and is indicated by the common name of divinity. What I am saying would thus become clearer. One who considers the existence of Adam, how he was brought into being, will find him not begotten, for he was not from any other man, but fashioned by the divine hand. But the fashioning indicates the mode of existence; for it signifies how he came to be. Likewise again, the mode of existence characterizes the fashioning; for it indicates in the same way that he existed having been fashioned. But if you should seek his substance, according to which he is joined in communion with those who come from him, you will find the underlying subject to be man. Therefore, just as the fashioning indicates the mode of existence, and the mode of existence characterizes the fashioning, and the principle of substance shows the underlying subject to be man, so we will find it in the case of God and the Father. For if you should seek his mode of existence, seeing him begotten from no other, you will call him unbegotten; and if you should consider the appellation 'unbegotten,' you will find it interpreting the mode of existence. And if you should wish to know the substance itself, according to which he is joined in communion with the Son and the Spirit, you will indicate it by the name 'God.' Thus 'unbegotten' and the mode of existence are indicative of one another, but 'God' is indicative of the substance. For just as Adam, although he did not undergo a birth, is joined in communion with those born from him according to the sameness of substance, so no argument will be able to separate the commonality of substance of the Father from the Son and the Spirit on account of his being unbegotten. Thus 'unbegotten' and 'begotten' and 'proceeding' are not indicative of substance, but are significant of the hypostases; for they are sufficient for us to distinguish the persons and to show peculiarly the hypostasis of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. For just as some seal, when we say 'unbegotten,' it immediately sets apart the hypostasis of the Father, and again, like some sign, when we hear the appellation of the begotten, we receive the concept of the Son, and in turn, through the meaning of 'proceeding,' we are taught the particular person of the Spirit. And these things are sufficient for a demonstration that 'unbegotten' and 'begotten' and 'proceeding' do not indicate the substance itself, but are distinctive of the hypostases, in addition to also signifying the mode of existence. It would remain, then, concerning the substance, to show how it is one for the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. We see, therefore, in common experience, that those who are begotten are of the same substance as those who beget. But rather we must begin from an earlier point, so that some question intervening in the middle may not interrupt the continuity of the argument. And first, let us divide existing things. For we will find all things divided into created and uncreated; for if anything exists among beings, it is either an uncreated nature or a created one. But the uncreated is both masterful and free from all necessity, while the created is servile and follows masterful laws; and the

καὶ τῷ κοινῷ τῆς θεότητος ὀνόματι παραδηλοῦται. Oὕτως δ' ἂν ὃ λέγω σαφέστερον γένοιτο. Ὁ περὶ τῆς ὑπάρξεως τοῦ Ἀδὰμ σκοπούμενος, ὅπως εἰς τὸ εἶναι παρήχθη, εὑρήσει τοῦτον οὐ γεννητόν, οὐ γὰρ ἐξ ἄλλου τινὸς ἀνθρώπου, ἀλλ' ἐκ τῆς θείας διαπλασθέντα χειρός. Ἀλλ' ἡ διάπλασις τὸν τρόπον τῆς ὑπάρξεως δηλοῖ· τὸ γὰρ ὅπως ἐγένετο ση μαίνει. Ὡσαύτως πάλιν ὁ τῆς ὑπάρξεως τρόπος τὴν διά πλασιν χαρακτηρίζει· δηλοῖ γὰρ ὁμοίως ὅτι γε πλασθεὶς ὑπῆρξεν. Eἰ δὲ τὴν οὐσίαν αὐτοῦ ζητοίης, καθ' ἣν τοῖς ἐξ αὐτοῦ πρὸς κοινωνίαν συνάπτεται, ἄνθρωπον εὑρήσεις τὸ ὑποκείμενον. Ὥσπερ οὖν ἡ πλάσις τὸν τρόπον τῆς ὑπάρξεως δηλοῖ, ὁ δὲ τῆς ὑπάρξεως τρόπος τὴν διάπλασιν χαρακτη ρίζει, ὁ δὲ τῆς οὐσίας λόγος ἄνθρωπον τὸ ὑποκείμενον δεί κνυσιν, οὕτως ἐπὶ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς εὑρήσομεν. Eἰ μὲν γὰρ τὸν τρόπον τῆς ὑπάρξεως αὐτοῦ ζητοίης, ἐξ οὐδενὸς ἑτέρου γεγεννημένον ὁρῶν, ἀγέννητον προσαγορεύσεις· εἰ δὲ τὴν ἀγέννητος προσηγορίαν σκοποίης, τῆς ὑπάρξεως τὸν τρόπον ἑρμηνεύουσαν εὑρήσεις. Eἰ δὲ καὶ τὴν οὐσίαν αὐτὴν γνωρίζειν ἐθέλοις, καθ' ἣν υἱῷ καὶ πνεύματι πρὸς κοινω νίαν συνάπτεται, τῇ θεὸς ὀνομασίᾳ δηλώσεις. Ὥστε τὸ ἀγέννητον καὶ τῆς ὑπάρξεως ὁ τρόπος ἀλλήλων εἰσὶν γνω ριστικά, τῆς δὲ οὐσίας τὸ θεὸς δηλωτικόν. Ὡς γὰρ ὁ Ἀδάμ, καίτοι γέννησιν οὐ προσηκάμενος, τοῖς ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεννηθεῖσιν κατὰ τὸ τῆς οὐσίας ταὐτὸν εἰς κοινωνίαν συνάπτε ται, οὕτως οὐδεὶς λόγος τὸ κοινὸν τῆς οὐσίας πατρὸς πρὸς τὸν υἱὸν καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα διασπᾶσαι διὰ τὸ ἀγέννητον δυνή σεται. Ὥστε τὸ ἀγέννητον καὶ τὸ γεννητὸν καὶ τὸ ἐκπορευ τὸν οὐκ οὐσίας δηλωτικά, σημαντικὰ δὲ τῶν ὑποστάσεών ἐστιν· ἱκανὰ γὰρ ἡμῖν διακρίνειν τὰ πρόσωπα καὶ τὴν πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ καὶ ἁγίου πνεύματος ἰδιαζόντως δεικνύειν ὑπόστασιν. Καθάπερ γὰρ σφραγὶς ἡμῖν τις λεχθὲν τὸ ἀγέννητον εὐθὺς τὴν πατρὸς ἀφορίζει ὑπόστασιν, καὶ πάλιν ὥς τι σημεῖον τὴν τοῦ γεννητοῦ προσηγορίαν ἀκούοντες τὴν υἱοῦ λαμβάνομεν ἔννοιαν, καὶ αὖθις διὰ τῆς τοῦ ἐκπορευτοῦ σημασίας τὸ ἰδικὸν τοῦ πνεύματος πρόσωπον παιδευόμεθα. Καὶ ταῦτα μὲν ἀρκεῖ πρὸς ἀπόδειξιν τοῦ μὴ τὴν οὐσίαν αὐτὴν δηλοῦν τὸ ἀγέννητον καὶ γεννητὸν καὶ ἐκπορευτόν, ἀφοριστικὰ δὲ τῶν ὑποστάσεων εἶναι, πρὸς τῷ καὶ τὸν τῆς ὑπάρξεως τρόπον διασημαίνειν. Ὑπόλοιπον δ' ἂν εἴη περὶ τῆς οὐσίας δεικνύναι πῶς μία πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ καὶ ἁγίου πνεύματος. Ὁρῶμεν τοίνυν ἐν τῇ κοινῇ συνηθείᾳ τῆς αὐτῆς οὐσίας ὑπάρχοντα τοῖς γεν νῶσιν τὰ γεννώμενα. Μᾶλλον δὲ ἄνωθεν ἡμῖν ἀρκτέον, ὡς ἂν μὴ τὸ συνεχὲς τοῦ λόγου διακόπτοι ζήτημά τι παρεμπεσὸν εἰς μέσον. Καὶ πρῶτόν γε τὰ ὄντα διαιρήσωμεν. Eὑρήσομεν γὰρ ἅπαντα εἴς τε κτιστὸν καὶ ἄκτιστον διαιρούμενα· εἴ τι γάρ ἐστιν ἐν τοῖς οὖσιν, ἢ ἄκτιστος φύσις ἐστὶν ἢ κτιστή. Ἀλλ' ἡ μὲν ἄκτιστος καὶ δεσποτικὴ καὶ πάσης ἀνάγκης ἐλευθέρα, ἡ δὲ κτιστὴ δουλικὴ καὶ νόμοις δεσποτικοῖς ἑπομένη· καὶ ἡ