Chapter 36 — The error of Macarius of Antioch who said that there was only one will in Christ

The opinion of Macarius of Antioch, (Seventh century.) who said that there were but one operation and will in Christ, seemingly amounts to the same as the foregoing.

Each nature has its proper operation, because the form, which gives each nature its particular species, is the principle of operation. Therefore, as various natures have their respective forms, so have they their respective actions. Consequently, if in Christ there be but one action, it follows that he has but one nature. This is the heresy of Eutyches. Therefore, it is false that there is only one operation in Christ.

Again. In Christ there is the perfect divine nature, whereby he is consubstantial with the Father; there is also a perfect human nature, whereby he is of the same species as we are. Now it belongs to the perfection of the divine nature to have a will, as we have proved. (Bk. 2, ch. 72.) Likewise it belongs to the perfection of human nature to have a will, whereby a man is free. Therefore, there are two wills in Christ.

Moreover. The will is a power of the soul even as the intellect. Therefore, if Christ had no other will besides that of the Word, for the same reason, he had no other intellect besides the Word’s. So we come back to the error of Apollinaris.

Further. If Christ had but one will, he must have had the divine will alone, because the Word could not lose the divine will which was his from all eternity. Now merit does not pertain to the divine will, since it belongs to one tending to perfection. Accordingly, Christ would not have merited by his Passion, either for himself or for us; the contrary of this is taught by the Apostle, who says that Christ became obedient to the Father unto death . . . therefore, God has highly exalted him (Phil 2:8–9).

Again. If there was not a human will in Christ, it follows that there would have been no free-will in him in respect of the nature assumed. For man is free by his will, and thus the man Christ would have acted not in the manner of a man, but in the manner of other animals that are void of free-will. Consequently, his actions were neither virtuous nor worthy of praise or imitation. Therefore, there was no point in his saying: Learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart (Matt 11:29); and: I have given you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you (John 13:15).

Again. Even an ordinary man, though he has but one personality, has several appetites and operations corresponding to his various natural principles. Thus in his rational faculty he has a will; in the sensitive faculty he has a concupiscible and an irascible appetite; and besides these he has a natural appetite resulting from the natural forces in him. Again, with his eyes he sees, with his ears he hears, with his mind he understands: all these are different operations. The reason of this is that operations are differentiated not only according to the various operative subjects, but also according to the various principles of operation in one and the same subject, from which principles these various operations take their species. Now the divine nature is much further removed from human nature than the various principles of human nature are from one another. Therefore, the divine and human natures in Christ have each their respective distinct will and operation, although Christ in the two natures is one person.

Again. It is clearly proved by the authority of Sacred Scripture that there were two wills in Christ. Thus he says: I have come down from heaven not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me (John 6:38); and: Not my will, but thine, be done (Luke 22:42). Hence, it is clear that in Christ there was his own will, besides the will of his Father. Now there certainly was in him a will common to him and his Father, since, as Father and Son have the one nature, so have they the one will. Therefore, there are two wills in Christ.

It is the same with his operations. Christ had one operation common to him and the Father, for he says: Whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise (John 5:19). There is also in him another operation that is not becoming to the Father—for instance, sleep, hunger, eating, and so forth—all of which (both actions and passions) are ascribed by the Evangelist to the man Christ. Therefore, there was not only one operation in Christ.

Apparently, this opinion originated through its authors being unable to distinguish between simple unity and unity of order. They observed that the human will in Christ was subordinate to the divine will, so that every act of the human will of Christ was in accordance with the disposition of his divine will. In like manner, all Christ’s human operations, whether of action or of passion, were in accordance with the disposition of his divine will, as he says himself: I always do what is pleasing to him (John 8:29). Besides, Christ’s human operation derived a certain divine efficacy through his union with the divinity, even as the action of the secondary agent acquires efficacy from the principal agent. Consequently, his every action or passion was salutary: for which reason Dionysius (Pseudo-Dionysius, On the Divine Names 2.) calls Christ’s human operations theandric—that is, God-man-like. This is also because it is the action of God and man. And so, observing that in Christ human will and operation are infallibly subordinate to the divine, they concluded that Christ has but one will and operation. But in reality, unity of order and simple unity are not the same.