513

refrain from a reverence born of shame and do not dare to say, either after forty days, or after the nine-month period of gestation, or even after the birth, before the forty days of purification, that what has been born has a rational and intelligent soul. For what is born is not yet permitted in the temple of God, being designated as unclean by the law. So then, one might reasonably suppose that until the completion of the days of purification, what is born does not have a rational and intelligent soul, but that of some plant, as I said a little earlier, or an irrational animal among those reckoned as existing things. But if the pretext for such an argument for you is what the great Moses has written, that no penalty is required from one who strikes a pregnant woman, if it happens that through the blow she miscarries the embryo before forty days, it must be known that the wise Moses was not indicating the entrance of the rational soul into the body at that time, but was declaring that the perfect formation of what had been conceived was then completed, (1341) for the time being, he wrote this according to the obvious meaning. And in addition to all this, I fear to accept such an argument, lest the sequence of the argument, proceeding logically, should rightly make me responsible for terrible accusations, which it is not lawful to say, insofar as the consequence of the argument forces me to say that our Lord and God, if indeed He, being a man without sin, deigned to become as we are, became at His conception a soulless and mindless man, and remained so for forty days, while our holy Fathers and teachers cry out explicitly, or rather the truth that speaks and is spoken through them, that simultaneously with the descent of God the Word at the conception, He, the Lord Himself and God the Word, was united timelessly through a rational soul to flesh, and did not through soulless flesh receive a rational soul that was added to it, and did not assume a body that was completely soulless or a soul that was mindless and irrational, but ineffably united to Himself hypostatically the perfect nature, constituted without deficiency of a rational soul and at the same time a body. Therefore I especially hold to the argument of co-existence, aptly dismissing those on either side who are opposed to each other and to the mean, having the very Maker of nature as the unerring advocate and teacher of such an argument by the mystery of His own incarnation, the one who truly became man, and who confirmed through Himself that nature exists perfectly at the same time as it comes into being, and who innovated only the innovation of nature, I mean, conception through seed and birth through corruption, which things nature took upon itself after the transgression, having fallen away from the divine and spiritual increase into multitude, but not the principle of nature according to which it exists and is naturally constituted at the same time as its being from a rational soul and a body.

Concerning how an innovation occurs in things innovated, while they remain unchanged according to nature.

For every innovation, to speak generally, pertains to the mode of the thing being innovated, and not to the principle of its nature. Therefore, if the principle is innovated, it destroys the nature, since it no longer possesses its inviolate defining principle; but if the mode is innovated, while the natural principle is of course preserved, it reveals the power of a miracle, clearly showing nature both being acted upon and acting beyond its own law. But the principle of human nature is that

513

αἰσχύνης εὐλάβειαν παραιτεῖσθε μηδέ μετά τεσσαράκοντα ἡμέρας, μήτε μετά τόν ἐννεαμηνιαῖον τῆς κυοφορίας χρόνον, μήτε μήν μετά τόν τόκον, πρό τῶν μ´ ἡμερῶν τοῦ καθαρισμοῦ φάναι τολμήσετε τό γεννηθέν ἔχειν τήν λογικήν τε καί νοεράν ψυχήν. Οὐ γάρ προσιτόν τῷ ναῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ τέως ἐστί τό τεχθέν, ὡς ἀκάθαρτον τῷ νόμῳ διοριζόμενον. Ὡς λοιπόν μέχρι τῆς τῶν ἡμερῶν τοῦ καθαρισμοῦ συμπληρώσεως μή ἔχειν τό τικτόμενον τήν λογικήν τε καί νοεράν ψυχήν κατά τόν εἰκότα λόγον ὑπονοεῖν, ἀλλά τινος, ὡς ἔφην μικρῷ πρόσθεν, φυτοῦ ἤ ζώου ἀλόγου τῶν ἐν τοῖς οὖσι διειλημμένων. Εἰ δέ πρόφασις ὑμῖν τοῦ τοιούτου λόγου καθέστηκε τό γεγραφέναι τόν μέγαν Μωϋσῆν, δίκας μή ἀπαιτεῖσθαι τόν πλήξαντα τήν κυοφοροῦσαν γυναῖκα, πρό τεσσαράκοντα ἡμερῶν εἰ συμβαίη διά τῆς πληγῆς αὐτήν παρά τόν καιρόν ἀποθέσθαι τό ἔμβρυον, ἰστέον ὡς οὐ τήν εἰς τό σῶμα τότε τῆς λογικῆς ψυχῆς γινομένην εἴσοδον ἐμφαίνων ὁ σοφός Μωϋσῆς, ἀλλά τόν τέλειον τοῦ καταβληθέντος ἐξεικονισμόν ἀπαρτίζεσαι τότε δηλῶν, (1341) τέως κατά τόν πρόχειρον νοῦν τοῦτο γέγραφε. Προσεπιτούτοις δέ πᾶσι, δέδοικα τόν τοιοῦτον προσδέξασθαι λόγον, μήπως ἡ τοῦ λόγου καθ᾿ εἱρμόν προβαίνουσα τάξις φοβερῶν ποιήσῃ με δικαίως ἐγκλημάτων ὑπεύθυνον, ὅπερ μή θέμις εἰπεῖν ὅσον ἐκ τῆς ἀκολουθίας τοῦ λόγου με βιαζομένη τόν Κύριον ἡμῶν καί Θεόν λέγειν, εἴπερ ἀληθῶς καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς γενέσθαι κατηξίωσεως ἄνθρωπος χωρίς ἁμαρτίας, κατά τήν σύλληψιν ἄψυχον καί ἄνουν ἄνθρωπον γεγονέναι, καί τάς τεσσαράκοντα ἡμέρας οὕτως ἔχοντα μεμενηκέναι, τῶν ἁγίων Πατέρων ἡμῶν καί διδασκάλων διαῤῥήδην βοώντων, μᾶλλον δέ τῆς δι' αὐτῶν λαλούσης τε καί λαλουμένης ἀληθείας, ἅμα τῇ καθόδῳ τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου κατά τήν σύλληψιν ἀχρόνως διά μέσης ψυχῆς λογικῆς ἑνωθῆναι σαρκί τόν Κύριον αὐτόν καί Θεόν Λόγον, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ διά μέσης σαρκός ἀψύχου λογικήν ψυχήν προσδέξασθαι προσγινομένην, καί οὐκ ἄψυχον σῶμα παντελῶς ἤ ἄνουν ψυχήν καί ἄλογον ἐνειληφέναι, ἀλλά τελείαν ἀνελλιπῶς τήν φύσιν τήν ἐκ ψυχῆς λογικῆς ἅμα καί σώματος συνισταμένην ἑαυτῷ καθ᾿ ὑπόστασιν ἀῤῥήτως ἑνῶσαι. ∆ιό μάλιστα περιέχομαι τοῦ τῆς συνυπάρξεως λόγου, τούς ἐφ᾿ ἑκάτερα δι᾿ ἐναντίας ὄντας ἀλλήλοις τε καί τῇ μεσότητι προσφυῶς ἀποπεμπόμενος, αὐτόν τόν τῆς φύσως ποιητήν ἔχων τῷ καθ᾿ ἑαυτόν μυστηρίῳ τῆς ἐνσωματώσεως τοῦ τοιούτου λόγου συνήγορόν τε καί διδάσκαλον ἀπαραλόγιστον, τόν γενόμενον ἀληθῶς ἄνθρωπον, καί τήν φύσιν τελείως ἔχουσαν ἅμα τῷ εἶναι κατά τήν γένεσιν ὑφίστασθαι δι᾿ ἑαυτοῦ βεβαιωσάμενον, καί μόνην καινοτομήσαντα τήν καινοτομίαν τῆς φύσεως λέγω δή τήν διά σπορᾶς σύλληψιν καί τήν διά φθορᾶς γέννησιν, ἅσπερ ἡ φύσις μετά τήν παράβασιν ἐπεσπάσατο, τῆς θείας ἀποπεσοῦσα καί πνευματικῆς εἰς πλῆθος αὐξήσεως, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ τόν λόγον τῆς φύσεως καθ᾿ ὅν ἔστι τε καί γίνεσθαι πέφυκεν ἅμα τῷ εἶναι ἐκ ψυχῆς λογικῆς ὑφισταμένη καί σώματος.

Περί τοῦ πῶς καινοτομία γένεται τῶν καινοτομουμένων πραγμάτων μενόντων ἀτρέπτων κατά τήν φύσιν.

Πᾶσα γάρ καθόλου φάναι καινοτομία περί τόν τρόπον τοῦ καινοτομουμένου πράγματος πέφυκεν, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ περί τόν λόγον τῆς φύσεως γίνεσθαι, διόπερ ὁ μέν λόγος καινοτομούμενος φθείρει τήν φύσιν, οὐκ ἔχουσαν τόν καθ᾿ ὅν ἐστι λόγον ἀρᾳδιούργητον, ὁ δέ τρόπος καινοτομούμενος φυλαττομένου δηλαδή τοῦ κατά φύσιν λόγου θαύματος ἐνδείκνυται δύναμιν, ὡς τήν φύσιν ἐνεργουμένην τε καί ἐνεργοῦσαν ὑπέρ τόν ἑαυτῆς ἀποδεικνύς δηλονότι θεσμόν. Λόγος δέ φύσεως ἀνθρωπίνης ἐστί τό