33

the divine Fathers a number of gnomic wills in Christ, but natural ones; having rightly named as wills the essential and natural laws and principles of the united natures. For indeed, having conceived of his appetite by its movements, they wisely named 'will' the natural appetite of the intelligently ensouled flesh—but not the gnomic one of a particular man—which has the power of natural desire for that which is, and is naturally moved and formed by the Logos for the fulfillment of the economy; without which it is impossible for human nature to exist. For a natural will is an appetitive power of that which exists according to nature, and is cohesive of all the properties (48) that essentially belong to the nature; according to which the being naturally constituted to will is always innate to that which by nature has will; but to be naturally constituted to will and to will are not the same thing, just as it is not the same to be naturally constituted to speak and to speak. For that which has the faculty of speech is always naturally so constituted, but it does not always speak, since the one belongs to the essence, being held together by the principle of nature, while the other belongs to deliberation, being formed by the judgment of the one speaking; so that always being naturally constituted to speak belongs to the nature, while how one speaks belongs to the hypostasis; just as also the being naturally constituted to will and the willing. But if being naturally constituted to will and willing are not the same (for the one, as I said, belongs to the essence, while the other belongs to the deliberation of the one willing), then the incarnate Logos as man had the being naturally constituted to will, which was moved and formed by His divine will. For His willing, says the great Gregory, was in no way opposed to God, being wholly deified. And if it was deified, clearly it was deified by its natural union with that which deifies; and that which deifies and that which is deified are certainly two, not one and the same by nature. Since indeed both that which deifies and that which is deified are relatives, and relatives are by nature always introduced together with each other, and the one is conceived of together with the other. Therefore, the Savior as man is shown in the flesh, along with the other passions, as one naturally constituted and willing the shrinking from death, showing the economy to be pure of all phantasy, and redeeming the nature from its passions which were condemned on account of sin. And again He displays the impulse, having put death to death by the flesh, in order that He might both show that which is naturally constituted as man being saved in Himself, and might also reveal as God the ineffable and great counsel of the Father, being fulfilled bodily. For He did not become man primarily in order to suffer, but to save. Wherefore He says: Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless not my will, but yours, be done; showing, along with the shrinking, the impulse of the human will, in its natural union with the divine, being both formed and actualized according to the intertwining of the natural principle with the mode of the economy; since indeed the incarnation is a clear demonstration of nature and economy; I mean of the natural principle of the united natures, and of the hypostatic mode of the union, the one being confirmed, the other innovating the natures, without change and confusion. But not asking for the same thing, in the same respect, to be both nullified and actualized, which is absurd; since indeed the will of the Son is by nature that of the Father. Therefore the Savior, as man, had a natural will, formed by His divine will, not opposing it; for nothing natural is in any way opposed to God, when it is not also gnomic, wherein also a (49) personal division is observed, if it is according to nature; since otherwise the Creator must be blamed, for having made for Himself that which by nature fights against Him.

But how has the incarnate Logos truly become man, if He is devoid of that which most characterizes the nature as rational? For that which is deprived of the appetitive movement according to desire, would also be without any vital power. And that which does not by nature have vital power, clearly has no soul whatsoever, without which not even flesh could ever subsist. Therefore with a mere formation of flesh He presented the economy as a phantasm; but not by a nature of flesh,

33

οἱ θεσπέσιοι Πατέρες ἐπί Χριστοῦ ποσότητα γνωμικῶν θελημάτων, ἀλλά φυσικῶν· τούς οὐσιώδεις τε καί φυσικούς τῶν ἑνωθέντων νόμους τε καί λόγους, θελήματα καλῶς προσαγορεύσαντες. Καί γάρ φυσικήν τῆς νοερῶς ἐψυχωμένης σαρκός, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ τήν γνωμικήν τοῦ τινος ἀνθρώπου, τοῦ κινήμασι διανοήσαντες ὄρεξιν, ἔχουσαν τῆς τοῦ ὄντος φυσικήν ἐφέσεως δύναμιν, φυσικῶς κινουμένη τε καί τυπουμένην ὑπό τοῦ Λόγου πρός τήν τῆς οἰκονομίας ἐκπλήρωσιν, θέλημα σοφῶς προσηγόρευσαν· οὗ χωρίς εἶναι τήν ἀνθρωπίνην φύσιν, ἀδύνατον. Θέλημα γάρ ἐστι φυσικόν, δύναμις τοῦ κατά φύσιν ὄντος ὀρεκτική, καί τῶν οὐσιωδῶς τῇ φύσει προσόντων, (48) συνεκτική πάντων ἰδιωμάτων· καθ᾿ ἥν ἀεί τῷ φύσει θελητικῷ, τό πεφυκέναι θέλειν, ἐμπέφυκεν· οὐ ταυτόν δέ τό πεφυκέναι θέλειν, καί θέλειν· ὡς οὐδέ τό πεφυκέναι 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 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 (49) 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 σαρκός τήν οἰκονομίαν ἐφάντασεν· ἀλλ᾿ οὐ φύσει σαρκός,