72

Gregory, since it is changeable. For that which was able to be deified, was certainly also able to be made earthly, according to the first Adam." And in the sixth of the letters written by him to Timothy, his wicked collaborator and partner in impiety: "He who says there are two wills of Christ, according to those who said so in the past and now, either introduces two Christs in the one, separated from each other not only by nature, but also indeed by aversion; or he teaches that the same one is in conflict with himself. For where there is a dyad, there is certainly division." But also Themistius, the defender of the faction of Severus, but the exarch of the evil-mindedness of the Agnoetae, in chapter 45 of the second discourse against the tome presented to the empress Theodora by Theodosius the heresiarch of the heretics named after him, writes these god-hated things: "For it is not because the sacred Athanasius said that Christ shows two wills at the time of the passion, that we should now attribute two wills to him, and these fighting against each other, according to these your syllogisms; but we shall know piously that the one will of Emmanuel, as of one person, is moved in one way humanly, and in another way divinely." And the same abominable heretic again, in chapter 52, of the third discourse of the treatise that followed, of the same tribe of his own impiety: "I say that the knowledge and the energy of Emmanuel is one, just as also the will. Consider it thus: The unchangeable one, as God, who is superior to all passion, being moved humanly according to the will, declines the passion; but again divinely takes courage towards the passion, and does each of these through the flesh." And these things they say perversely.

But those who likewise oppose these and the truth, I mean the leaders of the division, being driven to the same and equal evil opinion as they concerning one will and one energy; who also advocated a gnomic union in relation, buzz these things about. Theodore, the evil-minded and contentious one, who plundered the see of Mopsuestia, in the (173) misinterpretations by him of the second discourse on the miracles: "The Savior, by saying to the leper, 'I will; be cleansed,' showed that the will is one, the energy is one, proceeding according to one and the same authority, not of nature, I say, but of good pleasure, by which the man who, according to foreknowledge, was later born of the seed of David, was united to God the Word, having from the very womb an intimate appropriation to him." But the follower and successor of his madness, Nestorius the accursed, in his so-called 'Clear Initiation,' in the second discourse of the treatise of the same name, writes these wicked things: "We guard the natures unconfusedly, not united according to substance, but by will, on account of which we also see their will, energy, and lordship to be one, shown by equality of worth. For God the Word, having assumed the man whom he foreordained, was preferred by him in the principle of authority, on account of the foreknown disposition." The same madman again in the same, of the fourth discourse: The God the Word was not one, and the man in whom he became another. For the prosopon of both was one in worth and honor, worshipped by all of creation, not divided in any place or time by a difference of counsel and will. But also Paul the Persian, being a false deacon of the most defiled heresy of Nestorius, in his discourse 'On Judgment,' utters these things with them, fighting against God. "Since the union of God the Word to the man whom he assumed did not happen according to substance, there has not become one nature. And if one nature has not come to be, Christ is not one single-prosopon hypostasis; therefore the union is according to good pleasure, maintained by an identity of counsel and will, so that both the difference of the natures might be shown unconfused, and the mystery of the good pleasure might be demonstrated by a monad of volition."

72

Γρηγόριον, ἐπεί τρεπτόν. Τό γάρ θεωθῆναι δυνηθέν, καί γεωθῆναι πάντως ἠδύνατο, κατά τόν πρῶτον Ἀδάμ." Καί ἐν ἕκτῃ τῶν πρός τόν Τιμόθεον αὐτῷ γεγραμμένων γεγραμμένων ἐπιστολῇ, τόν αὐτῷ συνεργάτην, καί τῆς ἀσεβείας συλλήπτορα πονηρόν· " Ὁ δύο θελήματα λέγων Χριστοῦ, κατά τούς πάλαι καί νῦν φησαμένους, ἤ τόν ἕνα δύο τινάς εἰσάγει Χριστούς, ἀλλήλων οὐ φύσει μόνον, ἀλλά δή καί ἀπεχθείᾳ διηρημένους· ἤ τόν αὐτόν ἑαυτῷ διδάσκει μαχόμενον. Ἔνθα γάρ δυάς, πάντως διαίρεσις." Ἀλλά καί Θεσμίστιος, ὁ τῆς μέν Σευήρου συμμορίας ὑπασπιστής, τῆς δέ τῶν Ἀγνοητῶν ἔξαρχος κακοφροσύνης, ἐν κεφαλαίῳ με´ τοῦ λόγου δευτέρου τῶν κατά τοῦ ἐπιδοθέντος τόμου Θεοδώρᾳ τῇ βασιλίδι παρά Θεοδοσίου τοῦ αἱρεσιάρχου, τῶν ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ κατονομασθέντων αἱρετικῶν, τάδε θεοστυγῶς· " Οὐ γάρ ἐπεί τε καί ἱερός Ἀθανάσιος δύο θελήματα ἔφη τόν Χριστός δεικνύναι, κατά τόν τοῦ πάθου καιρόν, ἤδη καί δύο θελήσεις αὐτῷ περιθήσωμεν· καί ταύτας μαχομένας ἀλλήλαις, κατά τούς σούς τούτους συλλογισμούς· ἀλλ᾿ εἰσόμεθα εὐσεβῶς, τήν ὡς ἑνός μίαν θέλησιν τοῦ Ἐμμανουήλ, πῆ μέν, ἀνθρωπίνως κινεῖσθαι, πῆ δέ θεοπρεπῶς." Ὁ δ᾿ αὐτός πάλιν συσάντητος αἱρετικός, ἐν κεφαλαίῳ νβ´, λόγῳ γ´τῆς κατακολούθου τοῦ συμφυλέτου τῆς αὐτοῦ δυσσεβείας γεγονυ«ας αὐτῷ πραγματείας· " Μίαν φημί τοῦ Ἐμμανουήλ τήν γνῶσιν καί τήν ἐνέργειαν, καθά καί τήν θέλησιν. Σκόπει οὖν οὕτως· Ὁ ἄτρεπτος, ὡς Θεός, ὁ παντός πάθους ἀνώτερος, ἀνθρωποπρεπῶς κινηθείς κατά τήν θέλησιν, παραιτεῖται τό πάθος· θεοπρεπῶς δέ πάλιν πρός τό πάθος ἀναθαῤῥεῖ, καί διά σαρκός τούτων ἑκάτερον." Καί ταῦτα μέν οἴδε δυστρόπως.

Οἱ δέ τούτων ἐπίσης καί τῆς ἀληθείας ἀντίφρονες, τούς τῆς διαιρέσεως λέγω καθηγητάς, πρός τήν ἴσην ἐκείνοις καί τήν αὐτήν περί τε θελήματος ἑνός καί μιᾶς ἐνεργείας συνελαυνόμενοι κακοδοξίαν· οἱ καί τήν ἐν σχέσει γνωμικήν ἐπρέσβευον ἕνωσιν, τάδε περιβομβοῦσι. Θεόδωρος μέν ὁ κακόφρων καί δύσερις, ὁ τήν Μομψουεστινῶν ληϊσάμενος, ἐν τοῖς (173) εἰς τά θαύματα παρεξηγηθεῖσιν αὐτῷ λόγου δευτέρου· "Θέλω, καθαρίσθητι, πρός τόν λεπρόν εἰπών ὁ Σωτήρ, ἔδειξε μίαν εἶναι τήν θέλησιν, μίαν τήν ἐνέργειαν, κατά μίαν καί τήν αὐτήν ἐξουσίαν προαγομένην, οὐ λέγω φύσεως, ἀλλ᾿ εὐδοκίας, καθ᾿ ἥν ἡνώθη τῷ Θεῷ Λόγῳ ὁ κατά πρόγνωσιν, ἐκ σπέρματος ∆αυΐδ ὕστερον γενόμενος ἄνθρωπος, ἐξ αὐτῆς μήτρας τήν πρός αὐτόν ἐνθιάθετον ἔχων οἰκείωσιν." Ὁ δέ τῆς ἐκείνου μανίας ὀπαδός καί διάδοχος, Νεστόριος ὁ ἀλητήριος, ἐν τῇ λεγομένῃ αὐτῷ Ἐμφανεῖ μυήσει λόγου δευτέρου τῆς κατ᾿ αὐτήν πραγματείας τάδε κακούργως· " Ἀσυγχύτως φυλάττομεν τάς φύσεις, οὐ κατ᾿ οὐσίαν, γνώμῃ δέ συνημμένας, δι᾿ ὅ καί μίαν αὐτῶν τήν θέλησιν, ἐνέργειάν τε καί δεσποτείαν ὁρῶμεν, ἀξίας ἰσότητι δεικνυμένας. Ὁ γάρ Θεός Λόγος ἀναλαβών ὅν προώρισεν ἄνθρωπον, τῷ τῆς ἐξουσίας λόγῳ πρός αὐτοῦ προεκρίθη, διά τήν προγνωσθεῖσαν διάθεσιν." Ὁ δ᾿ αὐτός αὖθις παράφρων ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ λόγου τετάρτου· ἡ Οὐκ ἄλλος ἦν ὁ Θεός Λόγος, καί ἄλλος ὁ ἐν ᾧ γέγονεν ἄνθρωπος. Ἕν γάρ ἦν ἀμφοτέρων τό πρόσωπον ἀξίᾳ καί τιμῇ, προσκυνούμενον παρά πάσης τῆς κτίσεως, μηδενί τόπῳ ἤ χρόνῳ ἑτερότητι βουλῆς καί θελήματος διαιρούμενον. Ἀλλά μήν καί Παῦλος ὁ Πέρσης ψευδοδιάκονος ὤν τῆς Νεστορίου μιαρωτάτης αἱρέσεως, ἐν τῷ Περί κρίσεως αὐτοῦ λόγῳ, τάδε σύν ἐκείνοις φθέγγεται θεομαχῶν. " Ἐπειδή κατ᾿ οὐσίαν ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου πρός ὅν ἀνέλαβεν ἄνθρωπον οὐ γέγονεν ἕνωσις, μία φύσις οὐ γέγονεν. Εἰ δέ μία φύσις οὐ γέγονεν, μία μονοπρόσωπος ὁ Χριστός οὐκ ἔστιν ὑπόστασις· οὐκοῦν κατ' εὐδοκίαν ἡ ἕνωσις, βουλῆς καί γνώμης ταυτότητι κρατουμένη, ἵνα καί τό διάφορον τῶν φύσεων ἀσύγχυτον δείκνυται, καί τό τῆς εὐδοκίας μυστήριον μονάδι βουλήσεως διαδείκνυται."