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.
Πρός 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·
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.
And 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—
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
λεγομένην. 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.
Τῆς 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·
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.
Such, 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.
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.
ΙΣΟΝ ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗΣ ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΝ ΚΥΡΙΟΝ ΜΑΡΙΝΟΝ ΤΟΝ ΠΡΕΣΒΥΤΕΡΟΝ ΤΗΣ ΚΥΠΡΟΥ Ἴσον ἐπιστολῆς πρός τόν κύριον Μαρῖνον τόν πρεσβύτερον τῆς Κύπρου.
Νόμῳ 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·
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.
Copy of the letter to the lord Marinos the presbyter of Cyprus. Copy of the letter to the lord Marinos the presbyter of Cyprus.
Being 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—
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.
Καί 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·
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.
And 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.
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.
Τῷ 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».
Οὕτοι 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·
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.
But 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."
These 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.
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
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
δοκοῦν, ὥσπερ ἐξ ἐπιτάγματος μεταφέροντες, ἵνα τά οἰκεῖα δῆθεν ἐκ παρατροπῆς ὑποστήσωσι.
Τάς 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.
...as it seems, transferring them as if by command, so that they might establish their own views, ostensibly by a distortion.
As 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.
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!
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!
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.
α´. 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,
Νεστόριος 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.
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.
1. 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,
Nestorius 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.
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·
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,
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.
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.
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.
ι´. Ὁ τοίνυν λέγων καί διαφοράν καί ἕνωσιν ἐπί τοῦ Χριστοῦ, οὔτε τήν διαφοράν ἀναιρεῖ, οὔτε τήν ἕνωσιν συγχέει. Καί γάρ ὁ θεῖος Κύριλλος ἀναθεματίζει
τούς 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.
Οὐσία καί φύσις, ταυτόν· ἄμφω γάρ κοινόν καί καθόλου, ὡς κατά πολλῶν καί διαφερόντων τῷ ἀριθμῷ κατηγορούμενα, καί μήποτε καθοτιοῦν ἑνί προσώπῳ περιοριζόμενα.
Ἐνυπόστατόν 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·
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.
10. 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.
Essence 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.
That 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;
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.
Ὑπόστασις καί πρόσωπον, ταυτόν· ἄμφω γάρ μερικόν τε καί ἴδιον, ὡς ἐφ᾿ ἑαυτῶν τήν περιγραφήν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἐν πλείοσι τήν κατηγορίαν φυσικῶς κεκτημένα.
Ἐνούσιόν 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.
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.
Hypostasis 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.
That 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.
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.
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.
Σχετική ἕνωσίς ἐστι, φιλική συνδιάθεσις, ἤ θελημάτων ὁμονοητική σύμπνοια καί ἐπίνευσις. Σχετική διαφορά ἐστι, γνώμης ἑτερότης, ἤ θελημάτων ἀνομοιότης, ἤ διαίρεσις διαθέσεως.
Συγχυτική 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.
Ὑποστάσεως 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.
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.
Confusive 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.
It 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.
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.
Θέλημα φυσικόν ἐστιν, οὐσιώδης τῶν κατά φύσιν συστατικῶν ἔφεσις. Θέλημα γνωμικόν ἐστιν, ἡ ἐφ᾿ ἑκάτερα τοῦ λογισμοῦ αὐθαίρετος ὁρμή τε καί κίνησις.
Διαφορά 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...
Πνευματικός 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.
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.
Natural 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.
Difference 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...
A 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.
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
πτωχοῦ 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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·
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;
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·
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:
" 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».
Ὁ 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
γάρ, 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·
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.
But 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:
" 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·
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.
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».
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.
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».
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.
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».
Ἀλλ᾿ 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;
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."
But 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?
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».
Οὕτω 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
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."
So 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
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».
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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».
Ἀλλά 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·
...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."
But 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...
" 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.
Οἱ 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».
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.
But 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.
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
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
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».
Οἷς, 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».
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.
To 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.
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».
Οὐ 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».
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.
Not 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.
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
θεότητος· 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».
Τούτους, 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·
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."
These 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].
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
ὁμόδοξον 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.
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.
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.
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.
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».
( 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.
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."
Who, 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.
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
ἐπιγνώσεως, 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·
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.
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.
...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.
( 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
πέφυκε 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·
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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».
Ἄλλως 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;
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."
Besides, 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?
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·
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—
ἤ δείξωσι, πῶς μή ἀναίρεσιν πάντωνς ἤ σύγχυσιν, τοῦ κατά ἄνθρωπον φυσικοῦ τοῦ Σωτῆρος θελήματος ἀπεργάζονται, διά τῆς κατά τόν ἀριθμόν παραιτήσεως.
Καί 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,
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.
And 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,
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;
Καί 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·
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?
And 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.
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.
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.
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,
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,
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ταύτῃ μέν τήν διαίρεσιν ἀπωθούμενος, ἐκείνῃ δέ πάλιν τήν σύγχυσιν.
( 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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·
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—
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
ἄκρων 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.
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.
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;
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?
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·
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.
φημί δέ τάς φύσεις, καθ᾿ ἕνωσιν τήν ἀδιάσπαστον ἐνεργοῦντος Θεοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένου, πίστωσιν ἀληθῆ καί βεβαίωσιν.
Τίνι 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;
I say that the natures are a true confirmation and assurance, by the inseparable union of God the Word incarnate who acts.
But 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?
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.
Πῶς 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.
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.
But 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.
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.
Τούτων 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·
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.
Hearing 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.
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.
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.
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.
2. 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.
( 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,
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.
2. 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.
Every 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,
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.
ΣΧΟΛΙΟΝ 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.
ΟΡΟΙ ΕΝΩΣΕΩΝ Ὅροι ἑνώσεων.
( Ἡ κατ᾿ οὐσίαν ἕνωσις, ἐπί τῶν ὑποστάσεων, τουτέστι τῶν ἀτόμων.
Ἡ 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.
Ἡ κατά ἁρμονίαν ἕνωσις, ἐπί τῶν λίθων.
Ἡ 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.
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.
SCHOLION. 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.
DEFINITIONS OF UNIONS. Definitions of unions.
(Union according to essence, in the case of hypostases, that is, of individuals.
Union 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.
Union according to harmony, in the case of stones.
Union 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.
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.
Ἡ 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.
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.
Union 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.
Τοῦ αὐτοῦ δευτέρα ἀπορία.
Εἰ 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'.
( 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.
The same author's second difficulty.
If 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.
The 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.
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·
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.
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
δέ 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;
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?
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.
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.
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.
Οὐκοῦν 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
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.
Therefore, 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
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.
Τοῦ 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·
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.
Of 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:
" 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.
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.
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
καί 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.
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.
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.
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.
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·
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.
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
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
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.
Ἐπεί 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.
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.
And 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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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·
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.
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.
Οὐν 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·
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.
Therefore 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.
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.
Τόν δέ γε τῆςῬωμαίων πάπαν Ὀνώριον, οὐ καταγορεύειν οἶμαι τῆς τῶν ἐμφύτων θελημάτων ἐπί Χριστοῦ δυάδος, ἐν τῇ γραφείσῃ πρός Σέργιον ἐπιστολῇ διά
τό 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·
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.
But 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—
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·
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.
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».
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.
Ἐντεῦθεν δεικνύς, οὐχ ὡς οὐκ εἶχεν ἀνθρώπινον θέλημα καί φυσικόν· οὐ γάρ λέξας φαίνεται τοῦτο· ἀλλ᾿ ὅτιπερ ὡς
ἄνθρωπος 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.
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.
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.
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.
( 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
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
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.
...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.
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.
ΠΕΡΙ ΠΟΙΟΤΗΤΟΣ, ΙΔΙΟΤΗΤΟΣ, ΚΑΙ ΔΙΑΦΟΡΑΣ, ΘΕΟΔΩΡΩ... Περί ποιότητος, ἰδιότητος, καί διαφορᾶς, Θεοδώρῳ πρεσβυτέρῳ τῷ ἐν Μαζαρίῳ.
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.
On Quality, Property, and Difference, to Theodore the Elder in Mazarium.
( 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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.