487

not tolerating to say 'more properly,' the heretics of then and now do not refrain from blaspheming the only-begotten God the Word, some reducing him to a creature because of his human attributes, others confusing the economy because of the denial of the natures of which he is. But another, very wise in divine things, when asked by me about this passage, said: The 'properly,' and the 'not properly in both cases,' belongs to the same relative category, whether of 'Father,' or of 'God,' or even of both, as applied to the one Christ, who is composed of two opposites, 'properly' and 'not properly'. If the Father were called God of Christ according to the concept of the two natures, he would be called 'properly' of the creature, but 'not properly' of God the Word. And likewise, from the opposite, he is Father 'properly' of the Word, (1272) but 'not properly' of the creature, just as these things are said of us. For he is 'properly' God of us, but 'not properly' Father. Accepting this insight of the wise man as being excellent, I saw fit that it be included in the letter.

From the same discourse, on the text, "That he, that is Christ, receives 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 that the teacher added to these that, "And this belongs to his humanity," and then added," "But if you should give it also to God, it is not absurd. For you will not give them as acquired, but as co-existing from the beginning, and by reason of nature, and not of grace."

Having often been perplexed about this myself, how and for what reason, as the teacher says, God is said to receive what he has by nature, and being unable to satisfy myself, I finally decided it was good to ask a wise elder, who very knowledgeably directed the discussion about this, speaking thusly: that if we should suppose someone explaining to others the natures of things, he would say to them: Let us give to God the omnipotent, 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, when anyone says, "Let us give to God," he was not providing what did not belong to him, but what his nature has. For this "Let us give" signifies, as it were, the defining of the nature through the things belonging to it, as distinct from things not of such a kind. In the same way, receive piously the teacher here saying, "But if we should give it also to God," that is, nature receiving what belongs to it from those who are clarifying the matters.

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

And having asked the aforementioned wise elder about this, he said that the "not to be" is not connected to what was said before, so that it might not be concluded 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 the "evil" being understood in common. For two negatives produce one affirmation. Therefore "impossible" is a negative, and being combined with "not to be evil," it concludes "to be evil." Which is not so, may it not be so. But each (1273) has its train of thought from its own beginning, so that the clause is thus smoothed out, "For just as we say it is impossible for God to be evil," and to punctuate and again to begin another thought and to add, "Or not to be," instead of 'to be non-existent'.

487

κυρίωτερος εἰπεῖν μή ἀνεχόμενοι, οἱ τότε καί οἱ νῦν αἱρετικοί τόν μονογενῆ Θεόν Λόγον βλασφημεῖν οὐ παραιτοῦνται, οἱ μέν εἰς κτίσμα κατάγοντες διά τά ἀνθρώπινα, οἱ δέ τήν οἰκονομίαν συγχέοντες διά τήν ἄρνησιν τῶν ἐξ ὧν ἐστι φύσεων. Ἄλλος δέ πάνυ τά θεῖα σοφός τοῦτον ἐρωτηθείς παρ᾿ ἐμοῦ τόν τόπον ἔφη· Τό μέν "κυρίως," τό δέ "οὐ κυρίως ἐπ᾿ ἀμφοῖν," τῆς αὐτῆς ἐστι κατηγορίας τῆς σχετικῆς, εἴτε τῆς Πατήρ, εἴτε τῆς Θεός, ἤ καί ἑκατέρας, ὡς ἐφ᾿ ἑνός Χριστοῦ τιθεμένης, τοῦ συνεστῶτος ἐκ δυοῖν τῶν ἐναντίων, "κυρίως" καί "οὐ κυρίως". Εἰ μέν Θεός ὁ Πατήρ τοῦ Χριστοῦ λεχθείη κατά τήν ἐπίνοιαν τῶν δύο φύσεων, "κυρίως" μέν τοῦ κτίσματος ἄν λέγοιτο, "οὐ κυρίως" δέ τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου. Ὁμοίως δέ καί ἐκ τῶν ἐναντίων Πατήρ " κυρίως" τοῦ Λόγου, (1272) τοῦ δέ κτίσματος "οὐ κυρίως," καθά καί ἐφ᾿ ἡμῶν ἔχει ταῦτα λεγόμενα. Ἡμῶν γάρ " κυρίως " μέν Θεός, "οὐ κυρίως" δέ Πατήρ. Ταύτην ἀποδεξάμενος ἐγώ τοῦ σοφοῦ τήν ἐπιβολήν ὡς καλῶς ἔχουσαν συνεῖδον ἐνταγῆναι τῷ γράμματι.

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 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.

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 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.