13

to speak, and to speak. For the faculty of speaking always exists by nature, but it does not always speak; since the one belongs to the essence, being contained by the principle of nature; but the other belongs to the will, being formed by the intention of the one speaking; so that it is of nature to be always naturally able to speak; but of the hypostasis, how to speak; just as also it is to be naturally able to will and to will. But if to be naturally able to will and to will are not the same (for the one, as I said, belongs to the essence; while the other, belongs to the will of the one willing); therefore the incarnate Word, as man, had the natural ability to will, being both moved and formed by His divine will. For His willing, says the great Gregory, is in no way contrary to God, being wholly deified. And if it was deified, it was clearly deified by its connaturality with that which deifies; and that which deifies and that which is deified are certainly two, but not one and the same by nature. Since that which deifies and that which is deified are among the relatives; and relatives are by nature always introduced together with one another, and the one is co-conceived with the other. Therefore, as being one by nature, the Savior is signified as willing carnally, as man, the shrinking from death along with the other passions, showing the economy to be pure from all phantasy, and redeeming the nature from its passions that were condemned on account of sin. And again He shows the impulse, putting death to death by the flesh; in order that He might show both that which is natural by nature 15Α_062 as man being saved in Himself, and might reveal, as God, the ineffable and great will of the Father, being fulfilled bodily. For He did not become man primarily in order to suffer, but to save. Therefore He says: Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet not my will, but yours be done; showing, along with the shrinking, the impulse of the human will, in its connaturality with the divine, according to the intertwining of the natural principle with the mode of the economy, being both formed and coming into being; since the incarnation is a clear demonstration of nature and economy; I mean both of the natural principle of the united [natures], and of the mode of the union according to hypostasis, the one being confirmed, the other innovating the natures, without change or confusion. But not asking for the same thing, in the same respect, to be both abolished and activated, which is absurd; since the will of the Father is by nature the will of the Son. Therefore the Savior as man had a natural will, formed by His divine will, not opposed to it; for nothing natural is in any way opposed to God, when it is not also gnomic; wherein 0049 a personal division is also observed, if it be according to nature; since the creator would have to be blamed, having made for Himself that which by nature fights against Him.

But how did the Word, having become incarnate, truly become man, if He was devoid of that which most characterizes nature as rational? For that which is deprived of appetitive movement according to desire would also be devoid of all vital power. And that which does not have vital power from nature, clearly has no soul at all, without which not even flesh could ever subsist. Therefore He presented the economy by a mere formation 15Α_064 of flesh as a phantasm; but the Word did not fulfill it by being incarnate in the nature of flesh animated intelligently and rationally according to hypostasis, if, according to Severus, He did not have a natural will as man. For if in truth He was lacking a natural will as man, He did not in truth become a perfect man, nor did He become man at all. For what is the existence of an imperfect nature, for which there is not even a principle?

The aim, therefore, of Severus and those with him, is certainly through some natural defect to thrust out the ineffably assumed nature in the union; and to ratify the abomination of the phantasy of Manes, and of the confusion of Apollinarius, and of the consubstantiation of Eutyches. For I remember, while staying on the island of Crete, some pseudo-bishops of the party of Severus who were contending against me; having heard that for this reason we do not confess two energies in Christ according to the Tome of Leo, on account of

13

λαλεῖν, καί λαλεῖν. Πέφυκε μέν γάρ ἀεί τό λαλητικόν, λαλεῖ δέ οὐκ ἀεί· ἐπειδή τό μέν οὐσίας ἐστί λόγῳ φύσεως συνεχόμενον· τό δέ βουλῆς, τῇ τοῦ λαλοῦντος γνώμῃ τυπούμενον· ὥστε φύσεως μέν τό ἀεί πεφυκέναι λαλεῖν· ὑποστάσεως δέ, τό πῶς λαλεῖν· ὥσπερ καί τό πεφυκέναι θέλειν καί θέλειν. Εἰ δέ τό πεφυκένει θέλειν, καί θέλειν οὐκ ἔστι ταυτόν (τό μέν γάρ, ὡς ἔφην, οὐσίας· τό δέ, τῆς τοῦ θέλοντος ὑπάρχει βουλῆς)· εἶχεν ἄρα τό πεφυκέναι θέλειν ὁ σαρκωθείς Λόγος ὡς ἄνθρωπος, τῷ αὐτοῦ θεϊκῷ θελήματι κινούμενόν τε καί τυπούμενον. Τό γάρ ἐκείνου θέλειν, φησίν ὁ μέγας Γρηγόριος, οὐδέν ὑπεναντίον Θεῷ, θεωθέν ὅλον. Εἰ δέ τεθέωτο, τῇ τοῦ θεοῦντος δηλονότι συμφυΐᾳ τεθέωτο· τό δέ θεοῦν καί θεούμενον, δύο πάντως· ἀλλ᾿ οὐχ ἕν καί φύσει ταυτόν. Εἴπερ τῶν πρός τι, τό τε θεοῦν, καί τό θεούμενον· τά δέ πρός τι, πάντως ἀλλήλοις συνεισάγεσθαι πέφυκε, καί θατέρῳ συνεπινοεῖσθαι θάτερον. Οὐκοῦν ὡς φύσει πεφυκώς, καί τήν πρός τόν θάνατον συστολήν θέλων ἐπισημαίνεται σαρκικῶς μετά τῶν λοιπῶν παθῶν ὡς ἄνθρωπος ὁ Σωτήρ, πάσης καθαράν τήν οἰκονομίαν δεικνύς φαντασίας, καί τήν φύσιν τῶν κατακριθέντων αὐτῆς διά τήν ἁμαρτίαν παθημάτων, λυτρούμενος. Καί πάλιν τήν ὁρμήν ἐπιδείκνυται, σαρκί θανατώσας τήν θάνατον· ἵνα καί τό φύσει πεφυκῶς 15Α_062 ὡς ἄνθρωπος ἐν ἑαυτῷ δείξῃ σωζόμενον, καί τήν ἀπόῤῥητον καί μεγάλην τοῦ Πατρός ὡς Θεός παραδείξῃ βουλήν, σωματικῶς πληρουμένην. Οὐ γάρ ἵνα πάθῃ, σώσῃ δέ, προηγουμένως γέγονεν ἄνθρωπος. ∆ιό φησι· Πάτερ, εἰ δυνατόν, παρελθέτω τοῦτο τό ποτήριον ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ· πλήν μή τό ἐμόν, ἀλλά τό σόν γενέσθω θέλημα· δεικνύς ἅμα τῇ συστολῇ, τήν ὀρμήν τοῦ ἀνθρωπίνου θελήματος, ἐν τῇ συμφυΐᾳ τοῦ θεϊκοῦ, κατά τήν τοῦ φυσικοῦ λόγου πρός τήν τῆς οἰκονομίας τρόπον συμπλοκήν, τυπουμένην τε καί γινομένην· εἴπερ ἡ σάρκωσις, ἐναργής ἐστι φύσεως καί οἰκονομίας ἀπόδειξις· τοῦ τε φυσικοῦ λέγω τῶν ἡνωμένων λόγου, καί τοῦ καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν τῆς ἑνώσεως τρόπου τοῦ μέν πιστουμένου, τοῦ δέ καινοτομοῦντος τάς φύσεις, δίχα τροπῆς καί συγχύσεως. Ἀλλ᾿ οὐ τό αὐτό, κατά τό αὐτό, καταργηθῆναί τε καί ἐνεργηθῆναι δεόμενος, ὅπερ ἄτοπον· εἴπερ τοῦ Υἱοῦ φύσει θέλημα, τό τοῦ Πατρός. Εἶχεν οὖν θέλημα φυσικόν ὡς ἄνθρωπος ὁ Σωτήρ, τῷ αὐτοῦ θεϊκῷ θελήματι τυπούμενον, οὐκ ἐναντιούμενον· οὐδέν γάρ ἠναντίωται παντάπασι Θεῷ φυσικόν, ὁπόταν οὔτε γνωμικόν· ἔνθα καί 0049 προσωπική θεωρεῖται διαίρεσις, ἄνπερ ᾖ κατά φύσιν· ἐπεί τόν ποιητήν αἰτιατέον τῆς μέμψεως, ἑαυτῷ πεποιηκότα τό φύσει μαχόμενον.

Πῶς δέ γέγονε κατ᾿ ἀλήθειαν ἄνθρωπος σαρκωθείς ὁ Λόγος, τοῦ μάλιστα τήν φύσιν ὡς λογικήν χαρακτηρίζοντος ἔρημος; Τό γάρ τῆς κατ᾿ ἔφεσιν ὀρεκτικῆς ἐστερημένον κινήσεως, καί πάσης ζωτικῆς δυνάμεως ἀμοιρήσειεν ἄν. Τό δέ ζωτικήν οὐκ ἔχον ἐκ φύσεως δύναμιν, οὐδέ τήν οἰανοῦν δηλονότι ψυχήν, ἧς χωρίς οὐδέ σάρξ ὑποσταίη ποτ᾿ ἄν. Οὐκοῦν ψιλῇ μορφώσει 15Α_064 σαρκός τήν οἰκονομίαν ἐφάντασεν· ἀλλ᾿ οὐ φύσει σαρκός, νοερῶς τε καί λογικῶς ἐψυχωμένης καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν σαρκωθείς ὁ Λόγος πεπλήρωκε, θέλημα φυσικόν κατά Σευῆρον οὐκ ἔχων ὡς ἄνθρωπος· εἰ γάρ φυσικῷ θελήματι κατ᾿ ἀλήθειαν ὡς ἄνθρωπος ἦν ἐλλιπής, τέλειος κατ' ἀλήθειαν οὐ γέγονεν ἄνθρωπος, οὐδ᾿ ὅλως ἄνθρωπος γέγονεν. Τίς γάρ ἀτελοῦς φύσεως ὕπαρξις, ἧς οὐδέ λόγος ἐστί;

Σκοπός οὖν Σευήρῳ, καί τοῖς ἀμφ᾿ αὐτόν, διά τινος πάντως ἐλλείψεως φυσικῆς, τήν προσληφθεῖσαν καθ᾿ ἕνωσιν ἄῤῥητον ἐξώσασθαι φύσιν· τῆς τε Μάνεντος φαντασίας, καί τῆς Ἀπολιναρίου συγχύσεως, καί τῆς Εὐτυχοῦς συνουσιώσεως ἐπικυρῶσαι τό μῦσος. Μέμνημαι γάρ κατά τήν Κρητῶν νῆσον διάγων, τινῶν ψευδεπισκόπων πρός ἐμέ διενεχθέντων τῆς Σευήρου μερίδος· ἀκούσας, ὡς διά τοῦτο δύο κατά τόν Λέοντος τόμον ἐνεργείας οὐχ ὁμολογοῦμεν ἐπί Χριστοῦ, διά τά