Chapter XXI.—Concerning ignorance and servitude.

He assumed, it is to be noted801    Greg. Naz., Orat. 36., the ignorant and servile nature802    Photius, Cod. 230; Eulog., bk. x., Ep. 35; Sophron., Ep. ad Serg.; Leont., De Sect., Act. 10.. For it is man’s nature to be the servant of God, his Creator, and he does not possess knowledge of the future. If, then, as Gregory the Theologian holds, you are to separate the realm of sight from the realm of thought, the flesh is to be spoken of as both servile and ignorant, but on account of the identity of subsistence and the inseparable union the soul of the Lord was enriched with the knowledge of the future as also with the other miraculous powers. For just as the flesh of men is not in its own nature life-giving, while the flesh of our Lord which was united in subsistence with God the Word Himself, although it was not exempt from the mortality of its nature, yet became life-giving through its union in subsistence with the Word, and we may not say that it was not and is not for ever life-giving: in like manner His human nature does not in essence possess the knowledge of the future, but the soul of the Lord through its union with God the Word Himself and its identity in subsistence was enriched, as I said, with the knowledge of the future as well as with the other miraculous powers.

Observe further803    Cf. Sophron., Ep. ad. Serg., who refers to the Duliani (᾽Δουλιανοί); the opinions of Felix and Elipandas, condemned at the Synod of Frankfort; and Thomas Aquinas, III., Quæst. 20, Art. 1. that we may not speak of Him as servant. For the words servitude and mastership are not marks of nature but indicate relationship, to something, such as that of fatherhood and sonship. For these do not signify essence but relation.

It is just as we said, then, in connection with ignorance, that if you separate with subtle thoughts, that is, with fine imaginings, the created from the uncreated, the flesh is a servant, unless it has been united with God the Word804    Greg. Naz., Orat. 24.. But how can it be a servant when it is once united in subsistence? For since Christ is one, He cannot be His own servant and Lord. For these are not simple predications but relative. Whose servant, then could He be? His Father’s? The Son, then, would not have all the Father’s attributes, if He is the Father’s servant and yet in no respect His own. Besides, how could the apostle say concerning us who were adopted by Him, So that you are no longer a servant but a son805    Gal. iv. 7., if indeed He is Himself a servant? The word servant, then, is used merely as a title, though not in the strict meaning: but for our sakes He assumed the form of a servant and is called a servant among us. For although He is without passion, yet for our sake He was the servant of passion and became the minister of our salvation. Those, then, who say that He is a servant divide the one Christ into two, just as Nestorius did. But we declare Him to be Master and Lord of all creation, the one Christ, at once God and man, and all-knowing. For in Him are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, the hidden treasures806    Col. ii. 3..

Περὶ ἀγνοίας καὶ δουλείας

Δεῖ γινώσκειν, ὅτι τὴν μὲν ἀγνοοῦσαν καὶ δούλην ἀνέλαβεν φύσιν: καὶ γὰρ δούλη ἐστὶν ἡ ἀνθρώπου φύσις τοῦ ποιήσαντος αὐτὴν θεοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἔχει τὴν τῶν μελλόντων γνῶσιν. «Ἐὰν οὖν» κατὰ τὸν θεολόγον Γρηγόριον «χωρίσῃς τὸ ὁρώμενον τοῦ νοουμένου», δούλη τε λέγεται καὶ ἀγνοοῦσα ἡ σάρξ, διὰ δὲ τὴν τῆς ὑποστάσεως ταυτότητα καὶ τὴν ἀδιάσπαστον ἕνωσιν κατεπλούτησεν ἡ τοῦ κυρίου ψυχὴ τὴν τῶν μελλόντων γνῶσιν ὡς καὶ τὰς λοιπὰς θεοσημίας. Ὥσπερ γὰρ ἡ σὰρξ τῶν ἀνθρώπων κατὰ τὴν οἰκείαν φύσιν οὐκ ἔστι ζωοποιός (ἡ δὲ τοῦ κυρίου σὰρξ ἑνωθεῖσα καθ' ὑπόστασιν αὐτῷ τῷ θεῷ λόγῳ τῆς μὲν κατὰ φύσιν θνητότητος οὐκ ἀπέστη, ζωοποιὸς δὲ γέγονε διὰ τὴν πρὸς τὸν λόγον καθ' ὑπόστασιν ἕνωσιν) καὶ οὐ δυνάμεθα λέγειν, ὅτι οὐκ ἦν καὶ ἔστιν ἀεὶ ζωοποιός, οὕτως ἡ μὲν ἀνθρωπίνη φύσις οὐσιωδῶς οὐ κέκτηται τῶν μελλόντων τὴν γνῶσιν: ἡ δὲ τοῦ κυρίου ψυχὴ διὰ τὴν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν λόγον ἕνωσιν καὶ τὴν ὑποστατικὴν ταυτότητα κατεπλούτησεν, ὡς ἔφην, μετὰ τῶν λοιπῶν θεοσημιῶν καὶ τὴν τῶν μελλόντων γνῶσιν.

Ἰστέον δέ, ὅτι οὔτε δοῦλον αὐτὸν λέγειν δυνάμεθα: τὸ γὰρ τῆς δουλείας καὶ τῆς δεσποτείας ὄνομα οὐ φύσεώς εἰσι γνωρίσματα, ἀλλὰ τῶν πρός τι, ὥσπερ τὸ τῆς πατρότητος καὶ τῆς υἱότητος. Ταῦτα γὰρ οὐκ οὐσίας, ἀλλὰ σχέσεώς εἰσι δηλωτικά. Ὥσπερ οὖν ἐπὶ τῆς ἀγνοίας εἴπομεν, ὅτι, ἐὰν ἰσχναῖς ἐπινοίαις ἤτοι νοῦ λεπταῖς φαντασίαις διέλῃς τὸ κτιστὸν ἐκ τοῦ ἀκτίστου, δούλη ἐστὶν ἡ σάρξ, εἰ μὴ ἥνωτο τῷ θεῷ λόγῳ. Ἅπαξ δὲ ἑνωθεῖσα καθ' ὑπόστασιν πῶς ἔσται δούλη; Εἷς γὰρ ὢν ὁ Χριστὸς οὐ δύναται δοῦλος ἑαυτοῦ εἶναι κύριος ὤν: ταῦτα γὰρ οὐ τῶν ἁπλῶς λεγομένων εἰσίν, ἀλλὰ πρὸς ἕτερον. Τίνος οὖν ἔσται δοῦλος; Τοῦ πατρός; Οὐκοῦν οὐ πάντα, ὅσα ἔχει ὁ πατήρ, καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ εἰσιν, εἴπερ τοῦ πατρός ἐστι δοῦλος, ἑαυτοῦ δὲ οὐδαμῶς. Πῶς δὲ περὶ ἡμῶν λέγει ὁ ἀπόστολος: «Ὥστε οὐκέτι εἶ δοῦλος, ἀλλ' υἱός», δι' αὐτοῦ υἱοθετηθέντων, εἴπερ αὐτὸς δοῦλός ἐστι; Προσηγορικῶς οὖν λέγεται δοῦλος οὐκ αὐτὸς ὢν τοῦτο, δι' ἡμᾶς δὲ δούλου μορφὴν εἰληφὼς καὶ δοῦλος μεθ' ἡμῶν κεκλημένος. Ἀπαθὴς γὰρ ὢν δι' ἡμᾶς ἐδούλευσε πάθεσι καὶ διάκονος τῆς ἡμῶν σωτηρίας γέγονεν. Οἱ δὲ λέγοντες αὐτὸν δοῦλον διιστῶσι τὸν ἕνα Χριστὸν εἰς δύο καθάπερ Νεστόριος. Ἡμεῖς δὲ δεσπότην αὐτόν φαμεν καὶ κύριον πάσης τῆς κτίσεως, τὸν ἕνα Χριστόν, τὸν αὐτὸν θεόν τε ὁμοῦ καὶ ἄνθρωπον, καὶ πάντα εἰδέναι: «ἐν αὐτῷ γάρ εἰσι πάντες οἱ θησαυροὶ τῆς σοφίας καὶ τῆς γνώσεως ἀπόκρυφοι».