68

to rejoice, and to confess sincerely with us; but not to rely on arguments spun like a spider's web from their own feeble minds, those who believe orthodoxly in him, that Christ is in those things from which Christ is; and those things in which Christ is, these are Christ; Therefore, Christ is God and man in the same; and he is in divinity and in humanity; and he was united from divinity and from humanity.

A solution by the same Saint Maximus to the second absurdity.

Concerning showing that the Fathers speak of natural wills, we shall show this when they are able to understand or are willing, to speak more appropriately, those who have plugged up the soul's faculty of hearing to all things divine and patristic. For if they should wish to cleanse this from the passion of strife, and clearly, or rather dispassionately, to fix the eye of their mind according to reason on the brilliant and holy splendor of the teaching handed down by the Fathers, they will surely understand that they designate natural wills; both from the fact that all of them in common expressly say and teach, "Both a natural appetite, and an innate appetite, and the flesh naturally having the not willing to die; for this is a condemnation of nature. And how, he says, could the will be common to both? Where would the difference of nature appear in one will? For it is entirely necessary for the volition to be concurrent with the nature, and for the nature not to be willing to die, but to cling to the present life. And just as to hunger and to thirst is not a crime, neither is it to long for the present life. And that 'for by nature the affection for present things is inherent'." And: "The flesh which he assumed for us, having, along with all that naturally pertains to it, also the shrinking from death." These are the dogmas of Athanasius, and Basil, and (15Α_298> Gregory, and John, and Theophilus, and Cyril, of blessed memory, and of the other approved Fathers. What greater proof than these is there, that they proclaim natural wills? And what contradiction from whom, when there is no ambiguity or any sort of concealment in these statements?

We, therefore, on this account do not innovate with words, as our opponents say, but we confess the sayings of the Fathers; nor do we set down coinages of names with our own purpose in mind; for this is audacious, 0225 and the work and invention of a heretical and mad mind; but as they were understood and spoken by the saints themselves, we piously bring them forth. But what ground will they have, and from where, for not understanding it in this way at all, but for holding an opinion differently and contrary to these things, if they should wish to be pious at all, and not to deviate from the teaching of the Fathers? For if, being abashed by natural ones, they will have them as hypostatic, that is, personal, they will also introduce personal otherness, or as contrary to nature, and they will dogmatize the lapse of essences, having driven the natures, or rather themselves, into non-existence. For there is no such thing as a personal or a contrary-to-nature will, if we may even grant such a thing could be said; because it is not known at all, after the departure of the essential wills. For whether divine and human, or deifying and deified, or created and uncreated, or however they may wish to call them, we are piously compelled to designate the wills in Christ as natural, and not otherwise, wishing to signify the natural otherness of those things from which he is composed. For if it is entirely necessary, according to the Fathers, for the volition to be concurrent with the nature, and it is not possible to speak of the will as common, that is, to both of the essences, nor is the difference of nature revealed in one will, it is clear that it is entirely necessary to speak of two natural wills; so that, according to the Fathers, the difference of the essences in Christ unconfusedly

68

ἀσμενίσαι, καί ἡμῖν εἰλικρινῶς συνομολογεῖν· ἀλλά μή τοῖς ὡς ἐξ ἀράχνης τῆς κατ᾿ αὐτούς ἀδρανοῦς διανοίας ἐπερείδεσθαι λόγοις, τούς εἰς αὐτόν ὀρθοδόξως πιστεύοντας, ὅτι ἐξ ᾧν ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός, ἐν αὐτοῖς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός· καί ἐν οἷς ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός, ταῦτά ἐστιν ὁ Χριστός· Ἔστιν οὖν Θεός καί ἄνθρωπος ἐν ταὐτῷ ὁ Χριστός· ἔστι δέ καί ἐν θεότητι καί ἐν ἀνθρωπότητι· ἥνωτο δέ καί ἐκ θεότητος καί ἐξ ἀνθρωπότητος.

Τοῦ αὐτοῦ ἁγίου Μαξίμου ἐπίλυσις τοῦ δευτέρου ἀτόπου.

Περί τοῦ δεῖξαι φυσικά λέγειν τά θελήματα τούς Πατέρας, τότε δείξομεν, ὅτ᾿

ἄν ἐπαΐειν δυνηθῶσιν ἤ βουληθῶσιν, εἰπεῖν οἰκειότερον, οἱ πρός πάντα τά θεῖα καί πατρικά τήν ἀκουστικήν τῆς ψυχῆς ἀποβύσαντες δύναμιν. Εἰ γάρ ταύτην ὡς ἔκ τινος πάθους ἀνακαθάραι βουληθῶσι τῆς ἔριδος, καί τρανῶς, ἤ μᾶλλον ἀπροσπάθως, τό τῆς διανοίας ὄμμα κατά λόγον ἑρεῖσαι τῇ τῆς πατροπαραδότου διδασκαλίας πολυφώτῳ καί ἱερᾷ λαμπηδόνι, συνήσουσι πάντως ὡς φυσικά θελήματα κατονομάζουσιν· ἔκ τε τοῦ διαῤῥήδην ἅπαντας κοινῇ λέγειν τε καί διδάσκειν, "Φυσικήν τε ὄρεξιν, καί ἔμφυτον ὄρεξιν, καί φυσικῶς ἔχουσαν τό μή θέλειν ἀποθανεῖν τήν σάρκα· κατάγνωσις φύσεώς ἐστι γάρ τοῦτο. Καί πῶς ἄν φησι κοινόν ἀμφοτέρων τό θέλημα; ποῦ δ᾿ ἄν ἡ τῆς φύσεως διαφορότης τῷ ἑνί θελήματι διαφαίνοιτο; Ἀνάγκη γάρ πᾶσα σύνδρομον εἶναι τῇ φύσει τήν βούλησιν, καί τήν φύσιν μή βουλομένην ἀποθανεῖν, ἀλλά τῆς παρούσης ἀντεχομένην ζωῆς. Καί ὥσπερ τό πεινεῖν καί διψεῖν οὐκ ἔγκλημα, οὐδέ τό τῆς παρούσης ζωῆς ἐφίεσθαι. Καί ὅτι φύσει γάρ ἔγκειται τό φίλτρον τό περί τά παρόντα». Καί τό· " Ἐχούσης τῆς σαρκός, ἥν δι' ἡμᾶς ἀνέλαβε μετά πάντων τῶν αὐτῇ προσόντων φυσικῶς, καί τό παραιτεῖσθαι τόν θάνατον». Ταῦτα Ἀθανασίου, καί Βασιλείου, καί (15Α_298> Γρηγορίου, καί Ἰωάννου, καί Θεοφίλου, καί Κυρίλλου, τῶν ἀοιδίμων, τά δόγματα, καί τῶν ἄλλων ἐγκρίτων Πατέρων. Τίς ἡ ὑπέρ ταῦτα μείζων ἀπόδειξις, ὡς φυσικά θελήματα διαγορεύουσι; Ποία δέ καί παρά τίνων ἀντιλογία, μηδεμιᾶς ἐν τούτοις τοῖς λεγομένοις οὔσης ἀμφιβολίας, ἤ τῆς οἱασοῦν ἐπικρύψεως;

Ἡμεῖς μέν οὖν ἐντεῦθεν οὐ λέξεις καινοτομοῦμεν, ὡς οἱ δι᾿ ἐναντίας φασίν, ἀλλά πατρικάς ὁμολογοῦμεν φωνάς· οὐδέ πρός τόν ἴδιον νοοῦντες σκοπόν τάς ὀνοματοποιίας τιθέμεθα· τολμηρόν γάρ τοῦτο, 0225 καί τῆς αἱρετικῆς ἔργον καί μανικῆς διανοίας ἐφεύρεσις· ἀλλ᾿ ὡς ὑπ᾿ αὐτῶν τῶν ἁγίων ἐνοήθησαν καί ἐλέχθησαν, ταύτας εὐσεβῶς προκομίζομεν. Αὐτοί δέ τίνα καί πόθεν ἕξουσι χώραν, εἰς τό μή πάντως οὕτω νοεῖν, ἀλλ᾿ ἑτέρως καί παρά ταῦτα δοξάζειν, εἴγε βούλοιντ᾿ ἄν ὅλως εὐσεβεῖν, καί τῆς πατρικῆς μή παρεκκλίνεσθαι διδασκαλίας; Εἰ γάρ ὑποστατικά, τουτέστι προσωπικά ἕξουσι πάντως τά φυσικά δυσωπούμενοι, καί τήν προσωπικήν ἑτερότητα συνεισάξουσιν, ἤ τά παρά φύσιν, καί τήν ἔκπτωσιν τῶν οὐσιῶν δογματίζουσιν, εἰς ἀνυπαρξίαν τάς φύσεις, ἤ μᾶλλον ἑαυτούς, συνελάσαντες. Καί γάρ τι τῶν προσωπικῶν, καί τῶν παρά φύσιν, εἴπέρ τι τοιοῦτον δώσωμεν ὅλως εἰπεῖν, οὐκ ἔστιν· ὅτι μηδέ καθόλου γινώσκεται, μετά τήν τῶν κατ᾿ οὐσίαν ἀποφοίτησιν θελημάτων. Εἴτε γάρ θεῖον καί ἀνθρώπινον, εἴτε θεοῦν καί θεούμενον, εἴτε κτιστόν καί ἄκτιστον, εἴτε καί ὅπως ποτέ καλεῖν ἐθέλοιεν, φυσικά, καί οὐκ ἄλλως τά ἐπί Χριστοῦ θελήματα κατονομάζειν εὐσεβῶς ἐναγόμεθα, τήν φυσικήν ἑτερότητα τῶν ἐξ ὧν συνέστηκε διασημαίνειν ἐθέλοντες. Εἰ γάρ ἀνάγκη πᾶσα σύνδρομον εἶναι τῇ φύσει τήν βούλησιν κατά τούς Πατέρας, καί οὐκ ἔστιν κοινόν δηλαδή ἀμφοτέρων τῶν οὐσιῶν τό θέλημα λέγειν, οὔτε ἡ τῆς φύσεως διαφορότης τῷ ἑνί θελήματι διαφαίνεται, δῆλον ὡς πάντως δύο φυσικά ἀνάγκη τά θελήματα λέγειν· ἵνα, κατά τούς Πατέρας, ἡ τῶν οὐσιῶν ἐπί Χριστοῦ διαφορότης ἀσυγχύτως