Chapter VI.—Concerning the Word and the Son of God: a reasoned proof.

So then this one and only God is not Wordless59    ἄλογον; without Word, or, without Reason.    St. Luke xxiv. 43.. And possessing the Word, He will have it not as without a subsistence, nor as having had a beginning, nor as destined to cease to be. For there never was a time when God was not Word: but He ever possesses His own Word, begotten of Himself, not, as our word is, without a subsistence and dissolving into air, but having a subsistence in Him and life and perfection, not proceeding out of Himself but ever existing within Himself60    Greg. Nyss., Catech., c. 1.    Theodor., Dial. 2; Greg. Naz., Orat. 49, Ep. 1 ad Cled.. For where could it be, if it were to go outside Him? For inasmuch as our nature is perishable and easily dissolved, our word is also without subsistence. But since God is everlasting and perfect, He will have His Word subsistent in Him, and everlasting and living, and possessed of all the attributes of the Begetter. For just as our word, proceeding as it does out of the mind, is neither wholly identical with the mind nor utterly diverse from it (for so far as it proceeds out of the mind it is different from it, while so far as it reveals the mind, it is no longer absolutely diverse from the mind, but being one in nature with the mind, it is yet to the subject diverse from it), so in the same manner also the Word of God61    In R. 2427 is added, ‘Who is the Son.’    Acts i. 11. in its independent subsistence is differentiated62    διῄρηται, i.e. distinguished from the Father. Objection is taken to the use of such a verb as suggestive of division. It is often employed, however, by Greg. Naz. (e.g. Orat. 34) to express the distinction of persons. In many passages of Gregory and other Fathers the noun διαίρεσις is used to express the distinction of persons. In many passages of Gregory and other Fathers the noun διαίρεσις is used to express the distinction of one thing from another: and in this sense it is opposed both to the Sabellian confusion and the Arian division. from Him from Whom it derives its subsistence63    Reading ὑπόστασιν. Various reading, ὕπαρξιν, existence.: but inasmuch as it displays in itself the same attributes as are seen in God, it is of the same nature as God. For just as absolute perfection is contemplated in the Father, so also is it contemplated in the Word that is begotten of Him.

Περὶ λόγου θεοῦ

Οὗτος τοίνυν ὁ εἷς καὶ μόνος θεὸς οὐκ ἄλογός ἐστι. Λόγον δὲ ἔχων οὐκ ἀνυπόστατον ἕξει, οὐκ ἀρξάμενον τοῦ εἶναι οὐδὲ παυσόμενον: οὐ γὰρ ἦν, ὅτε ἦν ποτε θεὸς ἄλογος. Ἀεὶ δὲ ἔχει τὸν ἑαυτοῦ λόγον ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεννώμενον, οὐ κατὰ τὸν ἡμέτερον λόγον ἀνυπόστατον καὶ εἰς ἀέρα χεόμενον, ἀλλ' ἐνυπόστατον, ζῶντα, τέλειον, οὐκ ἔξω αὐτοῦ χωροῦντα, ἀλλ' ἐν αὐτῷ ἀεὶ ὄντα: ποῦ γὰρ ἔσται ἔξω αὐτοῦ γινόμενος; Ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ἡ ἡμετέρα φύσις ἐπίκηρός ἐστι καὶ εὐδιάλυτος, διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ὁ λόγος ἡμῶν ἐστιν ἀνυπόστατος. Ὁ δὲ θεὸς ἀεὶ ὢν καὶ τέλειος ὢν τέλειον καὶ ἐνυπόστατον ἕξει τὸν ἑαυτοῦ λόγον καὶ ἀεὶ ὄντα καὶ ζῶντα καὶ πάντα ἔχοντα, ὅσα ὁ γεννήτωρ ἔχει. Ὥσπερ γὰρ ὁ ἡμέτερος λόγος ἐκ τοῦ νοῦ προερχόμενος οὔτε δι' ὅλου ὁ αὐτός ἐστι τῷ νῷ οὔτε παντάπασιν ἕτερος _ἐκ τοῦ νοῦ μὲν γὰρ ὢν ἄλλος ἐστὶ παρ' αὐτόν, αὐτὸν δὲ τὸν νοῦν εἰς τὸ ἐμφανὲς ἄγων οὐκέτι παντάπασιν ἕτερός ἐστι παρὰ τὸν νοῦν, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὴν φύσιν ἓν ὢν ἕτερόν ἐστι τῷ ὑποκειμένῳ_οὕτως καὶ ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ λόγος, τῷ μὲν ὑφεστάναι καθ' ἑαυτὸν διῄρηται πρὸς ἐκεῖνον, παρ' οὗ τὴν ὑπόστασιν ἔχει, τῷ δὲ ταῦτα δεικνύειν ἐν ἑαυτῷ, ἃ περὶ τὸν θεὸν καθορᾶται, ὁ αὐτός ἐστι κατὰ τὴν φύσιν ἐκείνῳ: ὥσπερ γὰρ τὸ ἐν ἅπασι τέλειον ἐπὶ τοῦ πατρὸς θεωρεῖται, οὕτως καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεγεννημένου λόγου θεωρηθήσεται.