96

operation, nor indeed a movement of will contrary or irrational in the soul, as we have, "since he was also born beyond the law of human nature."

And he shows more clearly in the following, that his argument was to reject only the passible, but not the natural, will in the Savior. And that, even in his natural and human [will], although it concurred with the Father's and divine [will], having no difference towards that [will] out of opposition, but giving himself as a model to us, he willingly subjected his own [will]; and he established the Father's [will], which we also, by imitating, having set aside our own, might fulfill the divine [will] with all diligence, saying thus: And though it is written, "That I came not to do my own will, but the will of the Father who sent me;" and, "Not what I will, but what thou wilt, Father," "these are not of a different will," that is, of one that is contrary and opposing, "but of the assumed human economy" compassionately making our [sufferings] its own. "For he said these things for our sake, to whom the Teacher of piety has given an example, that we might follow in his footsteps; and that each of us might not [prefer] his own, but rather prefer the Lord's will in all things." Therefore, as I said, he does not make an abolition of the natural and human will, but of the passible and unnatural. and to speak generally, what is in us free from all (244) sin, he bears witness to in the God who was incarnate for us.

And to speak concisely, by means of the one will, I think he means to indicate that only the divine will preceded his birth according to the flesh; and by means of the "there not being a difference of will," that it has no contrary or opposing [will], but one that is entirely concurrent and united. Whence, whenever he says that our nature was assumed by the divinity, he makes mention of one will; but whenever he puts forward in his argument, "I came not to do my own will," leaving aside the number, he says, "these are not of a different will," that is, contrary and opposed, from which it is manifestly concluded that two wills exist by nature in the Savior. For if he did not have a contrary [will], he had a natural one as man. For what is not contrary is surely natural, and no one will deny it; for there is nothing in nature or in things according to nature that is entirely contrary. One must therefore be very afraid to impose what he has not properly written in his own discourses, and [be afraid of those] contriving to make the man's writings a cloak for their own contrary opinion, which is not the best, misinterpreting these in another way contrary to his purpose. For he has reasoning that is consonant, driving off every attack of the slanderer.

And so I for my part suppose his meaning to be, being pure of all suspicion. But he has made this more certain for me, having returned from the elder Rome, the most holy presbyter, the lord Abba Anastasius, a man, if any other, adorned with divine virtue and wisdom; and saying that he had a long discussion with the most sacred men of the great Church there, concerning the letter written by them to Sergius, asking for what reason and how the one will was inserted in it, and he found them vexed at this, and making an apology, and besides them, the one who dictated it in Latin, at his command, the lord Abba John, the most holy symponus, maintaining that in no way had they made any mention at all in it of one will by number, even if this has now been fabricated by those who translated it into the Greek language. Nor indeed any confirmation or (245) expulsion of the natural will of the Savior according to his humanity, but a complete rejection and abolition of that which is ours and perverted, in accordance with which also the [relation] of homogenous things to each other consists

96

ἐνέργειαν, οὔτε μήν κατά ψυχήν θελήματος ἐναντίαν ἤ παράλογον κίνησιν, ὥσπερ ἡμεῖς, "ἐπειδή καί ὑπέρ νόμον ἀνθρωπίνης φύσεως ἐτέχθη."

Τρανώτερον δέ κἀν τοῖς ἑξῆς παρίστησιν, ὡς ὁ λόγος ἦν αὐτοῦ μόνον τό ἐμπαθές, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ τό φυσικόν ἐπί τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἀποδιορίσασθαι θέλημα. Καί ὅτιπερ, κἀν τῷ φυσικῷ καί ἀνθρωπίνῳ πρός τό Πατρικόν καί θεῖον συνέβαινε μέν, οὐδεμίαν τήν ἐξ ἀντιπράξεως ἔχων πρός ἐκεῖνο διαφοράν, ὑποτύπωσιν δέ διδούς ἡμῖν ἑαυτόν, τό οἰκεῖον ἑκουσίως ὑπέταττεν· συνίστα δέ τό Πατρικόν, ᾧ ἄν καί ἡμεῖς ἐκμιμούμενοι, τό ἑαυτῶν ἀθετήσαντες, τό θεῖον διά πάσης σπουδῆς ἐκπληρώσωμεν, λέγων οὕτως· Κἄν γέγραπται, " Ὅτι οὐκ ἦλθον ποιῆσαι τό θέλημα τό ἐμόν, ἀλλά τοῦ πέμψαντός με Πατρός· καί, Οὐχ ὅ ἐγώ θέλω, ἀλλ᾿ εἴ τι σύ, Πάτερ, οὔκ εἰσι ταῦτα διαφόρου θελήματος," τουτέστιν ἐναντίου καί ἀντιπράττοντος, "ἀλλά τῆς προσληφθείσης ἀνθρωπίνης οἰκονομίας" οἰκειουμένης συμπαθῶς τά ἡμέτερα. "Ταῦτα γάρ δι᾿ ἡμᾶς ἔλεγεν, οἷς δέδωκεν παράδειγμα ὁ τῆς εὐσεβείας ∆ιδάσκαλος, ἵνα τοῖς ἴχνεσιν αὐτοῦ ἑπώμεθα· καί μή τό ἴδιον ἕκαστος ἡμῶν, ἀλλά τό τοῦ Κυρίου μᾶλλον ἐν πᾶσι προτιμήσῃ θέλημα." Οὐκ ἀναίρεσιν οὖν, ὡς ἔφην τοῦ φυσικοῦ καί ἀνθρωπίνου θελήματος, ἀλλά τοῦ ἐμπαθοῦς καί παρά φύσιν ποιεῖ· καί διόλου φάναι, τό πάσης (244) ἁμαρτίας ἐλεύθερον τό καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς, ἐπιμαρτύρεται τόν δι᾿ ἡμᾶς σαρκωθέντα Θεόν.

Καί ἵν᾿ ἐπιτόμως εἴπω, διά τοῦ ἑνός θελήματος, τό μόνην τῆς αὐτοῦ κατά σάρκα γεννήσεως τήν θείαν προκαθηγήσασθαι θέλησιν δηλοῦν αὐτόν οἶμαι· διά δέ τοῦ "μή ὑπάρχειν θελήματος διαφοράν," τό ἐναντίον οὐκ ἔχειν ἤ ἀντιπράττον, ἀλλά τό συμβαῖνον δι᾿ ὅλου καί ἡνωμένον. Ὅθεν ἡνίκα μέν τήν ἡμετέραν φύσιν ἐκ τῆς θεότητος προσειλῆφθαι λέγῃ, θελήματος ἑνός μνημονεύει· ἡνίκα δέ τό, Οὐκ ἦλθον ποιῆσαι τό θέλημα τό ἐμόν, εἰς μέσον τῷ λόγῳ προτίθησι, τόν ἀριθμόν ἀφείς, " Οὐκ εἰσί ταῦτα, φησί, διαφόρου θελήματος," τουτέστιν ἐναντίου καί ἀντικειμένου, ἐξ οὗ τό δύο κατά φύσιν ὑπάρχειν ἐν τῷ Σωτῆρι θελήματα προδήλως συνάγεται. Εἰ γάρ ἐναντίον οὐκ εἶχεν, φυσικόν εἶχεν ὡς ἄνθρωπος. Τό γάρ οὐκ ἐναντίον, φυσικόν πάντως, καί οὐδείς ἀντερεῖ· οὐδέν γάρ ἐν τῇ φύσει ἤ τοῖς κατά φύσιν παντελῶς ἐναντίον· ∆έος οὖν πολλά βαίνειν ἐπιβαλεῖν, ὅ μή κυρίως ἐν τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ γέγραφε λόγοις, καί μηχανᾶσθαι τούς δι᾿ ἐναντίας οἰκείας δόξης ὡς οὐκ ἀρίστης ἐπικάλυμμα ποιεῖν τἀνδρός τά γράμματα, καθ᾿ ἕτερον ταῦτα παρά τόν ἐκείνου σκοπόν παραξηγουμένους. Συνηγοροῦντα γάρ ἔχει τόν λόγον, πᾶσαν τοῦ ἐπηρεαστοῦ καταδρομήν ἀπελαύνοντα.

Καί οὕτω μέν ἐγώ γε τόν νοῦν ἔχειν ὑπολαμβάνω, πάσης ὄντα καθαρόν ὑποψίας. Βεβαιότερον δέ μοι τοῦτον πεποίηκεν ἐκ τῆς πρεσβυτέραςῬώμης ἐπανελθών ὁ ὁσιώτατος πρσβύτερος κύριος ἀββᾶς Ἀναστάσιος, ἀνήρ εἰ καί τις ἄλλος ἀρετῇ τε θείᾳ καί φρονήσει κεκοσμημένος· καί φήσας ὡς πολύς αὐτῷ λόγος κεκίνηται πρός τούς ἐκεῖσε τῆς μεγάλης Ἐκκλησίας ἱερωτάτους ἄνδρας, δια τήν πρός Σέργιον ἐξ αὐτῶν γραφεῖσαν ἐπιστολήν, ὅτου χάριν καί πῶς αὐτῇ διερωτῶν ἐνετάγη τό ἕν θέλημα, καί εὗρεν ἀσχάλλοντας ἐν τούτῳ, καί ἀπολογουμένους, καί πρός αὐτοῖς τόν ταύτην ἐν Λατίνοις ὑπαγορεύσαντα, κατά κέλευσιν αὐτοῦ κύριον ἀββᾶν Ἰωάννην ἁγιώτατον σύμπονον, ἰσχυριζόμενον ὡς οὐδαμῶς ἐπίμνησιν ἐν αὐτῇ δι᾿ ἀριθμοῦ πεποίηνται ἑνός τό παράπαν θελήματος, εἰ καί τοῦτο νῦν ἀνεπλάσθη παρά τῶν ταύτην ἑρμηνευσάντων εἰς τήν Ἑλλάδα φωνήν. Οὔτε μήν τήν οἱανοῦν κυρίωσιν ἤ (245) ἐκβολήν τοῦ κατά τό ἀνθρώπινον φυσικοῦ τοῦ Σωτῆρος θελήματος, ἀλλά τοῦ καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς καί διαβεβλημένου τελείαν ἀποσκευήν καί ἀναίρεσιν, καθ᾿ ὅ καί ὁ πρός ἄλληλα τῶν ὁμογενῶν συνίσταται