89

man, if one separates the phenomenon from the intelligible. " He therefore posits that ignorance is to be accepted only in the conceptual distinction of the substances; but the natural wills, and every other natural thing apart from sin alone, are to be known by the hypostatic union of the natures of the incarnate Logos himself, for the most authoritative confirmation of those things from which, and in which, and which he is. If, therefore, we contemplate ignorance in the conceptual distinction, it is not properly his, as it is not constitutive of us by nature—even if it is said to be ours on account of the ancient transgression—such as ignorance, abandonment, disobedience, insubordination. For what principle of nature or constitutive element of substance do we have in these things? Therefore we do not predicate these things of Christ at all as belonging to Christ, nor anything else, as I said, of those things known in the conceptual distinction; and quite reasonably so. For if we do not know the incarnate Logos in distinction, nor imagine him by a mere concept, but believe him to exist in the ultimate hypostatic union of natures; it is clear that none of the things taken in division by concept are his at all; but we hold that those things alone are properly his which happen to be natural along with the nature, and are outside the stain of sin, being truly preserved and confessed by the pious in the unity of person and of his one hypostasis.

Therefore, let them demonstrate if the will is not natural and constitutive of our substance. But if it is natural—for man is by nature volitional—either it too, along with the other things of the incarnate Logos, who became man in substance and who exists with a will according to both the natures of which he is composed, both exists and is known; or else the other natural things along with it—I mean the natural will—will be known in the conceptual division merely, but not properly and really, and according to them, so will be the contemplation and mystery of the whole economy; or rather, the incarnation itself, being taken by them in division and fantasy, with no natural thing (224) being confessed by them in Christ according to union, not even nature itself at all. For where there is nothing natural, there can never be a nature. Just as where there is properly a nature, the things according to it are inseparably present, apart from sin alone. Therefore for them there will be not one pretext against the truth. For every pretext has been removed, and the concept through all things, so that they might joyfully welcome this, if they should wish, and confess it sincerely with us; and not rely on arguments spun like a spider's web from their inert minds against those who orthodoxly believe in him, that from what things Christ is, in those things Christ is; and in what things Christ is, those things Christ is. Therefore Christ is God and man in the same; and he is in divinity and in humanity; and he is united from divinity and from humanity.

Solution of the second absurdity by the same St. Maximus. Concerning showing that the Fathers speak of the wills as natural, we will show this when

they may be able, or may wish—to speak more appropriately—to hear, those who have stopped up the soul's faculty of hearing to all things divine and patristic. For if they should wish to cleanse this faculty as from some passion of strife, and clearly, or rather impartially, to fix the eye of the mind according to reason upon the much-illumined and sacred splendor of the teaching handed down by the Fathers, they will certainly understand how they designate the wills as natural; both from the fact that all of them in common explicitly say and teach, "Both natural appetite, and innate

89

ἄνθρωπος, ἄν τις τό φανόμενον χωρίσῃ τοῦ νοουμένου. " Τίθεται οὖν τήν μέν ἄγνοιαν, τῇ κατ᾿ ἐπίνοιαν διαστολῇ τῶν οὐσιῶν μόνον ἐκδέχεσθαι· τά δέ φυσικά θελήματα, καί πᾶν τι ἄλλο φυσικόν δίχα μόνης τῆς ἁμαρτίας, τῇ καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν ἑνώσει τῶν φύσεων αὐτοῦ τοῦ σαρκωθέντος Λόγου γνωρίζειν, εἰς τήν τῶν ἐξ ᾧν, καί ἐν οἷς, καί ἅπερ ὑπάρχει κυριωτάτην βεβαίωσιν. Εἰ τοίνυν τήν μέν ἄγνοιαν ἐν τῇ κατ᾿ ἐπίνοιαν διαστολῇ θεωροῦμεν, οὐδ᾿ αὐτοῦ κυρίως ἐστίν, ὅ μήτε ἡμῶν κατά φύσιν ὡς συστατικόν, εἰ καί ἡμῶν εἶναι λέγεται διά τήν ἀρχαίαν παράβασιν, οἷον ἡ ἄγνοια, ἡ ἐγκατάλειψις, ἡ παρακοή, τό ἀνυπότακτον. Τίς γάρ ἡμῶν ἐν τούτοις φύσεως λόγος, ἤ τῆς οὐσίας συστατικός; ∆ιόπερ οὐδέ Χριστοῦ ταῦτα κατηγοροῦμεν, ὡς Χριστοῦ παντελῶς, οὐδέ εἴ τι ἄλλο, καθώς ἔφην, τῶν ἐν τῇ κατ᾿ ἐπίνοιαν διαστολῇ γνωριζομένων· καί μάλα εἰκότως. Εἰ γαρ οὐκ ἐν διαστολῇ τόν σεσαρκωμένον γινώσκομεν Λόγον, οὐδέ κατ᾿ ἐπίνοιαν ψιλήν φανταζόμεθα, ἀλλ᾿ ἐν ἄκρᾳ τῇ καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν ἑνώσει τῶν φύσεων ὄντα πιστεύομεν· δῆλον ὡς οὐδέ τι τῶν ἐν διαιρέσει κατ᾿ ἐπίνοιαν λαμβανομένων, αὐτοῦ τό παράπαν ἐστίν· ἀλλ᾿ ἐκεῖνα κυρίως αὐτοῦ καί μόνα πρεσβεύομεν, τά ὅσαπερ φυσικά τυγχάνει μετά τῆς φύσεως, καί λώβης ὄντα τῆς καθ᾿ ἁμαρτίαν ἐκτός, ἑνότητι προσώπου, καί τῆς κατ᾿ αὐτόν μιᾶς ὑποστάσεως, πραγματικῶς σωζόμενά τε καί ὁμολογούμενα τοῖς εὐσεβέσιν.

Οὐκοῦν εἰ μέν οὐ φυσικόν τό θέλημα, καί τῆς ἡμετέρας οὐσίας συστατικόν, παραστήσωσιν. Εἰ δέ φυσικόν· θελητικός γάρ φύσει ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ἤ καί αὐτό μετά τῶν ἄλλων τοῦ σαρκωθέντος Λόγου κατ᾿ οὐσίαν ὡς ἀνθρώπου γεγενημένου, καί θελητικοῦ κατ' ἄμφω τάς ἐξ ὧν συνέστηκε φύσεις ὑπάρχοντος, καί ἔστι καί γνωρίζεται, ἤ καί τά ἄλλα φυσικά μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ, φημί δή τοῦ κατά φύσιν θελήματος, ἐν τῇ κατ' ἐπίνοιαν διαιρέσει, ψιλῶς, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ κυρίως καί πραγματικῶς γνωρισθήσονται, καί ἔσται κατ᾿ αὐτούς, ἡ τῆς ὅλης οἰκονομίας θεωρία καί μύησις· μᾶλλον δέ αὐτή κυρίως ἡ σάρκωσις, κατά διαίρεσιν αὐτοῖς λαμβανομένη καί φαντασίαν, μηδενός φυσικοῦ (224) τούτοις ἐν Χριστῷ καθ᾿ ἕνωσιν ὁμολογουμένου, μή δ᾿ αὐτῆς τό παράπαν τῆς φύσεως. Οὗ γάρ τι φυσικόν οὐκ ἔστιν, οὔτε φύσις ἔσται ποτέ ἄν. Ὥσπερ ἔνθα κυρίως ἡ φύσις, τά κατ᾿ αὐτήν ἀπαραλείπτως δίχα μόνης τῆς ἁμαρτίας. ∆ιόπερ οὐδέ μία τούτοις κατά τῆς ἀληθείας πρόφασις ἔσται. Περῄρηται γάρ πᾶσα, καί διά πάντων ἐπίνοια, πρός τό ταύτην, εἴ γε βούλοιντο, περιχαρῶς 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