91

properly" but Father. I, having accepted this insight of the wise man as being well-put, saw fit for it to be included in the writing.

PZ (87). ..».FOR HIM, NAMELY CHRIST, TO RECEIVE LIFE, OR JUDGMENT..».

From the same discourse, on the text, "For him, namely Christ, to receive life, or judgment, or the inheritance of the nations, or authority over all flesh, or glory, or disciples, or as many things as are said," and to these the teacher added that, "This too belongs to his humanity, then he added," "But if you should also give it to God, it is not (14D_374> absurd. For you will not give them as acquired things, but as co-existing from the beginning, and by reason of nature, but not of grace."

Having often been perplexed about this with myself, how and by what reason, as the teacher says, God is said to receive what He has by nature, and not being able to fully persuade myself, I finally decided it was good to ask a wise elder, who very knowledgeably straightened out the argument concerning this, speaking thus, that if, hypothetically, we were to see someone clarifying to others the natures of things, he would say to them: Let us give to God the all-powerful, the wise, the good, the just; likewise to creation the servile, the obedient, the circumscribed, existence from non-being, and the things that follow these, as the nature of each, in the common conceptions, demands its own properties. Therefore, one saying, "Let us give to God," was not bestowing what did not belong to Him, but what His nature has. For this "Let us give" signifies something like defining the nature through what belongs to it, as distinct from what does not. In the same way here, piously understand the teacher when he says, "But if we also give to God," that is, of nature receiving what is proper to it from those who are clarifying the matters.

PH (88). ..».FOR JUST AS WE SAY IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR GOD TO BE EVIL..».

From the same discourse, on the text: "For just as we say it is impossible for God to be evil, or not to be."

Having asked the aforementioned wise elder about this also, he said that the "not to be" is not connected to what precedes it, so that the conclusion is not drawn that God is evil: "For just as we say it is impossible for God to be evil, or not to be" evil, but to be evil, with "evil" being understood in common. For two negatives produce one affirmation. "Impossible" is therefore a negative, and being combined (14D_376> with "not to be evil," it concludes "to be evil." Which is not so, God forbid. But each 1273 has its sequence from its own beginning, so that the clause is smoothed out thus, "For just as we say it is impossible for God to be evil," and to punctuate and begin again with another thought and add, "Or not to be," instead of "to be non-existent."

PQ (89). ..».YOU HAVE THE APPELLATIONS OF THE SON, PROCEED THROUGH THEM..».

From the same discourse, on the text, "You have the appellations of the Son, proceed through them, those that are lofty, in a divine manner, and those that are corporeal, in a compassionate manner, or rather, the whole in a divine manner, so that you might become a god, having ascended from below on account of the one who descended from above for our sakes."

He who, through lofty contemplation, has illumined his mind according to the concept of each of the divine names and has both led up and transformed it to the original and spiritual principle of each, and by labors for virtue has subjected the mindset of the flesh to the spirit, and having become obedient even unto death, this one truly

91

κυρίως" δέ Πατήρ. Ταύτην ἀποδεξάμενος ἐγώ τοῦ σοφοῦ τήν ἐπιβολήν ὡς καλῶς ἔχουσαν συνεῖδον ἐνταγῆναι τῷ γράμματι.

ΠΖ (87). ..».ΛΑΜΒΑΝΕΙΝ ΑΥΤΟΝ, ∆ΗΛΑ∆Η ΤΟΝ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΝ, ΖΩΗΝ, Ή ΚΡΙΣΙΝ..».

Ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ λόγου, εἰς τό, " Λαμβάνειν αὐτόν, δηλαδή τόν Χριστόν, ζωήν, ἤ κρίσιν, ἤ κληρονομίαν ἐθνῶν, ἤ ἐξουσίαν πάσης σαρκός, ἤ δόξαν, ἤ μαθητάς, ἤ ὅσα λέγεται», καί τούτοις ἐπαγαγεῖν τόν διδάσκαλον ὅτι, " Καί τοῦτο τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος, εἶτα προσεπαγαγεῖν», " Εἰ δέ καί τῷ Θεῷ δοίης, οὐκ (14∆_374> ἄτοπον. Οὐ γάρ ὡς ἐπίκτητα δώσεις, ἀλλ᾿ ὡς ἐξαρχῆς συνυπάρχοντα, καί λόγῳ φύσεως, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ χάριτος».

Πρός ἐμαυτόν περί τούτου πολλάκις διαπορήσας, πῶς καί τίνι λόγῳ, καθώς

φησιν ὁ διδάσκαλος, ὅ κατά φύσιν ἔχει λαμβάνειν ὁ Θεός λέγεται, καί μή δυνηθείς ἐμαυτόν πληροφορῆσαι, τέλος καλῶς ἔχειν ἔρεσθαι γέροντα σοφόν διέγνων, ὅστις τόν περί τούτου λόγον ἐπιστημόνως μάλα διΐθυνεν οὐτωσί λέγων, ὅτιπερ καθ᾿ ὑπόθεσιν εἰδῶμέν τινα σαφηνίζοντά τισι τάς τῶν ὄντων φύσεις, ἐρεῖν πρός αὐτούς· ∆ῶμεν τῷ Θεῷ τῷ παντοδύναμον, τό σοφόν, τό ἀγαθόν, τό δίκαιον· ὡσαύτως τῇ κτίσει τό δοῦλον, τό ὑπήκοον, τό περιγραπτόν, τό ἐκ μή ὄντων ὑποστῆναι, καί τά τούτοις ἀκόλουθα, ὡς τῆς φύσεως ἑκάστου ἐν ταῖς κοιναῖς ἐννοίαις ἀπαιτούσης τά ἴδια. Φάσκων οὖν ὁ τυχών τό· "∆ῶμεν τῷ Θεῷ», οὐχί τό μή προσόν αὐτῷ παρεῖχεν, ἀλλ᾿ ὅπερ ἡ φύσις ἔχει. Τοῦτο γάρ τό "∆ῶμεν" σημαίνει οἷον τό διορίζειν τήν φύσιν διά τῶν αὐτῇ προσόντων ἀπό τῶν μή τοιούτων. Τόν αὐτόν τρόπον κἀνταῦθα λέγοντα τόν διδάσκαλον εὐσεβῶς ἐκδέχου, "Εἰ δέ καί τῷ Θεῷ δῶμεν», τουτέστι τῆς φύσεως τό προσόν αὐτῇ πρός τῶν διευκρινούντων τά πράγματα λαμβανούσης.

ΠΗ (88). ..».ΩΣ ΓΑΡ Α∆ΥΝΑΤΟΝ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΛΕΓΟΜΕΝ ΠΟΝΗΡΟΝ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΘΕΟΝ..».

Ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ λόγου, εἰς τό· " Ὡς γάρ ἀδύνατον εἶναι λέγομεν πονηρόν εἶναι Θεόν, ἤ μή εἶναι».

Καί τοῦτο τόν προλεχθέντα σοφόν ἐρωτήσας γέροντα ἔφη μή ἠρτῆσθαι τό

"μή εἶναι" τῷ προλεχθέντι, ἵνα μή συναχθῇ τό εἶναι τόν Θεόν πονηρόν· " Ὡς γάρ ἀδύνατον εἶναι λέγομεν πονηρόν εἶναι Θεόν, ἤ μή εἶναι" πονηρόν, ἀλλ᾿ εἶναι πονηρόν, κατά κοινοῦ τοῦ " πονηρόν" κειμένου. ∆ύο γάρ ἀρνήσεις μίαν συγκατάθεσιν ἐπάγουσιν. Ἔστιν οὖν ἀρνητικόν τό "ἀδύνατον», συμπλεκόμενον (14∆_376> δέ τῷ "μή εἶναι πονηρόν», συνάγει τό πονηρόν εἶναι. Ὅπερ οὐχ οὕτως ἔχει, μή γένοιτο. Ἀλλ᾿ ἕκαστον 1273 ἀπό ἰδίας ἀρχῆς ἔχει τόν εἱρμόν, ἵνα ᾗ τό κῶλον οὕτως ὁμαλιζόμενον, " Ὡς γάρ ἀδύνατον εἶναι λέγομεν πονηρόν εἶναι Θεόν», καί στίξαι καί πάλιν ἄρξασθαι νοήματος ἑτέρου καί προσεπαγαγεῖν, " Ἤ μή εἶναι», ἀντί τοῦ ἀνυπάρκτου εἶναι.

ΠΘ (89). ..».ΕΧΕΙΣ ΤΑΣ ΤΟΥ ΥΙΟΥ ΠΡΟΣΗΓΟΡΙΑΣ, ΒΑ∆ΙΖΕ ∆Ι ΑΥΤΩΝ..».

Ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ λόγους, εἰς τό, "Ἔχεις τάς τοῦ υἱοῦ προσηγορίας, βάδιζε δι᾿ αὐτῶν, ὅσαι ὑψηλαί, θεϊκῶς, καί ὅσαι σωματικαί, συμπαθῶς, μᾶλλον δέ ὅλον θεϊκῶς, ἵνα γένῃ Θεός κάτωθεν ἀνελθών διά τόν κατελθόντα δι᾿ ἡμᾶς ἄνωθεν».

Ὁ τόν νοῦν διά τῆς ὑψηλῆς θεωρίας κατά τήν ἑκάστου τῶν θείων ὀνομάτων

ἐπίνοιαν καταφωτίσας καί πρός τόν ἀρχικόν ἑκάστου καί πνευματικόν λόγον ἀναγαγών τε καί μεταποιήσας, καί τοῖς ὑπέρ ἀρετῆς πόνοις τό φρόνημα τῆς σαρκός καθυποτάξας τῷ πνεύματι, ὑπήκοός τε μέχρι θανάτου γενόμενος, οὗτος ἀληθῶς