15

You have alienated him from the Father by nature and from the Mother, being united to neither according to essence. For Christ is by nature neither of them; and how, by saying this, will you escape the danger of polytheism? But if it is gnomic, it will be characteristic of his own hypostasis alone. For the gnomic is what defines a person; and he will be shown 15Α_070 clearly to have a different will from the Father and the Spirit, according to you, and to be in conflict. But if it is of his divinity alone, the divinity will be subject to passion, abstaining from food and drink contrary to nature. But if it is of his humanity alone, it will not be active by nature. For how could it, if it is human? And the display of miracles will clearly be shown to be monstrous.

But if it is common by nature to both, how will there be a 0056 common will, when their natures are different? But if it is as a composite whole, in addition to the new myth and fiction. For what is a composition of will? Again you have alienated him from the Father, characterizing a composite hypostasis only by a composite will. Thus, then, the argument approaches and uproots every plant that the Father did not plant; since it is not the nature of the foreign to tend the vineyard.

But, as it seems, Severus abolished the natural will of Christ's humanity, not knowing that the most proper and first property of every rational nature especially, is its movement according to desire; which the Fathers, having considered, brilliantly confessed a difference of natural, but not gnomic, wills in Christ. For they would never have spoken of a difference of gnomic wills in Christ, lest they proclaim him of two minds and two wills, and, so to speak, at war with himself in the conflict of his thoughts; and for this reason of two persons; they who know that only through this difference of gnomic wills has there come to be in life both the entrance of sin, and our separation from God. For evil consists in nothing else, if not only in the difference of our will according to 15Α_072 choice from the divine will; to which, being altogether opposed, quantity is introduced, and the number indicative of it, showing the opposition of our gnomic will to God.

Therefore, both Nestorius and Severus have one purpose regarding impiety, even if the manner is different. For the one, on account of confusion, fleeing the hypostatic union, makes the essential difference a personal division; while the other, on account of the division, not speaking of the essential difference, works a natural confusion of the hypostatic union. It is necessary neither to have confusion in Christ, nor division; but to confess a union of those differing in essence, and a difference of those united in hypostasis, so that both the principle of the essences and the manner of the union may be piously proclaimed. Both having broken away from these; the one, only the union of gnomic qualities; the other, having confirmed only the difference of the natural qualities after the union, both have fallen away from the truth of the matter; the one, division; the other, confusion, having boldly judged the mystery.

TO GEORGE THE MOST HOLY PRESBYTER AND ABBOT

WHO ASKED THROUGH A LETTER CONCERNING THE MYSTERY OF CHRIST 15Α_074 Having indeed winged your own mind with divine desire, 0057 and

having raised your reason with zeal from matter and the things concerning it, God-honored Father, you have an insatiable encounter with the divinely-written Oracles, and a tireless power of care for them through harmonious attention, if anyone else does. For that which is beyond sense knows no satiety; nor indeed any kind of restriction, that which is beyond conception. For the one, has by nature risen above all flux and effluence; and the other surpasses every form and shape; and that one makes a manifestation of the hidden, as is right; and of the indefinite

15

Πατρός φύσει καί Μητρός αὐτόν ἠλλοτρίωσας, οὐδετέρῳ κατ᾿ οὐσίαν ἑνούμενον. Οὐδέτερον γάρ αὐτοῖν φύσει Χριστός· καί πῶς ἐκφεύξῃ τοῦτο λέγων, τῆς πολυθεΐας τόν κίνδυνον; Εἰ δέ γνωμικόν, μόνης ἔσται τῆς αὐτοῦ χαρακτηριστικόν ὑποστάσεως. Προσώπου γάρ ἀφοριστικόν ὑπάρχει τό γνωμικόν· καί δειχθήσεται 15Α_070 σαφῶς ἑτερόβουλος Πατρί τε καί Πνεύματι κατά σέ, καί μαχόμενος. Εἰ δέ τῆς αὐτοῦ μόνης θεότητος, ἐμπαθής ἔσται θεότης, παρά φύσιν βρώσεως καί πόσεως ἀφιεμένη. Εἰ δέ τῆς αὐτοῦ μόνης ἀνθρωπότητος, οὐκ ἔσται φύσει δραστήριον. Πῶς γάρ, εἴπερ ἀνθρώπινον; Καί τερατώδης δειχθήσεται σαφῶς ἡ τῶν θαυμάτων ἐπίδειξις.

Εἰ δέ ἀμφοτέρων φύσει κοινόν, πῶς ἔσται θέλημα 0056 κοινόν, ὧν ἡ φύσις διάφορος; Εἰ δέ ὡς ὅλου σύνθετος, πρός τῷ καινῷ μύθῳ καί πλάσματι. Τίς γάρ θελήματος σύνθεσις; πάλιν αὐτόν τοῦ Πατρός ἠλλοτρίωσας, συνθέτῳ θελήματι μόνην χαρακτηρίσας ὑπόστασιν σύνθετον. Οὕτω μέν οὖν πᾶσαν φυτείαν ἐκριζοῖ προσελθών ὁ λόγος, ἥν ὁ Πατήρ οὐκ ἐφύτευσεν· ἐπεί μή πέφυκε τό ξένον περιποιεῖσθαι γεώργιον.

Ἀλλ᾿, ὡς ἔοικε, τό φυσικόν θέλημα τῆς κατά Χριστόν ἀνθρωπότητος Σευῆρος ἀνεῖλεν, οὐκ εἰδώς ὅτι κυριώτερόν τε καί πρῶτον ἰδίωμα πάσης μάλιστα φύσεως λογικῆς, ἡ κατ᾿ ἔφεσιν αὐτῆς καθέστηκε κίνησις· ἥν οἱ Πατέρες σκοπήσαντες, φυσικῶν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ γνωμικῶν ἐπί Χριστοῦ θελημάτων διαφοράν λαμπρῶς ὡμολόγησαν. Οὐ γάρ ἄν ἔλεγόν ποτε γνωμικῶν ἐπί Χριστοῦ θελημάτων διαφοράν, ἵνα μή δίγνωμον καί δίβουλον, καί οἷον εἰπεῖν μαχόμενον ἑαυτῷ τῇ στάσει τῶν λογισμῶν· καί διά τοῦτο διπρόσωπον αὐτόν κηρύττωσιν· οἵ γε κατά μόνην ταύτην γινώσκοντες τήν τῶν γνωμικῶν θελημάτων διαφοράν ἐν τῷ βίῳ γεγενῆσθαι· τήν τε τῆς ἁμαρτίας εἴσοδον, καί τήν πρός τόν Θεόν ἡμετέραν διάστασιν. Ἐν οὐδενί γάρ ἄλλῳ καθέστηκε τό κακόν, εἰ μή μόνον ἐν τῇ πρός τό θεῖον θέλημα διαφορᾷ τοῦ κατά 15Α_072 γνώμην ἡμετέρου θελήματος· ᾗτινι πάντως ἀντικειμένη συνεισάγεται ποσότης, καί ὁ ταύτης δηλωτικός ἀριθμός, δεικνύς ἡμῶν τήν πρός τόν Θεόν τοῦ γνωμικοῦ θελήματος ἀντιπάθειαν.

Εἷς οὖν Νεστορίῳ τε τῶν Σευήρῳ περί τοῦ δυσσεβεῖν ὑπάρχει σκοπός, κἄν ὁ τρόπος διάφορος. Ὁ μέν γάρ διά τήν σύγχυσιν, φεύγων τήν καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν ἕνωσιν, τήν οὐσιώδη διαφοράν προσωπικήν ποιεῖται διαίρεσιν· ὁ δέ διά τήν διαίρεσιν τήν οὐσιώδη μή λέγων διαφοράν, τήν καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν ἕνωσιν φυσικήν ἐργάζεται σύγχυσιν· δέον μήτε σύγχυσιν ἐπί Χριστοῦ, μήτε διαίρεσιν· ἀλλ' ἕνωσιν τῶν κατ᾿ οὐσίαν διαφερόντων, καί διαφοράν τῶν καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν ἡνωμένων ὁμολογεῖν, ἵνα καί τῶν οὐσιῶν ὁ λόγος, καί τῆς ἑνώσεως ὁ τρόπος, εὐσεβῶς καταγγέλληται· ὧν ἄμφω διαῤῥαγέντες· ὁ μέν, τήν τῶν γνωμικῶν μόνον ποιοτήτων ἕνωσιν· ὁ δέ, τήν τῶν φυσικῶν μόνον μετά τήν ἕνωσιν ἐπικυρώσας διαφοράν, ἄμφω τῆς τῶν πραγμάτων ἀληθείας ἀπέπεσον· ὁ μέν, διαίρεσιν· ὁ δέ, σύγχυσιν τοῦ μυστηρίου τολμηρῶς κατακρίναντες.

ΠΡΟΣ ΓΕΩΡΓΙΟΝ ΤΟΝ ΟΣΙΩΤΑΤΟΝ ΠΡΕΣΒΥΤΕΡΟΝ ΚΑΙ ΗΓΟΥΜΕΝΟΝ

ΕΡΩΤΗΣΑΝΤΑ ∆Ι' ΕΠΙΣΤΟΛΗΣ ΠΕΡΙ ΤΟΥ ΚΑΤΑ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΝ ΜΥΣΤΗΡΙΟΥ 15Α_074 Νοῦν μέν τόν οἰκεῖον ἐφέσει θείᾳ πτερώσας, 0057 καί τόν

λόγον διάρας σπουδῇ ὕλης καί τῶν περί ταύτην, θεοτίμητε Πάτερ, ἀκόρεστον ἔχεις τῶν ἱερογράφων Λογίων τήν ἔντευξιν , καί τῆς περί αὐτά φροντίδος δι᾿ ἐμμελοῦς προσοχῆς, εἰ καί τις ἄλλος τήν ἀκάματον δύναμιν. Οὐ γάρ οἶδε κόρον τό ὑπέρ αἴσθησιν· οὔτε μήν τήν οἰανοῦν περιστολήν, τό ὑπέρ ἔννοιαν. Τό μέν γάρ, ῥοῆς ἁπάσης καί ἀποῤῥοῆς κατά φύσιν ὑπερανέστηκε· τό δέ παντός εἴδους ὑπερανέχει καί σχήματος· τοῦ τε κρυφίου τήν ἔκφανσιν, ὡς θέμις , ἐκεῖνο ποιεῖται· καί τοῦ ἀορίστου