90

desire, and having it by nature for the flesh not to want to die; for this is a condemnation of nature. And how, he says, could the will be common to both? And where would the difference of nature appear with one will? For it is absolutely necessary for the will to be concurrent with nature, and for nature not to wish to die, but to cling to the present life. And just as to hunger and to thirst is not a fault, neither is it to long for the present life. And that the affection for present things is inherent by nature." And this: "The flesh which He assumed for our sake, having with all its natural properties also that of shrinking from death." These are the doctrines of Athanasius, and Basil, and 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, and by whom, since there is no ambiguity or any concealment in these sayings?

We, therefore, from this do not innovate with words, as our opponents say, but we confess the patristic expressions; nor do we create coinages of words with our own purpose in mind; for this is audacious, (225) and the work and invention of a heretical and manic mind; but as they were understood and spoken by the saints themselves, so we piously bring them forth. But they, what and whence will they find ground for not thinking thus at all, but for holding different opinions contrary to these, if indeed they wish to be pious at all, and not to deviate from the patristic teaching? For if, being shamed by the natural wills, they will in any case hold them to be hypostatic, that is, personal, they will also introduce a personal otherness, or [they will hold them to be] contrary to nature, and they will dogmatize the falling away of the substances, having driven the natures, or rather themselves, into non-existence. For there is no such thing as a personal [will], nor one contrary to nature, if we may even say such a thing at all; because it is not known at all, after the departure of the wills that are according to substance. For whether divine and human, or deifying and deified, or created and uncreated, or however they might wish to call them, we are piously led to name the wills in Christ as natural and not otherwise, wishing to signify the natural otherness of those things of which He is composed. For if, according to the Fathers, it is absolutely necessary for the will to be concurrent with nature, and it is not possible to say that the will of both substances is common, that is, nor does the difference of nature appear with one will, it is clear that it is absolutely necessary to speak of two natural wills; so that, according to the Fathers, the difference of the substances in Christ may be known unconfusedly and indivisibly. What argument, then, do they have against these things, or what coinage of words might they fashion for themselves, understanding the patristic sayings according to their own purpose? And what would they have the pious person choose, falling away from the natural wills? The personal ones? And who will bear the division of the one Christ into persons? But those contrary to nature? And who will endure the abyss of evil and non-existence, into which they are gradually driving themselves? However, let them be thankful for this, that, desiring to fight against the number of wills, they have turned to the natural account of them, which perhaps we even concede, so that they may name it as they wish, falling away from the number accordingly, until, having learned from the unsuitable designation the absurdity, and to what an unsuitable end it leads them, they themselves might be persuaded to confess natural wills according to the Fathers.

And who would not marvel at their circumlocution? And how, using certain periods and race-courses, they contrive to dismantle the great mystery of the divine economy concerning us? For at one time, the will is against the natural energies

90

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 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, (225) 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 καί ἀδιαιρέτως γνωρίζηται. Τίς οὖν αὐτοῖς πρός ταῦτα λόγος, ἤ τίνα τήν ὀνοματοποιΐαν ἑαυτοῖς ἀναπλάσοιντο, κατά τόν ἴδιον τά πατρικά νοοῦντες σκοπόν; Ποῖα δέ ἄρα τόν εὐσεβῆ ἑλέσθαι βούλοιντ᾿ ἄν, τῶν φυσικῶν ἀποπίπτοντα θελημάτων, τά προσωπικά; Καί τίς οἴσει τήν ἐν προσώποις τοῦ ἑνός κατατομήν; Ἀλλά τά παρά φύσιν. Καί τίς ὅ τῆς κακίας καί τῆς ἀνυπαρξίας ἐνέγκῃ βάραθρον, εἰς ὅπερ ἑαυτούς κατά μικρόν συνελαύνουσι; Πλήν, ἐκεῖνο χάριν ἑαυτοῖς, ὅτι τόν ἀριθμόν τῶν θεληματων πολεμεῖν ἐφέμενοι, περί τήν τούτων φυσιολογίαν ἐτράπησαν, ἥν τυχόν καί παραχωροῦμεν, ὡς θέλοιεν ὀνομάζειν, τοῦ κατά ταῦτα διαπίπτοντες ἀριθμοῦ, μέχρις ἄν ἐκ τῆς ἀκαταλλήλου κλήσεως μεταμαθόντες τό ἄτοπον, καί εἰς ὅπερ ἄν αὐτοῖς ἄγει τέλος ἀπρόσφορον, πεισθεῖεν καὐτοί φυσικά θελήματα κατά τούς Πατέρας ὁμολογεῖν.

Τίς δέ καί τήν τούτων περιφοράν μή θαυμάσειε; Ὅπως τε περιόδοις τισί καί διαύλοις ἀποκεχρημένοι, τό μέγα τῆς περί ἡμᾶς θείας οἰκονομίας ἀποσκευάζειν μηχανῶνται μυστήριον; Ποτέ μέν γάρ κατά τῶν φυσικῶν ἐνεργειῶν τό θέλημα