35

or to speak more precisely, with infinite wills and infinite persons. For the one who said 'every energy' has made a declaration of an uncountable quantity.

Therefore, according to the converse of Severus' proposition, his doctrine of theology has collapsed for him, as he introduces an Arian polytheism, and a Sabellian atheism, and a nature of divinity that Hellenistically wars against itself; but according to the proposition itself, his doctrine of the economy has clearly been corrupted for him, [making] the one Christ without substance, without will, without hypostasis; and again, as he preaches the same one with infinite wills and infinite persons. What is more impious than this?

Do you see where Severus' rule leads away those who are persuaded by it? For every argument that does not have the invincible foundation of truth becomes such. But in saying there is one will of Christ, O best of men, how and of what kind do you say this is? If as a natural will of Christ, you have alienated Him from the nature of the Father and the Mother, since He is united to neither according to substance. For Christ is by nature neither of these; and how, in saying this, will you escape the danger of polytheism? If a gnomic will, it will be characteristic of His hypostasis alone. For the gnomic is definitive of a person; and He will be clearly shown to be of another will than the Father and the Spirit, according to you, and in conflict. If it is of His divinity alone, the divinity will be subject to passion, unnaturally desiring food and drink. If it is of His humanity alone, it will not be by nature active. For how could it be, if it is human? And the display of miracles will clearly be shown to be monstrous.

If it is common by nature to both, how will there be a (56) common will of things whose nature is different? If as a composite of the whole, in addition to the new myth and fiction. For what is a composition of will? again you have alienated Him from the Father, having characterized a composite hypostasis only by a composite will. Thus, then, the argument, coming forward, uproots every plant which the Father did not plant; since it is not its nature to cultivate a foreign field.

But, as it seems, Severus abolished the natural will of Christ's humanity, not knowing that the most proper and primary property of every rational nature especially, is its movement according to appetite; which the Fathers considered, and splendidly confessed a difference of natural, but not of gnomic wills in Christ. For they would never have spoken of a difference of gnomic wills in Christ, lest He be of two minds and two wills, and, so to speak, at war with Himself in the opposition of His thoughts, and lest for this reason they preach Him as having two persons; since they knew that the difference of gnomic wills has come to be in this life, [a difference that is] 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 choice with respect to the divine will; to which, being in every way opposed, quantity is co-introduced, and the number that indicates it, showing the opposition of our gnomic will toward God.

Therefore, for both Nestorius and Severus there is one purpose in their impiety, even if the manner is different. For the one, because of confusion, fleeing the hypostatic union, makes the essential difference a personal division; while the other, because of division, not speaking of the essential difference, works the hypostatic union into a natural confusion; whereas one ought [to confess] neither confusion in Christ, nor division; but to confess a union of things that differ in substance, and a difference of things that are united in hypostasis, so that both the principle of the substances and the manner of the union may be piously proclaimed; from which both have departed; the one, only the union of gnomic qualities; the other, only of the natural ones after the union

35

ἤ τό γε κυριώτερον εἰπεῖν, ἀπειρόβουλός τε καί ἀπειροπρόσωπος. Ὁ γάρ πᾶσαν φήσας ἐνέργειαν, ποσότητος πεποίηκε δήλωσιν ἀναρίθμητον.

Οὐκοῦν κατά μέν τήν ἀντιστροφήν τῆς Σευήρου προτάσεως, ὁ τῆς θεολογίας αὐτῷ διαπέπτωκε λόγος, Ἀρειανήν πολυθεΐαν, καί Σαβελλιανήν ἀθεΐαν, καί μαχομένην Ἑλληνικῶς ἑαυτῇ φύσιν θεότητος εἰσηγουμένῳ· κατά δέ τήν πρότασιν, σαφῶς ὁ τῆς οἰκονομίας αὐτῷ νενόθευται λόγος, τόν ἕνα Χριστόν ἀνούσιον, ἄβουλον, ἀνυπόστατον· καί πάλιν τόν αὐτόν ἀπειρόβουλόν τε πρεσβεύοντι καί ἀπειροπρόσωπον· οὗ τί δυσσεβέστερον;

Ὁρᾶτε ποῦ φέρων ὁ Σευήρου κανών ἀπάγει τούς πειθομένους; Τοιοῦτος γάρ ἅπας καθέστηκε λόγος, τήν ἀήττητον βάσιν οὐκ ἔχων ἀλήθειαν. Ἕν δέ Χριστοῦ θέλημα λέγων, ὦ βέλτιστε, πῶς καί ποῖον τοῦτο φής; Εἰ μέν ὡς Χριστοῦ φυσικόν, Πατρός φύσει καί Μητρός αὐτόν ἠλλοτρίωσας, οὐδετέρῳ κατ᾿ οὐσίαν ἑνούμενον. Οὐδέτερον φάρ 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 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 (56) 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 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