88

and privation. For not because the divine and great Gregory also enumerates this, the one proposed by the Arians—I mean ignorance, 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 sets these things forth, saying, "But you, for me, enumerate in addition to these the sayings of ignorance: 'My God, and your God;' and 'greater,' 'he created,' 'he sanctified,'" and the rest. But if they attempt, perhaps, to reduce ignorance to the same thing as the will, simply because he included it, it will certainly be the case that 'my God, and your God;' and 'greater,' spoken of the Father, and 'to create' and 'to sanctify' are the same as ignorance, according to them, on account of the arrangement, since he also arranged these things with ignorance. But if this is a perversion of thought, that is an even greater perversion of those (220) who think these things, let alone attempt to say or write them.

Moreover, if ignorance and will have the same definition, then either things that will by nature are in all cases also ignorant, or things that are ignorant by nature also in all cases will. Therefore God, who wills by nature, will fall into the passion of ignorance, and all inanimate things, being ignorant by nature, will be moved by a natural will. And if this is so, then Christ Himself, who subsists from divinity and humanity, having both ignorance and will by appropriation, as they say, will surely have ignorance by nature as well as the divine will. And I pass over in silence how, even through appropriation, this is mistaken; but nevertheless they have been shown to advocate for the very thing they opposed, they themselves positing two wills, that which is by nature, I say, and that which is by appropriation; which are manifestly two, along with an equal number of ignorances, which is also absurd, to profess a twofold ignorance in Christ, who has not even one, but utterly abolishes all ignorance, if indeed He is the wisdom and power of God.

But what sort of appropriation do they mean? The essential one, according to which each thing having its natural properties appropriates them on account of its nature? Or the relational one, according to which we naturally love and appropriate the properties of others, while we ourselves neither suffer nor do any of these things? But if the first, they have rather declared the incarnate God to be a mere man, dogmatizing that he is naturally ignorant. But if the second, not a man at all, but only an incorporeal God, as appropriating the things of the flesh in a mere relation, and not naturally as a man's natural properties, while being and remaining God. Since where he places ignorance, the teacher also clearly enumerates all the natural properties of the incarnate God; such as sleeping, hungering, thirsting, growing weary, weeping, being in agony, submitting to the cross, death; along with which also the resurrection, and the ascension, by which He has also saved us, voluntarily accepting and suffering these things by nature for our sake. If, therefore, they profess that these things happened to Christ according to a mere relational appropriation, and do not hold that they are the natural properties of the incarnate Logos as a man, what then will they leave to Apollinarius and Manes? For they have surpassed Severus in impiety, rather outdoing him, as one who did not so much rebel (221) against the truth, but used the expression of the natural properties, even if he denies the nature of the flesh, by compressing the different natures into one. For these things follow for those who mix the unmixable, and who reject and misrepresent the Patristic mind, which sets everything forth distinctly in its proper order. Whence the all-praised and God-bearing teacher in his second oration On the Son, sets forth these things concerning ignorance, defining it as if by some rule and type, even if at first they brought these things forward to us uninterpreted, misleading the hearer: "Is it not clear to all, that He knows without interpretation as God, but says He is ignorant as

88

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, 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 (220) 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, τόν σαρκωθέντα Θεόν, ὡς τοῦτον ἀγνοοῦντα φυσικῶς δογματίζοντες. Εἰ 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 (221) 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