ προσυπακούεται τό, ἔστιν ὅτε καί ὀλιγάκις, διά τό πρός ἀρετήν τῶν πολλῶν δυσανάγωγον. Τό γάρ τοῦ κατά τόν Σωτῆρα ἀνθρωπίνου θέλειν, εἰ καί φυσικόν ἦν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ ψιλόν ἦν καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς, ὥσπερ οὐδ᾿ αὐτό τό ἀνθρώπινον, ὡς ὑπέρ ἡμᾶς, τῇ ἑνώσει κατάκρον θεωθέν, ᾧ καί τό ἀναμάρτητον κυρίως ἐπήρτηται. Τό δέ ἡμέτερον προδήλως ψιλόν, καί οὐδαμῶς ἀναμάρτητον, διά τήν τῇδε κἀκεῖσε γινομένην παρέγκλησιν·","english":"But if someone says: If there is nothing natural that is opposed, how did the Father mention the natural will that is in us, if indeed it is his and not perhaps another's, and did not say in every way that it follows God, but rather \"resisting for the most part and struggling against\"? For either it is not natural, since it is opposed, or it is not opposed, since it is natural. And so something else, then, in respect of natural quality, stands toward the willing of the human nature in the Savior; if indeed this is not so at all, but that is opposed. We say that insofar as it is natural, it is not opposed; but insofar as it is not moved by us naturally, it is clearly opposed, and for the most part resisting, to which also sinning follows. For by the mode of the misuse of movement, and not by the principle of the power according to nature, what is contrary to reason and law comes to be; since, being formed and moved in accordance with nature, even if it does not have what is united to God, at least it has what is fitting and not opposed. For just as there is no principle in nature of what is beyond nature, so neither of what is contrary to nature and in revolt. Hence the Teacher did not declare it as not following in every way and altogether, but he qualified it by saying \"as not altogether\" and \"as for the most part,\" with which is understood \"sometimes and rarely,\" because of the difficulty of the many in being led to virtue. For the willing of the human nature in the Savior, even if it was natural, was not bare as it is in us, just as neither was the human nature itself, as it is beyond us, deified in its union, to which also sinlessness properly attaches. But our will is plainly bare, and in no way sinless, because of the transgression that occurs here and there.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":189,"ref":"p189","source":"οὐ φύσιν μέν παραλλάττουσαν, κίνησιν δέ παρατρέπουσαν, ἤ μᾶλλον εἰπεῖν ἀληθέστερον, τόν ταύτης τρόπον ἀμείβουσαν. Καί δῆλον, ἐκ τοῦ πολλά παραλόγως ποιεῖν, καί μηδαμῶς εἰς ἄλογον μεταπίπτειν οὐσίαν ἐκ τῆς ἑνούσης ἐμφύτου λογικῆς.\n\nΟὐν ἔστι οὖν ἄλλο τό καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς, καί ἄλλο τό κατά τόν Σωτῆρα ἀνθρώπινον· οὐδέ τό θέλειν ἄλλο, κατά γε τόν τῆς φύσεως λόγον, εἰ καί ἄλλως ὑπέρ ἡμᾶς· θεϊκῶς γάρ, ὁ μέν ὑπέστη, τό δέ ἐτυπώθη, διά τῆς πρός τό θεῖον ἄκρας ἑνώσεως. Το προσαρμόζειν δέ πάλιν μάλιτα προσφυῶς τῶν ἐν ἡμῖν διαβεβλημένων ἕκαστον, οἷον τήν ἐναντίωσιν, ἤ τήν ἀντίταξιν, καί ὅσα τοῦδε τοῦ καταλόγου τυγχάνει, κἀν ἐπινοίᾳ τάς φύσεις ἀχωρίστως χωρίζοντες τῇ ἑξῆς φύσει προσέρχονται, συμπαραλαμβάνειν, οὐ μή θέμις ἐν τούτοις ἐστί τήν κατά Χριστόν ἀνθρωπότητα. Εἰ γάρ οὔτε ἐν ἡμῖν προσφυῶς, ἀλλά παρά φύσιν θεωρεῖται καί λόγον, πῶς ἐν ἐκείνῃ κἄν δι᾿ ἐπινοίας ἤ προσεπινοίας, ἵν᾿ οὕτως εἴπω, προσάπτειν ἔστιν; ἀλλ᾿ οἰκειώσει μόνον, δι᾿ οἶκτον ὡς κεφαλῇ τοῦ παντός σώματος, καθάπερ καί ἰατρῷ τά πάθη τοῦ κάμνοντος, ἕως ἄν τούτων ἡμᾶς ὁ δι᾿ ἡμᾶς ἐνανθρωπήσας ἐλευθερώσῃ Θεός. Πλήν τελείως ἡμῶν δαπανῶν καί ἐξαφανίζων τῇ δυνάμει τῆς κατ᾿ αὐτόν σωματώσεως. Διττός γάρ ὁ περί παθῶν λόγος· ὁ μέν τῆς ἐπιτιμίας· ὁ δέ τῆς ἀτιμίας· καί ὁ μέν φύσιν τήν ἡμετέραν ( χαρακτηρίζων, ὁ δέ δι᾿ ὅλου παραχαράττων. Ἐκεῖνο μέν οὖν ὡς ἄνθρωπος δι᾿ ἡμᾶς θέλων οὐσιωδῶς κατεδέξατο, ὁμοῦ τε τήν φύσιν πιστούμενος, καί τό καθ᾿ ἡμῶν λύων κατάκριμα·","english":"not a nature that deviates, but a movement that turns aside, or—to speak more truthfully—one that alters the mode of that nature. And it is clear from the fact that it does many things contrary to reason, and yet never falls into an irrational substance, because of the rational element naturally implanted within it.\n\nTherefore the human reality in us is not one thing and the human reality in the Savior another; nor, by the principle of nature, is willing another thing, even if it is in another manner beyond us. For he subsisted divinely, and it was formed divinely, through the utmost union with the divine. But again, to attach most fittingly each of the things in us that are slandered—such as opposition, or resistance, and whatever else falls under this category—even when by conceptual distinction we divide the natures inseparably and approach the next nature, it is not lawful to include the humanity according to Christ in these things. For if in us these things are seen not fittingly but contrary to nature and reason, how can one attach them to that humanity, even by conceptual distinction or further conceptual distinction, so to speak? But only by appropriation, through compassion, as the head of the whole body, just as a physician [appropriates] the sufferings of the sick, until the God who became man for our sake frees us from them. Indeed he completely consumes and destroys them by the power of his incarnation. For the account of the passions is twofold: one of censure, the other of disfavor; and the one characterizes our nature, while the other falsifies it entirely. That [first] he willingly accepted as a man for our sake, essentially, at once confirming the nature and dissolving the condemnation against us.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":190,"ref":"p190","source":"τοῦτον δέ πάλιν, ὡς φιλάνθρωπος, οἰκονομικῶς ᾠκειώσατο, ἐν ἡμῖν τε καί τῷ ἡμετέρω ἀνυποτάκτῳ γνωριζόμενον τρόπῳ, ἵν᾿ ὡς κηρόν πῦρ, ἤ ὡς ἀτμίδα γῆς ἥλιος, πάμπαν ἡμῶν ἐξαναλώσας, τῶν οἰκείων ποιήσηται τήν μετάδοσιν, καί ἀπαθεῖς μέν ἐντεῦθεν, ἀφθάρτους δέ κατά τήν ὑπόσχεσιν ἡμᾶς παρασκευάσῃ. Δεῖ τοίνυν τόν τε ζῆλον ὁμοῦ καί τόν πόνον τοῦ τά τοιαῦτα σπουδάζοντος ὑπέρ εὐσεβείας μάλιστα κατά τό εἰκός ἀποδέξασθαι, προτρέπειν δέ πρός ἀκριβεστέραν τῶν πατρικῶν λόγων ἐμμέλειαν, διά τούς ἐπηρεαστάς τῶν καλῶν, οὐδ᾿ αὐτό συγχωροῦντας ἐκ περιττῆς ἀνοίας, ὅ μή δέ βουλομένοις αὐτοῖς ἑλεῖν δυνατόν.\n\nΤόν δέ γε τῆςῬωμαίων πάπαν Ὀνώριον, οὐ καταγορεύειν οἶμαι τῆς τῶν ἐμφύτων θελημάτων ἐπί Χριστοῦ δυάδος, ἐν τῇ γραφείσῃ πρός Σέργιον ἐπιστολῇ διά\n\nτό ἕν θέλημα φάναι, συναγορεύειν δέ μᾶλλον, καί ταύτην ὡς εἰκός συνιστᾷν, οὐκ ἐπ᾿ ἀθετήσει τοῦτό γε λέγοντα τοῦ ἀνθρωπίνου καί φυσικοῦ τοῦ Σωτῆρος θελήματος, ἀλλ᾿ ἐπί τοῦ μηδαμῶς τῆς ἀσπόρου συλλήψεως αὐτοῦ καί τῆς ἀφθόρου γεννήσεως προκαθηγεῖσθαι θέλημα σαρκός, ἤ λογισμόν ἐμπαθῆ. Μόνη γάρ θέλησις θεία καί Πατρική, δι᾿ Υἱοῦ μονογενοῦς αὐτουργοῦντος τήν οἰκείαν σάρκωσιν, καί Πνεύματος ἁγίου συνδρομῇ, ταύτην εἰργάσατο. Καί ὅτι γε ταύτης ἔχεται τῆς ἐννοίας, δῆλον ἐντεῦθεν. Εἰπών γάρ, ὅτι διά τήν ἄφραστον ἕνωσιν τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης καί θείας φύσεως, καί Θεός λέγεται παθεῖν, καί ἀνθρωπότης ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ κατελθεῖν μετά τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ κατελθεῖν μετά τῆς θεότητος·","english":"But this again, in his love for humanity, he appropriated in a providential manner, being recognized in us and in our own disobedient mode, so that, like fire consuming wax, or the sun a mist of the earth, having utterly consumed them in us, he might make us partakers of his own goods, and might prepare us henceforth free from passion and, according to the promise, incorruptible. It is necessary, then, to accept with approval both the zeal and the labor of one who earnestly pursues such things especially on behalf of piety, as is fitting, and to urge him on toward a more exact carefulness in the melodies of the fathers, on account of those who malign good things, not even permitting this from superfluous folly, which is not possible for them to grasp even when they wish it.\n\nBut as for Honorius, the pope of the Romans, I do not think he accuses the duality of the natural wills in Christ, in the letter written to Sergius, by saying \"one will,\" but rather he advocates for it and, as is likely, commends this very thing, saying this not to the abolition of the human and natural will of the Savior, but that in no way does a will of the flesh, or a passionate thought, preside over his seedless conception and incorrupt birth. For the divine and Paternal will alone, through the only-begotten Son effecting his own incarnation, and with the concurrence of the Holy Spirit, accomplished this. And that he holds this understanding is clear from this. For having said that, on account of the ineffable union of the human and divine nature, God is said to have suffered, and humanity to have descended from heaven with the humanity from heaven with the divinity—","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":191,"ref":"p191","source":"καί ταύτῃ δεῖξαι τήν τῶν φυσικῶς προσόντων ἑκατέρᾳ φύσει τῶν τοῦ ἑνός Χριστοῦ καί Υἱοῦ κατ᾿ ἀπαλλαγήν ἄκραν ἀντίδοσιν, ἐπάγει λέγων, «Ὅθεν καί ἕν θέλημα ὁμολογοῦμεν τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ», Πῶς, φησίν; «Ἐπειδή ( προδήλως ἐκ τῆς θεότητος προσελήφθη ἡ ἡμετέρα φύσις, οὐχ ἁμαρτία»· τουτέστιν, οὐκ ἐκ τῆς ἁμαρτίας· μονονουχί συμφθεγγόμενος τῷ μεγάλῳ Ἀθανασίῳ, γράφοντι τάδε κατ᾿ Ἀπολιναρίου τοῦ δυσσεβοῦς, \" Ἐγεννήθη ἐκ γυναικός, ἐκ τῆς πρώτης πλάσεως τήν ἀνθρώπου μορφήν ἑαυτῷ ἀναστησάμενος, ἐν ἐπιδείξει σαρκός δίχα σαρκικῶν θελημάτων καί λογισμῶν ἀνθρωπίνων, ἐν εἰκόνι καινότητος· ἡ γάρ θέλησις θεότητος μόνῃ, ἐπειδή καί φύσις ὅλη θεότητος». Ἐπειδή γάρ τῆς δι᾿ ἡμᾶς κατά σάρκα τοῦ Λόγου γεννήσεως ὑπέρ ἡμᾶς, ἡ πρόοδος γέγονεν· οὐ γάρ σαρκός ἐμπαθής προηγήσατο θέλησις ἤ λογισμός, ὡς ἐφ᾿ ἡμῶν ὁρᾶται, διά τήν ἐξ ἀπάτης τοῦ γένους κατακρατοῦσαν ἡδονήν, ἀλλά θέλησις θεότητος μόνη δι᾿ Υἱοῦ αὐτουργοῦντος, ὡς ἔφην, τήν οἰκείαν σωμάτωσιν κατ᾿ εὐδοκίαν Πατρός, καί συνέργειαν τοῦ παναγίου Πνεύματος, καινοτομοῦντος ἐν ἑαυτῷ τε καί δι᾿ ἑαυτοῦ τόν ἐπεισαχθέντα τῇ φύσει τῆς γεννήσεως τρόπον, καί ἀσπόρως τήν ἑαυτοῦ ποιουμένου σύλληψιν ἐκ τῆς ἁγίας Θεοτόκου καί Ἀειπαρθένου Μαρίας· τοῦτον δή τόν ἄῤῥητον αὐτοῦ τῆς γεννήσεως σκοπήσαντες λόγον, ἐκεῖνος μέν, \"θέλησιν μόνην ἐπ᾿ αὐτοῦ θεότητος\" εἶπεν, οὗτος δέ, \"Θέλημα ἕν τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἐπειδή προδήλως, φησίν, ἐκ τῆς θεότητος προσελήφθη ἡ ἡμετέρα φύσις, καί οὐχ ἁμαρτία·","english":"And by this to show the extreme mutual exchange of the things naturally belonging to each of the two natures of the one Christ and Son, by way of removal, he adds, saying, \"Therefore we confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ.\" How, he says? \"Because our nature was manifestly taken up by the Godhead, not sin\"—that is, not from sin—almost speaking in concord with the great Athanasius, who writes these things against the impious Apollinaris: \"He was born of a woman, raising up for himself the form of man from the first formation, in the display of flesh without fleshly wills and human thoughts, in the image of newness; for the will was of the Godhead alone, since it was also the whole nature of the Godhead.\" For since the procession of the Word's birth according to the flesh for our sake is beyond us, the advance came about; for no passible will of the flesh or thought preceded, as is seen in our case, because of the pleasure that dominated the race from deceit, but the will of the Godhead alone, through the Son who works his own embodiment, as I said, according to the good pleasure of the Father and the cooperation of the all-holy Spirit, innovating in himself and through himself the manner of birth introduced into nature, and making his own conception without seed from the holy Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary. Having considered this ineffable principle of his birth, the former said, \"a will of the Godhead alone in his case,\" while the latter says, \"one will of the Lord Jesus Christ, because our nature, he says, was manifestly taken up by the Godhead, and not sin.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":192,"ref":"p192","source":"δίχα σαρκικῶν θελημάτων καί λογισμῶν ἀνθρωπίνων», ὡς ὁ θεῖός φησιν Ἀθανάσιος· οὐ μέν γε τό μή καί ὡς ἄνθρωπον αὐτόν μετά τοῦ εἶναι φύσει Θεόν οὐκ ἔχει ἀνθρώπινον θέλημα καί φυσικόν, ὥσπερ οὖν καί θεῖον καί πατρικόν. Τό δ᾿ αὐτό κἀν τοῖς ἑξῆς ὑπαινίττεται, φάσκων, \"Χωρίς ἁμαρτίας συνελήφθη ἐκ Πνεύματος ἁγίου, καί τῆς ἁγίας ἀχράντου καί Ἀειπαρθένου θεοτόκου Μαρίας, καί χωρίς μολυσμοῦ ἐξ αὐτῆς κατά σάρκα γεγέννηται». Τήν δέ γε θείαν Γραφήν ἐπαινετῶς τε καί ψεκτῶς παράγει τῆς σαρκός μνημονεύουσαν, οὐχ ἑτέραν μή γένοιτο, τῇ τε φύσει καί τῇ οὐσίᾳ τήν τοῦ Κυρίου σάρκα ( πρός τήν ἡμετέραν ὑποβάλλων νοεῖν, ὅς γε ταύτην ἠπίστατο προσληφθεῖαν ἐκ τῆς ἡμετέρας οὐσίας, ἤγουν τῶν τῆς ὁμοφυοῦς ἡμῖν Ἀειπαρθένου καί Θεομήτορος παναγίων σπλάγχνων, ἀλλ᾿ ἑτέραν τῇ ἁμαρτησίᾳ, καί τοῦ μηδαμῶς ἀντιταττόμενον ἔχειν, καθάπερ ἡμεῖς ἐν τοῖς μέλεσι τόν ἐκ παραβάσεως νόμον τῷ νόμῳ τοῦ πνεύματος \"Οὐ γάρ προσελήφθη, φησίν, ὑπό τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡ κατεφθαρμένη ἀπό τῆς ἁμαρτίας σάρξ, ἡ ἀντιστρατευομένη τῷ νόμῳ τοῦ νοός αὐτοῦ». Οὗ τινος γάρ οὐ προκαθηγήσατο ὁ καθ᾿ ἁμαρτίαν διά σπορᾶς τῆς γεννήσεως νόμος, τούτου παντελῶς οὐ δέ τοῖς μέλεσιν ἐνυπάρχει, ἀλλά νόμος δικαιοσύνης πρός ὑποτύπωσιν ἡμῖν ἐκφαινόμενος, καί τόν ἐκ παραβάσεως ἐπεισαχθέντα τῇ φύσει τελείως ἐξαφανίζων. Ἦλθε γάρ, φησίν, ὁ ἀναμάρτητος ζητῆσαι καί σῶσαι τό ἀπολωλός, τουτέστι τήν ἁμαρτήσασαν τοῦ ἀνθρωπίνου γένους φύσιν. «Ἕτερος γάρ νόμος ἐν τοῖς μέλεσιν αὐτοῦ, ἤ θέλημα διάφορον ἤ ἐναντίον οὐ γέγονε τῷ Πατρί».","english":"apart from fleshly wills and human thoughts,\" as the divine Athanasius says; not that he does not also, as man, together with being God by nature, have a human and natural will, just as he has a divine and paternal one. He hints at the same thing in what follows, saying, \"He was conceived without sin from the Holy Spirit, and from the holy, undefiled, and ever-virgin Theotokos Mary, and without defilement was born of her according to the flesh.\" And he cites the divine Scripture as mentioning the flesh both approvingly and condemnatorily—not another flesh, God forbid, in nature and essence, than the Lord's flesh (suggesting that we understand it in relation to our own, since he knew that this was taken from our essence, that is, from the all-holy womb of the ever-virgin and Mother of God who is of one nature with us, but another in respect of sin, and of having nothing at all set in opposition, as we have in our members the law from transgression against the law of the spirit). \"For,\" he says, \"the flesh corrupted by sin was not taken up by the Savior, the flesh that wars against the law of his mind.\" For that flesh over which the law of generation through seed in sin did not preside, in that flesh there is not at all present in its members the law from transgression, but the law of righteousness, shown forth for our model, and completely abolishing the law introduced into nature from transgression. For he came, it says, the sinless one, to seek and to save what was lost, that is, the human race's nature that had sinned. \"For another law in his members, or a different or contrary will, has not arisen against the Father.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":193,"ref":"p193","source":"Ἐντεῦθεν δεικνύς, οὐχ ὡς οὐκ εἶχεν ἀνθρώπινον θέλημα καί φυσικόν· οὐ γάρ λέξας φαίνεται τοῦτο· ἀλλ᾿ ὅτιπερ ὡς\n\nἄνθρωπος οὔτε κατά σῶμα διά τῶν μελῶν τήν οἱανοῦν ἐκέκτητο παρά φύσιν ἐνέργειαν, οὔτε μήν κατά ψυχήν θελήματος ἐναντίαν ἤ παράλογον κίνησιν, ὥσπερ ἡμεῖς, \"ἐπειδή καί ὑπέρ νόμον ἀνθρωπίνης φύσεως ἐτέχθη». Τρανώτερον δέ κἀν τοῖς ἑξῆς παρίστησιν, ὡς ὁ λόγος ἦν αὐτοῦ μόνον τό ἐμπαθές, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ τό φυσικόν ἐπί τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἀποδιορίσασθαι θέλημα. Καί ὅτιπερ, κἀν τῷ φυσικῷ καί ἀνθρωπίνῳ πρός τό Πατρικόν καί θεῖον συνέβαινε μέν, οὐδεμίαν τήν ἐξ ἀντιπράξεως ἔχων πρός ἐκεῖνο διαφοράν, ὑποτύπωσιν δέ διδούς ἡμῖν ἑαυτόν, τό οἰκεῖον ἑκουσίως ὑπέταττεν· συνίστα δέ τό Πατρικόν, ᾧ ἄν καί ἡμεῖς ἐκμιμούμενοι, τό ἑαυτῶν ἀθετήσαντες, τό θεῖον διά πάσης σπουδῆς ἐκπληρώσωμεν, λέγων οὕτως· Κἄν γέγραπται, \" Ὅτι οὐκ ἦλθον ποιῆσαι τό θέλημα τό ἐμόν, ἀλλά τοῦ πέμψαντός με Πατρός· καί, Οὐχ ὅ ἐγώ θέλω, ἀλλ᾿ εἴ ( τι σύ, Πάτερ, οὔκ εἰσι ταῦτα διαφόρου θελήματος», τουτέστιν ἐναντίου καί ἀντιπράττοντος, «ἀλλά τῆς προσληφθείσης ἀνθρωπίνης οἰκονομίας» οἰκειουμένης συμπαθῶς τά ἡμέτερα. «Ταῦτα γάρ δι᾿ ἡμᾶς ἔλεγεν, οἷς δέδωκεν παράδειγμα ὁ τῆς εὐσεβείας Διδάσκαλος, ἵνα τοῖς ἴχνεσιν αὐτοῦ ἑπώμεθα· καί μή τό ἴδιον ἕκαστος ἡμῶν, ἀλλά τό τοῦ Κυρίου μᾶλλον ἐν πᾶσι προτιμήσῃ θέλημα». Οὐκ ἀναίρεσιν οὖν, ὡς ἔφην τοῦ φυσικοῦ καί ἀνθρωπίνου θελήματος, ἀλλά τοῦ ἐμπαθοῦς καί παρά φύσιν ποιεῖ· καί διόλου φάναι, τό πάσης ἁμαρτίας ἐλεύθερον τό καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς, ἐπιμαρτύρεται τόν δι᾿ ἡμᾶς σαρκωθέντα Θεόν.","english":"From this he shows, not that he did not have a human and natural will—for he does not appear to have said this—but that, as man, he possessed neither any activity contrary to nature through the members of the body, nor any motion of the will opposed or irrational, as we do, \"since he was also born beyond the law of human nature.\" More clearly still in what follows he establishes that the account was concerned only to distinguish the passible will, but not the natural will, in the Savior. And that, even in the natural and human will, he agreed with the paternal and divine will, having no difference from it arising from opposition, but giving himself as a model to us, he voluntarily subjected his own will; and he confirmed the paternal will, which we also, imitating, should fulfill with all zeal, having set aside our own, saying thus: \"Even though it is written, 'I did not come to do my own will, but the will of the Father who sent me'; and, 'Not what I will, but what you will, Father'—these are not words of a different will,\" that is, of an opposing and contrary will, \"but of the assumed human economy,\" which sympathetically appropriates our condition. \"For he said these things for our sake, to whom the Teacher of piety has given an example, that we might follow in his footsteps; and that each of us might prefer not his own will, but rather the Lord's will in all things.\" He does not, then, as I said, abolish the natural and human will, but the passible and contrary-to-nature will; and, to speak plainly, he attests that the God who became incarnate for our sake is entirely free from every sin, in accordance with our nature.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":194,"ref":"p194","source":"Καί ἵν᾿ ἐπιτόμως εἴπω, διά τοῦ ἑνός θελήματος, τό μόνην τῆς αὐτοῦ κατά σάρκα γεννήσεως τήν θείαν προκαθηγήσασθαι θέλησιν δηλοῦν αὐτόν οἶμαι· διά δέ τοῦ «μή ὑπάρχειν θελήματος διαφοράν», τό ἐναντίον οὐκ ἔχειν ἤ ἀντιπράττον, ἀλλά τό συμβαῖνον δι᾿ ὅλου καί ἡνωμένον. Ὅθεν ἡνίκα μέν τήν ἡμετέραν φύσιν ἐκ τῆς θεότητος προσειλῆφθαι λέγῃ, θελήματος ἑνός μνημονεύει· ἡνίκα δέ τό, Οὐκ ἦλθον ποιῆσαι τό θέλημα τό ἐμόν, εἰς μέσον τῷ λόγῳ προτίθησι, τόν ἀριθμόν ἀφείς, \" Οὐκ εἰσί ταῦτα, φησί, διαφόρου θελήματος», τουτέστιν ἐναντίου καί ἀντικειμένου, ἐξ οὗ τό δύο κατά φύσιν ὑπάρχειν ἐν τῷ Σωτῆρι θελήματα προδήλως συνάγεται. Εἰ γάρ ἐναντίον οὐκ εἶχεν, φυσικόν εἶχεν ὡς ἄνθρωπος. Τό γάρ οὐκ ἐναντίον, φυσικόν πάντως, καί οὐδείς ἀντερεῖ· οὐδέν γάρ ἐν τῇ φύσει ἤ τοῖς κατά φύσιν παντελῶς ἐναντίον· Δέος οὖν πολλά βαίνειν ἐπιβαλεῖν, ὅ μή κυρίως ἐν τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ γέγραφε λόγοις, καί μηχανᾶσθαι τούς δι᾿ ἐναντίας οἰκείας δόξης ὡς οὐκ ἀρίστης ἐπικάλυμμα ποιεῖν τἀνδρός τά γράμματα, καθ᾿ ἕτερον ταῦτα παρά τόν ἐκείνου σκοπόν παραξηγουμένους. Συνηγοροῦντα γάρ ἔχει τόν λόγον, πᾶσαν τοῦ ἐπηρεαστοῦ καταδρομήν ἀπελαύνοντα.","english":"And to put it briefly, through the one will, I think he means to show that only the divine will preceded his birth according to the flesh; but through the phrase \"there being no difference of will,\" he means that it had nothing opposed or contrary, but what was wholly concordant and united. Hence, whenever he says that our nature was assumed from the divinity, he mentions one will; but whenever he sets before us in his argument the words \"I did not come to do my own will,\" he sets aside the number, saying, \"These things are not of a different will,\" that is, of a contrary and opposed will, from which it is plainly inferred that there are two wills according to nature in the Savior. For if he had nothing contrary, he had a natural will as man. For what is not contrary is certainly natural, and no one will dispute it; for nothing in nature or in things according to nature is wholly contrary. There is therefore a fear that one may venture to go through many things that he has not written in his own words in the proper sense, and to contrive to make the man's writings a cover for his own opinion, as though it were not the best, interpreting them in another sense contrary to that man's purpose. For he has the argument as his advocate, driving off every assault of the slanderer.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":195,"ref":"p195","source":"( Καί οὕτω μέν ἐγώ γε τόν νοῦν ἔχειν ὑπολαμβάνω, πάσης ὄντα καθαρόν ὑποψίας. Βεβαιότερον δέ μοι τοῦτον πεποίηκεν ἐκ τῆς πρεσβυτέραςῬώμης ἐπανελθών ὁ ὁσιώτατος πρσβύτερος κύριος ἀββᾶς Ἀναστάσιος, ἀνήρ εἰ καί τις ἄλλος ἀρετῇ τε θείᾳ καί φρονήσει κεκοσμημένος· καί φήσας ὡς πολύς αὐτῷ λόγος κεκίνηται πρός τούς ἐκεῖσε τῆς μεγάλης Ἐκκλησίας ἱερωτάτους ἄνδρας, δια τήν πρός Σέργιον ἐξ αὐτῶν γραφεῖσαν ἐπιστολήν, ὅτου χάριν καί πῶς αὐτῇ διερωτῶν ἐνετάγη τό ἕν θέλημα, καί εὗρεν ἀσχάλλοντας ἐν τούτῳ, καί ἀπολογουμένους, καί πρός αὐτοῖς τόν ταύτην ἐν Λατίνοις ὑπαγορεύσαντα, κατά κέλευσιν αὐτοῦ κύριον ἀββᾶν Ἰωάννην ἁγιώτατον σύμπονον, ἰσχυριζόμενον ὡς οὐδαμῶς ἐπίμνησιν ἐν αὐτῇ δι᾿ ἀριθμοῦ πεποίηνται ἑνός τό παράπαν θελήματος, εἰ καί τοῦτο νῦν ἀνεπλάσθη παρά τῶν ταύτην ἑρμηνευσάντων εἰς τήν Ἑλλάδα φωνήν. Οὔτε μήν τήν οἱανοῦν κυρίωσιν ἤ ἐκβολήν τοῦ κατά τό ἀνθρώπινον φυσικοῦ τοῦ Σωτῆρος θελήματος, ἀλλά τοῦ καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς καί διαβεβλημένου τελείαν ἀποσκευήν καί ἀναίρεσιν, καθ᾿ ὅ καί ὁ πρός ἄλληλα τῶν ὁμογενῶν συνίσταται πόλεμος, δεῖξαι βουλόμενοι πάσης οὖσαν καθαράν ἁμαρτίας τήν προσληφθεῖσαν σάρκα, κατά τήν","english":"And this, then, is how I myself understand the meaning, since it is clear of every suspicion. But the most holy elder lord Abba Anastasius, on his return from the elder Rome—a man adorned with divine virtue and prudence, if ever any man was—made this more certain for me. He said that a great discussion had been stirred up by him with the most sacred men of the great Church there, concerning the letter written by them to Sergius, for what reason and in what manner the phrase \"one will\" had been inserted in it as something they were inquiring about; and he found them distressed over this and offering a defense, and, in addition to them, the one who had dictated it among the Latins at his command, the most holy lord Abba John, a fellow-traveler, insisting that no mention at all had been made in it, by way of number, of one will, even though this has now been fabricated by those who translated it into the Greek language. Nor, indeed, did they wish to show any lordship or rejection of the natural will of the Savior according to the human, but rather the complete removal and abolition of our own will, which is under accusation—the will according to which the war of those of the same race against one another is constituted—since the flesh assumed was pure of every sin, according to the","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":196,"ref":"p196","source":"τῶν ἱερωτάτων λογίων καί τῶν Πατρικῶν διδαγμάτων παράδοσιν. Καί φαίνονταί πως διά τῆς τοιούτων λόγων συνᾴδοντες τοῖς ἀρτίως ἐξηγηθεῖσι παρά τῆς ἐμῆς οὐδενίας, καί οἷον ἐπισφραγίζοντες τήν ὑπέρ Ὀνωρίου γενομένην συνηγορίαν. Ταῦτα γοῦν ἀπολογησαμένους διαγνούς, ἐθαύμασα λίαν αὐτῶν τήν ἀκρίβειαν, ὥσπερ οὖν καί κατεπλάγην τήν πανουργίαν, τῶν πάντα τολμώντων ὑπέρ ἑνός τοῦ διακενῆς ἀσεβεῖν, καί θελόντων, ὡς ἔθος αὐτοῖς πάλαι καί νῦν, παρακλοπαῖς τισι καί παρεξηγήσεσι τούς ἐκθύμως κατ᾿ αὐτῶν ἀγωνιζομένους, τό γε παρά τό εἰκός, εἰς ἑαυτούς ἐπισπᾶσθαι, καί τόν νοῦν σφετερίζεσθαι ( μηδαμῶς συνεπόμενον. Ἀναγκαίως οὖν καί τοῦτο μαθών δεδήλωκά σοι, θεοτίμητε Πάτερ, ὡς ἄν διά πάντων φραξάμενος ἔχοις, ὅπως διακρούσῃ τῶν ἐναντίων τάς φάλαγγας, λόγῳ τε βάλλων εὐτόνως καί πίστει κατά κράτος ὑπερνικῶν, δόξαν τε τήν τοῦ Μονογενοῦς ἐντεῦθεν εἰς ἀνάῤῥησιν ἔχων, καί διάδημα τήν αὐτοῦ κατά χάριν κοινωνίαν καί ἕνωσιν.","english":"...the tradition of the most sacred oracles and the Patristic teachings. And they appear in some way, through the harmony of such words, to agree with what has just been expounded by my own worthlessness, and as it were to set their seal upon the advocacy that was made on behalf of Honorius. Having therefore discerned these things after they had made their defense, I marveled greatly at their exactness, just as I was also struck with amazement at the cunning of those who dare everything for the sake of one vain act of impiety, and who wish, as has been their custom both formerly and now, by certain stealthy distortions and misrepresentations to draw to themselves, contrary to what is fitting, those who fervently contend against them, and to appropriate their mind, which does not follow along at all. Necessarily, then, having learned this too, I have made it known to you, O God-honored Father, so that, fortified in all respects, you may have the means to beat back the phalanxes of the adversaries, striking them vigorously with word and conquering mightily by faith, and having from this the glory of the Only-Begotten for your proclamation, and His communion and union in grace as a diadem.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":197,"ref":"p197","source":"Ἀλλ᾿, ᾧ ἱερωτάτη καί τιμία μοι κεφαλή, ταῦτα γνώρισον τῷ ἱεραρχικῶς προκαθημένῳ τῆς ἀμωμήτου ἡμῶν καί ὀρθοδόξου πίστεως, οὗ πάντες οἵ τε πλησίον, καί οἱ μακράν ὑπό τάς πτέρυγας ὁσίως ἐπαναπαυσόμεθα, μόνην κρηπῖδα δογμάτων ἱεροτέρων τήν αὐτοῦ τε καί δι᾿ αὐτοῦ μακαρίαν ἔχοντες ἔλλαμψιν, δι᾿ ἧς πρός τό ἄσκιον φῶς καί Πατρικόν ἐν Πνεύματι ἁγίῳ χειραγωγούμεθά τε καί ἀναγόμεθα· πρός αὐτόν ὡς ἀρχηγόν τῆς σωτηρίας ἡμῶν, μετά τόν φύσει καί πρῶτον, ἀποσκοποῦντες, καί τάς τρίβους εὐσεβῶς κατευθύνοντες, εἰς ζωήν ἐπειγόμενοι τήν οὐ φθορᾷ λυομένην, ἀλλ᾿ ἀφθαρσίᾳ συνισταμένην, ἧς ὥσπερ ἐνταῦθα ταῖς θεολήπτοις αὐτοῦ προσευχαῖς, καί ταῖς θεοσόφοις διδασκαλίαις ἐλπίδι μετέχομεν, οὕτω κἀκεῖ τῇ θεουργῷ μεσιτείᾳ καί προσαγωγῇ πείρᾳ κοινωνῆσαι καταξιωθείημεν, κατά τήν ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ Λόγῳ καί Θεῷ Κυρίῳ ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ μόνην καί τελείωσιν.\n\nΠΕΡΙ ΠΟΙΟΤΗΤΟΣ, ΙΔΙΟΤΗΤΟΣ, ΚΑΙ ΔΙΑΦΟΡΑΣ, ΘΕΟΔΩΡΩ... Περί ποιότητος, ἰδιότητος, καί διαφορᾶς, Θεοδώρῳ πρεσβυτέρῳ τῷ ἐν Μαζαρίῳ.","english":"But, O most sacred and precious head to me, make these things known to him who presides hierarchically over our blameless and orthodox faith, beneath whose wings we all, both those near and those far off, shall holily rest, having as the sole foundation of the more sacred doctrines his blessed illumination, and that which comes through him, through which we are led by the hand and conducted to the unshadowed and Paternal light in the Holy Spirit; looking to him as the leader of our salvation, after the one who is by nature and first, and directing our paths piously, hastening toward the life that is not dissolved by corruption but is established in incorruption, of which, just as here we partake in hope through his God-inspired prayers and God-wise teachings, so may we be deemed worthy to share there in experience through his God-working mediation and access, according to the sole and perfect perfection in our Lord Jesus Christ himself, the Word and God.\n\nOn Quality, Property, and Difference, to Theodore the Elder in Mazarium.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":198,"ref":"p198","source":"( Οὐκ οἶμαι πρός γνῶσιν ἑτέρου δεῖσθαί τινος τῶν ἁπάντων τούς ἱερωτάτους ὑμᾶς, ἕν αὐτό ἤδη δι᾿ ἀρετῆς ἁπλῆς προσβοᾷν κατά νοῦν σοφίζον, τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον, ἐξ οὗπερ καί ἄλλοις τά θεῖα πηγάζετε κατ᾿ ἀπειρόδωρον τῆς σοφίας χύσιν, τῆς τῶν νοημάτων διά προφορᾶς λόγου ποιούμενοι πρόχυσιν, ὡς καί μέχρι τῶν κατ᾿ ἐμέ ταπεινῶν, καί λόγου παντός ἀμοιρούντων ταύτην φιλανθρώπως ἐκτείνειν εὖ μάλα πρός ἐπιστήμην θείαν καί μάθησιν, εἰ καί συγκαταβάσει χρωμένους οἶδα δι᾿ ἐρωτήσεως, ἐφ᾿ ᾧ τε προβιβάσαι, καί ἔτι μᾶλλον πρός τόν οἰκεῖον δι᾿ ἄκρας ὑφέσεως μετεωρίζειν ὕψος τῆς γνώσεως τούς κάτω που κειμένους ἡμᾶς, καί ἀγνοίᾳ πιεζομένους, ὡς ἄν τήν νωθείαν τῇ ὑποβάσει, τῇ τε πνεύσει τήν ἄνοιαν τῆς ἐμῆς ἐκκαθάραντες διανοίας, εἰς ἕξιν ἀγάγοιτε γνωστικήν, καί προθυμίαν εὔτονόν τε και πρακτικήν, ἐξ ὧν τοῖς σωζομένοις ἡ σωτηρία κατά χάριν προσγίνεται, διά τῶν καθ᾿ ὑμᾶς σώζειν τούς ἀξίους ἠξιωμένων. Λέγω γοῦν περί ὧν ἐκπαιδεύοντες προσεξετάζειν παρεκελεύσασθε, ποιότητός φημι, καί ἰδιότητος καί διαρορᾶς· πολυσχεδῆ μέν τούτων παρά τοῖς ἔξω τυγχάνειν τήν σημασίαν, καί μακρόν ἄν εἴη τάς ἐν τούτοις ἐκείνων διαιρέσεις ἐξαπλοῦν, λόγον τε διατείνειν, ὡς οὐ μᾶλλον ἐπιστολικῆς ταῦτα συμμετρίας, ἤ ( γραφικῆς ἀσχολίας τυγχάνοντες. Τοῖς δέ θείοις Πατράσιν, συνεχής τε καί σύντομος ἡ τούτων καθέστηκε δήλωσις, οὐκ ἐπί τινος ὑποκειμένου λαμβανομένη, τουτέστιν οὐσίας καί φύσεως, ἀλλά τῶν τῇ οὐσίᾳ, καί μέντοι γε τῶν τῇ ὑποστάσει θεωρουμένων.","english":"I do not think that you, who are most sacred, need anything else for the knowledge of another, since you are wise in mind to approach the one thing itself already through simple virtue, the Holy Spirit, from whom you also pour forth divine things for others by the boundless gift of the outpouring of wisdom, making the effusion of thoughts through the utterance of speech, so that you extend this humanely even to those as humble as I am and utterly destitute of all speech, very well indeed toward divine knowledge and learning, even though I know that you employ condescension through questioning, both to lead forward and still more to lift up by extreme abasement to your own height of knowledge us who lie somewhere below and are oppressed by ignorance, so that, having cleansed the dullness of my mind by your condescension and its stupidity by your inspiration, you might bring it to a cognitive habit and to a ready and practical zeal, from which salvation comes by grace to those who are saved, through you who are deemed worthy to save the worthy. I speak, then, concerning the things about which, when instructing me, you commanded me to inquire further—I mean quality and property and difference. Their signification among those outside is manifold, and it would be long to unfold their divisions in these matters and to extend the account, since these things are not so much a matter of epistolary proportion as of scriptural occupation. But with the divine Fathers the declaration of these things is both continuous and concise, not being taken concerning any subject, that is, substance and nature, but of the things contemplated in the substance and indeed in the hypostasis.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":199,"ref":"p199","source":"Ποιότητα γοῦν εἶναί φασιν, οὐσιώδη μέν ὡς ἐπ᾿ ἀνθρώπου τό λογικόν, ἤ ἵππου τό χρεμετιστικόν· ὑποστατικήν δέ τοῦ τινος ἀνθρώπου γρυπόν, ἤ σιμόν· ἤ τοῦ τινος ἵππου τό ψαρόν ἤ ξανθόν. Οὕτω δέ καί ἐπί τῶν ἄλλων ἔχει γενητῶν ἁπάντων οὐσιῶν καί ὑποστάσεων, κοινῶς τε καί ἰδικῶς, ἤγουν καθολικῶς τε καί μερικῶς τοῖς οὖσιν ἐνθεωρουμένην, καθ᾿ ἥν καί πρός ἄλληλα διαφορά τῶν τε εἰδῶν καί ἀτόμων γνωρίζεται, διευκρινοῦσα τήν τῶν πράγματων ἀλήθειαν. Ἐπί δέ τῆς ἀγεννήτου καί μοναρχικῆς φύσεως, οὐκ ἄν μέν ὅλως ἤ κυρίως λεχθείη ποιότης. Οὐ γάρ ἐξ οὐσίας τινός καί συμβεβηκότων τό Θεῖον, ἐπεί καί κτιστόν ἔσται πάντως, ὡς ἐκ τούτων σύνθετον καί συγκείμενον. Καταχρηστικῶς δέ, καί ὅσον ἄν τις ἐκ τῶν καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς δύναιτ᾿ ἄν τά ὑπέρ ἡμᾶς εἰκάζειν· ἅτε δή μήτ᾿ ἄλλως ἤ οὕτως καί μόγις ἱκανούντων ἡμῶν τήν ἐκείνων ἀμυδρῶς εἰσδέξασθαι γνῶσιν, καί λόγῳ κἄν ποσῶς γοῦν, εἰ καί μή τελείως, διατρανοῦν· φυσική μέν ποιότης ἐστί τό πανάγιον, τό πανσθενές, τό παντέλειον, τό ὑπερτελές, τό αὐτοτελές, τό αὐτοκρατορικόν, τό παντέφορον καί εἴτι τοιοῦτον ἄλλο λέγεται φυσικόν τε καί θεῖον, καί Θεῷ μόνον συμπρέπον ὡς ὑπερούσιον. Ὑποστατική δέ ποιότης, Πατρός μέν τό ἀγέννητον, Υἱοῦ δέ τό γεννητόν, καί Πνεύματος ἁγίου τό ἐκπορευτόν, ἤγουν ἀγεννησία, καί ἡ γέννησις καί ἡ ἐκπόρευσις, ἅπερ καί ἰδιότητας ὀνομάζουσι, διά τῷ μόνον αὐτῷ καί οὐκ ἄλλῳ (περί Θεοῦ λέγεται) προσεῖναι ταῦτα φυσικῶς ἤ ὑποστατικῶς.","english":"They say, then, that quality is essential, as in the case of a human being the rational, or of a horse the neighing; and that it is hypostatic, as of some particular human being the hook-nosed or the snub-nosed, or of some particular horse the dappled or the chestnut. And so it is also with all the other created essences and hypostases, being contemplated in beings both commonly and specifically, that is, both universally and particularly, by which also the difference of species and of individuals from one another is known, distinguishing the truth of things. But in the case of the unbegotten and monarchical nature, quality would not be spoken of at all, or properly. For the Divine is not from some essence and accidents, since it would then certainly be created, as being composite and compounded from these. But it is spoken of by misuse of the term, and as far as one could conjecture things beyond us from things pertaining to us—since we are able, not otherwise than thus and only with difficulty, to receive dimly the knowledge of those things, and to make them clear by reason, at least to some extent, even if not perfectly. Natural quality is the all-holy, the all-powerful, the all-perfect, the super-perfect, the self-perfect, the self-sovereign, the all-sustaining, and whatever other such thing is called natural and divine, and befitting God alone as being beyond essence. Hypostatic quality is, of the Father, the unbegotten; of the Son, the begotten; and of the Holy Spirit, the proceeding—that is, unbegottenness, and generation, and procession—which they also call properties, because these belong naturally or hypostatically to him alone and to no other (it is said concerning God).","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":200,"ref":"p200","source":"Ἐξ ὧν αἵ τε οὐσιώδεις καί ὑποστατικαί συνίστανται διαφοραί, καταχρησικῶς μέν, ὡς ἔφην, ἐπί Θεοῦ, κατά φύσιν δέ κυρίως ἐπί τῶν γενητῶν ἁπάντων. Ὅθεν ταὐτόν μέν ἀλλήλοις ὑπάρχειν ταῦτά φασι, ποιότητά φημι καί ἰδιότητα καί διαφοράν, ( καί τῶν τε συμβεβηκότων, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχ ὑποκειμένου τινός, ἤγουν οὐσίας λόγον ἐπέχειν. Διαφέρειν μέν τῷ τήν ποιότητα καθολικωτέραν εἶναι, καί ἐπί πάντων ἁπλῶς, εἴπερ οὐδέν παρέξ Θεοῦ τῶν ὄντων ἄποιον, ὡς οὐκ ἄσχετον, οὐδέ ἀνείδεον. Τήν ἰδιότητα δέ μερικήν, ὡς πρός ἐκείνην, καί μή ἁπασῶν, ἀλλ' ἁπλῶς καί τοιῶσδε (ὁποσοῦν καί ἁπλῶς, ἀλλά τοιῶσδε ) λέγεσθαι, καί ἐπί τῆσδε τῆς οὐσίας, καί οὐκ ἄλλης· τήν δέ διαφοράν ὡς συστατικήν τῶν ὄντων καί ἀφοριστικήν. Ὅθεν καί οὕτω ταύτην κατονομάζουσι, συστατικήν καλοῦντες διαφοράν διευκρίνουσαν, ὡς ἔφην, τά ὄντα κατά τε οὐσίαν καί φύσιν, κατά τε πρόσωπον καί ὑπόστασιν, καί πᾶσαν πασῶν ἐλαύνουσαν τροπήν τε καί σύγχυσιν. Αὕτη οὖν καί οὕτως ἔχουσα, κατά τήν τῶν Πατέρων διδασκαλίαν, ἡ περί ποιότητος καί ἰδιότητος καί διαφορᾶς, ὡς ἐν ἐπιτομῇ φάναι, διάληψίς τε καί διασάφησις. Ἀμήχανον δέ τι τούτων εἶναί ποτ᾿ ἄν ἤ ἐπινοηθῆναι δύνασθαι χωρίς τῆς ὑποκειμένης οὐσίας, ἧς καί ἔστι καί λέγεται τούτων ἕκαστον· οὐσίας γάρ ἀλλ' οὐχ ἑαυτῆς ἤ τε ποιότης λέγεται καί ἰδιότης καί διαφορά· καί ὁ μή τοῦτο λέγων, ἠλόγησε, τοῦ κατά φύσιν λόγου παρά λόγον ἐκστάς.","english":"From these, both essential and hypostatic differences are constituted—by misuse of the term, as I said, in the case of God, but properly by nature in the case of all created things. Hence they say that these are the same as one another—I mean quality, property, and difference—and that they hold the place of accidents, but not of some subject, that is, of substance. They differ in that quality is more universal, and applies simply to all things, since nothing among beings except God is without quality, as being neither without relation nor without form. Property is partial, as compared with quality, and is predicated not of all things but simply and in such a way—in some way and simply, but in such a way—and of this substance and not another. Difference is constitutive of beings and definitive. Hence they also name it thus, calling it a constitutive difference, which distinguishes, as I said, beings according to substance and nature, and according to person and hypostasis, and drives out all alteration and confusion of all things. This, then, being so, according to the teaching of the Fathers, is the account and clarification, so to speak, in summary, concerning quality, property, and difference. It is impossible for any of these ever to exist or to be conceived without the underlying substance, of which each of these both is and is said to be; for quality, property, and difference are said to be of substance, but not of themselves; and he who does not say this has spoken irrationally, having departed contrary to reason from the principle of nature.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":201,"ref":"p201","source":"Οὗπερ μόνος καί παρά πάντας Σεβῆρος ὁ παράφρων σοφιστής, ὡς τά μηδαμῆ μηδαμῶς περινοῶν ἑαυτῷ καί πλαττόμενος, καί ποιοτήτων ἀνουσίων ἐπί Χριστοῦ λέγων διαφοράν, ἵν᾿ ἀνύπαρκτον αὐτόν ἀποφήνῃ, τῇ τῶν ἐξ ὧν καί ἐν αἷς συνέστηκε φύσεων ἀποσκευῇ, καί αὐτῶν γε πάλιν συναποσκευῇ τῶν ποιοτήτων. Οὐ γάρ δύναιντ᾿ ἄν ἀναιρουμένων τῶν φύσεων,·ὡς μηδέ κἄν ταύταις λοιπόν ἤ ὅλως ἐκ τούτων, λέγω δέ τῶν ποιοτήτων, ὑφιστᾷν δύνασθαι τόν Χριστόν, εἰ καί σύνθετον αὐτόν τερατολογεῖ ὁ δείλαιος, κἀντεῦθεν τελείαν αὐτοῦ ποιούμενος τήν ἐξάρνησιν. Οὐ γάρ Θεός ἤ Θεοῦ φύσις, ἡ σύνθετος· ἐπεί καί πᾶσα σύνθετος φύσις φύσει Θεός. Εἰ δέ πᾶσα σύνθετος φύσις φύσει Θεός, οὐ Θεός κατ᾿ αὐτόν ὁ Πατήρ ὁ ἀσύνθετος· ( εἰ γάρ τό σύνθετον φύσει Θεός, οὐ φύσει Θεός τό ἀσύνθετον. Εἰ δέ καί τό ἀσύνθετον φύσει Θεός, πολύθεός τις ἄν ἀπέφηνεν ὁ ἄθεος καί ἀντίθεος, ἀγνοήσας τόν ὄντως ὄντα Θεόν καί σάρκα γενόμενον, ἀλλά φυλάξαντα κἀν τῇ συνθέσει τῆς ὑποστάσεως τό πρός τόν Πατέρα κατά φύσιν ἁπλοῦν καί ἀσύνθετον, ὡς Θεόν φύσει καί ἐκ Θεοῦ, κἄν","english":"This alone, and beyond all others, the mad sophist Severus, devising and fashioning for himself things that in no way exist, and speaking of a difference of non-essential qualities in Christ, in order to declare him nonexistent, by the stripping away of the natures from which and in which he consists, and again by the joint stripping away of the qualities themselves. For if the natures are abolished, they could no longer—so that not even in these, nor at all from these, I mean the qualities—be able to subsist Christ, even if the wretched man fantastically claims him to be composite, and from this makes his complete denial of him. For God is not composite, nor is the nature of God composite; since every composite nature is God by nature. But if every composite nature is God by nature, then according to him the Father, who is incomposite, is not God; (for if the composite is God by nature, the incomposite is not God by nature. But if the incomposite is also God by nature, then the godless and anti-god man would have shown himself to be a polytheist, having ignored the truly existing God who became flesh, but who kept even in the composition of the hypostasis the simplicity and incompositeness toward the Father according to nature, as God by nature and from God, even if","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":202,"ref":"p202","source":"ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἀνθρώπων διά ἀνθρώπου ὑπέρ ἀνθρώπους γεγέννηται προσλήψει σαρκός ψυχήν ἐχούσης τήν νοεράν· κἄν οὐδέ ἄνθρωπον ὁμολογεῖ τόν ἐνανθρωπήσαντα Θεόν ὁ ἀπάνθρωπος, ὡς φύσιν ἐπ᾿ αὐτοῦ τήν ἀνθρώπου, καθά καί τήν θείαν ἀρνούμενος. Οὐ γάρ διφυᾶ τοῦτον ἤγουν διπλοῦν τήν φύσιν, ὡς οἱ Πατέρες, ἀλλά σύνθετόν τινα καί νόθον ὑποτίθεται φύσιν, τήν Ἀπολιναρίου βδελυρίαν ζηλώσας. Ταύτῃ γε τό μέγα τῆς περί ἡμᾶς οἰκονομίας ἀποσκευάζων μυστήριον ὁ ἀλητήριος, τῇ κλήσει τῶν ὀνομάτων εὐμηχάνως ὡς δεινός ἀποκέχρηται ῥήτωρ, δυσφώρατον ποιούμενος τή τῶν πραγμάτων ὑποκλοπήν, καί οἷον ὑποκνίζων τήν αἴσθησιν, εἰς τήν τῆς ἀσεβείας παραδοχήν. Θεόν τε γάρ αὐτόν ἀποκαλεῖ δῆθεν καί ἄνθρωπον· ἀποσκευάζει δέ θατέρας προσηγορίας τήν κυριότητα τήν ἀλήθειαν, ὡς οὐχ ὁμολογῶν τάς φύσεις, ὧν προδήλως αἱ κλήσεις τυγχάνουσι. Καί διαφοράν λέγει, μηδεμίαν γνωρίζων διαφοράν, τῶν διαφερούντων οὐχ ὑποκειμένων φύσει κατ᾿ αὐτόν τῶν πραγμάτων, ἵνα καί σύγχυσιν ἐπεισκρίνῃ διά τῆς μιᾶς συνθέτου φύσεως, καί ἀνυπαρξίαν νομοθετήσῃ τῇ ἀπαρνήσει τῶν φύσεων· καί δόξῃ τοῖς μέν ὀνόμασι τήν ἀναίρεσιν ἐπικαλύπτειν, τῇ δέ διαφορᾷ διαῤῥίπτειν τήν σύγχυσιν· τοσαύτη τοῦ κακόφρονος ἡ κακόφρων ὄντως μηχανή καί ἐπίνοια, τῷ τῆς ἀγνοίας ζόφῳ καλυπτομένη, καί σκοτίζουσα τούς ἁλόντας.","english":"A man from men through a man beyond men has been born by the assumption of flesh having a rational soul; even if the man-hating one does not confess the God who became man to be a man, since he denies the nature of man in him, just as he also denies the divine nature. For he does not suppose him to be of two natures, that is, double in nature, as the Fathers do, but some composite and bastard nature, emulating the abomination of Apollinaris. Thereby the vagabond, setting aside the great mystery of the economy concerning us, cleverly misuses the naming of names as a clever rhetorician, making the theft of things hard to detect, and as it were scratching the senses, toward the acceptance of impiety. For he calls him God, ostensibly, and man; but he sets aside the lordship and truth of the other designation, as not confessing the natures whose names they manifestly are. And he speaks of a difference, recognizing no difference, since in his view the things that differ are not underlying by nature, so that he may both introduce confusion through the one composite nature and legislate non-existence by the denial of the natures; and he may seem to cover the destruction with names, but by the difference to scatter the confusion; so great is the evil-minded device and invention of the evil-minded one, truly evil-minded, covered by the darkness of ignorance, and darkening those who are caught.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":203,"ref":"p203","source":"Πρός οὕς δέον, ὡς ὑπέρ ἐκείνου διατεινομένους τρέψαι τόν λόγον, καί τοῦτο προσειπεῖν, ὡς εἴπερ καθ᾿ ὑμᾶς Κυρίλλῳ τῷ ἀοιδίμῳ Σεβῆρος κατακολουθῶν ὁμολογεῖ τήν διαφοράν, ἐκτρεπόμενος τήν συναίρεσιν, πῶς οὐ συνομολογεῖ καί τάς φύσεις ( αὐτῷ, κἀν ταύταις, ὡς ἐκεῖνος, τήν οὐσιώδη γνωρίζει διαφοράν, μόνην ἀποσκευαζόμενος τήν τούτων διαίρεσιν, ἀλλά ποιότησι μόνον ψιλαῖς παρά τόν ἐκείνου νόμον καί ὅρον τίθεται τήν διαφοράν; Ὅτι γάρ ὁμολογεῖ τάς φύσεις ὁ μακάριος Κύριλλος, ὧν καί τήν διαφοράν δογματίζει, δῆλον ἐκ τοῦ μη δέ Νεστορίῳ τῷ διῃρημένῳ κατ'αὐτήν γε τήν τῶν φύσεων ὁμολογίαν ἀπαξιοῦν κοινωνεῖν, εἰ καί μή κατά τήν ἐννοίας τό σύνολον. \"Τί γάρ, φησίν ὁ διδάσκαλος, κοινόν ἐμοί καί Νεστορίῳ; τό δύο λέγειν τάς δύο φύσεις μέχρι τοῦ γινώσιειν τήν διαφοράν τῆς σαρκός καί τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου· ἑτέρα γάρ αὕτη κατά τήν φυσικήν ποιότητα, καί τῆς οὐσίας οὐχ ὁμογενές παρ᾿ ἐκεῖνον». Ἐάν οὖν καί τάς φύσεις ὁμολογῇ, καί ἐπ᾿ αὐταῖς τήν διαφοράν γνωρίζη, καί τήν τῆς ὁμολογίας αἰτίαν εὐσεβῶς ἀποδίδωσι, φάσκων, \"Διά τό ἑτέραν εἶναι τήν σάρκα παρά τόν Λόγον κατά τήν φυσικήν ποιότητα»· ταυτόν δέ λέγειν, οὐσίαν καί ἐνέργειαν, πρός τήν Θεοῦ Λόγου διαφοράν·","english":"To those to whom it is necessary, since they strain the argument on his behalf, to turn the discourse and to add this also: that if, according to you, Severus, following the renowned Cyril, confesses the difference while avoiding the combination, how does he not also agree with him on the natures, and in these, as he does, recognize the essential difference, setting aside only their division, but instead posits the difference in bare qualities alone, contrary to that man's law and definition? For that the blessed Cyril confesses the natures, whose difference he also teaches, is clear from the fact that he does not even deign to hold communion with Nestorius, who divided them, on the very confession of the natures, even if not in the conception of the whole. \"For what,\" says the teacher, \"is common to me and Nestorius? The saying that the two natures are two, up to knowing the difference of the flesh and of God the Word; for this is other according to natural quality, and not of the same kind in essence as that one.\" If, then, he confesses the natures, and recognizes the difference in them, and piously gives the reason for the confession, saying, \"Because the flesh is other than the Word according to natural quality\"—and to say the same is essence and energy—in relation to the difference of God the Word:","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":204,"ref":"p204","source":"πῶς ὁ παράφρων Σεβῆρος οὐδ᾿ αὐτῷ τῷ πεπλασμένως αὐτῷ τετιμημένῳ Κυρίλλῳ κοινωνεῖν ἀξιοῖ, καί τάς φύσεις συμφθέγγεσθαι μέχρι τοῦ γινώσκειν τήν διαφοράν κατά τήν ἐκείνου διδασκαλίαν, οὐ κατά τήν φυσικήν ποιότητα μόνον, ἀλλά καί τό τῆς οὐσίας οὐχ ὁμογενές, ἵν' ὁμοῦ τε τῶν φύσεων καί τῶν φυσικῶν ποιοτήτων, ἤγουν οὐσιῶν τε καί ἐνεργειῶν γνωρίσῃ τήν διαφοράν, ἀλλά καί τό τῆς οὐσίας οὐχ ὁμογενές ἐξαρνούμενος τῆς σαρκός πρός τόν Λόγον, ὅπερ ἐστί τό κατά φύσιν διάφορον, τήν ἐν ποιότησιν ἀνυπάρκτοις ( πᾶσα γάρ πάντως ποιότης ἀνύπαρκτος δίχα τῆς ὑποκειμένοις οὐσίας ) ἀντεισαγάγοι διαφοράν; Ὁ δέ κακούργως διαπραττόμενος, καί τῆς τοῦ σοφοῦ Κυρίλλου, ταυτόν δέ λέγειν πάντων τῶν θεοκρίτων Πατέρων, ἀληθοῦς κατεξανιστάμενος διδασκαλίας, ἀλλότριον ἑαυτόν ἀποφαίνει, καί τοῦ ψεύδους κοινωνόν καί συνήγορον. Ἆρα δέ ποιοτήτων λέγων ἐπί Χριστοῦ διαφοράν, μετά τήν ἕνωσιν, ἤ πρό τῆς ἑνώσεως λέγει τήν διαφοράν; Εἰ μέν γάρ πρό ( τῆς ἑνώσεως, διαίρεσιν φρονεῖ πάντως, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ διαφοράν, καί ἐκ διῃρημένων, οἷον τῶν καθ᾿ αὑτά προϋφεστότων, δογματίζει τήν ἕνωσιν, ἤ ταύτην ἔλυσε διά τῆς τῶν ποιοτήτων διαφορᾶς καί ὁμολογίας, ἤ οὐδέ ταύτας ὅλως ἡνῶσθαι τήν ἀρχήν ἀποφαίνεται. Καί εἰ μέν οὐχ ἡνῶσθαι λέγει, δῆλον ὡς οὔτε τάς φύσεις ὧν αἱ ποιότητες, ἡνωμένας","english":"How does the senseless Severus not even deem worthy of communion with Cyril himself, whom he fictitiously honors, and of agreeing with him on the natures up to the point of knowing the difference according to his teaching—not only according to natural quality, but also the non-homogeneity of essence—so that together he might recognize the difference of the natures and of the natural qualities, that is, of essences and energies, but also, by denying the non-homogeneity of essence of the flesh in relation to the Word, which is the difference according to nature, he would introduce the difference in non-subsistent qualities (for every quality is altogether non-subsistent apart from the underlying essences)? But the one who acts maliciously, and who rises up against the true teaching of the wise Cyril—and to say the same, of all the God-judged Fathers—shows himself alien, and a partaker and advocate of falsehood. But does he, when speaking of a difference of qualities in Christ, speak of the difference after the union, or before the union? For if before the union, he altogether thinks division, not difference, and he dogmatizes the union from divided things, such as those that pre-existed by themselves, or he has dissolved this union through the difference and confession of qualities, or he declares that these were not united at all in the beginning. And if he says they were not united, it is clear that neither the natures, of which the qualities are, are united","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":205,"ref":"p205","source":"δοξάζει, κἄν ὑποκρίνεται λέγειν· οὐ γάρ ἐνδέχεται, τάς μέν ἡνῶσθαι, τάς δέ διῃρεῖσθαι ποτ᾿ ἄν· ἀλλά σύν ἀλλήλαις ταυτόν ἀλλήλαις παθεῖν, εἴτε ἕνωσιν, εἴτε διαίρεσιν. Εἰ οὖν τήν διαίρεσιν ἀποβαλλόμενος ἡνῶσθαι διαγορεύει μετά τῶν φύσεων, καί τάς τούτων ποιότητας, ἀνάγκη πάντως αὐτόν ἑαυτῷ γε στοιχοῦντα διά πάντων, ἤ μίαν σύνθετον λέγειν ποιότητα, καθάπερ καί μίαν σύνθετον φύσιν, διά τήν ἕνωσιν, καί ἠλέγχθη μή δέ τήν ἐν ποιότητι γνωρίζων διαφοράν, ἀλλ᾿ ἀμφοῖν, οὐσιῶν τέ φημι καί ποιοτήτων δογματίζων τήν σύγχυσιν, ἤ διαφόρους διδούς τάς ποιότητας, καί οὐ δεδειώς τήν διαίρεσιν, διαφόρους καί τάς φύσεις εἴποιεν ἄν, οὐ δεδιττόμενος, οὔτε μήν προφασιζόμενος τήν διαμπάξ τομήν εἰς τήν τῆς αὐτῶν ὁμολογίας ἀποστροφήν καί παραίτησιν. Εἰ γάρ κατ᾿ αὐτόν οὐ πεπόνθασι διατομήν αἱ ποιότητες, πρός αὐτοῦ δῆθεν ὁμολογούμεναι, διά τήν διαφοράν, πῶς αἱ φύσεις τμηθήσονται τῆς ὁμολογίας χάριν καί διαφορᾶς; Εἰ δέ ταύτας μέν οὐχ ὁμολογεῖ, μόνας δέ δῆθεν ὁμολογεῖ τάς ποιότητας, δῆλός ἐστι τάς φύσεις ἐξαφανίζων, καί ποιοτήτων ἄθροισμα τόν Χριστόν δογματίζων, ὥσπερ καί τάς τῶν ὑλικῶν φύσεις οὔσας γνωρίζομεν· ὑποκειμένῳ μέντοι τῆς ὕλης συνισταμένας, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἐν μόναις ἐπιθεωρουμένας καί ψιλαῖς ταῖς ποιότησιν, ὡς ἐκεῖνός γε τόν Χριστόν διαγράφει, καί διά τοῦτο σύνθετον αὐτόν ὀνομάζει φύσιν, ἐκείνην δηλαδή, καί οὐκ ἄλλην νοῶν ἥν ἐκ ψιλῶν τῶν ποιοτήτων ἀνεπλάσατο καί συνέθηκεν. Ὧν γάρ εἶναι λέγει τήν διαφοράν, τούτων σαφῶς καί τήν ἕνωσιν.","english":"he glorifies, even if he pretends to say it; for it is not possible that some things be united and others divided at any time, but they must together undergo the same thing with one another, whether union or division. If, then, rejecting division he declares that the natures are united, along with their qualities, he must by all means, being consistent with himself throughout, either speak of one composite quality, just as also of one composite nature, on account of the union—and he was refuted as not even recognizing the difference in quality, but dogmatizing the confusion of both, I mean of substances and of qualities—or, granting the qualities to be different and not fearing the division, he would say that the natures are also different, not being intimidated, nor yet making the thorough cutting a pretext for turning away from and declining the confession of them. For if, according to him, the qualities—confessed, as he claims, by him on account of the difference—have not undergone cutting, how will the natures be cut for the sake of confession and difference? But if he does not confess these, but confesses, as he claims, only the qualities, it is clear that he is making the natures vanish and dogmatizing that Christ is a collection of qualities, just as we recognize that the natures of material things exist, yet subsisting in the underlying matter, and not being observed in bare and naked qualities alone, as he at any rate depicts Christ, and for this reason calls him a composite nature—clearly understanding that one, and no other, which he molded and composed from bare qualities. For of whatever things he says there is a difference, of these he clearly also [says there is] a union.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":206,"ref":"p206","source":"Οὐ γάρ ἄλλων ἡ διαφορά καί ἄλλων ἡ ἕνωσις, ἀλλά τῶν αὐτῶν, καί οὐκ ἄλλων. ( Οὐκοῦν ἐκ ποιοτήτων καί ποιότητας εἶναι διαγορεύει τόν Χριστόν ὁ παράφρων, καί κατ᾿ αὐτάς γε πάλιν διῃρημένον αὐτόν ἀποδείκνυσιν, ὡς οὐ μίαν σύνθετον διά τήν ἕνωσιν, ἀλλά διαφόρους ἐπ᾿ αὐτοῦ δογματίζων ποιότητας, εἴπερ ὅρος οὖτος αὐτῷ τῆς ἑνώσεως ἄριστος. Εἰ δέ ἄλλος μέν ἐπί φύσεων, ἄλλος δέ πάλιν ἐπικρατεῖ νόμος ἐπί τῶν ποιοτήτων, τῆς αὐτοῦ δεῖξαι τοῦτον ἡμῖν ἔργον ἐμμελείας, ἤ ἐκπληξίας, εἰπεῖν οἰκειότερον, ὡς ἄν μάθοιμεν πῶς κατά τήν ἕνωσιν μίαν μέν φύσιν τάς δύο γνωρίζει φύσεις, οὐ μίαν δέ ποιότητα διαφόρους ποιότητας· ἤ τίνι λόγῳ ποιοτήτων μέν λέγει, φύσεων δέ διαφοράν οὐ λέγει. Καί πῶς οὐκ ἀσύγχυτοι μέν δίχα διαφορᾶς μεμενήκασιν αἱ ποιότητες, ἀσύγχυτοι δέ καί δίχα ταύτης αἱ φύσεις; Πῶς τε κατά τήν διαφοράν αἱ ποιότητες οὐ διαιροῦνται, διαιροῦνται δέ κατ'αὐτήν αἱ φύσεις; Ἤ πῶς οὐ διαιρούμεναι μή ὁμολογοῦνται μετά τῶν ποιοτήτων; Διατί δέ συντίθησι μέν τάς φύσεις, οὐ συντίθησι δέ τάς ποιότητας, καί πῶς τούτων οὐχ ἑνωθεισῶν εἰς μίαν ποιότητα σύνθετον, ἐκείνας εἰς μίαν σύνθετον ἑνῶσθαι τερατεύεται φύσιν; Ταῦτα διατρανώσαι διαποροῦσιν ἡμῖν, ὅστις ἐκείνου δυσσεβής ἐραστής καί συνήγορος, ἵνα τήν τούτων λύσιν ποιούμενος, συνδιαλύσῃ τήν μέμψιν, ἤ μή δυνάμενος ταύτην ἐνδίκως, ἐκείνῳ συναπενέγκηται μετά καί μείζονος τῆς κατακρίσεως, ὅτι τε σύμφωνον, τόν καί πρός ἑαυτόν ὄντα διά πάντων ἀλλόκοτον, εἰπεῖν τοῖς Πατράσιν τετόλμηκεν.","english":"For the difference is not of some things and the union of others, but of the same things, and not of others. (Therefore the madman declares that Christ is from qualities and qualities, and again demonstrates him divided according to them, dogmatizing not one composite [nature] because of the union, but different qualities in him, if indeed this is his best definition of the union. But if one law prevails over natures and another again over qualities, it is the task of his own diligence—or, to speak more aptly, of his astonishment—to show us this, so that we might learn how, according to the union, he recognizes the two natures as one nature, but not the different qualities as one quality; or by what reasoning he speaks of a difference of qualities but does not speak of a difference of natures. And how have the qualities remained unconfused without difference, and the natures unconfused also without it? And how are the qualities not divided according to the difference, but the natures are divided according to it? Or how, not being divided, are they not acknowledged together with the qualities? And why does he combine the natures but not combine the qualities, and how, when these have not been united into one composite quality, does he marvelously claim that those have been united into one composite nature? Whoever is that impious lover and advocate of his must clarify these things for us who are perplexed, so that by making the solution of these things he may dissolve the censure together with them, or, unable to do so justly, may be carried off with him along with even greater condemnation, because he has dared to say that the wholly discordant one, who is at odds even with himself, is in agreement with the Fathers.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":207,"ref":"p207","source":"Ταῦτά μοι, θεοτίμητε δέσποτα, ἐν παραδρομῇ κατά τήν ὑμετέραν εἰρήσθω κέλευσιν, εἰς τήν ἐκείνου καί τῶν τῆς ἐκείνου συμμορίας ὑπασπιστῶν ἀνασκευήν καί κατάργησιν. Τῆς σῆς δ᾿ ἄν εἴη θεόφρονος διανοίας, τά μείζω, καί τελεώτερα τούς ἀτελεῖς κατ᾿ ἐμέ καί νηπίους ἐκπαιδεῦσαί τε καί διδάξαι, καί πρός γνῶσιν ἀγαγεῖν θειοτέραν, ἵν᾿ οἰκειώσῃς Θεῷ διά τῆς ἀληθοῦς ἐπιστήμης τῶν ὄντων, ὧν αὐτός ὁ ὑπέρ τά ὄντα φύσει Λόγος αἰτία καθέστηκε, Κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, ᾧ καί δι᾿ εὐχῶν ( μή διαλείποις μέ παρατιθέμενος τόν ἀνάξιον, ἁγιώτατε καί θεοτίμητε Πάτερ.\n\nΚαί πάλιν ὁ θεῖος Μάξιμος.\n\nΠῶς οὖν τήν οὕτω ταῦτα σεβασμίως ἅμα καί διαπρυσίως ὁρῶσαν τε καί διαγορεύουσαν ἁγίαν ἐν Χαλκηδόνι σύνοδον, ὡς διαπεμπομένην τόν τῆς Νικαέων ὅρον παραστῆσαι, τίς ἄν ἰσχύσειε πώποτε, κἄν πάντων ᾖ ποριμώματος εἰς ἐξεύρεσιν τῶν διά ψεύδους, τά μή ὄντα κατά τῆς ἀληθοῦς καί ὄντως (πίστεως) πλαττομένων; Εἰ δέ καί ὡς τοῦτο μέν τηροῦσαν βεβαίως, ὡς δεύτερον δέ τυχόν ἐπεισάγουσαν ὅρον διαλοιδορεῖτε, καί μέμφεσθε, τίς οὖτος καθέστηκεν ὁ ὑπ᾿ αὐτῆς ἐπεισαγόμενος δεύτερος ὅρος; Ἡ ὁμολογία, φησί, τῶν δύο φύσεων καί ἐν δύο φύσεσι φωνῆς. Οὐ γάρ ἔχει ταύτην ὁ τῆς Νικαέων ὅρος· εἰσήχθη δέ προδήλως ὑπό τῶν ἐν Χαλκηδόνι Πατέρων, οὐ πρότερον γνωρισθεῖσα ἤ ὀνομασθεῖσα παρά τινος. Ὅτι μέν οὐδέ τοῦτο δύνασθε παραστῆσαι δῆλον· πολλοῖς γάρ τῶν πρό αὐτῆς ἁγίων Πατέρων, ὡς εὐσεβής ἡ φωνή καί ἐκρίθη καί ἀνηγορεύθη·","english":"These things, O God-honored master, have been said by me in passing at your command, for the refutation and destruction of that man and of the band of his shield-bearers. But it would be for your God-minded understanding to educate and teach the greater and more perfect things to me, who am imperfect and infantile, and to lead me to a more divine knowledge, so that you may unite me to God through the true knowledge of beings, of which the very Word who is by nature above beings is the cause, our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom also through prayers do not cease to entrust me, the unworthy one, most holy and God-honored Father.\n\nAnd again the divine Maximus.\n\nHow then could anyone ever be strong enough to set forth the holy Council at Chalcedon, which so reverently and at the same time so clearly saw and declared these things, as sending forth the definition of Nicaea to present it—even if he were the most resourceful of all at discovering the things fabricated through falsehood, things that are not, against the true and real faith? But if you also reproach and blame it as keeping this one firmly, but perhaps introducing a second definition, what is this second definition introduced by it? The confession, he says, of the voice of the two natures and in two natures. For the definition of Nicaea does not have this; but it was brought in plainly by the Fathers at Chalcedon, not previously known or named by anyone. That you cannot establish this either is clear; for by many of the holy Fathers before it, as pious, the phrase was both judged and proclaimed.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":208,"ref":"p208","source":"καί μαρτυροῦσι τῶν ταύτην κηρυξάντων οἱ λόγοι, πάσης ὄντες ἡλιακῆς ἀκτῖνος φωτοειδέστατοι καί λαμπρότεροι, κἄν ὑμεῖς ἀγνοεῖτε δι᾿ ἀπαιδευσίαν, ἤ ἀγνοεῖν προσποιεῖσθε διά λοιδορίαν, καί τῶν εὐσεβῶν Πατέρων τε καί δογμάτων ἀνόητον ἔγκλησιν. Εἰ δέ καί μηδέν ἦν, ὁπότε πλεῖστον, ὡς ἔφην, καθέστηκε, τί τό κωλύον ἁγίους τοσούτους (μᾶλλον δέ τόν ἅπαντα Χριστιανισμόν· τοῦτο γάρ κυρίως ἐστίν ἡ τῶν ( ὀρθοδόξων Πατέρων ἁγιωτάτῃ σύνοδος) ἐξουσιαστικῶς ταύτην προέσθαι, καί νομοθετεῖν κατά τῆς Εὐτυχοῦς συναιρέσεως;\n\nΚαί μετά τινά φησι· Τίνι λόγῳ, καί πῶς τήν ἐν Χαλκηδόνι ἁγίαν σύνοδον, καίτοι πατρικαῖς προδήλως ἀποχρησαμένην φωναῖς, αἰτιᾶσθε, καί ὡς ἄλλον πίστεως ὅρον εἰσάγουσαν, τῇδε κἀκεῖσε καί ἐγγράφως καί ἀγράφως διαλοιδορεῖτε καί διασκόπτετε; Μή καθ᾿ ὄψιν κρίνετε, διά τόν εἰπόντα Θεόν, ἀλλά τήν δικαίαν κρίσιν κρίνατε. Τίς ἡ ἐπί τῆς αὐτῆς καί μιᾶς ὑποθέσεως τῶν ἐν Χαλκηδόνι Πατέρων ἔγκλησις ὑμῶν, καί τίς ἡ τῶν προλαβόντων ἀνάῤῥησις; Εἰ γάρ ἔστι κατά τῆς ἐν τῇ Χαλκηδόνι ἄλλον αἰτιᾶσθαι πίστεως ὅρον διά τάς ἐγκειμένας τῷ ὅρῳ τῆς Νικαέων φωνάς, τοῦτό γε πάντως ἕψεται λέγειν διά τήν αὐτήν αἰτίαν καί κατά Κυρίλλου καί τῶν ἑκατόν πεντήκοντα. Εἰ δέ κατ' αὐτῶν οὐκ ἔστι, πῶς κατ᾿ ἐκείνης, συνιδεῖν οὐκ ἔχω. Παριστᾷν δέ προτρέπομαι τήν ὑμῶν ἐπί τοῖς ἀναποδείκτοις λύσσαν καί ἔνστασιν· εἴ γε κἄν ἄρα οὕτως ἱκανῶς αἰσχυνθέντες, συσταλῆτε τῆς ἀπονοίας τῆς τοσαύτης κατά τῆς ἀληθείας ψεύδους συστάσεως.","english":"And the words of those who proclaimed this bear witness, being more radiant and brighter than any ray of the sun, even if you are ignorant of it through lack of education, or pretend to be ignorant through abusive slander, and make a foolish accusation against the pious Fathers and their doctrines. But even if there were nothing—when there is very much, as I said—what prevents so many saints (or rather the whole of Christianity; for this is properly the most holy council of the orthodox Fathers) from authoritatively setting this aside and legislating against the confusion of Eutyches?\n\nAnd after some things he says: For what reason, and how, do you accuse the holy council at Chalcedon, although it plainly employed the voices of the Fathers, and slander and mock it here and there, both in writing and orally, as introducing another definition of faith? Do not judge by appearance, because of the God who said it, but judge righteous judgment. What is your accusation against the Fathers at Chalcedon concerning the same and one matter, and what is the annulment of those who came before? For if it is possible to accuse another definition of faith against the one at Chalcedon because of the words of Nicaea contained in the definition, this will certainly follow: to say, for the same reason, also against Cyril and the one hundred and fifty. But if it is not possible against them, how it is possible against that one, I cannot understand. And I urge you to restrain your fury and insistence in the face of unproven things—if indeed, being sufficiently ashamed in this way, you would shrink back from the madness of such great falsehood assembled against the truth.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":209,"ref":"p209","source":"Ἐπεί καί Γρηγόριος ὁ τῆς θεολογίας συνήγορος, οὐδέν τι μᾶλλον ἐκφεύξεται τῆς ὑμῶν κατά τῆς Χαλκηδονέων ἐνοχῆς· πλεῖστον δέ ὅσον ὑποπεσεῖται ταύτῃ παρά τόν ὑμέτερον νόμον, προδιαρθρῶν τό ἐλλιπῶς εἰρημένον τῆς ἐν Νικαίᾳ περί τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος· \"διά τό μηδέ κινεῖσθαι, φησί, τό τηνικαῦτα τοῦτο τό ζήτημα»· μετά τοῦ Πατρός καί Υἱοῦ τό Πνεῦμα γινώσκων, καί Κληδονίῳ γράφων οὕτω νοεῖν καί διδάσκειν. Ἀλλ᾿ ἐοίκατέ μοι τῆς σαθρᾶς ὄψεως, οὐχ ἱκανούσης πρός ἡλιακῆς αἴγλης ἀνάνευσιν καί μετάληψιν, τήν αὐτήν ὡς ἀμυδράν αἰτιωμένης, οὐ τήν οἰκείαν ἀδράνειαν, ἐκμιμήσασθαι τό πάθος· αὐτοί τά καί νοσηλευόμενοι διά τήν σύγχυσιν, καί τούς ταύτην ὡς ( ἀσεβῆ καί ἀνάρμοστον πρός τήν ἐν Χριστῷ τῶν σωζομένων ἀλήθειαν φύσεων ἱκανῶς ἐξελέγχοντας, ὡς οὐ φωστῆρας κοινούς, οὐδέ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐκφάντορας ἐκδιαβάλλοντες. Εἰ γάρ ἔστι τἀληθῇ περί ἀληθείας εἰπεῖν, πάντες, οἵ τε κατά τήν Νικαέων θεόκριτοι Πατέρες, καί πᾶσα σύνοδος ὀρθοδόξων καί ἁγίων ἀνδρῶν, οὐκ ἄλλον πίστεως ὅρον διά τῆς ἐπεισαγωγῆς τῶν οἰκείων ῥημάτων παντελῶς ἐπεισήγαγον, ὡς ὑμεῖς ἀποφαίνεσθε, πλεῖστον παραληροῦντες. καί τό ὅλον μαινόμενοι· ἀλλ᾿ αὐτόν ὡς πρῶτον καί μόνον τῶν ἐκ τῶν ἁγίων τριακοσίων δέκα καί ὀκτώ Πατέρων νομοθετηθέντα βεβαίως ἐκύρωσαν, τρανοῦντες αὐτόν, καί οἷον ἐπεξηγούμενοι καί ἐπεξεργαζόμενοι, διά τούς ἐκεῖνον καί τά ἐκείνου δόγματα πρός τήν οἰκείαν κακῶς ἐκλαμβάνοντας καί παρεξηγουμένους δυσσέβειαν.","english":"Since Gregory, the champion of theology, will by no means escape your charge against the Chalcedonians either; rather, he will fall under it as much as possible, contrary to your law, in that he sets in order beforehand what was said incompletely at Nicaea concerning the Holy Spirit: \"Because,\" he says, \"this question was not then even being raised,\" knowing the Spirit to be with the Father and the Son, and writing to Cledonius that this is how one should understand and teach. But you seem to me to have imitated the condition of weak eyesight, which, being unable to face and receive the sun's radiance, blames that same radiance as dim, rather than its own weakness—you who are yourselves sick with the confusion, and who slander those who sufficiently refute it as impious and incongruous with the truth in Christ of the natures of those who are saved, as though they were not common luminaries nor expositors of the truth. For if one may speak the truth about the truth, all the God-judged Fathers at Nicaea, and every synod of orthodox and holy men, did not introduce another definition of faith at all by the addition of their own words, as you declare, raving excessively and wholly mad; but they firmly ratified that same first and only definition legislated by the holy three hundred and eighteen Fathers, clarifying it and, as it were, explaining and elaborating it, on account of those who wrongly interpret and misinterpret it and its doctrines toward their own impiety.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":210,"ref":"p210","source":"Αὐτίκα γοῦν τόν τῆς θεολογίας ἐν αὐτῷ κείμενον λόγον ἐν αὐτῷ κείμενον λόγον παραβλάψαι βεβουλημένους Εὐνόμιόν τε καί Μακεδόνιον, οἱ ἑκατόν πεντήκοντα Πατέρες οὐ συνεχώρησαν διά τῶν οἰκείων φωνῶν καί δογμάτων. Οὕτω δέ καί τόν τῆς οἰκονομίας Νεστόριον διαιρεῖν μηχνώμενον, ὁ μακάριος οὐκ εἴασε Κύριλλος· ὥσπερ οὖν καί Εὐτυχέα συγχεῖν ἐθελήσαντα διεκώλυσαν οἱ ἐν Χαλκηδόνι τίμιοι Πατέρες. Πῶς οὖν ὑπέρ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ σύν ἐκείναις, φημή δέ ταῖς συνόδοις, καί ταύτην οὐκ ἀποδέχεσθε, διά τό αὐτό καί ἴσον καλόν· ἤ ταύτην ὡς μισόκαλοι διαλοιδοροῦντες συνδιαλοιδορεῖτε κἀκείνας; ὅ δή μάλιστα ποιοῦντες τοῖς πράγμασιν, εὐλαβεῖσθε τοῖς ῥήμασιν, ἵν᾿ εὐσεβείας πλάσμασιν ἐκεῖνας δῆθεν κατά ταύτης σεμνύναντες, διά ταύτης κἀκείνας λυμήνησθε, τό ἴσον αὐταῖς διά τήν ἴσην πρᾶξιν ἐπιφέροντες ἔγκλημα. Τίς οὖν ὑμῶν τήν τοσαύτην ὑποίσοι κατά τῆς εὐσεβείας καί τῶν εὐσεβούντων αὐθάδειαν; κ. τ. ἑ. ΚΕΦΑΛΑΙΑ ΠΕΡΙ ΟΥΣΙΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΦΥΣΕΩΣ, ΥΠΟΣΤΑΣΕΩΣ ΤΕ ΚΑΙ ΠΡΟΣΩΠΟΥ ( Ὅτι οὐσία μέν τό εἶδος καί τήν φύσιν, ὅπερ ἐστί καθ᾿ ἑαυτήν, δηλοῖ, ὑπόστασις δέ, τόν τινα τῆς οὐσίας ἐμφαίνει. Ὅτι οὐσία καί ἐνούσιον, οὐ ταὐτόν· ὥσπερ οὐδέ ὑπόστασις καί ἐνυπόστατον, εἰ καί ἐν ἀλλήλοις ἄμφω θεωρεῖται, ἀλλ᾿ ἄλλο καί ἄλλο. Ἐνούσιον μέν γάρ ἐστι, τό ἐν τῇ φύσει θεωρούμενον, καί οὐ καθ᾿ ἑαυτό ὑπάρχον· ἐνυπόστατον δέ, αὐτό τό ἐν ὑποστάσει ὄν, καί οὐκ ἐν ἑαυτῷ καθ᾿ ἑαυτό τυγχάνον, δηλοῖ· τουτέστι, τό μή ἐξ ἀτελῶν μερῶν εἰς ἕν τι συνελθόν, ἀλλ᾿ ἐκ τελείου καί ἀτελοῦς, ἐν τῇ κατά σύγχυσιν συνόδῳ θεωρούμενον.","english":"For instance, Eunomius and Macedonius, who wished to corrupt the word of theology that lies within it—the word that lies within it—the one hundred and fifty Fathers did not permit, through their own words and doctrines. In the same way, the blessed Cyril did not allow Nestorius, who was scheming to divide the word of the economy; just as the honored Fathers at Chalcedon prevented Eutyches, who wished to confuse it. How then, for the sake of the good, along with those—I mean the synods—do you not accept this one too, because of the same and equal good? Or, hating the good, do you revile this one and thereby revile those as well? This is exactly what you do in fact, though you are cautious in words, so that by pretending piety you may exalt those, as it were, against this one, and through this one destroy those too, bringing against them an equal charge because of the equal deed. Who among you could endure such audacity against piety and against the pious? And so on. CHAPTERS ON SUBSTANCE AND NATURE, HYPOSTASIS AND PERSON ( That substance reveals the form and the nature, what it is in itself, while hypostasis indicates a particular instance of the substance. That substance and \"enousion\" are not the same; just as neither are hypostasis and \"enypostaton,\" even if both are contemplated in each other, but they are different. For \"enousion\" is what is contemplated in the nature and does not exist in itself; but \"enypostaton\" indicates the very thing that exists in a hypostasis and does not subsist in itself by itself; that is, what has not come together into one from incomplete parts, but from a complete and an incomplete, contemplated in the union by confusion.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":211,"ref":"p211","source":"Ὅτι ἡ μέν ὑπόστασις πρόσωπον ἀφορίζει τοῖς χαρακτηριστικοῖς ἰδιώμασι. Τό δέ ἐνυπόστατον, τό μή ὄν καθ᾿ ἑαυτό συμβεβηκός δηλοῖ· ἀλλ᾿ ὅπερ ἐν ἑτέρῳ ἔχει τό εἶναι, καί οὐκ ἐν ἑαυτῷ θεωρεῖται, οὐδέ ἔστι καθ᾿ ἑαυτό ὑφεστός, ἀλλά περί τήν ὑπόστασιν πάντοτε θεωρούμενον, ὥσπερ αἱ ποιότητες, αἵ τε οὐσιώδεις καί ἐπουσιώδεις καλούμεναι· αἵτινες οὐκ εἰσίν οὐσία, οὐδέ καθ᾿ ἑαυτά, ἀλλ' ἐν τῇ οὐσίᾳ τυγχάνουσι, καί δίχα ταύτης τό εἶναι οὐκ ἔχουσιν. Ὅτι ὥσπερ οὐδ᾿ ἑτέρα τῶν ποιοτήτων, ἤγουν οὐσιωδῶν καί ἐπουσιωδῶν, ἐστίν οὐσία, ἤ πρᾶγμα ὑφεστώς καθ᾿ ἑαυτό, ἀλλ' ἀεί περί τήν οὐσίαν τό χαρακτηριστικόν κέκτηνται, ὥσπερ χρῶμα ἐν σώματι, καί ἐπιστήμη ἐν ψυχῇ· οὐδέ γάρ ἔστιν εἰπεῖν χρῶμα δίχα σώματος φαίνεσθαι, ἤ ἐπιστήμην δίχα ψυχῆς ἐνεργεῖσθαι· ( οὕτως οὐδέ ἐνυπόστατον ἤ ἐνούσιον ἔστιν νοῆσαι δίχα οὐσίας ἤ ὑποστάσεως. Οὐ γάρ καθ᾿ ἑαυτά τήν ὕπαρξιν ἔχουσιν, ἀλλ᾿ ἀεί περί τήν ὑπόστασιν θεωροῦνται.\n\nὍτι τό λέγειν τινάς, μή εἶναί φύσιν ἀνυπόστατον, ὀρθῶς μέν λέγεται παρ᾿ αὐτοῖς, οὐκ ὀρθῶς δέ νενόηται· καί τό μή ἀνυπόστατον εἰς ὑπόστασιν φέρειν, καί οὐχί μᾶλλον ἐν τῇ ὑποστάσει θεωρεῖσθαι.","english":"That the hypostasis distinguishes a person by characteristic properties. But \"enhypostaton\" indicates what is not an accident existing by itself, but what has its being in another and is not contemplated in itself, nor is it self-subsistent, but is always contemplated in relation to the hypostasis, just as the qualities, both those called essential and those called non-essential; these are not substance, nor do they exist by themselves, but they reside in the substance, and without it they do not have being. That just as none of the qualities, that is, essential and non-essential, is a substance or a self-subsistent thing, but they always possess their characteristic in relation to the substance, as color in a body and knowledge in a soul—for it is not possible to say that color appears without a body, or that knowledge operates without a soul—so neither can enhypostaton or enousion be conceived without substance or hypostasis. For they do not have existence by themselves, but are always contemplated in relation to the hypostasis.\n\nThat the saying of some, that there is no nature without hypostasis, is correctly said by them, but is not correctly understood; and that what is not without hypostasis is to be brought into hypostasis, and not rather contemplated in the hypostasis.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":212,"ref":"p212","source":"Ὅτι ὥσπερ εἴ τις λέγει, Οὐκ ἔστι σῶμα ἀσχημάτιστον ἤ ἀχρωμάτιστον, ὀρθῶς μέν λέγει, οὐ μήν ὀρθῶς συνπεραίνει, τό σχῆμα, ἤ τό χρῶμα σῶμα λέγων εἶναι, ἀλλ᾿ οὐχί ἐν σώματι θεωρεῖσθαι· οὕτως εἴ τις ὀνομάσει λέγων· Οὐκ ἔστι φύσις ἀνυπόστατος· εἶτα τό μή ἀνυπόστατον εἰς ὑπόστασιν συνάγων, οὐκ ὀρθῶς διακρίνει. Ὅτι φύσις μέν οὐκ ἄν εἴη ποτέ ἀνυπόστατος, οὐ μήν ἡ φύσις ὑπόστασις· οὐδέ τό μή ἀνυπόστατον εἰς ὑπόστασιν θεωρεῖται. Ἐπειδή οὐδέ ἀντιστρέφει. Ἡ μέν γάρ ὑπόστασις, πάντως καί φύσις· ὥσπερ καί τό σχῆμα, πάντως σῶμα. Οὐκ ἔστι γάρ ὑπόστασιν νοῆσαι ἄνευ φύσεως· οὐ δέ πάλιν σχῆμα ἤ χρῶμα ἄνευ σώματος ἡ δέ φύσις, οὐ πάντως καί ὑπόστασις.\n\nὍτι ἡ μέν φύσις τόν τοῦ εἶναι λόγον κοινόν ἐπέχει, ἡ δέ ὑπόστασις καί τόν τοῦ καθ᾿ ἑαυτό εἶναι.\n\nὍτι ἡ μέν φύσις εἴδους λόγον μόνον ἐπέχει, ἡ δέ ὑπόστασις καί τοῦ τινός ἐστι δηλωτική.\n\nΤΟΥ ΑΓΙΩΤΑΤΟΥ ΚΛΗΜΕΝΤΟΣ ΠΡΕΣΒΥΤΕΡΟΥ ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΕΙΑΣ, ΕΚ ΤΟΥ ΠΕΡΙ ΠΡΟΝΟΙΑΣ Οὐσία ἐστίν ἐπί Θεοῦ. Θεός οὐσία θεία ἐστίν, ἀΐδιόν τι καί ( ἄναρχον, ἀσώματόν τι καί ἀπερίγραφον, καί τῶν ὄντων αἴτιον. Οὐσία ἐστί, τό δι᾿ ὅλου ὑφεστός. Φύσις ἐστίν, ἡ τῶν πραγμάτων ἀλήθεια, ἤ τούτων τό ἐνούσιον. Κατά δέ τούς ἄλλους ἡ τῶν εἰς τί εἶναι παραγενομένων γένεσις· καθ᾿ ἑτέρους δέ, ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ πρόνοια ἐμποιοῦσα τοῖς γινομένοις τό εἶναι, καί τό πῶς εἶναι. ΤΟΥ ΠΑΝΣΟΦΟΥ ΜΑΞΙΜΟΥ ΟΡΟΣ ΥΠΟΣΤΑΣΕΩΣ Ὑπόστασις σύνθετός ἐστιν, οὐσία τις σύνθετος, τῶν καθ᾿ ἕκαστα περιληπτική τῶν ὄντων ἐν τῷ οἰκείῳ ἀτόμῳ πάντων ἰδιωμάτων.","english":"That just as if someone says, \"There is no body without shape or without color,\" he speaks correctly, but does not correctly conclude by saying that shape or color is a body, rather than that they are contemplated in a body; so if someone names it by saying, \"There is no nature without hypostasis,\" and then, gathering \"not without hypostasis\" into hypostasis, he does not distinguish correctly. For a nature could never be without hypostasis, yet nature is not hypostasis; nor is \"not without hypostasis\" contemplated as hypostasis. Since it does not convert. For hypostasis is certainly also nature, just as shape is certainly also body. For it is not possible to conceive hypostasis without nature, nor again shape or color without body; but nature is not certainly also hypostasis.\n\nThat nature holds the principle of being in common, but hypostasis also that of being for itself.\n\nThat nature holds only the principle of species, but hypostasis is indicative also of the particular.\n\nOf the most holy Clement, presbyter of Alexandria, from On Providence: Essence in God. God is divine essence, something eternal and without beginning, something incorporeal and uncircumscribed, and the cause of beings. Essence is what subsists wholly. Nature is the truth of things, or the essentiality of these. But according to others, it is the generation of things that have come to be for some purpose; and according to others, the providence of God, which produces in things that come to be both that they are and how they are. Of the all-wise Maximus, Definition of Hypostasis: Hypostasis is composite, a certain composite essence, comprehensive of the particulars of beings, of all properties in its own individual.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":213,"ref":"p213","source":"Τό γάρ κοινῶς ἐν τοῖς ὑπό τό αὐτό εἶδος ἀτόμοις θεωρούμενον, τό τῆς οὐσίας ἤτοι φύσεως χαρακτηρίζει, προηγουμένως μέν ἐν τοῖς ὑπ᾿ αὐτό ἀτόμοις, γεινικῶς δέ πάντων τό κοινόν, τῶν ὑπό τό σύνθετον εἶδος ἀτόμων.\n\nΤΟΥ ΜΑΚΑΡΙΩΤΑΤΟΥ ΕΥΛΟΓΙΟΥ ΠΑΠΑ ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΕΙΑΣ... Τοῦ μακαριωτάτου Εὐλογίου πάπα Ἀλεξανδρείας, κεφάλαια ἑπτά περί τῶν δύο φύσεων τοῦ Κυρίου καί Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Εἰ μιᾶς φύσεως κατά τήν ἕνωσιν ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστός ἐστιν, εἰπέ, ποίας, τῆς λαβούσης, ἤ τῆς ληφθείσης; καί τί γέγονεν ἡ ἑτέρα; Εἰ δέ ὑπάρχουσιν ἀμφότεραι, πῶς μία, εἰ μή ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων μία ἀπετελέσθη σύνθετος; εἰ δέ τοῦτο, πῶς οὐχ ἑτεροούσιος ὁ Χριστός, τοῦ Πατρός ἀσυνθέτου ὑπάρχοντος; Εἰ οὐδέποτε δύω φύσεων ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν, Ἰησοῦ Χριστός ὡμολόγηται ὤν, πῶς δυνατόν λέγειν μιᾶς μετά τήν ἕνωσιν τόν Χριστόν, ἤ καί ὅλως λέγειν ἕνωσιν; Εἰ δέ ὡμολόγηται ὁ Χριστός δύο φύσεων γεγονέναι, εἰπέ, πότε δύο φύσεων ἦν ὁ Χριστός, καί πότε γέγονεν ἐκ μιᾶς;","english":"For what is contemplated in common in the individuals under the same species characterizes the essence, that is, the nature—primarily in the individuals under it, but generically the common element of all the individuals under the composite species.\n\nOf the most blessed Eulogius, pope of Alexandria... Chapters of the most blessed Eulogius, pope of Alexandria, seven chapters concerning the two natures of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. If our Lord Jesus Christ is of one nature according to the union, tell me, of what kind—of the one that took, or of the one that was taken? And what became of the other? But if both exist, how is He one, unless one composite [nature] was formed from both? And if so, how is Christ not of a different essence, since the Father is incomposite? If our Lord Jesus Christ was never confessed to be of two natures, how is it possible to say that Christ is of one nature after the union, or even to speak of a union at all? But if it is confessed that Christ was of two natures, tell me, when was Christ of two natures, and when did He become of one?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":214,"ref":"p214","source":"Ὁμοούσιος ὁ Θεός Λόγος τῇ παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ ληφθείσῃ σαρκί, ἤ ( ἑτεροούσιος; Ἀλλ᾿ εἰ μέν ὁμοούσιος, πῶς οὐ γέγονε τετράς ἤ Τριάς; Εἰ δέ ἑτεροούσιος ἡ σάρξ τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου, πῶς οὐ δύο φύσεων ὁ Χριστός; Μίαν φύσιν τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένην φασί τινες· οἶμαι δέ καί ὑμᾶς οὕτω λέγειν. Ἀλλ᾿ εἰ μέν μιᾶς οὐσίας τοῦ Θεοῦ καί τῆς σαρκός τοῦτο νοητέον, πῶς οἷόν τε τό κτιστόν τῷ ἀκτίστῳ, καί τό ἀΐδιον τῷ ὑπό χρόνον εἶναι ταυτόν; Εἰ δέ ὡς μιᾶς φύσεως ἐχούσης ἑτέραν, ἤ ἐχομένης ὑφ᾿ ἑτέρας, τίς ὑποίσει μίαν καί μίαν, οὐ δύο, ἀλλά μίαν εἰπεῖν;\n\nΕἰ μία φύσις τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου καί τοῦ Πατρός, πῶς οὐ μία φύσις τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου, καί τοῦ Πατρός καί τῆς σαρκός;\n\nΕἰ κατ᾿ οὐδέν δύο ὁ Θεός Λόγος καί ἡ σάρξ, πῶς οὐ κατά πάντα ἕν ὁ Θεός Λόγος καί ἡ σάρξ; Καί εἰ κατά πάντα ἕν ὁ Θεός Λόγος καί ἡ σάρξ, πῶς οὐκ ἔσται ὁ Λόγος σάρξ, καί ἡ σάρξ Λόγος, καί συναΐδιος τῷ Πατρί καί ὁμοούσιος ὡς ὁ Θεός Λόγος; Εἰ δέ οὐ κατά πάντα ἕν ὁ Θεός Λόγος καί ἡ σάρξ, πῶς οὐ κατά τι δύο ὁ Θεός Λόγος καί ἡ σάρξ;","english":"Is God the Word consubstantial with the flesh he took from himself, or is he of a different essence? But if he is consubstantial, how has there not become a quaternity or a Trinity? And if the flesh of God the Word is of a different essence, how is Christ not of two natures? Some say that there is one nature of God the Word made flesh; and I think that you too say this. But if this is to be understood as one essence of God and of the flesh, how can the created be the same as the uncreated, and the eternal as that which is under time? But if it is as of one nature that has another, or is had by another, who will endure to speak of one and one, not two, but one?\n\nIf there is one nature of God the Word and of the Father, how is there not one nature of God the Word, and of the Father and of the flesh?\n\nIf God the Word and the flesh are not two in any respect, how are God the Word and the flesh not one in all respects? And if God the Word and the flesh are one in all respects, how will the Word not be flesh, and the flesh Word, and coeternal with the Father and consubstantial as God the Word is? But if God the Word and the flesh are not one in all respects, how are God the Word and the flesh not two in some respect?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":215,"ref":"p215","source":"Εἰ ἀδύνατον πλέον ἡνῶσθαι τόν Θεόν Λόγον καί τήν σάρκα, οὗ ἥνωται ὁ Θεός Λόγος καί ὁ Πατήρ, πῶς ἡνωμένος ὁ Θεός Λόγος καί ἡ σάρξ κατ᾿ οὐδέν εἰσί δύο;\n\nΠΕΡΙ ΟΥΣΙΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΦΥΣΕΩΣ ΚΑΙ ΥΠΟΣΤΑΣΕΩΣ Οὐσία ἐστίν ἡ τό κοινόν τε καί ἀπερίγραπτον σημαίνουσα, ὅ ἐστιν ἄνθρωπος. Ὁ γάρ τοῦτο εἰπών, τήν κοινήν φύσιν ἐσήμανεν, ( οὐ περιγράψας τῇ φωνῇ τόν τινα ἄνθρωπον, τόν ἰδίως ὑπό τοῦ ὀνόματος γνωριζόμενον. Φύσις ἐστί, τό ἐξ ἴσου πᾶσι τοῖς ὑπό τό αὐτό εἶδος ἀναγορευομένοις ἐνθεωρούμενον.\n\nὙπόστασίς ἐστιν, ἡ τό κοινόν τε καί ἀπερίγραπτον ἐν τῷ τινι ἰδίως παριστῶσα καί περιγράφουσα, οἷον ὁ δεῖνα.\n\nὙπόστασίς ἐστι, τό μετά τοῦ καθόλου, ἔχον τι καί ἰδικόν. Φύσις ἐστί κατά τούς ἔξω, ἀρχή κινήσεως καί ἡρεμίας. Φύσις ἐστίν, ἡ ποιά τῷ παντί ὕπαρξις.\n\nΦύσις λέγεται, παρά τό πεφυκέναι.\n\nΠρώτη οὐσία ἐστί, πᾶν τό καθ᾿ ἑαυτό ὑφεστώς, οἷον λίθος. Δευτέρα οὐσία αὐξητική, καθό αὔξει καί φθίνει τό φυτόν. Τρίτη δέ οὐσία ἔμψυχος αἰσθητική, τό ζῶον, ὁ ἵππος. Τετάρτη δέ οὐσία ἔμψυχος αἰσθητική λογική, ὁ ἄνθρωπος. Διό καί ἔσχατος γέγονεν, ὡς ἐκ πάντων τήν ψυχήν ἄυλον ἔχων, καί τόν νοῦν Θεοῦ εἰκόνα.","english":"If it is impossible for God the Word and the flesh to be more united than God the Word is united to the Father, how are God the Word and the flesh, being united, in no way two?\n\nCONCERNING ESSENCE AND NATURE AND HYPOSTASIS. Essence is that which signifies the common and uncircumscribed, which is man. For he who has said this signified the common nature, not having circumscribed by the word some particular man, the one known individually by the name. Nature is that which is contemplated equally in all those who are called under the same species.\n\nHypostasis is that which distinctly presents and circumscribes the common and uncircumscribed in the particular, such as a certain individual.\n\nHypostasis is that which, together with the universal, has something also individual. Nature, according to those outside, is a principle of motion and rest. Nature is the qualified existence of the whole.\n\nNature is so called from \"to have grown.\"\n\nFirst essence is every self-subsisting thing, such as a stone. Second essence is the nutritive, insofar as the plant grows and decays. Third essence is the animate sensitive, the animal, the horse. Fourth essence is the animate sensitive rational, man. Therefore he has also become last, as having the soul immaterial from all things, and the mind as an image of God.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":216,"ref":"p216","source":"ΟΤΙ ΑΔΥΝΑΤΟΝ ΕΝ ΘΕΛΗΜΑ ΛΕΓΕΙΝ ΕΠΙ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ ΤΟΥ ΜΑΚΑΡΙΟΥ ΜΑΞΙΜΟΥ.\n\nΤό Χριστός ὄνομα, οὐ φύσεώς ἐστι δηλωτικόν, ἀλλά συνθέτου ὑποστάσεως. Τουτέστιν, ὅλος ὁ Χριστός, καί Κύριός ἐστι καί Θεός, καί παντοδύναμος, ἔχων ἐν ἑαυτῷ καί ἥν δι᾿ ἡμᾶς, καί διά τήν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν ἀδιαιρέτως καί ἀσυγχύτως ἐφόρεσε ( σάρκα παθητήν καί οὐ παντοδύναμον, κτιστήν, ὀρατήν, περιγραπτήν, τήν μή παντοδύναμον φυσικῶς, ἀλλ᾿ ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ παντοδύναμον θέλημα ἔχουσαν. Οὐ γάρ ὑποστάσει ἐστί ὁ Χριστός θνητός καί ἀθάνατος· οὐ δ᾿ αὖ πάλιν ἀδύναμος καί παντοδύναμος ὁρατός καί ἀόρατος, κτιστός καί ἄκτιστος· ἀλλά τό μέν φύσει, τό δέ ὑποστάσει. Καί ἁπλῶς εἶπείν, οὐκ ἐναντιότητι γνώμης, ἀλλ᾿ ἐν ἰδιότητι φύσεως. Εἷς γάρ ἐστίν, ὡς προεῖπον, ὁ Χριστός, ἔχων ἑκατέρα φυσικῶς. Τό γάρ, Οὐχ ὡς ἐγώ θέλω, ἀλλ' ὡς σύ, οὐδέν ἕτερον δείκνυσιν, ἀλλ᾿ ἤ ὅτι σάρκα ἀληθῶς περιβέβληται, φοβουμένην θάνατον. Τό γάρ φοβεῖσθαι θάνατον, καί ἀναδύεσθαι καί ἀγωνιᾷν, ἐκείνης ἐστί. Νῦν μέν οὖν ἐρήμην αὐτήν ἀφίησι καί γυμνήν τῆς οἰκείας ἐνεργείας, ἵνα αὐτῆς δείξας τήν ἀσθένειαν, πιστώσηται αὐτῆς καί τήν φύσιν. Νῦν δέ αὐτήν οὐκ ἀποκρύπτει, ἵνα μάθης, ὅτι ψιλός ἄνθρωπος ἦν. Ὥσπερ γάρ εἰ διά πάντων τά ἀνθρώπινα ἐπεδείκνυτο, τοῦτο ἄν ἐνομίσθη· οὕτως εἰ διά παντός τά τῆς Θεότητος ἐπετέλει, ἠπιστήθη ἄν ὁ τῆς οἰκονομίας λόγος. Διά τοῦτο ποικίλλει καί ἀναμίγνυσι καί τά ῥήματα καί τά πράγματα, ἵνα μήτε τῇ τοῦ Παύλου τοῦ Σαμοσατέως, μήτε τῇ τοῦ Μαρκίωνος καί Μανιχαίου νόσῳ καί μανίᾳ παράσχῃ ὑπόθεσιν.","english":"That it is impossible to speak of one will in Christ, by the blessed Maximus.\n\nThe name Christ is indicative not of a nature but of a composite hypostasis. That is, the whole Christ is both Lord and God and almighty, having in himself both the passible flesh, which he wore for us and for our salvation inseparably and without confusion, and not almighty, created, visible, circumscribed, having a will not naturally almighty but almighty in Christ. For Christ is not mortal and immortal by hypostasis; nor again is he powerless and almighty, visible and invisible, created and uncreated; but the one by nature, the other by hypostasis. And to speak simply, not by opposition of will, but in propriety of nature. For one is Christ, as I said before, having both naturally. For the words, \"Not as I will, but as you,\" show nothing other than that he has truly put on flesh that fears death. For to fear death, and to shrink back and be in agony, belongs to that flesh. Now, then, he leaves it desolate and stripped of its own operation, in order that, having shown its weakness, he may also confirm its nature. But now he does not hide it, so that you may learn that he was a mere man. For just as, if he had displayed human things through all, this would have been supposed; so if he had accomplished the things of the Godhead through all, the account of the economy would have been disbelieved. For this reason he varies and mingles both the words and the deeds, so that he may give no occasion to the disease and madness of Paul of Samosata, nor to that of Marcion and Manichaeus.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":217,"ref":"p217","source":"Δια τοῦτο καί προλέγει τό ἐσόμενον ὡς Θεός, καί ἀναδύεται πάλιν ὡς ἄνθρωπος. Ὁ ἐπί τοῦ ἑνός καί μόνου Χριστοῦ δύο θελήματα εἰπεῖν ἤ ὁμολογεῖν παραιτούμενος, τοῦτο τό ἕν θέλημα, ὅπερ ἐπ᾿ αὐτοῦ λέγεις, ἄναρχον καί συνάναρχον καί συναΐδιον τῷ Πατρί καί τῷ ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι, ἤ ποσότητι θεϊκόν ὅλον, ἁπλοῦν τε καί ἀσύνθετον, ὡς τῆς θείας ὑπάρχον οὐσίας, ἤ διά τήν ἐνανθρώπησιν ἀλλοῖόν τί σοι δοκεῖ; ὁποῖον δέ σήμανον, καί τί τούτου τοῦ θελήματος τό ὄνομα, φῆσαι ἡμῖν. Τό γάρ πρό τῆς ἀνανθρωπήσεως, τουτέστι τοῦ θείου θελήματος ὄνομα, ἐγώ σημαίνω. Ὥσπερ γάρ ἡ θεία φύσις ἡ τρισυπόστατος, ἄναρχος, ἄκτιστος, ἀπερινόητος, ἁπλῆ, καί\n\nἀσύνθετος ὁλότητι ὑπάρχει· οὕτω καί τό αὐτῆς θέλημα. Ἰδού οὖν τό πρό τῆς ἐναθρωπήσεως εἶπον· καί πάντες μοι συμφθέγξονται, ( ὡς τήν ἀλήθειαν εἰρηκότι. Καί σύ αὐτός, εἰ θέλεις, καί οὐ θέλεις. Εἰπέ οὖν ἡμῖν τό μετά τήν ἐνανθρώπησιν, ποῖον ὄνομα ἔχει. Ζήτησον Παλαιάν καί Καινήν Διαθήκην ὅλην. Εἰπέ τούτου σύ τοῦ ἐφευρισκομένου ἐπί Χριστοῦ ἑνός θελήματος τό ὄνομα. Ζήτησον, καί μή ὀκνήσῃς. Ἀλλ᾿ ἄρα ἐπειδή τό θεῖον θέλημα, θεῖον λέγεται, καί τό ἀνθρώπινον θέλημα, ἀνθρώπινον λέγεται, θεανδρικόν θέλημα εἴποις τόν Χριστόν ἔχειν; οὐ νομίζω. Ἐπειδή ὁ Πατήρ καί τό ἅγιον Πνεῦμα θεανδρικόν οὐκ ἔχει θέλημα. Ἀλλ᾿ ἄρα σύνθετον τολμήσῃς εἰπεῖν; Ὁμοίως πάλιν καινόν τῇ Θεότητι τοῦτο. Ἀλλ᾿ ἄρα φυσικόν εἴπῃς; συγχύσεις καί σύ κατά Σευῆρον· δύο γάρ φύσεις ἤ φυσικά θελήματα, μία φύσις, ἤ ἕν φυσικόν θέλημα γενέσθαι ἄνευ συγχύσεως ἀδύνατον. Ἀλλ᾿ ὑποστατικόν;","english":"For this reason he also foretells what is to come as God, and again withdraws as man. He who declines to say or confess two wills in the one and only Christ—is this one will that you speak of in him unoriginate and co-unoriginate and co-eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit, or is it divine in its entirety by quantity, simple and incomposite, as belonging to the divine essence, or does it seem to you to be something different because of the incarnation? And signify of what sort it is, and tell us what is the name of this will. For the name that belongs to it before the becoming-man, that is, of the divine will, I myself signify. For just as the divine nature, which is in three hypostases, is unoriginate, uncreated, incomprehensible, simple, and incomposite in its entirety, so also is its will. Behold, then, I have stated what belongs to it before the incarnation; and all will agree with me, as one who has spoken the truth. And you yourself, if you wish—and you do not wish. Tell us, then, what name it has after the becoming-man. Search the whole Old and New Testament. Tell us the name of this one will that you invent in Christ. Search, and do not hesitate. But then, since the divine will is called divine, and the human will is called human, would you say that Christ has a \"God-man\" will? I do not think so. Since the Father and the Holy Spirit do not have a \"God-man\" will. But then would you dare to call it composite? Again, this is equally novel for the Godhead. But then would you call it natural? You too will fall into confusion, in accordance with Severus; for two natures or natural wills to become one nature or one natural will without confusion is impossible. But a hypostatic one?","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":218,"ref":"p218","source":"καί πάλιν ἀλλοτριώσεις τόν Υἱόν τοῦ Πατρός, καί τρεῖς θελήσεις εἰσάγων φανήσῃ μή συμβαινούσας ἀλλήλαις, ὥσπερ καί τάς ὑποστάσεις. Ἐάν εἴπῃς τήν ὡς ἑνός μίαν θέλησιν καί ἐνέργειαν, ἀναγκασθήσῃ τήν ὡς ἑνός τοῦ Πατρός, καί τήν ὡς ἑνός τοῦ Πνεύματος εἰπεῖν, κἄν θέλῃς καί μή θέλῃς θέλησιν καί ἐνέργειαν, καί εὑρεθήσεται εἰς πολυθεΐαν ἐκπίπτων ὁ λόγος. Ἐάν καί σχετική εἴπῃς· Νεστορίου εἰσάγεις προσωπικήν διαίρεσιν. Εἰ δέ καί παρά φύσιν εἴπῃς, φθείρεις τήν ὕπαρξιν τοῦ θέλοντος· φθορά γάρ τῇ φύσει τό παρά φύσιν ἐστί, καθώς οἱ Πατέρες ὡρίσαντο. Ἀλλ᾿ ἄρα τήν μονάδα πάλιν ἀνασπαράξεις, καί εἰς ψήφους ἡμᾶς κινήσεις εἰς διμοιρότριτα τοῦ παρά σοῦ ἑνός θελήματος, ὅπως μαθεῖν εὕρωμεν κατά πόσον ἐστί θεῖον, καί κατά πόσον ἀνθρώπινον. Ὁμοίως καί κατά πόσον ἄκτιστον, καί κατά πόσον κτιστόν, καί ἁπλῶς ὡς ἔστι σοι φίλον εἰπεῖν. Εἰπέ ἡμῖν τό ὄνομα τοῦ θελήματος, τοῦ παρά σοῦ πρεσβευομένου ἐπί Χριστοῦ, σύνταξον αὐτό μετά τῶν ἀνωνύμων Ψαλμῶν, ὅπως κἄν ἐκεῖ χώραν καί τόπον εὕρῃ. Ἐπειδή, λογιώτατε, ἡμεῖς ἀνώνυμον τί ποτε ( ὁμολογῆσαι οὐ δυνάμεθα. Ὡς εἰκός δέ, μέχρι τοῦ νῦν τινί τῶν γηγενῶν οὐ πεφανέρωται. Ἐγχάραξον οὖν ὁριστικῶς ἐκ πατρικῶν διδάσκαλιῶν, καί τήν τοῦ ὀνόματος δήλωσιν διατύπωσον ἡμῖν. Ἅ γάρ ἀριθμοῦμεν ἡμεῖς, ταῦτα καί ὁμολογοῦμεν, κατά τόν μέγαν καί θεοφάντορα Βασίλειον. Ἐγώ λέγω, ὅτι ἡ ζωοποιός σάρξ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἐν αὐτῷ ἔσχε τῷ Θεῷ Λόγῳ πάντα τά ὑπερφυᾶ τῆς ἰδίας φύσεως, εἰς ἕν πρόσωπον καί μίαν ὑπόστασιν τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου, τάς δύο φύσεις συντελούσας.","english":"And again you will alienate the Son from the Father, and by introducing three wills you will appear to bring in wills that do not agree with one another, just as you do with the hypostases. If you speak of the one will and energy as of one being, you will be compelled to speak of the will and energy as of one being of the Father, and as of one being of the Spirit, whether you wish it or not, and the argument will be found to fall into polytheism. If you call it relational, you introduce Nestorius's personal division. But if you call it contrary to nature, you destroy the existence of the one who wills; for what is contrary to nature is corruption to nature, as the Fathers defined it. But then you will tear apart the monad again, and you will move us to counters, to two-thirds of your one will, so that we may find a way to learn how much of it is divine and how much human. Likewise also how much uncreated and how much created, and simply as it pleases you to say. Tell us the name of the will that you advocate in Christ; set it alongside the untitled Psalms, so that it may find a place and a location there too. Since, most learned sir, we are unable to confess something that is unnamed. And as is likely, until now it has not been made manifest to any of those born of earth. Therefore inscribe it definitively from the teachings of the Fathers, and set out for us the declaration of the name. For what we count, these we also confess, according to the great and God-inspired Basil. I say that the life-giving flesh of the Son of God had in the very God the Word himself all the transcendent properties of its own nature, with the two natures concurring into one person and one hypostasis of God the Word.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":219,"ref":"p219","source":"Ἕνα γάρ Υἱόν, ὡς ἕνα τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος συμπροσκυνοῦμεν Πατρί καί ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι, ὡς πρό τῶν αἰώνων, νῦν καί εἰς τούς σύμπαντας εἰῶνας, καί μετά τούς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων. Ἀμήν. ΚΕΦΑΛΑΙΑ Ι' ΠΕΡΙ ΤΩΝ ΔΥΟ ΘΕΛΗΜΑΤΩΝ ΤΟΥ ΚΥΡΙΟΥ... Κεφάλαια ι´ περί τῶν δύο θελημάτων τοῦ Κυρίου καί Θεοῦ καί Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Ἐγράφη δέ πρός ὀρθοδόξους.\n\n( α´. Εἰ ὡσπερ μιᾶς ὑποστάσεώς ἐστιν ὁ Λόγος μετά τῆς σαρκός, οὕτω καί ἕν θέλημα κατά τινας, εὐλογημένοι ἀνάγκη ὥσπερ τῇ ὑποστάσει, οὕτω καί τῷ θελήματι καί ἡμῶν καί τοῦ Πατρός διαφέρειν. Καί πῶς ἡ τῆς φύσεως πρός τόν Πατέρα ταυτότης, τῇ διαφορᾷ τῶν θελημάτων δειχθήσεται. β´. Οἷς ὁ Λόγος τό ἕν ἔχει μετά τῆς σαρκός, τούτοις τοῦ Πατρός χωρίζεται, καί οἷς τό ἕν ἔχει μετά τοῦ Πατρός, τούτοις τῆς σαρκός διακρίνεται. Εἰ δέ ἕν θέλημα μετά τῆς σαρκός κατά τινας, εὐλογημένοι, ἄρα τῷ θελήματι τοῦ Πατρός ἐχωρίσθη. γ´. Εἰ οἷς ἥνωται ὁ Λόγος τῷ Πατρί καί τῷ Πνεύματι, τούτοις τῆς σαρκός διαφέρειν κρίνεται· ἥνωται δέ κατά τήν κοινήν τῶν Χριστιανῶν δόξαν τῷ θελήματι Πατρί καί Πνεύματι, ἄρα θελήματι τῆς σαρκός διαφέρει τοῦ Πατρός καί Πνεύματος·","english":"For we worship one Son, as one of the holy Trinity, together with the Father and the holy Spirit, as before the ages, now and unto all the ages, and after the ages of ages. Amen. CHAPTERS 10 CONCERNING THE TWO WILLS OF THE LORD... Chapters 10 concerning the two wills of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ. Written to the orthodox.\n\n(1. If, as the Word is one hypostasis with the flesh, so also there is one will according to some, blessed ones, it must be that just as in hypostasis, so also in will he differs both from us and from the Father. And how will the sameness of nature with the Father be shown by the difference of wills? 2. Those things in which the Word has unity with the flesh, by these he is separated from the Father; and those things in which he has unity with the Father, by these he is distinguished from the flesh. But if there is one will with the flesh according to some, blessed ones, then he has been separated from the Father in will. 3. If, in those things in which the Word is united to the Father and the Spirit, he is judged to differ from the flesh—but he is united in will to the Father and the Spirit according to the common opinion of Christians—then in the will of the flesh he differs from the Father and the Spirit.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":220,"ref":"p220","source":"ὡς αὐτοί ἑαυτοῖς οἱ Πατέρες καί ἡμῖν διωρίσαντο, καί ἡμεῖς, εὐλογημένοι, φυλάσσειν σπουδάζομεν.\n\nδ´. Τοῦτο τό ἕν θέλημα, ἤ φυσικόν ἤ ὑποστατικόν ἀνάγκη αὐτούς, εὐλογημένοι, λέγειν· εἴπερ ἡ τῶν ὄντων σύστασις ἐν οὐσίᾳ καί ὑποστάσει θεωρεῖται. Τί γάρ ἄν καί εἴη παρά ταῦτα ( ἕτερον λέγειν, [οἷς οὐ ἐξῆν]; Ἀλλ᾿ εἰ μέν φυσικόν αὐτό εἴπωσι, καί μίαν φύσιν λέξουσιν τοῦ Λόγου καί τῆς σαρκός, καί μή θέλοντες. Εἰ δέ ὑποστατικόν, ἀναγκασθήσονται διά τάς ἁγίας τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις, τρία λέγειν καί τά θελήματα, εἴπερ ἑαυτοῖς στοιχεῖν διέγνωσαν. ε´. Εἰ τό τῆς φύσεως τοῦ Λόγου θέλημα, δημιουργικόν πάντων τῶν γεγονότων· τοῦτο δέ κατ᾿ αὐτούς, εὐλογημένοι, καί τῆς σαρκός τυγχάνει θέλημα, δημιουργός ἔσται προδήλως τῶν γεγονότων καί ἡ τοῦ Λόγου σάρξ. Καί ἀνῄρηται οὕτω γε ἡ κοινή δόξα τῶν Χριστιανῶν, τό κτιστήν αὐτήν εἶναι. Πῶς γάρ κτίσμα τό ἐκ μή ὄντων κτίζον, καί τό ἐξαίρετον τῆς θείας φύσεως ἰδίωμα ἔχον. ´. Εἰ διά τό ἕν θέλημα Πατρός καί Υἱοῦ καί ἁγίου Πνεύματος, καί μία φύσις αὐτῶν ἐδείχθη ὑπό τῶν θεολήπτων Πατέρων· ἕν δέ θέλημα κατ᾿ αὐτούς, εὐλογημένοι, τοῦ Λόγου καί τῆς σαρκός, καί μία φύσις ἔσται γε οὕτω καί τοῦ Λόγου καί τῆς σαρκός. Εἰ δέ ἐπί τῆς σαρκός καί τοῦ Λόγου, τό ἕν θέλημα τήν κίαν φύσιν οὐ συνάγει, οὐδέ ἐπί Πατρός καί Υἱοῦ καί ἁγίου Πνεύματος, τό ἕν θέλημα τήν μίαν φύσιν συνάξει, καί κενή ἡ πίστις ἡμῶν, κενόν τό τῶν Πατέρων κήρυγμα. ζ´. Τοῦτο τό ἕν θέλημα, ἤ προαιρετικόν τυγχάνει, ἤ φυσικόν. Ἀλλ᾿ εἰ μέν φυσικόν καί μία φύσις ἔσται, ὡς καί ἤδη ἐδείχθη, τῆς σαρκός καί τοῦ Λόγου·","english":"As the Fathers themselves defined for themselves and for us, and we, blessed ones, strive to keep.\n\n4. This one will, they must, blessed ones, call either natural or hypostatic, since the constitution of beings is contemplated in essence and hypostasis. For what else could there be besides these (to say something else, [which was not permitted to them]? But if they call it natural, they will say there is one nature of the Word and of the flesh, even unwillingly. But if hypostatic, they will be compelled, because of the holy three hypostases, to say that the wills are also three, if indeed they have determined to be consistent with themselves. 5. If the will of the nature of the Word is creative of all things that have come to be; and this, according to them, blessed ones, is also the will of the flesh, then the flesh of the Word will plainly be a creator of things that have come to be. And thus the common opinion of Christians, that it is created, is destroyed. For how can a creature be that which creates from non-being, and has the distinctive property of the divine nature? 6. If, because of the one will of the Father and the Son and the holy Spirit, their one nature was also shown by the God-inspired Fathers; and there is one will, according to them, blessed ones, of the Word and of the flesh, then there will thus also be one nature of the Word and of the flesh. But if in the case of the flesh and the Word the one will does not bring together the one nature, neither in the case of the Father and the Son and the holy Spirit will the one will bring together the one nature, and our faith is empty, and the proclamation of the Fathers is empty. 7. This one will is either a matter of choice or natural. But if it is natural, there will also be one nature, as has already been shown, of the flesh and of the Word.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."}]},{"i":221,"ref":"p221","source":"εἰ δέ προαιρετικόν, ὥσπερ τῆ ὑποστάσει, οὕτω καί τῇ γνώμῃ χωρισθήσεται Πατρός καί Πνεύματος ὁ Χριστός.\n\nη´. Εἰ κατά τόν μέγαν Κύριλλον, τά τῆς αὐτῆς ὄντα οὐσίας ( καί φύσεως, καί τοῦ αὐτοῦ τυγχάνουσι θελήματος, πῶς τά τῆς αὐτῆς μή ὄντα φύσεως, τοῦ αὐτοῦ εἶναι θελήματος δύνανται;\n\nθ´. Εἰ τό μή θέλειν ἀποθανεῖν, κατά τό χρυσοῦν στόμα Ἰωάννου, φυσικόν ἔχει ἡ σάρξ· μετά πάντων δέ τῶν φυσικῶς προσόντων αὐτῇ ἰδιωμάτων ὁ Λόγος ἥνωσεν αὐτήν ἑαυτῷ ἀτρέπτως καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν, πῶς τά φυσικῶς προσόντα αὐτῇ ἀρνούμενοι, οὐχί καί τήν φύσιν τοῖς φυσικοῖς ἰδιώμασι συναρνοῦνται; ι´. Εἰ τῷ θελήματι καί πρόσωπον συνεισάγεσθαι λέγουσι, καί διά τοῦτο τόν οὐκ ὄντα φοβούμενοι φόβον, δύο θελήματα ἐπί Χριστοῦ λέγειν οὐκ ἀνέχονται, ἵνα μή καί δύο πρόσωπα ἐξ ἀνάγκης αὐτοῖς συνεισαχθῇ, βιασθήσονται, εἴπερ εὐσυνάρτητον τόν τοῦ οἰκείου δόγματος λόγον δεῖξαι βούλονται, ἤ διά τό ἕν θέλημα τῆς Θεότητος, καί ἕν λέγειν πρόσωπον· ἐπειδή τῷ θελήματι κατ᾿ αὐτούς ἐξ ἀνάγκης καί πρόσωπον ἕπεται· ἤ διά τά τρία πρόσωπα, καί τρία θελήματα, Σαβελλίου τέ τήν συναίρεσιν καί Ἀρείου τήν διαίρεσιν εἰσάγειν. Ἐπειδή δέ, εὐλογημένοι, ἡ ὁμωνυμία αἴτιον πολλάκις πλάνης γίνεται, τοῦ ἀκροατοῦ πρός ἑτέραν σημασίαν μεταβαίνοντος, παρ᾿ ἥν ὑπέφηνεν ὁ λόγος, παρακαλῶ τήν ὑμετέραν ἐν Χριστῷ σύνεσιν, διά τήν εὐκρινῆ καί ἀσύγχυτον τῶν σημαινομένων πραγμάτων δήλωσιν, σαφηνίσαι ὑμῖν πρό πάντων, εἰ ὅλως ἐστί θέλημα, καί ἐπί ποίων σημαινομένων ἤγουν πραγμάτων φέρεται τό τοιοῦτον ὄνομα·","english":"But if it is a matter of choice, then Christ will be separated from the Father and the Spirit by his choice, just as he is by his hypostasis. 8. If, according to the great Cyril, things that belong to the same essence and nature also possess the same will, how can things that do not belong to the same nature be of the same will? 9. If, according to John the Golden Mouth, not willing to die is natural to the flesh, and the Word united it to himself in a hypostasis without change together with all the properties that naturally belong to it, how is it that those who deny the properties that naturally belong to it do not also deny the nature together with its natural properties? 10. If they say that a person is introduced together with the will, and for this reason, fearing a fear that does not exist, they cannot endure to speak of two wills in Christ, lest two persons be necessarily introduced for them as well, they will be compelled, if indeed they wish to show the argument of their own doctrine to be coherent, either because of the one will of the Godhead to speak also of one person—since, according to them, a person necessarily follows the will—or because of the three persons to speak also of three wills, and so to introduce both the confusion of Sabellius and the division of Arius. But since, blessed ones, homonymy often becomes a cause of error, when the hearer passes over to a different meaning than the one the argument indicated, I urge your understanding in Christ, for the sake of a clear and unconfused demonstration of the things signified, to clarify for yourselves before all else whether will exists at all, and in which meanings, that is, things, such a name is applied.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":222,"ref":"p222","source":"καί εἰ τά μέν τῶν ὑπ'αὐτό προσαγορευομένων πραγμάτων σύνθετά εἰσι, τά δέ ἁπλᾶ· καί ποῖα δέ τά σύνθετα. Καί εἰ ἄρα τά σύνθετα, ὁμόχρονα ἔχουσι τά μέρη, ἤ οὐχ ὁμόχρονα· καί ποῖα ποίων προγενέστερα· ποῖα δέ ποίων μεταγενέστερα. Καί τίς ὁ ἀποδεικτικός ἑκάστου μέρους καί ὁριστικός ( λόγος, ἵνα ἔχωμεν νοούμενον, τό ἕν θέλημα δέχεσθαι. Οὐ γάρ περί φωνῶν ὁ λόγος τοῖς Πατράσιν, ἀλλά περί πραγμάτων. Ὅθεν φωνάς μέν παραχωροῦντας τούς Πατέρας εὕρομεν· ἐννοίας δέ, οὐδαμῶς. Πρός ἐπί τούτοις δέ, τί προαίρεσις, καί τί γνώμη· τί δέ γνωμικόν\n\nθέλημα, καί τί προαιρετικόν. Ταῦτα γάρ πάντα συνδραμεῖν θέλουσι πρός τήν τῶν θελημάτων παράστασιν. Καί ὁ μή ταῦτα γινώσκων μετά ἀκριβείας, καί περί θελημάτων διηγούμενος, τυφλός μυωπάζων, μή γινώσκων μήτε τί λαλεῖ, μήτε περί τίνος διαβεβαιοῦται.\n\nΤΟΥ ΑΥΤΟΥ, Ἐκ τῶν ἐρωτηθέντων αὐτῷ παρά Θεοδώρου μοναχοῦ. Φύσις ἐστί, κατά μέν φιλοσόφους, ἀρχή κινήσεως καί ἡρεμίας· κατά δέ τούς Πατέρας, εἶδος κατά πολλῶν καί διαφερόντων τῷ ἀριθμῷ, ἐν τῷ ὁποῖον τί ἐστι, κατηγορούμενον.","english":"And if some of the things that are spoken of as being under him are composite, and others simple; and of what sort the composite things are. And whether the composite things have their parts contemporaneous or not contemporaneous; and which are earlier than which, and which are later than which. And what is the demonstrative and definitive account of each part, so that we may have it understood and accept the one will. For the argument of the Fathers is not about words, but about things. Hence we find the Fathers yielding on words, but by no means on concepts. In addition to these things, what is choice, and what is opinion; and what is opinionative will, and what is choice-based will. For all these things must concur for the presentation of the wills. And he who does not know these things with precision, and yet discourses about wills, is blind and nearsighted, not knowing either what he says or about what he makes confident assertion.\n\nOf the same author, from the questions put to him by Theodore the monk. Nature is, according to the philosophers, a principle of motion and rest; but according to the Fathers, a species predicated of many things that differ in number, in respect of what sort of thing it is.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":223,"ref":"p223","source":"Οὐσία ἐστί, κατά μέν φιλοσόφους, αὐθυπόστατον πρᾶγμα μή δεόμενον ἑτέρου πρός σύστασιν· κατά δέ τούς Πατέρας, ἡ κατά πολλῶν καί διαφερόντων ταῖς ὑποστάσεσιν ὀντότης φυσική.\n\nἌτομόν ἐστι, κατά μέν φιλοσόφους ἰδιωμάτων συναγωγή, ὧν τό ἄθροισμα ἐπ' ἄλλου θεωρεῖσθαι οὐ δύναται· κατά δέ τούς Πατέρας, οἷον Πέτρος ἤ Παῦλος, ἤ τις ἕτερος τῶν καθ᾿ αὑτά ἰδίοις προσωπικοῖς ἰδιώμασι τῶν ἄλλων ἀνθρώπων ἀφοριζόμενος.\n\nὙπόστασις δέ ἐστιν, κατά μέν φιλοσόφους, οὐσία μετά ἰδιωμάτων· κατά δέ τούς Πατέρας, ὅ καθ᾿ ἕκαστον ἄνθρωπος, προσωπικῶς τῶν ἄλλων ἀνθρώπων ἀφοριζόμενος.\n\nΤοῦ ἁγίου Εἰρηναίου ἐπισκόπου Λουγδούνων, μαθητοῦ τοῦ ἁγίου Ἰωάννου τοῦ ἀποστόλου καί εὐαγγελιστοῦ, ἐκ τῶν πρός Δημάτριον διάκονον Βιαίνης περί πίστεως λόγων· οὗ ἡ ἀρχή, \"Ζητῶν τόν Θεόν, ἄκουε τοῦ Δαυΐδ λέγοντος». ( Θέλησις καί ἐνέργεια Θεοῦ ἐστιν, ἡ παντός χρόνου καί τόπου καί αἰῶνος, καί πάσης φύσεως ποιοτική τε καί προνοητική αἰτία. Θέλησίς ἐστι τῆς νοερᾶς ψυχῆς, ὁ ἐφ᾿ ἡμῖν λόγος, ὡς αὐτεξούσιος αὐτῆς ὑπάρχουσα δύναμις. Θέλησις ἐστι νοῦς ὀρεκτικός καί διανοητική ὄρεξις πρός τό θεληθέν ἐπινεύουσα.. Κλήμεντος τοῦ Στρωματέως ἐκ τοῦ Περί Προνοίας λόγου. Θέλησις ἐστι φυσική δύναμις, τοῦ κατά φύσιν ὄντος ὀρεκτική. Θέλησίς ἐστι φυσική ὄρεξις, τῇ τοῦ λογικοῦ φύσει κατάλληλος. Θέλησίς ἐστι φυσική, αὐτοκράτορος νοῦ αὐτεξούσιος κίνησις· ἤ νοῦς περί τι αὐθαιρέτως κινούμενος. Αὐτεξουσιότης ἐστί νοῦς κατά φύσιν κινούμενονς ἤ νοερά τῆς ψυχῆς κίνησις αὐτοκρατής.","english":"Substance is, according to the philosophers, a self-subsistent thing not needing another for its constitution; but according to the Fathers, the natural entity that is predicated of many and different things in their hypostases.\n\nAn individual is, according to the philosophers, a collection of properties whose aggregate cannot be observed in another; but according to the Fathers, for example Peter or Paul, or some other of those who are marked off from other men by their own personal properties.\n\nA hypostasis is, according to the philosophers, a substance with properties; but according to the Fathers, the particular man, marked off personally from other men.\n\nFrom the holy Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, disciple of the holy John the apostle and evangelist, from his discourses On Faith addressed to Demetrius the deacon of Vienne, whose beginning is, \"Seeking God, hear David saying.\" Will and energy of God is the productive and providential cause of every time and place and age, and of every nature. Will is, of the rational soul, the reason that is in our power, as being a self-determining power of it. Will is a desiring mind and a discursive desire assenting to what has been willed. Of Clement of the Stromateis, from the discourse On Providence. Will is a natural power, desiring what exists according to nature. Will is a natural desire, suited to the nature of the rational. Will is a natural, self-sovereign motion of the mind that is in its own power; or a mind moved of its own choice toward something. Self-determination is a mind moved according to nature, or a self-sovereign motion of the soul that is intelligent.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":224,"ref":"p224","source":"Τοῦ ἁγίου Ἀλεξάνδρου πάπα Ἀλεξανδρείας, ἐκ τῆς πρός Αἴγλωνα ἐπίσκοπον Κυνοπόλεως κατά Ἀρειανῶν Ἐπιστολῆς. Θέλησις ἐστι φυσική, παντός νοεροῦ αὐθαίρετος δύναμις, ὡς μηδέ κατά τήν οὐσίαν ἀκούσιον ἔχοντος.\n\nΤοῦ ἁγίου Εὐσταθίου Πατριάρχου Ἀντιοχείας, ἐκ τοῦ Περί ψυχῆς λόγου. Θέλησίς ἐστι φυσική λόγου τοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν κίνησις. Θέλησίς ἐστιν ὄρεξις λογική τε καί ζωτική.\n\n( Τοῦ ἁγίου Ἀθανασίου πάπα Ἀλεξανδρείας, ἐκ τοῦ Περί πίστεως μείζονος λόγου.\n\nΘέλησίς ἐστι ψυχῆς νοερᾶς αὐτεξούσιος κίνησις. Πρῶτον ἰδίωμα τῆς νοερᾶς ψυχῆς, καί τῆς οὐσίας αὐτῆς δηλωτικόν ἐστιν ἡ θέλησις. Νοῦς Κυρίου οὔπω Κύριος, ἀλλ᾿ ἤ θέλησις, ἤ βούλησις ἤ ἐνέργεια.\n\nΤοῦ ἁγίου Γρηγορίου ἐπισκόπου Νύσσης, ἐκ τοῦ Κατά Ἀπολιναρίου λόγου. Θέλησίς ἐστι νοῦς τις, καί περί τι διάθεσις. Αὐτεξουσιότης ἐστίν, αὐτοκρατής τοῦ θελήματος κίνησις. Θέλησις ἐστί τῆς νοερᾶς ψυχῆς, τό κατ᾿ ἐξουσίαν αὐτήν αἱρεῖσθαι τῶν κατά γνώμην, διά τῆς προαιρετικῆς θελήσεως. Θέλησίς ἐστι πάσης λογικῆς φύσεως, ἡ κατά φύσιν αὐτῆς ζωή. Ἡ στέρησις τῆς οὕτω ζωῆς, οὐσίας ἐστίν ἀναίρεσις.","english":"Of Saint Alexander, pope of Alexandria, from his Letter to Aeglon, bishop of Cynopolis, Against the Arians. Will is a natural power of every intelligent being, self-determining, so that not even according to substance does it possess anything involuntary.\n\nOf Saint Eustathius, Patriarch of Antioch, from his Discourse On the Soul. Will is the natural movement of the reason within us. Will is a rational and living appetite.\n\nOf Saint Athanasius, pope of Alexandria, from his Greater Discourse On the Faith. Will is the self-governing movement of the intelligent soul. The first property of the intelligent soul, and that which reveals its substance, is the will. The mind of the Lord is not yet Lord, but either will, or volition, or operation.\n\nOf Saint Gregory, bishop of Nyssa, from his Discourse Against Apollinaris. Will is a certain mind, and a disposition concerning something. Self-determination is the sovereign movement of the will. Will is the power of the intelligent soul to choose, by its own authority, among things according to judgment, through the deliberative will. Will is, of every rational nature, its life according to nature. The privation of life so understood is the destruction of substance.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":225,"ref":"p225","source":"Τοῦ ἁγίου Διαδόχου ἐπισκόπου Φωτικῆς, ἐκ τοῦ ἕκτου κεφαλαίου τῶν Ἀσκητικῶν.\n\nΑὐτεξουσιότης ἐστί, ψυχῆς λογικῆς θέλησις ἀκωλύτως γινομένη πρός ὅπερ βούληται.\n\nΤοῦ ἁγίου Ἀναστασίου πατριάρχου Ἀντιοχείας. Θέλημα ἐστι, λόγος ἐν καρδίᾳ στρεφόμενος, δι᾿ ἐνεργείας καί μόνον φανερωθῆναι δυνάμενος. Θέλημά ἐστι βούλησις ψυχῆς [εἰ μή] οἴκοθεν ἀνακοπῆναι μή δυναμένη.\n\nΤοῦ ἁγίου Νεμεσίου ἐπισκόπου Ἐμέσης.\n\nΘέλησίς ἐστιν ὄρεξις βουλευτική τῶν ἐφ᾿ ἡμῖν καί δι᾿ ἡμῶν γίνεσθαι δυναμένων, καί ἄδηλον ἐχόντων τό τέλος.\n\n( Τοῦ αὐτοῦ· Κατά τί λογικός ὁ ἄνθρωπος, καί τί ἐνδιάθετος λόγος, καί τί προφορικός;\n\nἘνδιάθετος λόγος ἐστί τό κίνημα τῆς ψυχῆς, τό ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ λογιστικῷ γινόμενον, ἄνευ τινός ἐκφωνήσεως· ὅθεν πολλάκις σιωπῶντες, λόγον ὅλον παρ᾿ ἑαυτοῖς διεξερχόμεθα, καί ἐν τοῖς ὀνείροις διαλεγόμεθα. Κατά τοῦτο δέ μάλιστα λογικοί πάντες ἐσμέν· ἀλλ᾿ οὐχ ὡς κατά τόν προφορικόν λόγον· Καί γάρ οἱ ἐκ γενετῆς κωφοί, καί οἱ διά πάθος, ἤ καί νόσημα τήν φωνήν ἀποβαλόντες, οὐδέ ἦττον λογικοί εἰσίν. Ὁ δέ προφορικός λόγος ἐν τῇ φωνῇ καί ἐν ταῖς διαλέκτοις τήν ἐνέργειαν ἔχει.","english":"Of Saint Diadochus, bishop of Photice, from the sixth chapter of the Ascetic Works.\n\nSelf-determination is the will of a rational soul, proceeding unimpeded toward whatever it wishes.\n\nOf Saint Anastasius, patriarch of Antioch. Will is a word turned over in the heart, able to be made manifest through action alone. Will is the volition of the soul, which cannot be checked from within.\n\nOf Saint Nemesius, bishop of Emesa.\n\nWill is a deliberative desire for things that are in our power and can come to be through us, and that have an unclear outcome.\n\n(Of the same. In what respect is man rational, and what is the inner word, and what is the spoken word?\n\nThe inner word is the movement of the soul that takes place in the reasoning faculty itself, without any utterance; hence often, though silent, we run through an entire discourse within ourselves, and in dreams we converse. And it is chiefly in this respect that we are all rational—but not as by the spoken word; for those deaf from birth, and those who have lost their voice through suffering or disease, are nonetheless rational. The spoken word has its activity in the voice and in the dialects.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[{"kind":"lacuna","severity":"caution","text":"The source is fragmentary here: the edition marks a break or an editorial bracket, and the English carries across it. Treat the bridge as supplied, not translated."}]},{"i":226,"ref":"p226","source":"Τοῦ ἁγίου Μαξίμου, ἐκ τῶν περί θελημάτων αὐτοῦ συλλογισμῶν· τί φυσικόν θέλημα, καί τί γνωμικόν;\n\nΘέλημά ἐστι φυσικόν, ἡ ἁπλῶς καί ὡσαύτως ἔχουσα τῶν κατά φύσιν συστατικῶν ὁρμή τε καί ἔφεσις. Θέλημα δέ γνωμικόν, ἡ τῶν καθ᾿ ἡδονήν συναγερτικῶν ποιά καί διάφορος κίνησίς τε καί ὄρεξις. Τοῦ αὐτοῦ, ἐκ τῆς πρός Μαρῖνον πρεσβύτερον ἐπιστολῆς, Τί θέλησις, καί τί προαίρεσις;\n\nΘέλημά φασιν εἶναι φυσικόν, ἤγουν θέλησιν· Ζήτει ὄπισθεν ὁμοίως εἰς τήν αὐτήν ἐπιστολήν, περί βουλῆς καί γνώμης καί φρονήσεως καί δόξης καί ἐξουσίας. ΟΡΟΙ ΔΙΑΦΟΡΟΙ ΤΩΝ ΑΓΙΩΝ ΚΑΙ ΘΕΟΦΟΡΩΝ ΠΑΤΕΡΩΝ ΗΜΩΝ... Τῶν ἁγίων καί θεοφόρων Πατέρων ἡμῶν, περί τῶν δύο ἐνεργειῶν τοῦ Κυρίου καί Θεοῦ καί Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Τοῦ ἁγίου Ἰουστίνου φιλοσόφου, καί τέλος μάρτυρος, ἐκ τοῦ πρός Εὐφράσιον σοφιστήν, περί Προνοίας καί Πίστεως λόγου, οὗ ἡ ἀρχή· \"Ἄχραντος ὁ Λόγος». ( Εἰ σύνδρομον ἔχει Θεός τῇ φύσει τήν θέλησιν, ὥσπερ και τήν ἐνέργειαν· ἀεί γάρ φύσει θελητικός καί ἐνεργητικός ὑπάρχει ὁ Θεός· οὐδέ τῶν θελητικῶν τῆς αὐτῆς αὐτῷ φυσικῆς ἔσται θελήσεως καί ἐνεργείας· ἐπεί καί φύσεως ἔσται πάντως τῆς αὐτῆς. Κατ᾿ ἐνέργειαν δέ καί φύσιν οὐκ οἶδεν ὁ Θεός περιγραφήν. Τοῦ αὐτοῦ, ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ λόγου.","english":"Of Saint Maximus, from his collections on the wills: what is natural will, and what is gnomic will?\n\nNatural will is the impulse and inclination of the natural constituents, simply and uniformly disposed. Gnomic will is the particular and varied movement and appetite of things that are gathered together according to pleasure. Of the same, from the letter to Marinus the presbyter: what is volition, and what is choice?\n\nThey say that natural will is volition; seek below likewise in the same letter, concerning counsel and opinion and prudence and belief and authority. DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS OF OUR HOLY AND GOD-BEARING FATHERS... Of our holy and God-bearing Fathers, concerning the two energies of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ. Of Saint Justin the philosopher, and finally martyr, from the discourse to Euphrasius the sophist, on Providence and Faith, whose beginning is: \"The Word is undefiled.\" (If God has will as a companion to nature, just as also energy—for God is always by nature willing and active—then the things that are willed will not belong to the same natural will and energy as he; since they will also be of the same nature entirely. But God knows no circumscription according to energy and nature. Of the same, from the same discourse.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":227,"ref":"p227","source":"Ἐνέργεια πάσης οὐσίας ἐστίν, ἡ προσφυής αὐτῇ ποιότης. Ἐνέργεια φυσική τε καί συστατική ἐστιν, ἡ ὁριστική διαφορά τῆς τοῦ δηλουμένου πράγματος φύσεως· ἧς χωρίς, κατ᾿ οὐδέν οὐδέν παντελῶς ἔχει, τήν τοῦ πῶς εἶναι διάγνωσιν. Ἐνέργεια φυσική ἐστιν, ἡ οὐσιώδης καί συστατική πάσης οὐσίας ποιότης· ἧς τό ἐστερημένον, καί πάσης οὐσίας ἐστέρηται. Ἐνέργεια φυσική ἐστι, δύναμις οὐσιώδης μή δέ μίαν ἑτέρου πρός ἕτερον ἐπιδέχεσθαι συγχωροῦσα κατά τήν οὐσίαν ἀλλοίωσιν. ( Ἐνέργεια φυσική ἐστιν ἡ ἀμιγῆ τήν οὐσιώδη πάντων πρός ἅπαντα διάκρισιν σώζουσα δύναμις.\n\nΤοῦ ἁγίου Ἀλεξάνδρου, ἐκ τῆς πρός Αἴγλωνα ἐπίσκοπον Κυνοπόλεως κατά Ἀρειανῶν ἐπιστολῆς.\n\nἘνέργεια φυσική ἐστιν, ἡ πάσης φύσεως ἔμφυτος κίνησις. Ἐνέργεια ἐστι φυσική, ὁ πάσης φύσεως οὐσιώδης καί γνωστικός λόγος. Ἐνέργειά ἐστι φυσική, ἡ δηλωτική ἡ πάσης οὐσίας δύναμις.\n\nΓρηγορίου Νύσσης.\n\nἘνέργεια λογικῆς ψυχῆς, ἐστί νοῦ κίνησις καί διάνοια. Ἐνέργειά ἐστι κίνησις οὐσιώδης χαρακτηριστική τῆς φύσεως, ἧς ἰδία καθέστηκε, δι᾿ ἧς γινώσκεται τῶν ἄλλων οὐσιωδῶς διαφέρουσα. Ἐνέργειά ἐστι κίνησις δραστική. Δραστικόν δέ λέγεται, τό ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ κινούμενον. Ἐνέργειαν γάρ ἡμεῖς εἶναι φαμεν, τήν φυσικήν ἑκάστης οὐσίας δύναμίν τε καί κίνησιν, ἧς χωρίς οὔτε ἔστιν, οὔτε γινώσκεται φύσις. Νοερῶν γάρ ἐστι, νόησις· αἰσθητικῶν, αἴσθησις, καθ᾿ ἥν, αὗταί τε","english":"Energy is the natural quality belonging to every essence. Natural and constitutive energy is the definitive difference of the nature of the thing signified; without it, nothing has in any respect at all the discernment of how it is. Natural energy is the essential and constitutive quality of every essence; that which is deprived of it is deprived of every essence. Natural energy is an essential power that does not permit even a single alteration of one thing in relation to another according to essence. Natural energy is the power that preserves the essential distinction of all things in relation to all things unmingled.\n\nOf Saint Alexander, from his letter to Aeglon, bishop of Cynopolis, against the Arians.\n\nNatural energy is the innate motion of every nature. Natural energy is the essential and cognitive principle of every nature. Natural energy is the power that manifests every essence.\n\nOf Gregory of Nyssa.\n\nThe energy of a rational soul is the motion and thought of the mind. Energy is the essential motion characteristic of the nature to which it properly belongs, through which it is known to differ essentially from other things. Energy is an active motion. And that which is moved of itself is called active. For we say that energy is the natural power and motion of each essence, without which a nature neither exists nor is known. For it belongs to intellectual beings to have intellection, and to perceptive beings perception, according to which these","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":228,"ref":"p228","source":"καί τῶν ἐκτός ἐφάπτονται φυσικῶς, καί τοῖς ἐκτός ὑποπίπτουσι. Πτηνῶν, πτῆσις· νηκτῶν, νῆξις· ἑρπηστικῶν, ἕρψις· βαδιστικῶν, βάδισις· βλαστῶν, βλάστησις. Καί περιληπτικῶς εἰπεῖν, τό σημαντικόν ἑκάστης ἰδίωμα φύσεως, ἐνέργειαν λέγομεν φυσικήν. Ἧς μόνον ἐστέρηται, τό μή ὄν. Τό γάρ ὄν, οὐσίας τινός μετέχον, καί τῆς δηλούσης αὐτήν φυσικῶς μεθέξει πάντως δυνάμεως. Ὅρους γάρ τῶν οὐσιῶν, τάς φυσικάς αὐτῶν ἐνεργείας ὁ ἀληθής ἐπίσταται λόγος. Ἐνέργειά ἐστι ψυχῆς λογικῆς, οἰκεία τοῦ νοῦ διάνοιά τε καί κίνησις. Ἐνέργειά ἐστι ψυχῆς λογικῆς, ἡ κατά φύσιν αὐτῆς ζωή.\n\nΤοῦ Χρυσοστόμου.\n\nΟὐσιώδης ἐνέργειά ἐστι Θεοῦ, τό μηδαμοῦ εἶναι· οὐ τῷ μή ( εἶναι, ἀλλά τῷ ὑπερεῖναι τόπου καί χρόνου καί φύσεως· οἷς φυσικῶς ἀρχή συνεπινοεῖται καί πέρας καί γένεσις· ὅς ἐστι συνοχεύς καί ποιητής μόνῳ τῷ βούλεσθαι. Ἄνευ γάρ φυσικῆς ἐνεργείας, οὐδενός φύσις ἐπίδηλος. Οἷον γάρ ἑκάστῃ φύσει χαρακτῆρα γνωριστικόν ὁ Δημιουργός, τήν διακρίνουσαν αὐτήν τῶν ἄλλων, οὐσιωδῶς ἐναπέθετο κίνησιν.","english":"And they naturally touch external things, and they fall under external things. Of birds, flight; of swimmers, swimming; of creeping things, creeping; of walkers, walking; of plants, sprouting. And to speak comprehensively, the distinctive mark signifying each nature, we call natural energy. Of this, only non-being is deprived. For being, partaking of some essence, will certainly also partake of the power that naturally reveals it. For the true account knows the natural energies of essences as their boundaries. Energy of a rational soul is the thought and movement proper to the mind. Energy of a rational soul is its life according to nature.\n\nFrom Chrysostom.\n\nThe essential energy of God is to be nowhere; not by not being, but by being beyond place and time and nature—things to which beginning and end and generation are naturally co-conceived; he is the sustainer and maker of them by willing alone. For without natural energy, the nature of nothing is evident. For as a distinguishing mark of recognition for each nature, the Creator essentially implanted in it the movement that distinguishes it from others.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":229,"ref":"p229","source":"Τοῦ ἁγίου Κυρίλλου.\n\nἘνέργεια θεοπρεπής καί δύναμίς ἐστι, τό εἶναι πανταχῆ, καί πληροῦν μέν ἀῤῥήτως τόν οὐρανόν· πληροῦν δέ αὖ πάλιν τήν γῆν, καί χωρεῖν μέν ἐν πᾶσι, χωρεῖσθαι δέ ἐπ᾿ οὐδενός. Οὐ γάρ περιληπτός, ἤ διαστήματι περιωρισμένος· ἀλλ᾿ οὐδέ περιγραφῆς τινος εἴσω. Παθεῖν γάρ τι τοιοῦτον ὁ ἄποσός τε καί ἐμεγέθης καί ἀσώματος οὐκ ἀνέχεται.\n\nΤοῦ ἁγίου Βασιλείου.\n\nἘπείπερ πάσης οὐσίας ὅρος, ἡ κατά φύσιν αὐτῆς ἐνέργεια καθέστηκε· πίστωσις ἀνάγουσα τόν νοῦν ἐπί τήν φύσιν, ἐξ ἧς ἔχει τήν πρόοδον, ὧν μία καί ἡ αὐτή ἐνέργεια, τούτων καί ἡ οὐσία μία.\n\nΤοῦ αὐτοῦ, ἐκ τῶν κατ᾿ Εὐνομίου.\n\nΠῶς ἑτερότης οὐσίας, ἐν ᾗ ταυτότης ἐνεργείας γνωρίζεται; Παρηλλαγμένων γάρ τῶν οὐσιῶν, παρηλλαγμένας εἶναι δεῖ καί τάς ἐνεργείας. Πῶς οὐ τῆς αὐτῆς οὐσίας τό Πνεῦμα τῷ Πατρί καί τῷ Υἱῷ, τό καί τῆς αὐτῆς ἐνεργείας. Πῶς ἑτερότης οὐσίας ἐν τῇ Τριάδι, ἐν ᾗ ταυτότης ἐνεργείας εὑρίσκεται; Εἰ γάρ κατά τήν ( οὐσίαν ἀπαραλλάκτως, ἕξει καί κατά τήν δύναμιν. Ὧν δέ ἡ δύναμις ἴση που πάντως καί ἡ ἐνέργεια· ὧν δέ ἡ φύσις μία, τούτων ἐνέργειαι αἱ αὐταί. Τοῦ ἁγίου Γρηγορίου Νύσσης.","english":"Of Saint Cyril.\n\nIt is a God-befitting energy and power to be everywhere, and to fill heaven ineffably, and again to fill the earth, and to be contained in all things, yet to be contained by none. For it is not comprehensible, nor bounded by interval, nor within any circumscription. For the one who is without quantity and without magnitude and incorporeal does not admit of suffering any such thing.\n\nOf Saint Basil.\n\nSince the definition of every essence is its natural energy, a confirmation leading the mind up to the nature from which it has its procession; of those whose energy is one and the same, of these the essence is also one.\n\nOf the same, from the works against Eunomius.\n\nHow can there be otherness of essence, where identity of energy is recognized? For if the essences are different, the energies must also be different. How is the Spirit not of the same essence as the Father and the Son, being also of the same energy? How can there be otherness of essence in the Trinity, in which identity of energy is found? For if they are indistinguishable in essence, they will also be so in power. And of those whose power is equal, in every way also the energy; and of those whose nature is one, of these the energies are the same. Of Saint Gregory of Nyssa.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":230,"ref":"p230","source":"Οὐκοῦν ἡ τῆς ἐνεργείας ταυτότης ἐπί Πατρός καί Υἱοῦ καί ἁγίου Πνεύματος δείκνυσι σαφῶς τό τῆς φύσεως ἀπαράλλακτον. Τοῦ δέ ἐνεργοῦντος τήν φύσιν, διά τῆς τῶν ἐνεργειῶν κατανοήσεως ἐπιγνῶναι δυνάμεθα. Τό δέ κοινόν τῆς φύσεως ἐνεργῶς ἀποδείκνυται, διά τῆς τῶν ἐνεργειῶν ταυτότητος συνιστάμενον. Ἀλλά Θεός μέν ὁ Πατήρ, Θεός δέ ὁ Υἱός, Θεός δέ τό Πνεῦμα τό ἅγιον· εἷς δέ ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ κηρύγματι Θεός, διά τό μήτε φύσεως, μήτε ἐνεργείας θεωρεῖσθαί τινα διαφοράν ἐν\n\nθεότητι. Εἰ οὖν καί ἐνέργεια καί δύναμις μία, πῶς ἐστιν ἑτερότητα φύσεως ὑπονοῆσαι, ἐν οἷς οὐδεμία κατά τήν δύναμίν τε καί τήν ἐνέργειαν διαφοράν ἐξευρίσκομεν.\n\nΠᾶσα ἀνάγκη κατάλληλον εἶναι καί οἰκείαν ὁμολογεῖν τῇ φύσει καί τήν προαίρεσιν· καί εἰ ἀνομοίως ἔχοιεν κατά τήν φύσιν, ἀνόμοια ἀεί εἶναι καί τά θελήματα. Τῆς δέ δυνάμεως ἐφ᾿ ἑκατέρων ἱκανῶς ἐχούσης, οὐδ᾿ ἕτερον ἀτονήσει πρός τήν ἐκπλήρωσιν τοῦ ἰδίου θελήματος. Οὐκοῦν ἐάν ἴδωμεν διαφερούσας ἀλλήλων τάς ἐνερεγείας τάς παρά τοῦ Πατρός τε καί τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος ἐνεργουμένας, διαφόρους εἶναι καί τάς ἐνεργούσας φύσεις ἐκ τῆς ἑτερότητος τῶν ἐνεργειῶν στοχαζόμεθα. Οὐ γάρ ἐνδέχεται τά διεστῶτα κατά τόν τῆς φύσεως λόγον, πρός τό τῶν ἐνεργειῶν εἶδος συνενεχθῆναι, οὔτε ψύχει τό πῦρ, οὔτε θερμαίνει ὁ κρύσταλλος. Ἀλλά τῇ τῶν φύσεων ἑτερότητι, συνδιαχωρίζονται ἀπ' ἀλλήλων καί αἱ παρά τούτων ἐνέργειαι.","english":"Therefore the sameness of energy in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit clearly demonstrates the unvaryingness of nature. And by understanding the energies, we are able to recognize the nature of the one who acts. And the commonality of nature is actively demonstrated, being established through the sameness of the energies. But the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; and in the same proclamation there is one God, because no difference is observed either of nature or of energy in the Godhead. If, then, both energy and power are one, how is it possible to suspect a difference of nature, in the case where we find no difference at all in power and energy?\n\nIt is entirely necessary to confess that the choice is also fitting and proper to the nature; and if they differ in nature, their wills will always be different as well. But since the power is sufficient in both, neither will be weak with respect to the fulfillment of its own will. Therefore, if we see the energies performed by the Father and by the Holy Spirit differing from one another, we infer from the difference of the energies that the natures which act are also different. For it is not possible for things that are distinct in the principle of their nature to be brought together into the same form of energies; neither does fire cool, nor does ice heat. But along with the difference of natures, the energies that come from them are also separated from one another.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":231,"ref":"p231","source":"Κυρίλλου.\n\nἘνεργήσει γάρ ὁμοίως, τά τήν αὐτήν ἀλλήλοις λαχόντα φύσιν. ( Οἷς δέ ὁ τοῦ πῶς εἶναι λόγος ἐξηλλαγμένος, τούτοις ἄν εἴη, καί ὁ τῆς ἐφ᾿ ἅπασιν ἐνεργείας λόγος, οὐχ ὁ αὐτός. Τά τήν αὐτήν ἐνέργειαν ἔχοντα, καί ταῖς αὐταῖς δυνάμεσι φυσικαῖς ἀποκεχρημένα, τῆς αὐτῆς εἶναι οὐσίας ἀνάγκη. Οὐδέν γάρ τῶν ὄντων πρός τό ἑτερογενές καί ἑτεροούσιον, τάς αὐτάς ἀπαραλλάκτως φορέσει δυνάμεις τε καί ἐνεργείας. Τά γάρ τῆς αὐτῆς ἐνεργείας ὄντα, καί τῆς αὐτῆς οὐσίας ὁμολόγηται. Τά ἑτεροφυῆ καί ἑτερογενῆ τήν αὐτήν ἐνέργειαν ἔχειν, οὐκ ἄν τις δῴη σωφρονῶν. Οὐ γαρ ἄν ὕδατι πῦρ ἕν τι καί ταυτόν ἐνεργήσειεν· ἀλλ᾿ ὥσπερ ἀπεσχοινισμένον ἔχουσι τῆς οὐσίας καί τῆς ποιότητος τόν λόγον, οὕτω καί διάφορον συναποδώσουσι τήν ἐνέργειαν. Οἷς γάρ ἡ ἐνέργεια καί ἡ δύναμις ἀπαραλλάκτως μία, τούτοις ἀνάγκη καί τήν τοῦ εἴδους κοινότητα σώζεσθαι. Φιλεῖ γάρ τά τήν αὐτήν ἐνέργειαν ἔχοντα, τῆς αὐτῆς ὑπάρχειν καί οὐσίας, καί τό ἑτεροφυές ἐν τούτοις ἀπίθανον. Οὐ γάρ δήπου μίαν εἶναι φυσικήν ἐνέργειαν δώσομεν Θεοῦ καί ποιήματος, ἵνα μήτε τό ποιηθέν εἰς τήν θείαν ἀναγάγωμεν οὐσίαν, μήτε μήν τῆς θείας φύσεως τό ἐξαίρετον, εἰς τόν τοῖς γεννητοῖς πρέποντα καταγάγωμεν τρόπον. Τά γάρ μίαν ἔχοντα τήν ἐνέργειαν, ἕνα καί τόν αὐτόν τοῦ πῶς εἶναι φορέσει λόγον. Τοῦ ἁγίου Ἀμβροσίου ἐπισκόπου Μεδιολάνων, ἐκ τοῦ πρός Γρατιανόν τόν βασιλέα δευτέρου λόγου.","english":"Of Cyril.\n\nFor those that have obtained the same nature will also act in like manner. But those whose principle of being is different would also have a different principle of energy in all things, not the same. Those that have the same energy and employ the same natural powers must of necessity be of the same essence. For none of existing things will bear the same powers and energies without variation in relation to what is of a different kind and different essence. For things that are of the same energy are confessed also to be of the same essence. That things of different nature and different kind have the same energy, no one of sound mind would grant. For fire and water would not effect one and the same thing; but just as they have a distinct principle of essence and quality, so also will they yield a different energy. For those whose energy and power are one without variation, for these the community of form must also be preserved. For things that have the same energy are wont to be also of the same essence, and the difference of nature in these things is incredible. For surely we will not grant that there is one natural energy of God and of a creature, lest we either raise the created thing up to the divine essence, or bring down the pre-eminence of the divine nature to the manner befitting things generated. For things that have one energy will bear also one and the same principle of being. Of the holy Ambrose, bishop of Milan, from the second discourse to the emperor Gratian.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]},{"i":232,"ref":"p232","source":"Πῶς γάρ ἡ αὐτή ἐνέργεια, ἐκ διαφόρου οὐσίας ἐστί; Μή γάρ οὕτως ἡ ἥττων ἐνεργεῖ, ὥσπερ ἡ μείζων ἐνεργεῖ. Ἔνθα γάρ διάφορος οὐσία ἐστίν, ἀδύνατον μίαν ἐνέργειαν ὑπάρχειν.\n\nΤοῦ ἁγίου Βασιλείου, ἐκ τῶν κατά Εὐνομίου συλλογισμῶν. Ἕτερόν ἐστιν ὁ ἐνεργήσας, καί ἕτερον ἡ ἐνέργεια, καί ἕτερον ( τό ἐνέργημα, καί ταῦτα πλεῖστον ἀλλήλων διέστηκεν. Ὁ ἐνεργῶν γάρ ἐστιν ὁ πρός τό ἐνεργῆσαί τι κινούμενος. Ἐνέργεια δέ, οἱονεί κίνησις ἡ ἐνεργητική, καί αὐτή ἡ ὁρμή ὡς ἄν τις εἴποι τῆς προαιρέσεως, ἡ πρός τό ἐνεργῆσαί τι συντεινομένη καί νεύουσα, καί ἅμα τῷ ἑλέσθαι πεπαυμένη καί λήγουσα, καί θᾶττον κινηθεῖσα καί παραδραμοῦσα. Ἐνεργήματα δέ, τά ἐκ ταύτης ἀποτελούμενά τε καί ὑφιστάμενα.","english":"For how can the same energy be from a different essence? For the lesser does not energize in the same way as the greater energizes. For where the essence is different, it is impossible for there to be one energy.\n\nOf Saint Basil, from the syllogisms against Eunomius. One thing is the one who energized, and another is the energy, and another is the effect, and these differ from one another very greatly. For the one energizing is the one moved toward energizing something. But energy is, as it were, the energizing movement, and the impulse itself, so to speak, of the choice, which strains and inclines toward energizing something, and together with the choice has ceased and come to an end, and having been moved more swiftly and run past. But effects are the things accomplished and subsisting from it.","structure":"narrative","commentary":[],"ambiguities":[],"confidence":"","notes":[]}]}