6

turn, and labors at the demonstration that the unbegotten was begotten neither by himself nor by another. Then, however, not even here does he forget his own art; but in his treatment of acknowledged points, he inserts certain elements for himself for his subsequent arguments. For that point is not idly made by him, that, in truth, the maker must pre-exist what is made. But so that in his arguments concerning the Son he may have it already agreed, that the Son was later added to the Father, if indeed the maker is older than what is made; and from this, as a consequence, he may take it that the Son was begotten from non-existence. But let the refutation of his impiety towards the Son await its proper place. But I would say that the designation 'unbegotten,' even if it seems 29.517 to accord especially with our concepts, yet, as it is nowhere found in Scripture, and is the first element of their blasphemy, deserves rightly to be silenced, since the term 'Father' has the same force as 'unbegotten,' in addition to also introducing conjointly with itself the concept of the Son through the relation. For He who is truly Father is also alone from no other; and 'from no other' is the same as 'unbegotten'. Therefore we should not call him 'unbegotten' rather than 'Father,' unless we are to be wiser than the teachings of the Savior, who said, 'Go, baptize in the name of the Father,' and not 'of the unbegotten'. And so much for these things. But let us consider the continuation of the argument. For having proceeded a little, and as if summarizing for himself what he has said, he writes thus. {ΕΥΝ.} Therefore, if it has been shown that neither does he pre-exist himself, nor does anything else pre-exist him, but he is before all things, 'unbegotten' follows from this; or rather, he is unbegotten substance. {ΒΑΣ.} The malice which we have detected in these words, I think, is quite easy for one who has paid even a little attention to perceive, but it is not easy to make it clear to the many. Nevertheless we must try, placing our hope in Him who gives utterance to those who preach the gospel, with great power. Having said that if neither he pre-exists himself, nor does anything else pre-exist him, 'unbegotten' follows for him; then perceiving that from the consequence of his propositions the argument has turned against him (for if 'unbegotten' follows God, it clearly attends Him from without. But what is external to God is not His substance. And from this his contrivance will slip away and be gone), so that he may not suffer this, what does he do? Caring little for the ridicule he was about to incur for saying inconsistent things, by his correction he led the argument to what he wanted, saying: 'Or rather, he is unbegotten substance'. But this has no agreement with what precedes it; for how can God 29.520 have 'unbegotten' as a consequence? and again not as a consequence, but as contained within the definition of His substance? nevertheless he does not allow his sophism to be completely destroyed. For if, having said that 'unbegotten' follows him, he had stopped the argument there, he would have had no way either to say that unbegottenness is the substance of the God of all, or to show the only-begotten Son to be alien in His very substance, since none of the external consequences can separate the relationship of Father and Son in respect to their very substance. But now by adding, 'Or rather, he is unbegotten substance,' he has shown that the very thing which God is, is unbegottenness; and how much of a path this always prepares for him for his attempt at impiety, I will show by proceeding a little further in the argument. So it is then that what he said at first appeared from the truth of the matter according to the consequence of the givens; but what he added last was thrown in from his heretical mindset, with the writer having jumped to the correction of his argument most shamelessly of all. For how can the same thing both follow God and be identical to Him, since it is obvious to all that that which follows is different from that which it follows? But he, as if having taken some path, from the argument preemptively snatched by him, towards the

6

στροφῇ, καὶ περὶ τὴν ἀπόδειξιν λε πτουργεῖν τοῦ μήτε ὑφ' ἑαυτοῦ μήτε ὑφ' ἑτέρου τὸν ἀγέννητον γεγεννῆσθαι. Ἔπειτα μέντοι οὐδὲ ἐνταῦθα τῆς ἑαυτοῦ τέχνης ἐπιλανθάνεται· ἀλλ' ἐν τῇ τῶν ὁμολογουμένων διατριβῇ, ὥσπερ στοιχεῖά τινα πρὸς τοὺς ἑξῆς λόγους ἑαυτῷ παρεμβάλλει. Οὐ γὰρ ἀργῶς αὐτῷ ἐκεῖνο ἔχει, ὅτι δεῖ, κατὰ ἀλήθειαν, τὸ ποιοῦν τοῦ γινομένου προϋπάρχειν. Ἀλλ' ἵνα ἐν τοῖς περὶ Υἱοῦ λόγοις προδιωμολογημένον ἔχῃ, τὸ ὕστερον προσγεγενῆσθαι τῷ Πατρὶ τὸν Υἱὸν, εἴπερ τὸ ποιοῦν ἐστι τοῦ γινομένου πρεσβύτερον· τούτῳ δὲ ὡς ἑπό μενον λάβῃ, τὸ ἐκ μὴ ὄντων τὸν Υἱὸν γεγεννῆ σθαι. Ἀλλ' ὁ μὲν τῆς εἰς τὸν Υἱὸν ἀσεβείας ἔλεγχος ἐν τοῖς οἰκείοις τόποις ἀναμεινάτω. Ἐγὼ δὲ καὶ τὴν τοῦ ἀγεννήτου προσηγορίαν, κἂν τὰ μάλιστα 29.517 δοκῇ ταῖς ἐννοίαις ἡμῶν συμβαίνειν, ἀλλ' οὖν ὡς οὐ δαμοῦ τῆς Γραφῆς κειμένην, καὶ πρῶτον στοιχεῖον οὖσαν τῆς βλασφημίας αὐτῶν, σιωπᾶσθαι ἂν δικαίως ἀξίαν εἶναι φήσαιμι, τῆς Πατρὸς φωνῆς ἴσον δυνα μένης τῷ ἀγεννήτῳ, πρὸς τῷ καὶ τὴν περὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ἔννοιαν συνημμένως ἑαυτῇ διὰ τῆς σχέσεως συνεισ άγειν. Ὁ γὰρ ὄντως Πατὴρ καὶ μόνος ἐξ οὐδενός ἐστιν ἑτέρου· τὸ δὲ, ἐξ οὐδενὸς, ταυτόν ἐστι τῷ, ἀγέννητος. Οὐ τοίνυν ἀγέννητον προσαγορευτέον μᾶλλον ἡμῖν ἢ Πατέρα, εἴ γε μὴ μέλλοιμεν εἶναι σοφώτεροι τῶν δι δαγμάτων τοῦ Σωτῆρος, εἰπόντος· Πορευθέντες, βαπτίζετε εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Πατρὸς, ἀλλ' οὐχὶ τοῦ ἀγεννήτου. Καὶ ταῦτα μὲν εἰς τοσοῦτον. Ἡμεῖς δὲ τὰ συνεχῆ τοῦ λόγου διασκεψώμεθα. Ὀλίγον γὰρ προελθὼν, καὶ οἷον συγκεφαλαιούμενος αὐτὸς ἑαυτῷ τὰ εἰρημένα, οὕτω γράφει. {ΕΥΝ.} Ἄρ' οὖν, εἰ μήτε αὐτὸς ἑαυτοῦ, μήτε ἕτε ρόν τι αὐτοῦ προϋπάρχειν δέδεικται, πρὸ δὲ πάν των αὐτὸς, ἀκολουθεῖ τούτῳ τὸ ἀγέννητον· μᾶλλον δὲ αὐτό ἐστιν οὐσία ἀγέννητος. {ΒΑΣ.} Ἣν τοίνυν ἐν τούτοις ἐφωράσαμεν κακουρ γίαν συνιδεῖν μὲν, οἶμαι, καὶ πάνυ ῥᾴδιον τῷ καὶ μικρὸν ἐπιστήσαντι, ἐμφανῆ δὲ ποιῆσαι τοῖς πολλοῖς οὐκ εὐμαρές. Πλὴν ἀλλὰ πειρατέον, τὴν ἐλπίδα θεμέ νους ἐπὶ τὸν διδόντα ῥῆμα τοῖς εὐαγγελιζομένοις, δυνάμει πολλῇ. Εἰπὼν, ὅτι, εἰ μήτε αὐτὸς ἑαυτοῦ, μήτε ἕτερόν τι αὐτοῦ προϋπάρχει, ἀκολουθεῖ αὐτῷ τὸ ἀγέννητον· εἶτα συνιδὼν, ὅτι ἐκ τῆς τῶν τεθέν των ἀκολουθίας πρὸς τὸ ἐναντίον αὐτῷ περιῆλθεν ὁ λόγος (εἰ γὰρ ἀκολουθεῖ τῷ Θεῷ τὸ ἀγέννητον, ἔξω θεν αὐτῷ παρέπεται δηλονότι. Τὸ δὲ ἔξωθεν τοῦ Θεοῦ οὐκ οὐσία αὐτοῦ ἐστιν. Ἐκ δὲ τούτων οἰχήσεται διαῤῥυὲν αὐτῷ τὸ σκαιώρημα), ἵνα δὲ μὴ τοῦτο πάθῃ, τί ποιεῖ; Βραχὺ φροντίσας τοῦ γέλωτος, ὃν ἐπὶ τῷ τὰ ἀνακόλουθα λέγειν ὑπέχειν ἔμελλε, τῇ ἐπιδιορθώ σει ἀπήγαγε τὸν λόγον πρὸς ἃ ἐβούλετο, εἰπών· Μᾶλλον δὲ αὐτό ἐστιν οὐσία ἀγέννητος. Τοῦτο δὲ οὐδεμίαν μὲν ἔχει ὁμολογίαν πρὸς τὰ προάγοντα· πῶς γὰρ καὶ ἑπόμενον αὐτῷ τὸ ἀγέννητον ὁ Θεὸς 29.520 ἔχει; καὶ πάλιν οὐχ ἑπόμενον, ἀλλ' ἐν τῷ τῆς οὐσίας λόγῳ περιεχόμενον; ὅμως γε μὴν οὐκ ἐᾷ παν τελῶς αὐτῷ διαφθαρῆναι τὸ σόφισμα. Εἰ γὰρ, εἰπὼν, ὅτι ἀκολουθεῖ αὐτῷ τὸ ἀγέννητον, ἐνταῦθα τὸν λόγον ἔστησεν, οὐκ ἂν εἶχεν ὅπως ἢ τὴν ἀγεννησίαν οὐσίαν λέγῃ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῶν ὅλων, ἢ ἀλλοτρίως ἔχοντα κατ' αὐτὴν τὴν οὐσίαν τὸν μονογενῆ Υἱὸν ἐπιδείξῃ, οὐδενὸς δυναμένου τῶν ἔξωθεν ἑπομένων, Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ τὴν κατ' αὐτὴν τὴν οὐσίαν οἰκειότητα διιστᾷν. Νῦν δὲ τῷ ἐπαγαγεῖν, Μᾶλλον δὲ αὐτό ἐστιν οὐσία ἀγέννητος, ἐνεδείξατο, ὅτι αὐτὸ, ὅπερ ἐστὶν ὁ Θεὸς ἀγεννησία ἐστί· τοῦτο δὲ ὅσον αὐτῷ δρόμον ἀεὶ πρὸς τὴν ἐγχείρησιν τῆς ἀσεβείας προευτρεπίζει, μικρὸν τῷ λόγῳ προελθὼν ἐπιδείξω. Ἔστι δ' ἄρα, ὃ μὲν ἐξ ἀρχῆς εἶπεν, ἐκ τῆς τῶν πραγμάτων ἀλη θείας κατὰ τὸ ἀκόλουθον τῶν δεδομένων ἀναφανέν· ὃ δὲ τελευταῖον ἐπέθηκεν, ἐκ τοῦ φρονήματος τοῦ αἱρετικοῦ προσεῤῥίφη, ἀναισχυντότατα πάντων τοῦ λογογράφου πρὸς τὴν ἐπιδιόρθωσιν τοῦ λόγου μεταπηδήσαντος. Πῶς γὰρ τὸ αὐτὸ καὶ ἀκολουθεῖ τῷ Θεῷ, καὶ ταυτόν ἐστιν αὐτῷ, πᾶσιν ὄντος προδή λου, ὅτι τὸ ἀκολουθοῦν ἕτερόν ἐστι παρὰ τὸν οὗ ἐστιν ἐπακολούθημα; Ὁ δὲ, ὥσπερ ὁδοῦ τινος λαβόμενος, ἐκ τοῦ καθ' ὑφαρπαγὴν αὐτῷ προληφθέντος λό γου, πρὸς τὴν