66

A second difficulty by the same. If every word and utterance not spoken by the Fathers 0217 is an innovation

clearly established, one of two things is necessary: either to show that the saying 'natural wills' in reference to Christ is an utterance of the Fathers; (15Α_286> or, if they are unable to show it, let them know that they are innovating their own teaching under the name of the Fathers. But if, understanding their other utterances for their own purpose, they establish such a neologism. And if the second is blameworthy, then so is the first.

TO MARINUS THE PRESBYTER A SOLUTION TO THE FOREGOING DIFFICULTIES BY

THEODORE, DEACON AND RHETOR, SOLUTION 1.

(15Α_288> 0217 The questions from the rhetor, most holy and God-honored father, do not so much have the reasonableness of a difficulty, as they demonstrate the unreasonableness of the difficulty; both from his falsehood, and from his contention for the subversion of the divine incarnation of the Only-Begotten. For the Fathers did not, as he says, predicate ignorance of Christ for the same reason as the will. For who is able to show this, even if these men not only invent things that in no way exist, as is their custom, but also boldly bring them forth against themselves? Or in this way will the reason for ignorance and will be the same, bringing into identity things that are in every way properly incompatible; since the one represents the privation of what is, while the other, the positing of what is, which is clearly impossible, just as a state and its privation are not at all the same as each other. For neither because the divine and great Gregory enumerates this, namely ignorance, which was proposed by the Arians, did he declare it to be the same as the will. For he made no mention of the will explicitly, nor at all in the place where he relates these things, "But do you, he says, count for me, in addition to these, the sayings of ignorance: 'My God, and your God'; and 'greater,' 'created,' (15Α_290> 'has sanctified,'” and the rest. But if they attempt, perhaps, to reduce ignorance to the same as the will just because he included it, then surely, according to them, 'My God, and your God,' and 'greater,' spoken of the Father, and 'to create' and 'to sanctify' will also be the same as ignorance because of the syntax, since he also listed these with ignorance. But if this constitutes a derangement of the mind, that is a greater derangement for those who think these things, 0220 let alone for those who attempt to say or write them.

And furthermore, if the reason for ignorance and will is the same, either those who will by nature are in every way also ignorant, or those who are ignorant by nature also in every way will; therefore God, who wills by nature, will fall into the passion of ignorance, and all inanimate things, which are ignorant by nature, will be moved by a natural will. If this is so, then Christ Himself, who subsists from divinity and humanity, having, as they themselves say, both ignorance and will by appropriation, will surely have by nature, with respect to the divine will, ignorance also. And I forbear to say that, even if erroneously through appropriation, yet they have been shown to be advocating for the very thing they opposed, themselves positing two wills: the one by nature, I mean, and the one by appropriation; which are clearly two, along with an equal number of ignorances; and it is unreasonable to profess a twofold ignorance in Christ, who has not even one, but who in every way utterly abolishes all ignorance, since He is the wisdom and power of God.

But what sort of appropriation do they mean? The essential one, by which each one having natural properties appropriates them on account of nature; or the relative one, by which we naturally love and appropriate the things of others, while ourselves suffering or effecting none of these things? But if the first, they have rather declared the incarnate God to be a mere man, (15Α_292> by dogmatizing that he is naturally ignorant. If

66

Τοῦ αὐτοῦ δευτέρα ἀπορία. Εἰ πᾶσα λέξις καί φωνή μή τοῖς Πατράσιν εἰρημένη 0217 καινοτομία

προδήλως καθέστηκεν, δυοῖν ἀνάγκη θάτερον, ἤ δεῖξαι τῶν Πατέρων οὖσαν φωνήν, τό φυσικά λέγειν ἐπί Χριστῷ θελήματα· (15Α_286> ἤ δεῖξαι μή δυνάμενοι, ἴστωσαν τῷ τῶν Πατέρων ὀνόματι τήν ἑαυτῶν καινοτομοῦντες διδασκαλίαν. Εἰ δέ, τάς ἑτέρας αὐτῶν φωνάς πρός τόν ἴδιον νοοῦντες σκοπόν, τήν τοιαύτην τίθενται ὀνοματοποιΐαν. Εἰ δέ τό δεύτερον μεμπτόν, ἄρα καί τό πρῶτον.

ΠΡΟΣ ΜΑΡΙΝΟΝ ΠΡΕΣΒΥΤΕΡΟΝ ΕΠΙΛΥΣΙΣ ΤΩΝ ΠΡΟΤΕΤΑΓΜΕΝΩΝ ΑΠΟΡΙΩΝ ΥΠΟ

ΘΕΟ∆ΩΡΟΥ ∆ΙΑΚΟΝΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΡΗΤΟΡΟΣ, ΛΥΣΙΣ Α'.

(15Α_288> 0217 Αἱ παρά τοῦ ῥήτορος πεύσεις, ἁγιώτατε καί θεοτίμητε πάτερ, οὐ μᾶλλον τό εὔλογον ἔχουσι τῆς ἀπορίας, ἤ τό παράλογον ἐνδείκνυνται τῆς ἀπορίας· ἔκ τε τοῦ ψεύδους αὐτοῦ, καί τῆς ἐπ᾿ ἀνατροπῇ τῆς θείας τοῦ Μονογενοῦς σαρκώσεως ἕριδος. Οὐ γάρ ατά τόν αὐτόν τῷ θελήματι λόγον, ὥς φησι, καί τήν ἄγνοιαν ἐπί Χριστοῦ κατηγόρησαν οἱ Πατέρες. Τίς γάρ ὁ τοῦτο δεῖξαι δυνάμενος, εἰ καί οὗτοι τά μηδαμῶς ὄντα, καθώς ἔθος αὐτοῖς, οὐκ ἀναπλάττονται μόνο, ἀλλά καί τολμηρῶς καθ' ἑαυτῶν προκομίζουσιν; Ἤ οὕτω δ᾿ ἄν ἀγνοίας καί θελήματος ὁ αὐτός ἔσται λόγος, εἰς ταὐτόν ἄγων ἀλλήλοις τά πάντη κυρίως ἀσύμβατα· εἴπερ ἡ μέν, τήν τοῦ ὄντος ἀναίρεσιν· τό δέ, τήν τοῦ ὄντος θέσιν παρίστησιν, ὅ δή προδήλως ἀμήχανον, ὥς οὐδέ τό παράπαν ἀλλήλαις ἕξις ὑπάρχει καί στέρησις. Οὐδέ γάρ ἐπειδή τήν ἀπό τῶν Ἀρειανῶν προτεινομένην, καί ταύτην ὁ θεῖος καί μέγας Γρηγόριος καταριθμεῖ· φημί δή τήν ἄγνοιαν, ἤδη ταὐτόν οὖσαν ἀπέφηνεν, τῷ θελήματι. Τοῦ θελήματος γάρ ῥητῶς, οὐδέ κατά τόν τόπον παντελῶς ἐμνημόνευσεν, ἐν ᾧ ταῦτα διέξεισι, "Σύ δέ μοι, λέγων, καταρίθμει πρός ταῦτα τά τῆς ἀγνωμοσύνης ῥήματα τό, Θεός μου, καί Θεός ὑμῶν· καί τό, μείζων, τό, ἔκτισεν, τό, (15Α_290> ἡγίασε», καί τά ἑξῆς. Εἰ δέ ὅτι συμπαρέλαβε μόνο, εἰς ταὐτόν ἄγειν τήν ἄγνοιαν τῷ θελήματι τυχόν ἐπιχειροῦσιν ἔσται δήπου πάντως, καί τό, Θεός μου, καί Θεός ὑμῶν· καί τό, μείζων, παρά τοῦ Πατρός εἰρημένον, καί τό κτίζειν καί ἁγιάζειν ταὐτόν τῇ ἀγνοίᾳ κατ᾿ αὐτούς διά τήν σύνταξιν, ἐπειδή καί ταῦτα τῇ ἀγνοίᾳ συντέταχεν. Εἰ δέ τοῦτο διανοίας καθέστηκε παρατροπή, κἀκεῖνο μειζόνως ἐκτροπή τῶν ταῦτα 0220 λογιζομένων, μή τι γε λέγειν ἤ γράφειν ἐπιχειρούντων.

Ἄλλως τε δέ, εἰ ἀγνοίας καί θελήματος ὁ αὐτός καθέστηκε λόγος, ἤ τά φύσει θέλοντα πάντως, καί ἀγνοοῦσιν, ἤ τά φύσει ἀγνοοῦντα, πάντως καί θέλουσιν· οὐκοῦν καί Θεός κατά φύσιν θέλων, ἀγνοίας περιπεσεῖται πάθει, καί ἄψυχα πάντα κατά φύσιν ἀγνοοῦντα, θελήματι κινηθήσεται φυσικῷ. Εἰ δέ τοῦτο, καί Χριστός αὐτός ὁ ἐκ θεότητος ὑφεστώς καί ἀνθρωπότητος, κατ᾿ οἰκείωσιν, ὥς φασιν αὐτοί, τήν τε ἄγνοιαν καί τό θέλημα ἔχων, ἕξει που πάντως φύσει κατά τοῦ θείου θελήματος καί τήν ἄγνοιαν. Καί σιωπῶ λέγειν, ὡς εἰ καί διά τήν οἰκείωσιν ἐσφαλμένως· ἀλλ᾿ ὅμως οὗπερ κατηγωνίσαντο συνηγοροῦντες ἐδείχθησαν, καί αὐτοί δύο συνιστῶντες θελήματα, τό τε κατά φύσιν λέγω, καί τό κατ᾿ οἰκείωσιν· ἅπερ δύο προδήλως τυγχάνουσι, σύν ταῖς ἰσαρίθμοις ἀγνοίαις, ὅ καί παράλογον, διττήν ἐπί Χριστοῦ δοξάζειν τήν ἄγνοιαν, τοῦ μηδέ μίαν ἔχοντος, πᾶσαν δέ πάντως ἐξαφανίζοντος, εἴπερ ἐστί Θεοῦ σοφία καί δύναμις.

Οἰκείωσιν δέ, ποίαν ἄρα φασί; Τήν οὐσιώδη, καθ' ἥν τά προσόντα φυσικῶς ἕκαστον ἔχοντα οἰκειοῦται διά τήν φύσιν· ἤ τήν σχετικήν, καθ᾿ ἥν τά ἀλλήλων φυσικῶς στέργομέν τε καί οἰκειούμεθα, μηδέν τούτων αὐτοί πάσχοντες ἤ ἐνεργοῦντες; Ἀλλ᾿ εἰ μέν τήν πρώτην, ἐκεῖνοι μᾶλλον ψιλόν ἀπέφηναν ἄνθρωπον, (15Α_292> τόν σαρκωθέντα Θεόν, ὡς τοῦτον ἀγνοοῦντα φυσικῶς δογματίζοντες. Εἰ