장음표시 사용
121쪽
Munded in bod' δ Ηs places besore us designations offusceptibilities proper to our constitution, in order to fh- that He mas made man in the worid, and had His conversation with men,' yet Without sin. For He was bom in Bethlehem according to tho flesti, in a manner meet for
Dei , the angeis of heaven recognising Him as their Lord, and hymning as their God Him Who was then Wrapped ins addiinyclostes in a manger, and exclaiming, Glory to God in the hioest, and on earth peace, good-Will among men.' ' He was brought up in Nagaroth; but in divinsfashion He sat among the doctors, and astonished them is a Wisdom Myond His years, in respect of the capacities of His bodily liso, as is recorded in the Gospei narrative. Howas baptized in Jordan, not as receiving any sanctificationsor Himself, but as gisting a participation in sanctificationis othera. He was tempted in the wildemess, not as givingWay, ho even to temptation, but as pulting our temptations besore Ηimself on the challonge of tho tempter, in order to
122쪽
110 GREGORT THAUMATURGUS glorisy the Holy Spirit that Worheth in us, and quichonethus, and sumisheth the gitis meet sor the fellowship of God;
that there Mili como an end to time, and that there mill boa manifestation os a future morid, and a revelation of judyment, and an advent of the Son of God, and a recompense of Works, and an inhoritance in the hingilom of heaven, soli is not for us to know how the Son of God became man ;for this is a great mystery, as it is Written, μ Who inali declare His generationi sor ΙIis life is talion from tho earth.V But it is for us to boliovo that thes Son os God becamo man, according to the Scriptures; and that He Was seen on theearth, and had His conversation mitti men, according to the Scriptures, in their likeness, yet Without sin; and that Hodied for us, and roso again from the dead, as it is Writton ;and that Ηo was talion up to heaven, and sat down at the
123쪽
you Hready have been to hold by the holy Scriptures and traditions, and to avoid being shinen in your convictions by any subiteties of man's disputations, but with a vioW to tho Muting of men Who have different sentimendi, and who donot admit that such credit is to be given to the Scriptures, and .ho endeamur, is a hind of clevemess of speech, to gain Mer
124쪽
112 GREGORY THAUMATURGUS of as rightly expressed by us, and to pass by and conccat
What is proper. Κno ing this, thereiore, I have botakon myself with ali confidenco to the exposition. And in mydisco se I shali use a certain order and consecution, suchas those Who aro very experi in these mattere employ tomardsthoso who destro to investigate any subjeci intelligently.
First os ali, then, I shali propose to inquire by What
criterion the foui can, according to iis nature, be apprehended ; then by what means it can be proved to exist; thereaster, Whether it is a substance or an accident; thenconsequently on these potnis, Whether it is a body or is incorporeal ; then, Whether it is simple or compound ; nexi, whether it is mortal or immortal; and finalty, Whether it is
rational or irrationat. For these are the questions Which are Wont, 'abOVE ali,
to be discussed, in any inquiry abosit the foui, as most important, and as best calculated to mais out iis distinctivo nature. And as demonstrations for the establishing of theso matters of investigation, Wo shali employ those common modes of consideration εννοίαις) by Whicli the credibility of mattera under hand is natural ly attested. But for the pu pose of brevi and utility, Wo shali at present mino umonly of thosa modes of argumentation Whicli are most cogently demonstrative on the subject of our inquirri inorder that cleis and intelligible εὐπαράδεκτα) notions may impari to us somo readiness for meeting ths gainsvers. With this, thereiore, κε shali commence our discussion. 1. Wherein is the criterion for the apprehension of the foui.
All things that exist are either known by sense αἰσθήσει)or apprehended by thought νοήσει . And what fatis undissense has ita adequate demonstration in sense itseli; for atonce, with the application, it creates in us the impression
φαντασίαν) of What underites it. But What is apprehended by thought is known not by itself, but is iis operations ἐνεργειῶν). The foui, consequently, being unknoWn isitseli, shail be known properly by iis effecta.
125쪽
action from Withoui, is manifest from the circumstance thal
is put in action iram Within, it is not put in action accordingis nature, lihe fire. For fire never loses ita action as long as
3. Whether the foui is a substance.
That the wut is a substanco ουσία), is proved in thesialoming manner. In the first place, because the definitiongiven to the term substance suits it very woll. And that definiation is to tho effeci, that substance is that which, being everidentical, and ever one in potnt of numeration with itself, is
yet cap te of taing on contraries in succession των ἐναντίων παραμέρος εἶναι δεκτικον). And that this foui, without passing the limit os ita oWn proper nature, takeS on Contraries in succession, is, I san , clear to eve body. Forrighteousnem and unrighteousness, courago and coWardice, temperance and intemperance, are seen in it successively;
and these are contraries. Is, then, it is the properu os a substanco to be capable os taking on contraries in succession, and is tho sout is stlown to sustain the definition in theso ternis, it sollows that the foui is a substance. And in thoseeond place, because is tho body is a substance, the fouimust also M a substance. For it cannot be, that What onlyhas lita imparted should bo a substance, and that what imparis tho lise aliould bo no substance: unless one Ahould
126쪽
asseri that the non-existent is the cause of the existent; oruniess, again, One Were insane enough to allego that the do-
pendent object is iuelf the cause of that very thing in Whichit has ita being, and without which it could not subsist.
tho Qui mill become multiplex s πολυμερος , and not simple, and will thus bo despolied of the rationale proper to a Soul. For What is multiplex is also divisibis and dissolubio; and what is dissolubio, on the other hand, is compound σύνθετον); and what is compound is separabie in a threesold manner. Μoreover, body attached to body mahes meight ογκον); butthe foui, subsisting in the body, does not mahe weight, butrathor imparis lise. The wul, thereiore, cannot be a bo , but is incorporeat. Again, ii the foui is a body, it is put in action either frommithout or frem Within. But it is not put in action Dommithoui; for it is moved netther by impulsion nor by tra tion, liho sonitess things. Nor is it put in action hommithin, lihe objecta animaled mith soul; for it is absurd totais os a fovi of tho foui: it cannot, thereiore, be a body, but it is incorporeat. And besides, it tho sout is a body, it has sensibis qualities, and is maintained by nurture. But it is not thus nurtureae For is it is nurtured, it is not nurtured corporeatly, like thebo , but incorporeatly; for it is nurtured by mason. Ithas not, therelare, sensibie qualities: for neither is righteou ness, nor murage, nor any one of these things, something
127쪽
115 that is seen; yet these ars the qualities of tho sint. Itonnot, theresore, be a bois, but is incorporeat. Stili further, as ali corporeat substance is dividod into animate and inanimate, let those Who hold that the foui is abody teli us Whether me are to cali it animate or inanimate. Finalty, is every body has colour, and quantity, and figure, and is inore is not ono of theso qualities perceptibie in thesint, it sellom that tho Qui is not a bov. 5. Whether the foui is simple or eo Ound. prove, then, stat the foui is simple, best os ali, isthose arguments by Which ita incorporeality has been demonstrat . For it it is not a body, While every body is commund, and What is composite is made up os paris, and is consequently multiplex, the sota, on the other hand, beingincorporeat, is simplo; since thus it is both uncompoundedand indivisibie into paris.
6. Whether our aout is immorta It tolloWs, in my opinion, as a necessam consequenee, stat what is simple is immortal. And as to how that sollows,hear my explanation: Nothing that exista is ita οὐ corrupter φθαρτικόν , else it could never havo had any thoronoeonsistency, even Imm the beginning. For things that aras j et to corruption are corrupted by contraries: Wherelare
everything that is corrupted is subject to dissolution; and what is subject to dissolution is compound ; and what is commund is of many paris; and What is made up of parta manifestly is made up of diverse paris; and the diverso isnes the identical: consequently the foui, being simple, and not Ming made up of diverse paris, but being uncompοundand indissolubie, must be, in virtve of that, incorruptibie and
fides, everything that is put in aetion by somethingelse, and does not possess the principio os liso in irasis, butgeis it Dom that Whicli pura it in action, endures iust solong as it is held by the pomer that operatos in it; and
henever the operativo poWer ceases, that also comes to a
128쪽
116 GREGORY THAUMATURGUS stand whicli has iis capacity os action from it. But thosοul, being selnacting, has no cessation os iis being. For itfollows, that What is solLacting is eve acting; and what is eVe acting is unceasing ; and what is unceasing is Mithoutend; and what is without end is incorruptibio; and whatis incorruptibio is immortal. Consequently, it the foui issetnacting, as has been shown above, it sollows that it is incorruptibie and immortal, in accordance With tho modo of asoning already expressed. And surther, everything that is not corrupted by the ovilproper to itself, is incorruptibie; and the evit is opposed tothe good, and is consequently iis corrupter. For the evilof the body is nothing elso than suffering, and diserae, and death; just as, on the other hand, ita excellency is beauty, ille, health, and Vigour. Is, theresore, the Sout is not corrupted by the evit proper to itself, and the ovil of the fouitS QOWardice, intemperance, enuy, and the like, and ali thesethings do not despoli it os iis poners of life and action, itfollows that it is immortal. 7. Whether our sout is rationat. That our sout is rationat, one might demonstrate by many arguments. And first os ali from tho faci that it has di covered the aris that are for the servico os our lila. Forno ono could say that theso aris were introduced casuallyand accidentally, as no one could prove them to be idie, and of no utility sor our lite. Is, then, these aris contributo towhat is profitabis for cur lite, and ii the profitabis is commendabie, and is the commendabie is constituted is reason, and ii thoso things aro the discovery of the foui, it folio sthat our sout is rationat. Again, that our sout is rationat, is also proved by the factthat our senses aro not sussicient for the apprehension ofthings. For me are not competent for the knowledge of things by the simpio application of the faculty os sensation. But as We do not chooso to rest in these Mithout inquiry επεὶ μηδὲ στηναι περὶ αυτα θέλομεν), that proves that the senses, apari from reason, aro felt to bo incapable ol
129쪽
and similar in colour, though quito distinct in their natures. Is, thereiore, tho senses, apart irom reason, givo us a salse conception os things, me have to consider Whether things thatare can be apprehended in reality or not. And ii they canbe apprehended, then the poWer Whicli enabies us to get atthem is one different from, and superior to, the senses. Andis they are not apprehended, it mill not bo possibis for us atali to apprehend things which aro different in their appear- anco from tho reality. But that objecis are apprehensibio by tis, is clear hom the faci that me employ each in a Wayadaptable is utility, and again turn them to What We please. Consequently, it it has been shown that things whicli are cania apprehended by us, and is the senses, apari frOm reason, are an erroneous test of objecta, it follows that tho intollect -- is What distinguishes ali things in reason, and discerns things as they are in their actuali ty. But tho intellect is just the rationat portion of the foui, and consequently the soni is rationat. Finalty, because We do nothing without having first marhedit out for ourseives; and as that is nothing elso than just thebigh prerogativo αξίωμά) of the foui,-sor iis knowledgo ofthings does not come to it from Without, but it rather solsout these things, as it Were, With the adornment of iis oWnthoughis, and thus fidit pictures fortii the object in itaeis, andonly thereastor carries it out to actuat fact,-and because thel, ii prerogative of the foui is nothing olso than the doing ofati things With reason, in Whicli rospect it also differs fromthe senses, the foui lias theruby been demonstrated to borationes.
130쪽
Woris of Gregory Thaumaturgus by Ger. VOM, P. 9.
i Tho secondary titte is: The Firat Diaco se of our holy father Gregory, sumamed Thaumaturgus, bishop of Neocaesareia in Pontus, on the Annunciation to tho most holy Virgin Hary, mother of God.