42

will be shown to be of communion; as His will or energy, which He has by nature, is not composite; nor again is ours. For there is no composition of those things in a subject; because they are not considered to have any existence at all in themselves and outside the underlying substance. For besides being ungracious and utterly contemptible, they further confess that it is divided and cut in half, up and down, according to the natural affinity for both, by way of distinction; and this, the indivisible union according to hypostasis. Or if, on the other hand, we shall preserve unharmed the natural will and the essentially inherent energy of the divine nature of the incarnate Word, but abolish and discard these from his human substance; then we thus damage the supernatural union, which has nothing to bind to one hypostasis the flesh animated with a rational and intellectual soul, that is, our substance and nature, which is not at all perfectly existing and preserved in the Word. For where and what is a nature that has suffered the loss of its natural properties?

If, then, the Lord was lacking in these, or any of these, natural properties according to the flesh, He was not flesh at all, nor man; for let those who say these things show a man who is by nature without these, or a man at all; or, if such a thing does not exist at all, it is clear that the Word, having been incarnate, did not become a man, being by nature deprived of these or any of them. For how and for what reason, when the nature has no lack of such things? but it is something else, altogether foreign to our substance and unknown; and, either consubstantial with Him from the beginning, and having descended with Him who came down from above, it clearly became that which it is said to have become; and what then is the descent to us, who have in no way come together through the holy flesh that was not assumed from us and united hypostatically? Or was the whole thing a phantasm, and a mere form deceiving the sense, but not a substance of flesh, not as the first-fruits of our race, uniting the whole lump by grace, and releasing from all the divisive things of which the transgression of the old Adam became the cause; through which also death was condemned upon nature. Why, therefore, do they begrudge us our perfect salvation and confession? Why do they stretch out against us their supposedly inescapable syllogisms, and say that the wills follow the energies, and that opposition in turn follows these, from which they also introduce those who will opposite things?

(77) But to leave aside refuting their systematic arguments: from where, and how do they contrive such sophistries? I only wanted to inquire and to learn, how, when they themselves did such things, and put into effect their new exposition, they did this unwillingly, and who was it that brought force to bear? Then after the action, did they subsequently acquire the will for what was done, which did not exist at all before, from where, and from what source did it come? And who was it that compelled them to have the will for what was done, so that what was done was done against their will, and the deed was cherished against their wish? And how again, if he neither willed naturally as a man, nor performed natural actions, did the incarnate Word Himself willingly accept hunger and thirst, pain and weariness, and sleep, and all the rest? For the Word alone did not will or effect these things by nature, possessing a nature with the Father and the Spirit that is superessential and super-infinite; even if again He "authoritatively as God, gave opportunity to the nature, when He willed, to perform its own actions;" as says the divine teacher of Nyssa and great Gregory. For if He as God alone, and not as man as well, willed these things, then either the divine is a body by nature, or having been changed in substance, He became flesh by a falling away from his own divinity; or certainly rationally it was according to itself entirely and irrational; or if the flesh animated by him was animated rationally, it was not animated; but it was entirely soulless and irrational in itself; or if

42

δειχθήσεται κοινωνίας· ὡς οὐ σύνθετον ἐκείνου κατά φύσιν ἔχοντος θέλημα, ἤ ἐνέργειαν· οὐδέ πάλιν ἡμῶν. Οὐδεμίαν γάρ τῶν ἐν ὑποκειμένῳ σύνθεσις· ὅτι μηδέ καθ᾿ ἑαυτά τό παράπαν ὕπαρξις θεωρεῖται, καί τῆς ὑποκειμένης οὐσίας ἐκτός. Πρός γάρ τῷ ἄχαρι καί λίαν κατάπτυστον, ἄνω τε καί κάτω διά τήν φυσικήν πρός ἄμφω συγγένειαν κατά διαστολήν ἐξ ἡμισείας μερίζεσθαί τε καί τέμνεσθαι, προσομολογούντων· καί ταῦτα τήν καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν ἀδιάσπαστον ἕνωσιν. Εἴτε πάλιν τῆς θείας τοῦ σαρκωθέντος Λόγου φύσεως ἀλώβητον, τό τε φυσικόν θέλημα, καί τήν οὐσιωδῶς προσοῦσαν ἐνέργειαν συντηρήσομεν, τῆς δέ κατ᾿ αὐτόν ἀνθρωπίνης οὐσίας ἀνέλωμεν ταῦτα καί ἀποσκευάσομεν· καί οὕτως τήν ὑπερφυᾶ παραβλάπτομεν ἕνωσιν, οὐκ ἔχουσαν ὅ τι καί δήσει πρός μίαν ὑπόστασιν, τῆς λογικῶς τε καί νοερῶς ἐψυχωμένης σαρκός, ἤγουν τῆς καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς οὐσίας καί φύσεως, ἐν τῷ Λόγῳ τό παράπαν οὐκ οὔσης τελείως καί σωζομένης. Ποῦ γάρ καί ποία φύσις, τῶν κατά φύσιν παθοῦσ τή ἔκπτωσιν;

Εἰ οὖν τούτων, ἤ τινος τούτων ἐλλιπής ἦν κατά σάρκα τῶν φυσικῶν ἰδιωμάτων ὁ Κύριος, οὐδέ σάρξ ὅλως ὑπῆρχε καί ἄνθρωπος· ἤ γάρ δείξωσιν οἱ ταῦτα λέγοντες, ἄνθρωπον ὄντα κατά φύσιν τούτων ἐκτός, ἤ ὅλως ἄνθρωπον· ἤ, εἴπερ οὐδαμῶς τό παράπαν ἐστί, δῆλον ὥς οὐκ ἄνθρωπος, τούτων ἤ τινος αὐτῶν κατά φύσιν ἐστερημένος, σαρκωθείς ὁ Λόγος γεγένηται. Πῶς γάρ καί τίνι λόγῳ, μηδεμίαν ἔλλειψιν τῶν τοιούτων ἐχούσης τῆς φύσεως; ἀλλ᾿ ἕτερόν τι ξένον παντάπασι τῆς ἡμετέρας οὐσίας ὑπάρχει καί ἄγνωστον· καί, ἤ ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς συνουσιωμένον αὐτῷ, καί ἄνωθεν κατελθόντι συγκατελθόν αὐτῷ, ἐκεῖνο σαφῶς ὅπερ λέγεται γεγονέναι· καί τί λοιπόν πρός ἡμᾶς ἡ κατάβασις, οὐδαμῶς συνελθόντας διά τῆς οὐκ ἐξ ἡμῶν προσληφθείσης, καί καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν ἑνωθείσης ἁγίας σαρκός; ἤ φαντασία τό πᾶν, καί σχῆμα μόνον φαινακίζον τήν αἴσθησιν, ἀλλ' οὐκ οὐσία σαρκός, ὡς οὐκ ἀπαρχή τοῦ ἡμετέρου γένους, τό φύραμα κατά χάριν ἑνίζουσα, καί τῶν διαιρετικῶν ἀπολύουσα πάντων, ὧν ἡ τοῦ παλαιοῦ παράβασις Ἀδάμ αἰτία γεγένηται· δι᾿ ἥν καί ὁ θάνατος κατεκρίθη τῆς φύσεως. Τί τοιγαροῦν βασκαίνουσιν ἡμῖν τῆς τελείας σωτηρίας καί ὁμολογίας; Τί τούς ἀφύκτους δῆθεν καθ' ἡμῶν διατείνουσι συλλογισμούς, καί ταῖς μέν ἐνεργείαις ἕπεσθαί φασι τά θελήματα, καί τούτοις συνέπεσθαι πάλιν τήν ἐναντίωσιν, ἐξ ἧς καί τούς τἀναντία θέλοντας ἐπεισάγουσιν;

(77) Ἵνα δέ τάς συστάσεις εὐθύνειν παρῶ· πόθεν, καί πῶς τά τοιαῦτα σοφίζονται; Πυθέσθαι μόνον ἤθελον καί μαθεῖν, ὡς ἄρα δράσαντες αὐτοί τά τοιαῦτα, καί τήν καινήν ἔκθεσιν ἐνεργήσαντες, ἀθελήτως τοῦτο πεποίηκαν, καί τίς ὁ βίαν ἐπενεγκών; Εἴτα μετά τήν πρᾶξιν, οὐκ ὄν πρότερον παντελῶς, ὕστερον τοῦ γενομένου τό θέλημα προσεκτήσαντο, πόθεν, κἀκ τίνος ἐλθόν; Καί τίς ὁ τοῦ πραχθέντος ἔχειν τό θέλημα βιασάμενος, ἵνα καί παρά θέλησιν πραχθῇ, καί παρά βούλησιν στερχθῇ τό πραττόμενον; Πῶς δέ πάλιν, εἰ μήτε φυσικῶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος ἤθελε, καί ἐνήργει τά κατά φύσιν, αὐτός ὁ σαρκωθείς Λόγος, ἑκουσίως τήν τε πεῖναν καί δίψαν, τόν τε πόνον, καί κόπον, καί ὕπνον, καί τά λοιπά πάντα προσίετο θέλων; Οὐ γάρ Λόγος μόνον ταῦτα κατά φύσιν ἤθελεν ἤ ἐνήργει, τήν φύσιν ἔχων μετά Πατρός καί Πνεύματος ὑπερούσιόν τε καί ὑπεράπειρον· εἰ κάι πάλιν ἡ "ἐξουσιαστικῶς ὡς Θεός, ἐδίδου τῇ φύσει καιρόν, ὅταν ἐβούλετο, τά ἑαυτῆς ἐνεργῆσαι·" καθάπερ φησίν ὁ θεῖος τῆς Νυσσαέων καθηγητής καί μέγας Γρηγόριος. Εἰ γάρ ὡς μόνον Θεός ταῦτα, καί οὐχ ὡς ἄνθρωπος ὁ αὐτός ἤθελεν, ἤ σῶμα φύσει τό θεῖον, ἤ τήν οὐσίαν τραπείς, σάρξ κατ᾿ ἔκπτωσιν τῆς οἰκείας θεότητος γέγονεν· ἤ πάντως λογικῶς ἡ κατ᾿ αὐτήν διόλου καί ἄλογος· ἤ εἴπερ ἐψύχωτο λογικῶς ἡ κατ᾿αὐτόν οὐκ ἐψύχωτο σάρξ· ἀλ᾿ ἄψυχος ἦν κατ᾿ αὐτήν διόλου καί ἄλογος· ἤ εἴπερ