85

the noetic substance to be mixed with the perceptive nature, he consequently infers from this and says that the saint uses it as a first instrument, but he inconsistently attacks what has been said by us, saying that these things are contrary to the words of the saint, which state that the heart, and not that luminous thing, is the first instrument of reasoning. But if you were to add "fleshly," O sophist, as we have said, you will remove far away the slanderous opposition and you will see the saints in agreement with one another and us with them, having been taught by them; for the luminous element of human perception is not flesh.

But he also devised another opposition of our words to the Nyssen, that since we say the heart is the instrument of instruments in the body, and that the mind uses this instrument through it, we show the union of the mind and the body to be knowable, which is said by him to be inconceivable. What then of him, when he says that the perceptive faculty is attached to the vegetative faculty, which is intermediate between the noetic and the more material substance, and then that the mixture of the mind occurs with the finer part of the perceptive faculty, and uses this as a first instrument and through it the body? Has he not made the manner of the mind's connection to the body more knowable and expressible than we have, and by much? How then does he say this is inconceivable and inexpressible? Therefore, to your wisdom, he too seems to contradict himself. And how could it not be so according to you, if you at least know how to be consistent with yourself? But I think that in (p. 406) such matters, as to contact and use and mixture, what this is and how it might be accomplished for a noetic nature with a corporeal thing or a body, is impossible for all men in common to comprehend and express. Thus the fathers agree both with themselves and with one another, and we with them. But you, who rejoice in contradictions, as it seems, desire that they too should seem to be opposed, which is why you also oppose us, who show them to be speaking in harmony with one another.

For when the great Macarius, taught by the energy of grace, also teaches us that the mind and all the thoughts of the soul are in the heart, as in an instrument, and the Nyssen that it is not within the body, as it is incorporeal, we, bringing these seemingly differing views together as one and showing that they are not in opposition, say that even if the mind is not within, according to Gregory of Nyssa, since it is incorporeal, yet it is also within, and not outside the body, as it is united to it and uses the heart as the first fleshly instrument in an inexpressible way, according to the great Macarius. Since, therefore, the one says it is not within in one sense, and the other says it is within in another sense, they are not in the least at variance with one another; for not even he who says that the divine is not in a place, inasmuch as it is incorporeal, is opposed to him who says that the Word of God was once within the womb of a virgin and all-blameless mother, as being united there beyond reason to our human substance through unspeakable love for mankind.

But you, while we are eager to show that they do not differ, are eager to show that they do differ, and yet concerning such matters—how the mind has its connection to the body, and where the imaginative and opinionative faculty is located, and what location the faculty of memory has obtained, and in the body what (p. 408) part is most vital and, as it were, the guide of the others, and from where the blood has its origin, and if each of the humours is unmixed, and which of the viscera it uses as a vessel—concerning such matters, therefore, it is permitted for anyone to say what seems right, since all speak what is probable in such matters, just as concerning the stillness of stars and the movement of stars, and the size and nature of each, and other such things, which the Spirit has not clearly revealed to us, Who alone knows accurately the truth that pervades all things; so that even if contradicting the divine and wise Nyssen

85

αἰσθητικῆς φύσεως ἀνακίρνασθαι τήν νοεράν οὐσίαν, ἀκολούθως μέν συνάγει τούτῳ καί ὡς ὀργάνῳ πρώτῳ χρῆσθαι φάναι τόν ἅγιον, ἀνακολούθως δέ τοῖς ὑφ᾿ ἡμῶν λεγομένοις ἐπιτίθεται, λέγων ἐναντίως ἔχειν ταῦτα τοῖς τοῦ ἁγίου ρήμασι, φάσκοντα τήν καρδίαν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ τό φωτοειδές ἐκεῖνο, πρῶτον ὄργανον λογιστικόν. Ἀλλ᾿ εἰ τό "σαρκικόν" προσθείης, ὦ σοφιστά, καθάπερ εἰρήκαμεν ἡμεῖς, μακράν ποιήσεις τήν διαβεβλημένην ἐναντιότητα καί συμφώνως ὄψει τούς ἁγίους ἀλλήλοις καί ἡμᾶς αὐτοῖς ὑπ᾿ αὐτῶν δεδιδαγμένους˙ οὐ γάρ ἐστι σάρξ τό τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης αἰσθήσεως φωτοειδές.

Ἀλλά καί ἑτέραν ἐπενόησε τῶν ἡμετέρων ρημάτων πρός τόν Νύσσης ἐναντίωσιν, ὡς, ἐπεί φαμεν ὄργανον μέν ὀργάνων τήν καρδίαν ἐν σώματι, χρῆσθαι δέ τόν νοῦν δι᾿ αὐτῆς τούτῳ τῷ ὀργάνῳ, γνωστήν δείκνυμεν οὖσαν τήν τοῦ νοῦ καί τοῦ σώματος ἕνωσιν, παρ᾿ ἐκείνου λεγομένην ἀπερινόητον. Τί γοῦν ἐκεῖνος, ὅταν λέγῃ προσφυῆναι μέν τῷ αὐξητικῷ τό τό αἰσθητικόν, μέσως ἔχοντι τῆς τε νοερᾶς καί ὑλωδεστέρας οὐσίας, εἶτα πρός τό τοῦ αἰσθητικοῦ λεπτομερέστερον τήν ἀνάκρασιν γίνεσθαι τοῦ νοῦ καί τούτῳ ὡς ὀργάνῳ πρώτῳ χρῆσθαι καί δι᾿ αὐτοῦ τῷ σώματι; Ἆρ᾿ οὐ μᾶλλον ἡμῶν καί πολλῷ μᾶλλον γνωστόν καί ρητόν ἐποιήσατο τόν τρόπον τῆς τοῦ νοῦ πρός τό σῶμα συναφείας; Πῶς οὖν λέγει ταύτην ἀνεπινόητον καί ἀνέκφραστον; Ἄρα καί αὐτός ἀντιλέγειν ἑαυτῷ τῇ σῇ σοφίᾳ δοκεῖ. Καί πῶς οὐ κατά σέ, εἴπερ σεαυτῷ γοῦν ἕπεσθαι γινώσκεις; Ἀλλ᾿ ἐγᾦμαι ὡς ἐπαφήν μέν ἐπί (σελ. 406) τῶν τοιούτων καί χρῆσιν καί ἀνάκρασιν, τίς δέ αὕτη καί πῶς ἄν τελεσθείη νοερᾶς φύσεως πρός σωματοειδές ἤ σῶμα, νοῆσαί τε καί φράσαι κοινῇ πᾶσιν ἀμήχανον ἀνθρώποις. Οὕτω σφίσι τε αὐτοῖς καί ἀλλήλοις ὁμολογοῦσιν οἱ πατέρες καί ἡμεῖς αὐτοῖς. Σύ δ᾿ ὁ ταῖς ἀντιθέσεσι χαίρων, ὡς ἔοικε, κἀκείνους ἀντικεῖσθαι δοκεῖν ἐφίεσαι, διό καί ἡμῖν ἀντίκεισαι, συμφθεγγομένους αὐτούς ἀλλήλοις δεικνύσι.

Τοῦ γάρ μεγάλου Μακαρίου τῇ τῆς χάριτος ἐνεργείᾳ διαδαχθέντος καί ἡμᾶς διδάσκοντος εἶναι τόν νοῦν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ καί τούς λογισμούς πάντας τῆς ψυχῆς, ὡς ἐν ὀργάνῳ, τοῦ δέ Νύσσης μή εἶναι ἐντός τοῦ σώματος τοῦτον, ὡς ἀσώματον, ἡμεῖς εἰς ἕν τά δοκοῦντα διαφέρειν ταῦτα συνάγοντες ἀμφότερα καί μή ἐναντίως ἔχοντα δεικνύντες, εἰ καί μή ἔνδον ἐστί, φαμέν, κατά τόν Νύσσης Γρηγόριον ὡς ἀσώματος ὁ νοῦς, ἀλλά καί ἐντός ἐστιν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐκ ἐκτός τοῦ σώματος, ὡς συννημένος τούτῳ καί πρώτῳ σαρκικῷ ὀργάνῳ τῇ καρδίᾳ χρώμενος ἀφράστως κατά τόν μέγαν Μακάριον. Ἐπεί τοίνυν κατ᾿ ἄλλο μέν ἐκεῖνος οὐκ ἔνδον εἶναι λέγει, κατ᾿ ἄλλο δέ οὗτος ἔνδον, ἥκιστα πρός ἀλλήλους διαφέρονται˙ καί γάρ οὐδ᾿ ὁ λέγων μή ἐν τόπῳ τό θεῖον εἶναι, ᾗ ἀσώματον, ἀντίκειται τῷ ἔνδον γενέσθαι ποτέ τόν τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγον λέγοντι παρθενικῆς καί παναμώμου μήτρας, ὡς ἐκεῖ συνημμένον ὑπέρ λόγον τῷ καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς φυράματι διά φιλανθρωπίαν ἄφατον.

Σύ δ᾿ ἡμᾶς τούς μή διαφέρεσθαι δεῖξαι σπεύδοντας ἐκείνους, πρός ἐκείνους σπεύδεις δεῖξαι διαφερομένους, καίτοι περί τῶν τοιούτων, πῶς ἴσχει τήν πρός σῶμα συναφήν ὁ νοῦς, καί ποῦ κεῖται τό φανταστικόν τε καί δοξαστικόν, καί τίνα τό μνημονευτικόν ἔλαχε τήν ἵδρυσιν, κἀν τῷ σώματι τί (σελ. 408) τῶν μερῶν τό καιριώτατον καί οἷον καθοδηγούμενον τῶν ἄλλων, καί ὅθεν ἔχει τήν ἀρχήν τῆς γενέσεως τό αἷμα, καί εἰ ἀμιγής τῶν χυμῶν ἕκαστός ἐστι, καί ποίῳ τῶν σπλάγχνων ὡς ἀγγείῳ χρῆται, περί τῶν τοιούτων τοίνυν ἔξεστι παντί λέγειν τό δοκοῦν, ἐπεί πάντες ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις τά εἰκότα λέγουσιν, ὥσπερ καί περί ἀκινησίας ἄστρων καί ἀστέρων κινήσεως, μεγέθους τε καί φύσεως ἑκάστου καί τῶν ἄλλων τῶν τοιούτων, ὅσα μή σαφῶς ἀπεκάλυψεν ἡμῖν τό Πνεῦμα, μόνον γινῶσκον ἀκριβῶς τήν διά πάντων διικνουμένην ἀλήθειαν˙ ὥστ᾿ εἰ καί ἀντιλέγοντας τῷ Νύσσης θείῳ καί σοφῷ