,

of nature, having taken up, on our behalf He became by nature a passible man, through the sin that was for my sake removing my sin. And just as in Adam the private quality of his choice regarding evil took away the common glory of incorruptibility from nature, since God judged it not good (14Β_270> for the man whose choice had become wicked to have an immortal nature, so also in Christ the private quality of his choice regarding the good took away the common shame of corruption from the whole of nature, as nature was refashioned into incorruptibility at the resurrection on account of the immutability of his choice, since God judged it reasonable for the man whose choice did not change to receive back an immortal nature. And by man I mean the incarnate God the Word, on account of the flesh with a rational soul which He united to Himself hypostatically. For if the change of choice in Adam introduced what is naturally passible, corruptible, and mortal, it is fitting that the immutability of choice in Christ brought back through the resurrection what is naturally impassible, incorruptible, and immortal.

The condemnation, therefore, of Adam's volitional sin is the alteration of nature toward passion, corruption, and death; which man did not have from God in the beginning, but made and knew, having fashioned volitional sin through disobedience; of which the condemnation through death is clearly the offspring. This condemnation of my volitional sin, I mean what is naturally passible, corruptible, and mortal, the Lord took and became sin for my sake with respect to the passible, corruptible, and mortal, willingly undergoing my natural condemnation, while being uncondemned in his choice, in order that he might condemn my volitional and natural sin and condemnation, having at the same time driven sin and passion and corruption and death out of nature, and that the economy concerning me, who fell through disobedience, might become a new mystery of the One who, out of love for mankind, acts on my behalf, for the sake of my salvation willingly appropriating my condemnation through death, and through it bestowing upon me the recall to immortality.

In many ways, I think, it has been shown in summary how the Lord became sin, but did not know sin, and how (14Β_272> man did not become sin, but made and knew sin, both the volitional, which he himself began, and the natural, which the Lord accepted on his account, being entirely free from the first. In no way, therefore, is it better to make and know sin than to become sin, according to the intended meaning of the account given, and with the proper distinction of the homonymy concerning sin being understood. For the one brings about separation from God, as the choice willingly thrusts away divine things, while the other often becomes an impediment to evil, not allowing the evil of the choice to proceed into action, because of natural weakness.

SCHOLIA 1. He says that the sin of nature is death, by which of being, and not

willing, we are deprived; but the sin of choice is the selection of things contrary to nature, by which, though we wish to be well, we fall away.

2. That the Lord, having been incarnate as a man, was corruptible according to nature, in which respect he is said to have become sin; but incorruptible by nature according to choice, as being without sin.

3. The death of the Lord, he says, has become the beginning of incorruptibility for the whole of nature. 4. The sin for our sake is the corruptibility of nature; but our sin is the

mutability of choice. Therefore man became mortal, having undergone the natural death, according to a just judgment, for the abolition of the death of the choice.

5. He calls the change of choice the first sin, which the Lord did not have, although He truly took on what is naturally passible, being the penalty of the

φύσεως, ἀναλαβών, ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν γέγονε φύσει παθητὸς ἄνθρωπος, διὰ τῆς δι᾽ ἐμὲ ἁμαρτίας τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνελὼν ἁμαρτίαν. Καὶ ὥσπερ ἐν τῷ Ἀδὰμ τὸ περὶ κακίαν τῆς προαιρέσεως ἴδιον τὸ κοινὸν τῆς ἀφθαρσίας ἀφείλετο κλέος τῆς φύσεως, φύσιν ἀθάνατον ἔχειν (14Β_270> οὐκ εἶναι καλὸν κρίναντος τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν κακισθέντα τὴν προαίρεσιν ἄνθρωπον, οὕτως ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ τὸ περὶ τὸ καλὸν τῆς προαιρέσεως ἴδιον τὸ κοινὸν τῆς φθορᾶς αἶσχος τῆς ὅλης ἀφείλετο φύσεως, κατὰ τὴν ἀνάστασιν μεταπλασθείσης εἰς ἀφθαρσίαν τῆς φύσεως διὰ τὴν ἀτρεψίαν τῆς προαιρέσεως, εὔλογον κρίναντος τοῦ Θεοῦ πάλιν ἀθάνατον ἀπολαβεῖν τὴν φύσιν τὸν μὴ τραπέντα τὴν προαίρεσιν ἄνθρωπον. Ἄνθρωπον δὲ λέγω τὸν σαρκωθέντα Θεὸν Λόγον δι᾽ ἣν ἑαυτῷ καθ᾽ ὑπόστασιν ἥνωσε λογικῶς ἐψυχωμένην σάρκα. Εἰ γὰρ τὸ κατὰ φύσιν παθητόν τε καὶ φθαρτὸν καὶ θνητὸν ἐν τῷ Ἀδὰμ ἡ τροπὴ τῆς προαιρέσεως ἐπεισήγαγεν, εἰκότως τὸ κατὰ φύσιν ἀπαθὲς καὶ ἄφθαρτον καὶ ἀθάνατον ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ διὰ τῆς ἀναστάσεως ἡ ἀτρεψία τῆς προαιρέσεως ἐπανήγαγε.

Κατάκρισις οὖν ἐστι τῆς προαιρετικῆς ἁμαρτίας τοῦ Ἀδὰμ ἡ τῆς φύσεως πρὸς πάθος καὶ φθορὰν καὶ θάνατον μεταποίησις· ἣν οὐ γέγονε μὲν ἐκ Θεοῦ καταρχὰς ἔχων ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ἐποίησε δὲ καὶ ἔγνω, τὴν προαιρετικὴν διὰ τῆς παρακοῆς ἁμαρτίαν δημιουργήσας· ἧς ὑπάρχει γέννημα σαφῶς ἡ διὰ τοῦ θανάτου κατάκρισις. Ταύτην δὲ τῆς ἐμῆς προαιρετικῆς ἁμαρτίας τὴν κατάκρισιν, λέγω δὲ τὸ κατὰ φύσιν παθητὸν καὶ φθαρτὸν καὶ θνητόν, ὁ Κύριος λαβὼν ἁμαρτία γέγονε δι᾽ ἐμὲ κατὰ τὸ παθητὸν καὶ φθαρτὸν καὶ θνητόν, τὴν ἐμὴν ἑκουσίως ὑποδὺς φύσει κατάκρισιν, ἀκατάκριτος ὑπάρχων τὴν προαίρεσιν, ἵνα τὴν ἐμὴν προαιρετικήν τε καὶ φυσικὴν ἁμαρτίαν καὶ κατάκρισιν κατακρίνῃ, κατὰ ταὐτὸν ἁμαρτίαν καὶ πάθος καὶ φθορὰν καὶ θάνατον ἐξωθήσας τῆς φύσεως, καὶ γένηται καινὸν μυστήριον ἡ περὶ ἐμέ, τὸν πεσόντα ἐξ ἀπειθείας, τοῦ ὑπὲρ ἐμὲ ἐκ φιλανθρωπίας οἰκονομία, τῆς ἐμῆς ἕνεκεν σωτηρίας τὴν ἐμὴν ἑκουσίως οἰκειουμένου διὰ τοῦ θανάτου κατάκρισιν, καὶ δι᾽ αὐτῆς χαριζομένου μοι τὴν πρὸς ἀθανασίαν ἀνάκλησιν.

Πολλαχῶς, οἶμαι, δέδεικται κατ᾽ ἐπιτομὴν πῶς τε γέγονε μὲν ἁμαρτία ὁ Κύριος, οὐκ ἔγνω δὲ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, καὶ πῶς ὁ (14Β_272> ἄνθρωπος οὐ γέγονε μέν, ἐποίησε δὲ καὶ ἔγνω τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, τήν τε προαιρετικήν, ἧς αὐτὸς ἀπήρξατο, τήν τε φυσικήν, ἣν δι᾽ αὐτὸν ὁ Κύριος κατεδέξατο, τῆς πρώτης παντελῶς ὑπάρχων ἐλεύθερος. Οὐδαμῶς οὖν τοῦ γίνεσθαι κρεῖττον ὑπάρχει τὸ ποιῆσαι καὶ γνῶναι τὴν ἁμαρτίαν κατὰ τὸν ἀποδοθέντα νοούμενον τοῦ λόγου σκοπόν, καὶ μετὰ τῆς πρεπούσης διαστολῆς τῆς κατὰ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ὁμωνυμίας νοουμένης. Τὸ μὲν γὰρ Θεοῦ ποιεῖται χωρισμόν, ἀπωθουμένης ἑκουσίως τὰ θεῖα τῆς προαιρέσεως, τὸ δὲ κακίας πολλάκις γίνεται κωλυτικόν, μὴ συγχωροῦν εἰς ἔργον προβῆναι, διὰ τὴν φυσικὴν ἀσθένειαν, τὴν κακίαν τῆς προαιρέσεως.

ΣΧΟΛΙΑ 1. Ἁμαρτίαν φύσεως εἶναί φησι τόν θάνατον, καθ᾿ ὅν τοῦ εἶναι καί μή

θέλοντες ἀπογινόμεθα· ἁμαρτίαν δέ προαιρέσεως, τήν τῶν παρά φύσιν αἵρεσιν, καθ᾿ ἥν τό εὖ εἶναι θέλοντες ἀποπίπτομεν.

2. Ὅτι φθαρτός μέν κατὰ φύσιν σαρκωθείς ὡς ἄνθρωπος ὑπῆρχεν ὁ Κύριος, καθ' ὅ καί ἁμαρτία γεγονέναι λέγεται φησίν· ἄφθαρτος δέ φύσει κατά προαίρεσιν, ὡς ἀναμάρτητος.

3. Ὁ τοῦ Κυρίου θάνατος, φησίν, ἀφθαρσίας ἀρχή τῆς ὅλης φύσεως γέγονεν. 4. Ἡ δι᾿ ἡμᾶς ἐστιν ἁμαρτία, τό τῆς φύσεως φθαρτόν· ἡ δέ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτία, τό

τρεπτόν τῆς προαιρέσεως. ∆ιό γέγονε θνητός ὁ ἄνθρωπος, τόν φυσικόν ὑπομείνας θάνατον, κατά δικαίαν κρίσιν, εἰς ἀναίρεσιν τοῦ θανάτου τῆς προαιρέσεως.

5. Πρώτην ἁμαρτίαν φησί τήν τροπήν τῆς προαιρέσεως, ἥν οὐκ ἔσχεν ὁ Κύριος, καίτοι λαβών ἀληθῶς τό κατά φύσιν παθητόν, ἐπιτίμιον ὑπάρχον τῆς