562

having a human mind how did he advance? as has already been said by me; as also the holy prophet of God, Isaiah, bears witness to this argument, saying, “behold, my beloved servant will understand, in whom I am well pleased.” And do you see that “will understand” refers to the perfect incarnation? For one cannot understand without having a mind, nor is this fulfilled in his divinity. For that which is understanding itself is not in need of understanding, nor is that which is wisdom itself in need of wisdom, but “will understand” is taken to refer to the human mind. 3.443 But from where did he hunger, tell me. For if he was only flesh, how could he be conscious of hunger? And if he was only of a soul and a body, a soul not having the rational faculty of the mind, the reason of the incarnation—I do not mean the base kind, but the one appointed for a reasonable need, befitting the divinity—how could he hunger or think of hunger? From where was he grieved, tell me, if the soul did not have a mind and the ability to reason? For if the soul were irrational or the flesh soulless, he would neither fall into grief nor into despondency. And there are many things which we must understand * and know, that sophistical arguments are superfluous and rather strike those who wish to think beyond what is necessary and not to measure themselves by the measure spoken to us as an exhortation from the most holy apostle who said: “not to think more highly than one ought to think.” 31. They also bring forward for us certain sayings that, it says, “But we have the mind of Christ.” And they say, do you see that the mind of Christ is other than ours? And oh, the great simplicity of men, because each one leans toward what he wishes and in what he thinks he is being clever, he is found to be more a layman. For since we are “unskilled in speech, but not in knowledge,” as it has been said, and are very insignificant, and since such men marvel and have a mind motivated by words, a state of perplexity concerning the meaning happens to us, because they take this saying simply for the presentation of such an idle contentiousness of theirs, when the matter has absolutely no significance that communicates with such a relation. “For we,” it says, “have the mind of Christ.” So then we must ask them what Christ might be, or what the mind of Christ might be. But here they intimate that they have conceived Christ to be one thing and his divinity another. For if they understand Christ in place of the mind, and they name Christ only the incarnate presence of Christ, then again they try to lead us into another inquiry. And that, therefore, God the Word and Son of God is not interpreted from the incarnate presence is clear. But if testimonies about him also went before, calling him Christ 3.444 even before the incarnate presence, they were fulfilled in the presence, with neither the divinity being outside the name of Christ nor the incarnate presence and his incarnation being named without such a designation, as according to what was said: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’ that is, to bring Christ down. Or, ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’ that is, to bring Christ up from the dead,” and again the same says “that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent”; but “you have sent” happens to have its contemplation from above, but not being outside of what was said by Peter, that “Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by wonders and signs, whom God anointed with the Holy Spirit” and things similar to these. 32. Then again our sweetest brethren, wishing in everything to introduce contentious thoughts to us, and not without audacity they proclaim that his divinity suffered, from the saying that was spoken: “for if they had known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” But some of his children, not understanding this, as I think, putting it forward with the others, wish to be over-wise. For I wonder if he himself asserts this. For it is not wonderful if the divine Scripture says the Lord of glory

562

ἔχων ἀνθρώπινον πῶς προέκοπτε; καθὼς ἤδη μοι εἴρηται· ὡς καὶ μαρτυρεῖ τούτῳ τῷ λόγῳ ὁ ἅγιος τοῦ θεοῦ προφήτης Ἠσαΐας φήσας «ἰδού, συνήσει ὁ παῖς μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐφ' ᾧ εὐδόκησα». καὶ ὁρᾷς ὅτι τὸ συνήσει ἐπὶ τελείαν ἐνανθρώπησιν φέρεται; οὐ δύναται γάρ τις συνιέναι νοῦν μὴ ἔχων, οὔτε ἐπὶ τῇ θεότητι τοῦτο πληροῦται. οὐκ ἐπιδεὴς γὰρ συνέσεως ἡ οὖσα αὐτοσύνεσις, οὐδὲ ἐπιδέεται σοφίας ἡ οὖσα αὐτοσοφία, ἀλλὰ τὸ συνήσει ἐπὶ τῷ νῷ τῷ ἀνθρωπίνῳ λαμβάνεται. 3.443 πόθεν δὲ ἐπείνα, λέγε μοι. εἰ μὲν γὰρ σὰρξ μόνον ἦν, πῶς ἠδύνατο μνησθῆναι πείνης; καὶ εἰ ἐκ ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος ἦν μόνης, ψυχῆς μὴ ἐχούσης τὸ λογικὸν τοῦ νοῦ, τὸν λογισμὸν τῆς ἐνανθρωπήσεως οὐ τὸν φαῦλον λέγω, ἀλλὰ τὸν ἐπὶ τῇ εὐλόγῳ χρείᾳ τεταγμένον, συμπρεπόντως τῇ θεότητι, πῶς ἠδύνατο πεινάσαι ἢ διανοηθῆναι πεῖναν; πόθεν δὲ λελύπηται, λέγε μοι, ψυχῆς μὴ ἐχούσης νοῦν καὶ τὸ λογίζεσθαι; ἀλόγου γὰρ ψυχῆς οὔσης ἢ σαρκὸς ἀψύχου οὔσης οὔτε ὑπὸ λύπην ὑπέπιπτεν οὔτε εἰς ἀθυμίαν. καὶ πολλά ἐστιν ἃ χρὴ ἡμᾶς διανοουμένους * εἰδέναι, ὅτι τὰ σοφιστικὰ περιττὰ τυγχάνει καὶ πλήττει μᾶλλον τοὺς ὑπὲρ τὸ δέον βουλομένους διανοεῖσθαι καὶ μὴ μετρεῖν ἑαυτοὺς ἐν τῷ μέτρῳ τῷ ἡμῖν κατὰ παραίνεσιν εἰρημένῳ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἁγιωτάτου ἀποστόλου τοῦ φήσαντος «μὴ ὑπερφρονεῖν παρ' ὃ δεῖ φρονεῖν». 31. Φέρουσι δὲ ἡμῖν καὶ λέξεις τινὰς ὅτι, φησίν, «ἡμεῖς δὲ νοῦν Χριστοῦ ἔχομεν». καί φασιν, ὁρᾷς ὅτι τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὁ νοῦς ἕτερος παρὰ τὸν ἡμέτερον; καὶ ὢ πολλὴ ἡ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀφελότης, ὅτι εἰς ὃ ἑκάτερος βούλεται κλίνει καὶ ἐν ᾧ δοκεῖ σοφίζεσθαι μᾶλλον ἰδιώτης εὑρίσκεται. ἡμῶν γὰρ ὄντων «ἰδιωτῶν τῷ λόγῳ, ἀλλ' οὐ τῇ γνώσει», κατὰ τὸ εἰρημένον, βραχέων δὲ σφόδρα ὄντων, θαυμαζόντων τε τῶν τοιούτων ἀνθρώπων καὶ ἀπὸ λόγων ὁρμωμένων τὸν νοῦν, ἀπορίας ἡμῖν κατάστασις περὶ τὴν διάνοιαν συμβαίνει, ὅτι τὸ ῥητὸν τοῦτο εἰς παράστασιν τῆς τοιαύτης αὐτῶν ἁπλῶς ἀργῆς φιλονεικίας λαμβάνουσιν, ὅλως τοῦ πράγματος μὴ ἔχοντος ἔμφασιν ἐπικοινωνοῦσαν τῇ τοιαύτῃ σχέσει. «ἡμεῖς», γάρ φησι, «νοῦν Χριστοῦ ἔχομεν». τί δὲ ἄρα εἴη ὁ Χριστὸς παρ' αὐτοῖς ἐρωτητέον, ἢ ὁ νοῦς Χριστοῦ τί ἄρα εἴη. ἐνταῦθα δὲ ὑποφαίνουσιν ἕτερον τὸν Χριστὸν εἶναι νενοηκότες καὶ ἑτέραν τὴν αὐτοῦ θεότητα. εἰ γὰρ ἀντὶ τοῦ νοῦ τὸν Χριστὸν ὑπολαμβάνουσι, Χριστὸν δὲ τὴν ἔνσαρκον μόνην Χριστοῦ παρουσίαν ὀνομάζουσιν, ἄρα πάλιν εἰς ἑτέραν ζήτησιν ἡμᾶς ἄγειν πειρῶνται. καὶ ὅτι μὲν οὖν οὐκ ἀπὸ τῆς ἐνσάρκου παρουσίας θεὸς λόγος καὶ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ἑρμηνεύεται δῆλον. εἰ δὲ καὶ προῆγον περὶ αὐτοῦ μαρτυρίαι τὸν Χριστὸν αὐτὸν 3.444 καλοῦσαι καὶ πρὸ τῆς ἐνσάρκου παρουσίας, ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ πεπλήρωνται, μήτε τῆς θεότητος ἐκτὸς Χριστοῦ ὑπαρχούσης ὀνόματος μήτε τῆς ἐνσάρκου παρουσίας καὶ τῆς αὐτοῦ ἐνανθρωπήσεως ἄνευ τῆς τοιαύτης ὀνομασίας ὀνομαζομένης, ὡς κατὰ τὸ εἰρημένον «μὴ εἴπῃς ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ σου, τίς ἀναβήσεται εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν; τουτέστι Χριστὸν καταγαγεῖν. ἢ τίς καταβήσεται εἰς τὴν ἄβυσσον; τουτέστι Χριστὸν ἀναγαγεῖν ἐκ νεκρῶν», καὶ πάλιν ὁ αὐτὸς λέγει «ἵνα γινώσκωσι σὲ τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν καὶ ὃν ἀπέστειλας Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν»· τὸ δὲ ἀπέστειλας ἄνωθεν τυγχάνει ἔχον τὴν θεωρίαν, ἀλλ' οὐκ ἐκτὸς ὂν τῶν ὑπὸ Πέτρου εἰρημένων ὅτι «Ἰησοῦν τὸν Ναζωραῖον, ἄνδρα ἀποδεδειγμένον εἰς ὑμᾶς τέρασι καὶ σημείοις, ὃν ἔχρισεν ὁ θεὸς πνεύματι ἁγίῳ» καὶ τὰ τούτοις ὅμοια. 32. Εἶτα δὲ πάλιν οἱ γλυκύτατοι ἡμῶν ἀδελφοί, βουλόμενοι κατὰ πάντα φιλονείκους ἡμῖν εἰσφέρειν διανοίας, καὶ τὴν αὐτοῦ θεότητα πεπονθυῖαν οὐκ ἀτολμήτως κηρύττουσιν ἐκ τοῦ ῥητοῦ τοῦ εἰρημένου «εἰ γὰρ ἔγνωσαν, οὐκ ἂν τὸν κύριον τῆς δόξης ἐσταύρωσαν». τινὲς δὲ τῶν αὐτοῦ παίδων μὴ νοοῦντες τοῦτο, ὡς οἶμαι, μετὰ τῶν ἄλλων προβαλλόμενοι βούλονται ἐπισοφίζεσθαι. θαυμάζω γὰρ εἰ αὐτὸς οὕτως φάσκει. οὐ θαυμαστὸν γὰρ ἐὰν εἴπῃ ἡ θεία γραφὴ τὸν κύριον τῆς δόξης