67

and the second, not man at all, but God alone without flesh, as if in a mere relation to the things of the flesh, and not as appropriating the natural properties of a man naturally, while being and remaining God. Since indeed wherein he places ignorance, the teacher also clearly enumerates all the natural properties of the incarnate God; such as to sleep, to hunger, to thirst, to be weary, to weep, to be in agony, to undergo, the cross, death; with which also the resurrection, and the ascension, by which he has also saved us, having voluntarily accepted and suffered these things according to nature for our sake. If therefore they hold that these things happened to Christ by a mere appropriation in relation, and do not maintain that they are natural things of the incarnate Logos as man, what then will they leave for Apollinarius and Manes? For they have surpassed Severus in impiety, rather out-shouting him, as one not so much having risen up against the truth, but as one having used the expression of natural properties, even if he rejects the nature of the flesh, squeezing the different natures into one. For these things follow those who mix the unmixable, and who reject and steal the mind of the Fathers, which clearly sets everything in its proper order. Whence the all-praised and God-bearing teacher in the second discourse concerning the Son, goes through these things concerning ignorance, defining as with a certain rule and type, even if they first brought these very things before us without interpretation, deceiving the hearer: " Or is it clear to all, that he knows uninterpretably as God, but he says he is ignorant as man, if one separates the phenomenal from the conceptual. " Therefore he posits that ignorance is to be accepted only in the conceptual distinction of the substances; but that 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 0221 confirmation of the things from which, and in which, and which he is. (15A_294> If, therefore, we consider ignorance in the conceptual distinction, it is not even properly his, since it is not ours by nature as constitutive, even if it is said to be ours on account of the ancient transgression, such as ignorance, abandonment, disobedience, insubordination. For what reason of nature, or what constituent of substance, is there for us in these things? Therefore we do not predicate these things of Christ, as being of Christ at all, nor anything else, as I said, of the things known in the conceptual distinction; and very reasonably so. For if we do not know the incarnate Logos in distinction, nor do we imagine him by a mere concept, but we believe him to be in the ultimate hypostatic union of the natures; it is clear that none of the things taken in division by concept is his at all; but we hold that those things are properly and solely his, which happen to be natural with the nature, and are outside the blemish of sin, being truly preserved and confessed by the pious in the unity of person and of his one hypostasis.

Therefore, if the will is not natural, and constitutive of our substance, let them demonstrate it. But if it is natural—for man is by nature volitional—either it too, with the other things of the incarnate Logos, who became man in substance, and who is volitional according to both natures of which he is composed, both exists and is known; or the other natural things with it, I mean the natural will, will be known in the conceptual division, merely, but not properly and really, and according to them, there will be the contemplation and mystery of the whole economy; or rather the incarnation itself, being taken by them in division and fantasy, with nothing natural 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. 0224 Just as where nature properly is, the things according to it are inseparably present, apart from sin alone. (15A_296> Therefore for them there will be not one pretext against the truth. For every one has been taken away, and through all things the concept, so that this, if they so wished, with great joy

67

δέ τήν δευτέραν, οὐδέ ἄνθρωπον ὅλως, ἀλλ᾿ ἄσαρκον μόνον Θεόν, ὡς ἐν ψιλῇ σχέσει τά τῆς σαρκός, καί οὐχ ὡς ἀνθρώπου τά φυσικά φυσικῶς οἰκειούμενον μετά τοῦ εἶναι καί μένειν Θεόν. Ἐπει δήπερ ἐν ᾧ τήν ἄγνοιαν τίθησι, καί τά φυσικά πάντα τοῦ σαρκωθέντος Θεοῦ καταριθμεῖ σαφῶς ὁ διδάσκαλος· οἷον τό ὑπνοῦν, τό πεινεῖν, τό διψεῖν, τό κοπιᾷν, τό δακρύειν, τό ἀγωνιᾷν, τό ὑποδύεσθαι, τόν σταυρόν, τόν θάνατον· μεθ᾿ ὧν καί τήν ἔγερσιν, καί τήν ἀνάληψιν, οἷς καί σέσωκεν, ἐκουσίως ταῦτα κατά φύσιν δεξάμενος ὑπέρ ἡμῶν καί παθών. Εἰ οὖν ταῦτα κατά τήν ἐν σχέσει ψιλήν οἰκείωσιν ἐπί Χριστοῦ γεγενῆσθαι δοξάζουσι, καί οὐ φυσικά ὡς ἀνθρώπου τοῦ σαρκωθέντος εἶναι Λόγου πρεσβεύουσι, τί λοιπόν Ἀπολιναρίῳ καί Μάνεντι καταλείψωσι; Σεβῆρον γάρ ὑπερῆραν τῇ ἀσεβείᾳ, μᾶλλον ὑπεραυδήσαντες, ὡς οὐ τοσοῦτον κατεξαναστάντα 0221 τῆς ἀληθείας, ἀλλά τῇ τῶν φυσικῶν ἰδιωμάτων ῥήσει προσκεχρημένον, εἰ καί τήν φύσιν ἀθετεῖ τῆς σαρκός, πρός μίαν τάς διαφόρους φύσεις ἐκθλίβων. Ταῦτα γάρ ἕψεται τοῖς τά ἄμικτα μίσγουσι, καί τόν Πατρικόν διωθουμένοις καί παρακλέπτουσι νοῦν, ὅστις εὐκρινῶς ἅπαντα τίθεται κατά τάξιν τήν πρέπουσαν. Ὅθεν ὁ πανεύφημος καί θεοφόρος διδάσκαλος ἐν τῷ περί Υἱοῦ δευτέρῳ λόγῳ, τάδε διέξεισι περί ἀγνοίας, ὥσπερ κανόνι τινί καί τύπῳ διοριζόμενος, κἄν αὐτά τό πρῶτον ἡμῖν ἀνερμηνεύτως εἰς μέσον προήγαγον, τόν ἀκροατήν ὑφαρπάζοντες· " Ἦ πᾶσιν εὔδηλον, ὅτι γινώσκει μέν ἀνερμηνεύτως ὡς Θεός, ἀγνοεῖν δέ φησιν ὡς 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 (15Α_294> 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 0224 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. (15Α_296> ∆ιόπερ οὐδέ μία τούτοις κατά τῆς ἀληθείας πρόφασις ἔσται. Περῄρηται γάρ πᾶσα, καί διά πάντων ἐπίνοια, πρός τό ταύτην, εἴ γε βούλοιντο, περιχαρῶς