27

naturally inherent according to hypostasis, observed unchangeably in others, confuses all with one another; and makes the principle of how each one exists completely unknowable.

That it is not possible for one will to be spoken of in Christ; whether it be called natural or elective, as it has seemed to some.

Therefore, if their argument has failed in these things, neither, by transferring it to our Lord and God and Savior of all, Christ, and positing a single will of any kind spoken of in him, would it ever be strong. For if they should say this will of Christ is natural, they will immediately be shown to be sick with the Manichaean fantasy, as they profess a single nature of Christ which does not exist, nor will ever exist, indicated by a corresponding will; and they will be caught at the same time emulating the madness of Arius and the consubstantiation of Apollinaris; as they have alienated Christ in substance from God the Father and from his immaculate Mother. For the natural will characterizes a nature; and no argument will contradict this. And if it characterizes a nature, it is clear that those who say this proclaim Christ to be a nature. And if Christ is a nature, he is neither God by nature, nor indeed truly man by nature; if indeed the Father is not truly Christ by nature, or the mother truly Christ by nature. But if Christ is God by nature, insofar as he is Christ by nature, he who says this is a polytheist; professing another nature of the Father as God, who is not Christ by nature, and another nature of Christ as God, who is Christ by nature; and the end for them of such monstrous doctrine will be the condemnation to polytheism.

But if it is elective, which they call gnomic, it will in any case be either according to nature, having the mode of the use of things to be done in Christ agreeing in all things with the principle of nature; and thus Christ will be shown, according to them, to be not impassible, but at least continent over passions; and good by way of progress, whatever he is by nature. For such is the choice according to nature of the things to be done by the one choosing, making the better chosen before the worse; (29) or contrary to nature, and it will show the mode of the use of the things in him to have become destructive of the principle of nature; for such is the choice contrary to nature, of the things to be done by the one choosing, making the worse chosen before the better. For when the judgment in deliberation of the one choosing the things to be done by him has succeeded or has failed, of which the choice is, as it were, the vote, either the principle according to nature subsists for him through its right use, or the mode contrary to nature comes into being alongside through its misuse; the one becoming the messenger of the choice according to nature, the other, of the choice contrary to nature.

And if the choice of Christ were according to nature, not only will we again accuse them on the same grounds, for boldly devising another nature of Christ intermediate between divinity and creation; but we will also laugh at them for talking nonsense, for making Christ, as a mere man according to Nestorius, by nature receptive of opposites according to choice. But if contrary to nature, I am silent, passing over the blasphemy, lest I might unknowingly defile my tongue with the refutations against them. For in asserting an elective will in Christ, they have certainly indicated a hypostasis of Christ capable of being moved according to nature and contrary to nature. For such, as I have already said, is choice; and if it is characteristic of the hypostasis of Christ, they have set him apart, on account of this very will, from both the Father and the Spirit as having a different counsel and a different mind. For that which is seen as proper to the Son according to hypostasis, is entirely unshared by the Father and the Spirit according to hypostasis. As many, therefore, of the holy Fathers (5) on the choice of the humanity in Christ

27

καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν ἐμπεφυκός, ἄλλοις ἀπαραλλάκτως ἐνθεωρούμενον, πάντας ἀλλήλοις συγχεῖ· καί τόν ἑκάστου τοῦ, πῶς εἶναι λόγον, ποιεῖ πάντελῶς ἀδιάγνωστον.

Ὅτιπερ ἕν θέλημα οὐ δυνατόν ἐπί Χριστοῦ λέγεσθαι· εἴτε φυσικόν, εἴτε προαιρετικόν λεχθῇ, καθώς τισιν ἔδοξεν.

Οὐκοῦν, εἴπερ ἐν τούτοις αὐτῶν ὁ λόγος ἠσθένησεν· οὐδέ ἐπί τόν Κύριον ἡμῶν καί Θεόν, καί Σωτῆρα τῶν ὅλων Χριστόν μεταβαίνων, καί ἕν ὁπωσοῦν λεγόμενον ἐπ᾿ αὐτοῦ θέλημα κατασκευάζων εὐσθενήσοι ποτ᾿ ἄν. Εἰ μέν γάρ φυσικόν εἴποιεν τοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦτο τό θέλημα, τήν Μανιχαϊκήν αὐτόθεν νοσήσαντες δειχθήσονται φαντασίαν, ὡς τήν οὐκ οὖσαν, οὔτε γενησομένην μίαν Χριστοῦ φύσιν, καταλλήλῳ θελήματι δηλουμένην πρεσβεύοντες· τήν τε μανίαν Ἀρείου κατά ταυτόν, καί τήν Ἀπολιναρίου ζηλώσαντες φωραθήσονται συνουσίωσιν· ὡς τοῦ Θεοῦ καί Πατρός, καί τῆς ἀχράντου ἱητρός, τόν Χριστόν κατά τήν οὐσίαν ἀλλοτριώσαντες. Τό γάρ φυσικόν θέλημα, φύσιν χαρακτηρίζει· καί οὐδείς ἀντερεῖ λόγος. Εἰ δέ φύσιν χαρακτηρίζει, δῆλον ὡς φύσιν, οἱ τοῦτο λέγοντες, τόν Χριστόν καταγγέλλουσι. Εἰ δέ φύσις ὁ Χριστός, οὔτε Θεός φύσει, οὔτε μήν ἄνθρωπος φύσει ἐστίν ἀληθῶς· εἴπερ μή φύσει Χριστός ἀληθῶς ὁ Πατήρ, ἤ φύσει Χριστός ἀληθῶς ἡ μήτηρ. Εἰ δέ φύσει Θεός ὁ Χριστός, καθό φύσει Χριστός, πολύθεος ὁ τοῦτο λέγων· ἄλλην Πατρός ὡς Θεοῦ φύσιν, οὐκ ὄντος φύσει Χριστοῦ· καί ἄλλην Χριστοῦ φύσιν, ὡς Θεοῦ πρεσβεύων, ὄντος φύσει Χριστοῦ· καί πέρας αὐτοῖς τῆς τοιαύτης τερατολογίας, ἡ πρός πολυθεΐαν ἔσται κατάκρισις.

Εἰ δέ προαιρετικόν, ὅπερ καλοῦσι γνωμικόν, ἤ κατά φύσιν ἔσται πάντως, τόν τρόπον τῆς τῶν ἐπί Χριστῷ πρακτῶν χρήσεως ἔχον διά πάντων συνεύοντα τῷ λόγῳ τῆς φύσεως· καί οὐκ ἀπαθής, ἀλλ᾿ ἐγκρατής οὕτω γε παθῶν κατ᾿ αὕτούς ὁ Χριστός ὑπάρχων δειχθήσεται· καί κατά προκοπήν ἀγαθός, ὅ τί ποτε τήν φύσιν ἐστί. Τοιοῦτον γάρ ἡ κατά φύσιν προαίρεσις τῶν ἐπί τῷ αἱρουμένῳ πρακτῶν, τό κρεῖττον ποιουμένη πρό τοῦ χείρονος αἱρετόν· (29) ἤ παρά φύσιν, καί τόν τρόπον τῆς τῶν ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ χρήσεως δείξει φθαρτικόν τοῦ λόγου γεγενημένον τῆς φύσεως· τοιοῦτον γάρ ἡ παρά φύσιν προαίρεσις, τῶν ἐπί τῷ αἱρουμένῳ πρακτῶν, τό χεῖρον ποιουμένη πρό τοῦ κρείττονος προαιρετόν. Κατορθωθείσης γάρ ἤ παρασφαλείσης τῆς τοῦ αἱρουμένου τῶν ἐπ' αὐτῷ πρακτῶν κατά τήν βούλευσιν κρίσεως, ἧς οἱονεί ψῆφος ἐστιν ἡ προαίρεσις, ἤ ὁ κατά φύσιν αὐτῷ διά τῆς εὐχρηστίας ὑφίσταται λόγος, ἤ ὁ παρά φύσιν διά τῆς ἀχρηστίας παρυφίσταται τρόπος· ὁ μέν, τῆς κατά φύσιν· ὁ δέ, τῆς παρά φύσιν προαιρέσεως γινόμενος ἄγγελος.

Καί εἰ μέν κατά φύσιν ἡ τοῦ Χριστοῦ προαίρεσις ᾖ, οὐ μόνον ἐπί τοῖς αὐτοῖς πάλιν αὐτούς αἰτιασόμεθα, φύσιν ἄλλην Χριστοῦ θεότητος μέσην καί κτίσεως τολμηρῶς σχεδιάζοντας· ἀλλά καί ληροῦντας γελάσομεν, φύσει τῶν ἀντικειμένων κατά προαίρεσιν ὡς ψιλόν ἄνθρωπον κατά Νεστόριον τόν Χριστόν δεκτικόν ποιουμένους. Εἰ δέ παρά φύσιν, σιωπῶ παρατρέχων τό βλάσφημον, μήπως λαθών τοῖς κατ᾿ αὐτῶν ἐλέγχοις τήν γλῶτταν χρανθήσομαι. Προαιρετικόν γάρ ἐπί Χριστοῦ θέλημα φάσκοντες, ὑπόστασιν Χριστοῦ πάντως ὑπέδειξαν κατά φύσιν κινεῖσθαι καί παρά φύσιν δυναμένην. Τοιοῦτον γάρ, ὡς ἔφθην εἰπών, ἡ προαίρεσις· εἰ δέ τῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ χαρακτηριστικόν ἐστιν ὑποστάσεως, ἀφώρισαν αὐτόν, κατά δή τοῦτο τό θέλημα, τοῦ τε Πατρός καί τοῦ Πνεύματος ἑτερόβουλόν τε καί ἑτερόγνωμον. Τό γάρ τῷ Υἱῷ, καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν ἰδικῶς ἐνθεωρούμενον, Πατρί καί Πνεύματι καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν παντελῶς ἀκοινώνητον. Ὅσοι τοίνυν τῶν ἁγίων Πατέρων (5) ἐπί τῆς κατά Χριστόν ἀνθρωπότητος προαιρέσεως