6

of a dog, for example the sea-dog of the land-dog, or the land-dog conversely of the sea-dog; for why, or according to what reasoning? But the commonality of the name is in things of equal honor and different. But here you couple with God the object of worship, and being beyond all substance and nature. This which is of God alone and, as it were, the nature of Godhead, then you give this to the Father, but you deprive the Son and place him under, and assign to him the second place of honor and worship, and even if you grant the likeness in syllables, in reality you diminish the Godhead, and you pass over mischievously from the homonymy that has equality to that which joins unequal things; so that your painted and living man are closer to the Godhead than the dogs of your example. Or give to both, just as the commonality of the name, so also the equality of honor of the natures, even if you introduce these as different; and you have destroyed your dogs, which you invented against inequality. For what is the benefit of the homonymy, if those who are divided by you do not have equality of honor? For not in order to show things of equal honor, but things of unequal honor, did you take refuge in homonymy and the dogs. How could one be more convicted of fighting both with himself and with the Godhead?

15 But if, when we say that the Father is greater than the Son by cause, they add the premise 'The cause is by nature,' and then conclude 'Greater by nature'; I do not know whether they deceive themselves, or those to whom the argument is addressed. For not simply are whatever things are said of something, these also to be said of that which is subject to it; but it is clear of what, and what things. Since what prevents me also from making this premise, that the Father is greater by nature, and then adding 'But by nature not in every way greater nor a father,' from there to conclude 'Greater is not in every way greater;' or, 'The Father is not in every way a father.' Or if you wish, thus: God is substance; but substance is not in every way God; you yourself draw the conclusion: God is not in every way God. But I think, this fallacy is due to a confusion between 'in some respect' and 'simply,' as is usual for those who reason technically on these matters. For while we grant the 'greater' in respect of the nature of the cause, they infer the 'greater by nature'; just as if, when we say that so-and-so is a dead man, they simply inferred 'the man.'

16 But how can we pass over that point, being no less admirable than the things already said? 'Father,' he says, 'is it the name of a substance, or of an energy?' as if to bind us from both sides, —if we say of a substance, we will agree that the Son is of a different substance, since there is one substance of God, and this, as they say, the Father has pre-occupied; but if of an energy, we will clearly confess him to be a thing made, but not a begotten. For where there is the one who energizes, there is necessarily also that which is energized. And how, they will say in wonder, can the thing made be the same as the maker. I myself would be very much ashamed of your dilemma, if it were necessary to accept one of the two, and not, having escaped both, to state a third and truer thing; that Father is the name neither of a substance, O most wise ones, nor of an energy, but of a relation, and of how the Father is related to the Son, or the Son to the Father. For just as among us these names indicate what is genuine and proper, so there too they signify the identity of nature of the one begotten with the one who begot. But let it be, for your sake, that Father is in some sense of a substance; he will include the Son, he will not alienate him, according to common conceptions and the force of these names. Let it also be of an energy, if this seems right; not even so will you catch us. For he would have energized this very thing, the consubstantial, even if the conception of the energy concerning this were otherwise absurd. Do you see how we escape your twists, even when you wish to argue maliciously? But since we have recognized your invincibility in reasonings and twists, let us see also your strength from the divine oracles, if perchance from there you will accept to persuade us.

6

κυνός, οἷον ὁ θαλάττιος τοῦ χερσαίου, ἢ ὁ χερσαῖος ἔμπαλιν τοῦ θαλαττίου· διὰ τί γάρ, ἢ κατὰ τίνα λόγον; ἀλλ' ἐν ὁμοτίμοις πράγμασι καὶ διαφόροις ἡ κοινωνία τῆς κλήσεως. ἐνταῦθα δὲ τῷ θεῷ παραζευγνὺς τὸ σεβάσμιον, καὶ τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν οὐσίαν εἶναι καὶ φύσιν. ὃ μόνου θεοῦ καὶ οἱονεὶ φύσις θεότητος, εἶτα τῷ πατρὶ μὲν τοῦτο διδούς, τὸν υἱὸν δὲ ἀποστερῶν καὶ ὑποτι θείς, καὶ τὰ δεύτερα νέμων αὐτῷ τῆς τιμῆς καὶ τῆς προσκυνήσεως, κἂν ταῖς συλλαβαῖς χαρίζῃ τὸ ὅμοιον, τῷ πράγματι τὴν θεότητα περικόπτεις, καὶ μεταβαίνεις κακούργως ἀπὸ τῆς τὸ ἴσον ἐχούσης ὁμωνυμίας ἐπὶ τὴν τὰ μὴ ἴσα συνδέουσαν· ὥστε ὁ γραπτός σοι καὶ ὁ ζῶν ἄνθρωπος μᾶλλον ἢ οἱ τοῦ ὑποδείγματος κύνες τῇ θεότητι πλησιάζουσιν. ἢ δὸς ἀμφοτέροις, ὥσπερ τὴν κοινωνίαν τῆς κλήσεως, οὕτω δὲ καὶ τὴν ὁμοτιμίαν τῶν φύσεων, εἰ καὶ διαφόρους ταύτας εἰσάγεις· καὶ καταλέλυκάς σου τοὺς κύνας, οὓς ἐξηῦρες κατὰ τῆς ἀνισότητος. τί γὰρ ὄφελος τῆς ὁμωνυμίας, εἰ τὸ ἰσότιμον μὴ ἔχοιεν οἱ παρά σου διαιρούμενοι; οὐ γὰρ ἵνα ἰσότιμα δείξῃς, ἀλλ' ἵνα ἀνισότιμα, πρὸς τὴν ὁμωνυμίαν καὶ τοὺς κύνας κατέφυγες. πῶς ἄν τις ἐλεγχθείη μᾶλλον καὶ ἑαυτῷ μαχόμενος καὶ θεότητι;

15 Ἐὰν δὲ λεγόντων ἡμῶν, ὅτι τῷ αἰτίῳ μείζων ὁ πατὴρ τοῦ υἱοῦ, προσλαβόντες τὴν Τὸ δὲ αἴτιον φύσει πρότασιν, ἔπειτα τὸ Μεῖζον τῇ φύσει συνάγωσιν· οὐκ οἶδα πότερον ἑαυτοὺς παραλογί ζονται, ἢ τοὺς πρὸς οὓς ὁ λόγος. οὐ γὰρ ἁπλῶς ὅσα κατά τινος λέγεται, ταῦτα καὶ κατὰ τοῦ ὑποκειμένου τούτῳ ῥηθήσεται· ἀλλὰ δῆλον κατὰ τίνος, καὶ τίνα. ἐπεὶ τί κωλύει κἀμὲ ταύτην πρότασιν ποιησάμενον τήν, ὅτι ὁ πατὴρ μείζων τῇ φύσει, ἔπειτα προσλαβόντα τὸ Φύσει δὲ οὐ πάντως μείζων οὐδὲ πατήρ, ἐντεῦθεν συναγαγεῖν τὸ Μεῖζον οὐ πάντως μεῖζον· ἤ, Ὁ πατὴρ οὐ πάντως πατήρ. εἰ βούλει δὲ οὕτως· ὁ θεός, οὐσία· ἡ οὐσία δέ, οὐ πάντως θεός· τὸ ἑξῆς αὐτὸς συνάγαγε· ὁ θεός, οὐ πάντως θεός. ἀλλ' οἶμαι, παρὰ τὸ πῇ καὶ ἁπλῶς ὁ παραλογισμὸς οὗτος, ὡς τοῖς περὶ ταῦτα τεχνο λογεῖν σύνηθες. ἡμῶν γὰρ τὸ μεῖζον τῇ τοῦ αἰτίου φύσει διδόντων, αὐτοὶ τὸ τῇ φύσει μεῖζον ἐπάγουσιν· ὥσπερ ἂν εἰ καὶ λεγόντων ἡμῶν, ὅτι ὁ δεῖνα νεκρὸς ἄνθρωπος, ἁπλῶς ἐπῆγον αὐτοὶ τὸν ἄνθρωπον.

16 Ἐκεῖνο δὲ πῶς παραδράμωμεν, οὐδενὸς ἧττον τῶν εἰρημένων ὂν ἀξιάγαστον; Ὁ πατήρ, φησιν, οὐσίας, ἢ ἐνεργείας ὄνομα; ὡς ἀμφοτέρωθεν ἡμᾶς δήσοντες, -εἰ μὲν οὐσίας φήσομεν, συνθησο μένους ἑτεροούσιον εἶναι τὸν υἱόν, ἐπειδὴ μία μὲν οὐσία θεοῦ, ταύτην δέ, ὡς οὗτοι, προκατείληφεν ὁ πατήρ· εἰ δὲ ἐνεργείας, ποίημα σαφῶς ὁμολογήσοντας, ἀλλ' οὐ γέννημα. οὗ γὰρ ὁ ἐνεργῶν, ἐκεῖ πάντως καὶ τὸ ἐνεργούμενον. καὶ πῶς τῷ πεποιηκότι ταὐτὸν τὸ πεποιημένον, θαυμάζειν φήσουσι. σφόδρα ἂν ᾐδέσθην ὑμῶν καὶ αὐτὸς τὴν διαίρεσιν, εἰ τῶν δύο τὸ ἕτερον δέξασθαι ἦν ἀναγκαῖον, ἀλλὰ μὴ τὰ δύο διαφυγόντα τρίτον εἰπεῖν ἀληθέστερον· ὅτι οὔτε οὐσίας ὄνομα ὁ πατήρ, ὦ σοφώτατοι, οὔτε ἐνεργείας, σχέσεως δὲ καὶ τοῦ πῶς ἔχει πρὸς τὸν υἱὸν ὁ πατήρ, ἢ ὁ υἱὸς πρὸς τὸν πατέρα. ὡς γὰρ παρ' ἡμῖν αἱ κλήσεις αὗται τὸ γνήσιον καὶ οἰκεῖον γνωρί ζουσιν, οὕτω κἀκεῖ τὴν τοῦ γεγεννημένου πρὸς τὸ γεγεννηκὸς ὁμοφυίαν σημαίνουσιν. ἔστω δέ, ὑμῶν χάριν, καὶ οὐσίας τις ὁ πατήρ· συνεισάξει τὸν υἱόν, οὐκ ἀλλοτριώσει, κατὰ τὰς κοινὰς ἐννοίας καὶ τὴν τῶν κλήσεων τούτων δύναμιν. ἔστω καὶ ἐνεργείας, εἰ τοῦτο δοκεῖ· οὐδὲ οὕτως ἡμᾶς αἱρήσετε. αὐτὸ δὲ τοῦτο ἐνηργηκὼς ἂν εἴη τὸ ὁμοούσιον, εἰ καὶ ἄτοπος ἄλλως ἢ τῆς περὶ τοῦτο ἐνεργείας ὑπόληψις. ὁρᾷς ὅπως ὑμῶν, καὶ κακομαχεῖν ἐθελόντων, τὰς στρο φὰς διαφεύγομεν; ἐπεὶ δέ σου τὸ ἐν τοῖς λογισμοῖς καὶ ταῖς στρο φαῖς ἄμαχον ἔγνωμεν, ἴδωμέν σου καὶ τὴν ἐκ τῶν θείων λογίων ἰσχύν, ἂν ἄρα δέξῃ κἀντεῦθεν πείθειν ἡμᾶς.