32

makes a division of natures that were according to him not united at all; but the other, saying there is only a difference of natural qualities after the union, likewise introduces a confused alteration of natures that were according to him not united at all; not knowing what they are even saying. For it was necessary, if indeed they had decided to be consistent with themselves, for Nestorius, who says that the union happened of gnomic qualities, not to divide the natures whose union he did not profess at all from the beginning; but to know the difference after the union of those things of which he asserts the union to be; and for Severus, who introduces a difference of natural qualities, not to confuse the natures after the union, of which we do not permit him to speak of the union, as long as he is ignorant of their difference after the union. For the difference of the things united is observed after the union, even if Nestorius is mad; and the union of the things that differ after the union, even if Severus marshals his forces and makes a great defense for his falsehood.

If, then, according to Nestorius, a union of only the gnomic wills took place, let him also state their difference after the union, leaving aside the division of things that were in no way united; and with the difference of the gnomic wills, he has introduced a change of gnomic will; according to which not the difference by nature is wont to be shown, but that by hypostasis, which creates in the goodness a remission and an intensification in the difference of the gnomic wills; and he has made a sinner of the man who is deified by him through progress; as not having in every way and respect the same gnomic will as God. For the difference of gnomic wills, as I said, produces a change of gnomic will; (45) and the change of gnomic will introduces a diminution of goodness; by which he who is still in any way whatsoever overcome, has not yet become perfectly sinless according to the gnomic will.

Therefore Nestorius, by not accepting the one [thing] according to hypostasis from the coming together of the natures, has also dissolved the union of the gnomic wills, being unable to say what the one [thing] is that is demonstrated from the union of the gnomic wills. For he cannot speak of an identity of goodness, since the clear difference of the gnomic wills after the union manifests their otherness according to intensification and remission. For of what things there is a coming together, of these it is entirely necessary to speak also of the difference. And in vain was the term of 'identity of counsel' devised by him, even if it is suitable for indicating the division of persons. For 'identity of counsel' is a union of counsels preserving the difference of those united according to it, if indeed it is unconfused, in which cases the division of the persons who will is also considered.

OF THE SAME.

From the same treatise, chapter 51.

That the Fathers, when speaking of two wills in Christ, signified the natural laws, not the gnomic wills.

But let no one find fault with the argument, which forbids the gnomic wills

dyad; finding almost all the glorious teachers speaking of two wills; nor, on the other hand, according to Severus, should one for this reason move the pious mind toward one will, lest one make a bad thing the successor of a bad thing; I mean, confusion the successor of division. For they did not say

32

τήν τῶν μηδόλως κατ᾿ αὐτόν ἑνωθεισῶν φύσεων ποιεῖται διαίρεσιν· ὁ δέ, ποιτήτων φυσικῶν λέγων μόνον εἶναι διαφοράν μετά τήν ἕνωσιν, ὡσαύτως τήν τῶν μηδόλως κατ' αὐτόν ἑνωθεισῶν φύσεων εἰσηγεῖται συγκεχυμένην ἀλλοίωσιν· οὐκ εἰδότες ὅ τι καί λέγουσιν. Ἐχρῆν γάρ εἴπερ ἑαυτοῖς στοιχεῖν διεγνώκεισαν, τόν μέν Νεστόριον, γνωμικῶν ποιοτήτων λέγοντα γεγενῆσθαι τήν ἕνωσιν, μή διαιρεῖν τάς φύσεις, ὧν μηδέ τήν ἀρχήν παντελῶς ἐπρέσβευσεν ἕνωσιν· ἀλλά τήν ὧν εἶναι φάσκει τήν ἕνωσιν, γινώσκειν διαφοράν μετά τήν ἕνωσιν· τόν δέ Σευῆρον, ποιοτήτων φυσικῶν διαφοράν εἰσηγούμενον, μετά τήν ἕνωσιν μή συγχεῖν τάς φύσεις, ὧν οὐ συγχωροῦμεν αὐτῷ λέγειν τήν ἕνωσιν, ἕως ἄν αὐτῶν ἀγνοεῖ τήν διαφοράν μετά τήν ἕνωσιν. Τῶν γάρ ἑνωθέντων ἡ διαφορά θεωρεῖται μετά τήν ἕνωσιν, κἄν Νεστόριος μέμηνε· καί τῶν μετά τήν ἕνωσιν δεαφερόντων ἡ ἕνωσις, κἄν Σευῆρος παρατάττεται, καί πολλήν ὑπέρ τοῦ ψεύδους ποιεῖται τήν συνηγορίαν.

Εἰ μέν οὖν κατά τόν Νεστόριον, μόνων τῶν γνωμικῶν θελημάτων ἕνωσις γέγονε, τούτων εἰπάτω καί τήν διαφοράν μετά τήν ἕνωσιν, ἀφείς τήν τῶν μηδαμῶς ἑνωθέντων πραγμάτων διαίρεσιν· καί συνήγαγε τῇ τῶν γνωμικῶν θελημάτων διαφορᾷ, καί τήν τῆς γνώμης παραλλαγήν· καθ᾿ ἥν οὐχ ἡ κατά φύσιν διαφορά δείκνυσθαι πέφυκεν, ἀλλ᾿ ἡ καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν, ποιουμένη τῆς ἀγαθότητος ἐν τῇ διαφορᾶ τῶν γνωμικῶν θελημάτων, ἄνεσιν καί ἐπίτασιν· καί πεποίηκεν ἁμαρτωλόν, τόν κατά προκοπήν παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ θεοποιούμενον ἄνθρωπον· ὡς μή κατά πάντα τρόπον τε καί λόγον τήν αὐτήν τῷ θεῷ γνωμικήν ἔχοντα θέλησιν. Ἡ γάρ διαφορά τῶν γνωμικῶν θελημάτων, τήν τῆς γνώμης, ὡς ἔφην, ποιεῖται παραλλαγήν· (45) ἡ δέ τῆς γνώμης παραλλαγή, τῆς ἀγαθότητος εἰσηγεῖται τήν μείωσιν· ὑφ᾿ ἧς ὁ καθοτιοῦν ἔτι κρατούμενος, τελείως οὔπω κατά τήν γνώμην γέγονεν ἀναμάρτητος.

Οὐκοῦν τό καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν ἐκ τῆς συνόδου τῶν φύσεων ἕν μή δεχόμενος ὁ Νεστόριος, καί τήν τῶν γνωμικῶν θελημάτων διέλυσεν ἕνωσιν, οὐχ εὑρίσκων εἰπεῖν τέ ποτέ ἐστι τό ἐκ τῆς ἑνώσεως τῶν γνωμικῶν θελημάτων ἀποδεικνύμενον ἕν. Οὐ γάρ ἔχει ταυτότητα λέγειν τῆς ἀγαθότητος, τῆς τῶν γνωμικῶν θελημάτων σαφῶς διαφορᾶς μετά τήν ἕνωσιν, τήν κατ᾿ ἐπίτασιν καί ἄνεσιν ταύτοις ἑτερότητα προφαινούσης. Ὧν γάρ ἡ σύνοδος, τούτων ἀνάγκη πάντως λέγειν καί τήν διαφοράν. Καί μάτην αὐτῷ τῆς ταυτοβουλίας ὁ λόγος ἐπενοήθη, κἄν πρός δήλωσιν τῆς τῶν προσώπων δαιρέσεώς ἐστιν ἁρμόδιος. Ἡ γάρ ταυτοβουλία, βουλῶν ἐστιν ἕνωσις φυλάττουσα τήν τῶν κατ᾿ αὐτήν ἠνωμένων διαφοράν, εἴπερ ἀσύγχυτος αἷς ἡ τῶν βουλομένων προσώπων συνεπιθεωρεῖται διαίρεσις.

ΤΟΥ ΑΥΤΟΥ.

Ἐκ τῆς αὐτῆς πραγματείας κεφάλ. να´.

Ὅτι δύο θελήματα λέγοντες οἱ Πατέρες ἐπί Χριστοῦ, τούς φυσικούς νόμους, οὐ τάς γνώμας ἐσήμαναν.

Ἀλλά μηδείς εὐθυνέτω τόν λόγον, τήν τῶν γνωστικῶν θελημάτων ἀπαγορεύοντα

δυάδα· πάντας εὑρίσκων σχεδόν τούς ἐνδόξους διδασκάλους, δύο θελήματα λέγοντας· μηδ' αὖ πάλιν κατά Σευῆρον, πρός ἕν θέλημα διά τοῦτο τόν εὐσεβῆ μεθορμήσοιτο νοῦν, ἵνα μή κακοῦ κακόν ποιῆται διάδοχον· τῆς διαιρέσεως λέγω τήν σύγχυσιν. Οὐ γάρ εἶπον