Chapter Iv. Against those who dare to say that the conceived and Natural word in God the Father is one, and He that is called Son by the Divine Scriptures another: such is the misconceit of Eunomius' party.

2 This was in the beginning with God.

The Evangelist herein made a sort of recapitulation of what had been already before said. But adding the word This, he is seen all-but crying aloud. He Who is in the beginning, the Word with the Father, He Who is God of God, He it is and none other, regarding Whom our august book is set forth. But he seems again not idly to add to what has been said the words, This was in the beginning with God. For he, enlightened by the Divine Spirit unto the knowledge of things to come, was not ignorant, as seems to me and as we may truly say, that certain would appear, perdition's workpeople, the devil's nets, death's snares leading down to the chambers and depth of hell those who from unlearning give heed to the things that them belch forth out of an evil heart. For they will rise up and be valiant against their own head, saying that one is the word that is conceived in God the Father, and that some other most similar and like to the conceived one, is the Son and Word through Whom God works all things; in order that He may be conceived of as word of word and image of image and radiance of radiance.

The Blessed Evangelist then, as though he had already heard them blaspheming and with reason stirred against the absurd follies of their writings, having already defined, and by many words, as was due, shewn that the Word is One, and Only and Very, of God and in God and with God, with flashing eye he adds, This was in the beginning with God, as Son, that is, with the Father, as inborn, as of His Essence, as Only-Begotten; This, there being no second.

But since I deem that we ought, zealously declaring such impiety, to lay yet more open their blasphemy, for the greater security of the simpler ones (for he who has learnt it will give heed and will spring out of its reach, as though a serpent lurking in the midst of the path), needs will I expose their opinion, after the form of antithesis. For it shall receive its refutations in order, according to the modes which God who giveth wisdom to all shall grant.

Eunomius' opinion as to the Son of God.

"The Only-Begotten Son of God, says he, is not of very right His Word, but the conceived word of God the Father moves and is ever in Him; while the son who is said to have been begotten of Him, becoming recipient of his conceived word, knoweth all things from having learnt them and, after the likeness of the former, is called and is word."

Then in confirmation, as he imagines, of his blasphemy, he weaves some such arguments of perverted ideas, that, as it is written, the wretched man may be holden with the cords of his sins.

"If the Son Himself, says he, be the Word Natural and Conceived in God the Father, and is Consubstantial with Him Who begat Him, what hinders the Father too from being and being called Word, as Consubstantial with the Word?"

And again: "If the Son be the Word of God the Father and there is none other than He, by means of what word, says he, is the Father found saying to Him: Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee? For it is very clear that not without a word did the Father address Him, since every thing that is uttered, is altogether uttered in word, and no otherwise. And the Saviour Himself somewhere says, I know the Father and keep His saying, and again, The word which ye hear is not Mine, but the Father's Which sent Me. Since then the Father addresses Himself to Him in word, and He Himself acknowledges, one while that He keeps the Father's word, at another again, that the Jews heard, not His word, but the Father's ; how will it not, he says, be confessed beyond a doubt, that the Son is other than the word that is conceived or that stands in motion of the mind, whereof participating and replete, the utterer and exponent of the Father's Essence, that is the Son, is called word?"

Such ills then does the foolish man sow to himself and gainsaying all the Divine Scriptures at once is not ashamed, shewing that true is that which is written of himself. When the wicked man cometh into the depth of evils, he despiseth. For verily exceeding deep unto naughtiness hath the fighter against God of his folly dug, refusing the uprightness that is of truth, and halting with the rottenness of his own arguments. For that the Only-Begotten Son of God the Father is of very right His Word, we shall know by the subjoined.

Refutation in order of the misconceit of Eunomius.

Slow to learn is the silly heretic. For how into a malicious soul will wisdom at all enter? or what, tell me, can be more malicious than such men, who, as it is written, turn away their ears from the truth and run more easily unto the fables of their own cogitations, that justly too they may hear, uttering things not of the Divine Scriptures, Woe to them that prophesy of their own heart and not out of the mouth of the Lord? For who speaking out of the mouth of the Lord calleth Jesus Anathema? which thing indeed some do in unbridled haughtiness against the doctrines of piety, and as one of the holy Prophets said, perverting all equity. For they say that the natural and conceived word in God the Father is one, him that is called Son and Word again another: and they bring in support of their own, as they deem, opinion, but more truly, their unbridled impiety, our Lord Jesus Christ in His discourses with the Jews saying, I know the Father and keep His word: and moreover that which was said to Him by the Father, From the womb before the Day-star begat I Thee. Then they say belching forth the venom of their own father, If the speaker is other than he whom he addresses, and the Father addresses the Son by word, the innate word wherewith the Father conversed will be other than the Son. And again: If, says he, the Son Himself declared that He keeps the Father's word, how will not he that keepeth be other than that which is kept? To this it is perhaps not hard to reply (for the Lord will give utterance to them that evangelize with much power). But those who are sick of such unlearning ought to remember Him Who says, Ah they who leave the paths of uprightness to walk in the ways of darkness, and for us it is meet that we should cry unto our Guide Who is in the heavens, Turn away mine eyes from beholding vanity. For vanity of a truth and rubbish and nought else are the vain utterances of their uninstructedness. For not as though He had another word of the Father in Himself did the Son say that He kept the Father's word, nor yet did He declare that He had come to us, bringing him with Him as though a pedagogue, but as Alone in-being in the Father by Nature, and having again likewise in Himself the Father, none else intervening, I, says He, in the Father and, the Father in Me, not the innate, nor yet any other word, but the Father, in Me. How then ought one to conceive of what was said by Him to the Jews, may one ask us, and that with reason. To this we say with truth what comes up upon our mind. The Saviour was teaching the most incredulous people of the Jews and, drawing by little and little His hearers from the worship of the law, did ofttimes call out to them, I am the Truth, all but saying, Throw off, sirs, the yoke of the law, receive the spiritual worship; let shadow now depart, type recede afar, the Truth hath beamed. But He did not seem to all to be doing rightly, subverting Moses' precepts, yea rather leading them to what was more true, so that some even cried, If this man were of God, He would not have broken the Sabbath, which was to openly condemn of sin Him Who knew it not.

To such like follies then of the Jews He replying puts away all boast in His words, and lowlily and darkly designs to teach them, that the Son Who knows not sin would not work ought other than seemed good to God the Father; lest saying more nakedly, I know not sin, He should again stir them up to stone Him. For they straightway boiling with wrath would have sprung upon Him saying, Not to sin belongs to God Alone: Thou then being a Man, utter not the things that beseem God Alone. Which thing they even did at another time, saying that with reason do they stone Him, because being a Man He makes Himself God. Obscurely did the Saviour, in that He was both Man and as under the law with those who were under the law, say that He kept the Father's word, all-but saying, I will never transgress the Father's Will. For by stepping aside from the Divine law is sin born, but I know not sin Who am God by Nature. Therefore I offend not the Father in My teaching. For the rest let no one find fault with Him Who is by Nature Lawgiver, but because of His Likeness unto us is Law-keeper. But He says that He knows the Father, not simply as do we, only the very same thing more simply for that He is God, but from what Himself is does He declare that He understands the Nature of the Father. But since He knows that He Who begat Him knows not to endure change, He knows, it is plain, that Himself is Unchangeable of an Unchangeable Father. And that which knows not change, how can it be said to sin, and not rather to stand unswerving in its own natural endowments?

Yain then is the accusal of the Jews imagining that the Son thinks ought beside the Counsel of the Father: for He keeps, as He says, His word, and by Nature knows not sinning: for He knows that the Father cannot suffer this, with Whom He is Consubstantial as Very Son. But since they meet this by citing what has been annexed to their objection, From the womb before the Day-star begat I Thee, come let us unfold the word of piety as to this also. For not because the Father says such things to the Son, ought we therefore to think, that there is in Him an innate word and to conceive of the Son as other than it. But first of all let us think this with ourselves that a prophet versed in uttering mysteries in the Spirit puts on for us the person of the Son, and introduces Him hearing of the Father, Thou art My Son, and what follows. And the form of speech, in that it is constructed after human fashion, will not I presume at all compel us to conceive of two words, but referring to our own habits [of speech] the unavoidable arrangement herein, we shall blame, if we do rightly, the weakness of our own nature, which has neither words, nor modes of idea which accurately serve unto the mysteries that are above us, or that are adequate to express faultlessly things more Divine: and to the Divine Nature again we shall attribute the superiority over our mind and speech, not conceiving of Its relations exactly as they are spoken of, but as befit It and as It wills. Or if any of the unholy heretics imagine that we unrightly abuse such words, and do not admit that the form of speech comes up to our usage of it, they will rightly hear: Let the Father be conceived of as also begetting as we do, let Him not deny the womb and the pangs of birth. For from the womb begat I Thee, says He to the Son. But perchance, yea rather of a certainty, they will say that from the likeness to us the Father's True Begetting of the Son is signified. Therefore let the other too be piously understood, even if it be uttered in human guise, and their bitter and unholy difficulty is solved.

And these things were, I suppose, sufficient. But since we thought that we ought to smite down the difficulties devised of their stubbornness (as it were some swarm of foes), with the uprightness of pious dogmas, come let us now bringing them forward in the manner befitting each, raise up against each its opponent, and with more zealous thoughts let us arm against them the ever victorious truth. The objection again, as from them, shall be set forth in order before the arguments which confute it, inciting the vigilance of the argument to proceed to more accurate test, and like the rush of some mountain-torrent, ever bearing down headlong the good readiness of the readers to desire ever to learn the answer.

Oppositions or objections, as from the heretics.

"If there exist not, says he, in God the Father a word essential and conceived, other than the Only-Begotten Son That is of Him, Who is also called word in imitation of that one, the result will be absurd, and we who deem we think rightly must needs confess, that if the Word is Consubstantial with the Father and the Father with the Word, there is nothing yet to hinder the Father from being and being called word, as Consubstantial with the Word."

Refutation of this.

No argument, O most excellent, will ever constrain us to think that we ought to believe and call the Father Word, or even to believe that He could be so, because He is Consubstantial with the Word. For in no wise will things that are of the same essence admit of a mutual interchange, and receive a sort of mixture, as from one into the other, so that the things named could be reduced from many into one, or from duality into unity. For not because our forefather Adam was consubstantial with the son born of him, will father therefore advance unto son, son again mount up into father; but being one with him as far as regards the unity of essential quality, he will retain what is his own: and he who is of any father will be conceived of as a son, and again the begetter of any will clearly be father. But if ye imagine that ye are constructing a clever argument hereupon, and that consubstantiality will surely constrain consubstantial to be one with consubstantial, and will suffer no distinction to prevail, so that each should exist by itself and in whatever it is, what was it persuaded the Judge of all not to punish the father for the son, nor to demand of the son satisfaction for the father? For the soul, says he, that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son. But since the sentence of Him Who judges righteously does not bring down the father, albeit consubstantial with the son, into the position of sonship, nor yet does it bring up the son into the condition of fatherhood, but knoweth each individually, not this progressing into that, nor that stepping into this; it is I suppose evident, that no argument will constrain God the Father, because He is Consubstantial with the Word, to change into being the Word. For He abideth wholly in Himself, that is Father, even though He Who is begotten of Him be conceived to be and be Word and therefore Son, that things Divine may not appear in worse state than ours are.

Another in equal guise with the objection, by the method of reductio ad absurdum.

The Son, as having no difference from His Father, but being His most exact Likeness and the express Image of His Person, is found saying to His disciples, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father. But if He being thus, is Consubstantial with the Father, and things consubstantial admit of utter confusion with one another, there will be nothing it seems to hinder the Son from being conceived of as Father, in that He is Consubstantial with the Father, and capable of passing over into this, nought hindering it, if consubstantiality suffice unto this kind of change or transposition. Let the Son then be conceived of as Father, and let Him say, as now being so, to the real Father, From the womb before the Day-star begat I Thee; and let Him assume to Himself every word in short that belongs to the Father. When this at length has taken place, every thing is now thrown into confusion, and That Which ever so existeth, I mean the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity will be reduced to Unity, if That which rightly and separately belongs to Each vanishes on account of the Con-substantiality, and the sameness of nature overthrows the distinction of Persons. But this is absurd. Hence the Father will not be the Word, because Consubstantial with the Word, but will abide unchanged, being What He is, even though He have Co-nature or Consubstantiality with His Own Word. And their objection has been proved to be nought.

Another. If every word be the word of some one, pouring it forth from the tongue, that is, or belching it forth and bringing it up from the heart; and the Father be Word, because He is Consubstantial with the Word: He will be His own word, or rather no one's, or will even have no existence at all (for how will there be word, when he whose word it is, is not?). But this is absurd: for never will the Divine and Untaint Nature be receptive of non-being, nor will the Father ever pass into the Word, even though He be Consubstantial with the Word, but will remain Father, Whose Wordalso the Son is.

Another. If the Divine Nature be believed non-recipient of all turn and change as regards Essence, how will the Father, leaving His own position, pass into being the Word? For He will be recipient of change, suffering it as of necessity, and will not be the same, as not keeping what He was from the beginning. But if this be absurd (for to change is wholly foreign from the Divine Nature), the Father will not have the change into the Word, but will be Father ever, having immutability and unchange as God.

Another as of the same, at length.

The Only-Begotten Word and Son of God, shewing that He is Very God of Very God the Father says, All things that the Father hath are Mine. But though the Son is Heir of all the properties that are in the Father of Nature, as being of Him by Nature, yet He will never have that of being Father (for this too is one thing that belongs to the Father); but the Son will remain bereft of nought that is inherent in the Father, though He be not deemed of as Father, but having in Himself perfectly all the properties and endowments of the Father's Essence. Applying this very same method of reasoning to the Person of the Father also, we say that He has all the properties of the Son by Nature, yet not the power of passing into sonship and into being Word, but that as un-turning by Nature He remains what He is, that in addition to being God the Father, He may be also without change, having Unchanged in Himself the Word That appeared from Him, the Son.

Another. God the Lawgiver found fault with certain by the holy Prophets saying, They have put no difference between the holy and profane. For great indeed is the difference or contrariety of manners which is seen between them by those who will discern. But if it be admissible to commingle the nature of things consubstantial one with another, and things that are in separate and individual persons can run off to whatever they please of congenerate or connatural;----what is there to separate the profane from the holy, if the distinction of separate being or of who one is, is never seen, but one exists in another because of sameness of essence? Be then (the knowledge in regard to each being hence indifferent), all jumbled up together, and let the traitor Judas be Peter or Paul, because consubstantial with Peter and Paul; be Peter again or Paul, Judas, because consubstantial with him. But so to think is most unreasoning; and the being of the same substance will by no means take away the difference of things congenerate or connatural from one another. Our weakness then will not so set itself to contend with the Divine Essence, as to compel God the Father to be called and be the Word, because He is Consubstantial with the Word. For He abides ever Father, in no wise able to lose the distinction of what He is in regard to this, nor yielding to sameness of Essence that He should possess nothing distinctively. And He will no way wrong the Son by this, but rather will shew Him as His own, and possessing from Him by Nature the Unturning and Unchangeableness of Him That begat Him, both by His possessing properly and alone Sonship and not being changed into the Father, even as neither does He into Son.

Opposition, or another objection as on the part of the heretics.

"Not reasonably, say they, do ye blame as not thinking rightly those who say that the Word innate in God the Father is other than the Son, although ye hear Him clearly say in the Gospel narrative, I know Him and keep His word. But if, as Himself affirmed, He keeps the Father's word, other in all respects, I suppose, and of necessity will he be than him; since needs must the distinction of being other exist between him who keeps and that which is kept."

Different solutions in order shewing clearly that the Son is the Word of God the Father.

If the Only-Begotten Son of God the Father is not Himself His Word, but some other than He, which they call conceived, exists in God, let those who put forth this contrary opinion tell us whether the word which is the conception of their own ignorance be hypostatic or no. For if they say that it exists of itself conceived of as in separate being, they will surely confess that there are two sons: but if they say that it has no existence, then, since nothing any longer conies between and severs the Son, how will He be third from the Father and not rather next Him, as Son with Father?

Another by the same considerations. The opponents define that there is in God the Father a word, the conceived, by means of which, according to their most unlovely imagination, the Son is taught the counsel of the Father. But how great folly their dogma hereupon has, we must see.

"We must consider the argument about this matter thus. The name father, has of necessity no mean in relation to the son. For what will be the mean of father as regards the son, or again of son as regards the father? But if, according to their unlearning, there severs the Son from the Father an intervening will and a conceived word, which they say is interpretative thereof, no longer will the Father be conceived of as altogether father nor yet the Son as son, if we conceive that the will of God and the word that interprets it, exist in their own hypostases. But if we grant that these are without hypostasis, then the Son is in God the Father without any thing mediate and next to Him; where then will the conceived word retire, or what place will the will have, conceived of as other than the Son?

Another by the reductio ad absurdum. We believe that the Holy and Adorable Trinity is Consubstantial, even if the madness of the heretics will it not. But I think that there ought to be admitted with regard to things consubstantial, a likeness also with one another in all things, in regard to natural properties. If then there be, according to the uncounsel of some, in God the Father some conceived word other than the Son, the Son too will surely have a conceived word in Himself, as being His Likeness and the unchangeable Express Image of His Person, as it is written: the Holy Ghost will have one equally with Him, according to the equal analogy of conceptions. The Trinity then has come to be in double, and the Divine Nature is shewn to be compound. But this is absurd. But in simple essences, there is nothing whatever save themselves. Nothing then will hinder the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity from being closely connected, nought intervening. Another at length. When Divine Scripture puts forth nouns with the article prefixed, then it means some one thing which alone is properly and truly that which it is said to be; but when it does not prefix the article, it makes a more general declaration of every thing that is so called, as for example (for our discourse shall attain clear demonstration) many are called gods, but when God is spoken of with the article it signifies Him Who alone and properly is so; more simply and without the article, one perchance of those called hereto by grace. And again there are many men. But when the Saviour says with the article, The son of man, He signifies Himself as one picked out of ten thousand. Since then names have this character in Divine Scripture, how ought we to understand, In the beginning was the Word? For if every word of God is hereby meant as being in the beginning, let them shew it, and it is we who are the triflers. But if the Evangelist prefixing the article, signifies One and that is so properly, crying, In the beginning was the Word, why strive they in vain, bringing in another besides, only that they may expel the Son from the Essence of the Father? But we ought, considering the absurdity herein, to refuse the uncounsel of those who think otherwise.

Another, shewing that not after the conceived word, as they say, is the Son formed, but He is the Likeness of the Father Himself.

If the Only-Begotten Son of God is and is called, according to them, therefore Word, because, receiving the conceived word of the Father, He is as it were formed thereafter, why is He not found to say to His Disciples, I and the word of the Father are one, He that hath seen Me hath seen the word of the Father? But since overstepping all things, He likens Himself Alone to the Father Alone, none intermediate coming forward to the Likeness, the Son will be conceived of as likening Himself to Him Who begat Him, and to none other than Him.

Opposition, as from the opponents. 

"We find, they say, the Son to be other than the conceived word of God, giving heed not to our own thoughts thereon, but to considerations from the Divine Scripture. For what shall we say when we hear the Son saying to the Father, Glorify Thy Son, the Father again answering and saying, I have both glorified, and will glorify again? Shall we not altogether acknowledge that the Father replies to the Son in a word? How then is not he through whom the Father answers the Son other than He?"

Different solutions to this in order.

Worthy of utter marvel, yea rather of mourning too, are the unholy heretics, and moreover that one should say over them that which is spoken in the Prophets: Weep ye not for the dead, neither bemoan him, but weep sore for him that thinketh and sayeth such things respecting the Only Begotten. For what more wretched than such, if they fancied that this was actually and truly the voice of the Father, which not only the Saviour heard, but also this crowd of the Jews which stood around, yea rather the choir of the holy disciples? For they should rather have imagined God-befitting excellencies, and not have attempted to submit things above us to the laws that guide our affairs. For upon the bodily hearing strikes a bodily voice, and noise which through the lips is emitted into the air, or contrived by any other instrument. But the Will of the Father, in ineffable voice gently and as it were in the mind revolved, the Son Alone knoweth Who is in Him by Nature as His Wisdom. But to suppose that God uses a voice consisting in sound is wholly incredible, if we would retain to the Nature That is above all things Its superiority to the creation. Besides, our Lord Jesus Christ Himself says that this was not the voice of God the Father, and moreover shews that He needs no interpretation from another to be able to learn the Father's will saying, This voice came not because of Me, but for your sakes. He should rather have said, my good friends, if ye are right in holding such opinions regarding Him, Ye have heard with Me the voice of the Father; but now, turning His declaration right round to the exact contrary, He avers that He had no need of the voice, but asserts that it came rather for their sakes, not that it was uttered by the Father, but came and that for their sakes. And if God the Father works all things through Him, through Him altogether was this also, yea rather He was Himself the voice, not to Himself interpreting the disposition of the Father (for He knew it as Son), but to the hearing of the by-standers, that they might believe.

Another. If they say that the Son needs some innate word, that thereby He may be taught the Will of God the Father, what will become of Paul who says, Christ the Power of God and the Wisdom of God? For how is the Son the Wisdom of the Father, if lacking in wisdom He receive perfection from another, through learning what forsooth He knows not? or how must one not needs say, that the wisdom which is in the Father is not perfect? and if the Son be the Wisdom of the Father, how can His Will be conceived of as other than He? We come then to say that the Will of God the Father is not perfected in wisdom. But great is the impiety of this, and full of blasphemy the statement. Not therefore as partaker of instruction from another does the Son know what belongs to His own Father, but as Himself the Word and the Wisdom and the Will, does He search all things, yea, the deep things of God, as it is written concerning the Spirit too.

Another. As the Likeness and the exact express Image of the Father do the Divine Scriptures introduce to us the Son: and the Saviour Himself saith, He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father. But if with that likeness to Him, He knows not of Himself what is in Him, but needs so to speak expositions from another in order to learn it, it is time to think that the Father Himself is in the same case, if He is in the Likeness of the Son, and He will Himself too need one to unfold to Him what lies hid in His Offspring. And thus in addition to the absurdities that result from hence, the Divine Nature becomes also a recipient of ignorance. But since it is impious thus to think, we must betake ourselves to more fitting thoughts: for this clearly is what is profitable and helpful.

Another. The Spirit, says the blessed Paul, searchethall things, yea the deep things of God; and he adds, For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man but the Spirit of God That is in Him. Since then the Holy Spirit Which accurately discerneth all things, is Spirit not only of the Father, but of the Son too, how can He having within Him by Nature the Spirit Which knoweth all things be yet ignorant of ought that is in the Father? Superfluous then in truth does it plainly appear to imagine that the Son learns of another the Will of the Father; and utterly will vanish the need of a word to mediate in vain, according to their ill-instructedness. For the Son knows all things of Himself.

Another, by the method of reductio ad absurdum. They who accuse the Essence of the Only-Begotten, saying that He knew not the Will of the Father, but made use of in order to learn, another teacher, the word invented by them, which they call conceived, let them tell us, if they think that their own opinion hereupon ought to prevail, whether they will say that the conceived word is by nature equal to the Son (for let it be supposed to have a separate existence of itself) or not equal, but inferior perchance or even superior. If then they suppose it inferior, they will commit impiety against the Father Himself also: for there will be of a surety in Him what is worse than He, and other than He, the conceived word. But if they do not say worse, but shall allot to it a superiority to the Son, the charge against the Son will operate two-fold against the Father. For first of all He will be found to have begotten what is in worse condition than Himself. Then moreover He too will have the conceived word superior to Him, if the Father is Consubstantial with the Son who according to them has got an inferior position. But it is likely I suppose that the opponents will start back from the blasphemy that results from either alternative: and will say that the conceived word of the Father is equal to the Son as regards essence. The question then is at an end. For how will the one teach the other, as one who knows one who does not know, if both are equal by nature? The argument of these people being then on all sides weak, it will be superfluous to imagine that the Son has any mean, and not rather to believe that He is in God the Father, God the "Word Who was in the beginning.

Another. The blessed Paul says that in the Son are hid the treasures of all wisdom and all knowledge. But if he is true in saying such things, how yet shall we suppose that He needed teaching from another, or in whom shall we any more seek perfectness in knowledge, if He Who has it all is made wise by another? how is he Wisdom who is made wise? But since we must needs give heed not to their words, but to those through the Spirit, and the Son hath, as Paul saith, in Himself the treasures of wisdom and of all knowledge, not from any one else will He know the things whereby He is wisdom, but being in the Father He knows all that is the Father's, as His Wisdom.  

ΚΕΦΑΛΗ Δ. Πρὸς τοὺς τολμῶντας λέγειν, ὅτι ἕτερός ἐστιν ὁ ἐνδιάθετός τε καὶ φυσικὸς ἐν Θεῷ καὶ Πατρὶ Λόγος, καὶ ἕτερος ὁ παρὰ ταῖς θείαις γραφαῖς λεγόμενος Υἱός: ἔστι δὲ τῶν περὶ Εὐνόμιον ἡ τοιαύτη κακοδοξία.
« Οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν. » ἈΝΑΚΕΦΑΛΑΙΩΣΙΝ μὲν ὥσπερ τινὰ τῶν ἤδη προειρημένων ἐν τούτοις ὁ Εὐαγγελιστὴς ἐποιήσατο. προσθεὶς δὲ τό οὗτος, μονονουχὶ βοήσας ὁρᾶται Ὁ ὢν ἐν ἀρχῇ, ὁ παρὰ τῷ Πατρὶ Λόγος, ὁ ὑπάρχων Θεὸς ἐκ Θεοῦ, οὗτός ἐστι καὶ οὐχ ἕτερος, περὶ οὗ τὸ σεμνὸν ἡμῖν πρόκειται σύγγραμμα. ἔοικε δὲ πάλιν οὐ μάτην τοῖς εἰρημένοις ἐπενεγκεῖν τό Οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν. ὡς γὰρ ὑπὸ θείου Πνεύματος εἰς τὴν τῶν ἐσομένων γνῶσιν φωταγωγούμενος οὐκ ἠγνόησεν, ὥς γε μοι δοκεῖ, καὶ ὡς ἔστιν εἰπεῖν ἀληθεύοντας, ὅτι περ ἀναφανοῦνταί τινες ἀπωλείας ἐργάται, διαβόλου θήρατρα, θανάτου παγίδες εἰς ταμεῖα καταφέρουσαι καὶ εἰς πέταυρον ᾅδου τοὺς ἐξ ἀμαθίας προσέχοντας οἷς ἂν ἐκ καρδίας ἐρεύγωνται πονηρᾶς. ἐνστήσονται δὲ καὶ κατὰ τῆς ἑαυτῶν ἀνδριοῦνται κεφαλῆς λέγοντες, ἕτερον μὲν εἶναι τὸν ἐνδιάθετον ἐν τῷ Θεῷ καὶ Πατρὶ Λόγον, ἕτερον δέ τινα καὶ τῷ ἐνδιαθέτῳ λίαν ἐμφερέστατόν τε καὶ ὁμοιότατον τὸν Υἱὸν καὶ Λόγον, δι' οὗ Θεὸς τὰ πάντα ἐργάζεται: ἵνα λόγος λόγου νοῆται, καὶ εἰκὼν εἰκόνος, καὶ ἀπαύγασμα ἀπαυγάσματος. ὥσπερ οὖν ἤδη δυσφημούντων ἀκούσας αὐτῶν, καὶ πρὸς τὰς ἐκτόπους ἀπονοίας τῶν παρ' αὐτοῖς συγγραμμάτων εὐλόγως κεκινημένος, ὁ μακάριος Εὐαγγελιστὴς, ὁρισάμενος ἤδη καὶ διὰ πολλῶν, ὡς ἔδει, κατασημήνας τὸν ἕνα καὶ μόνον καὶ ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ, καὶ ἐν Θεῷ, καὶ πρὸς Θεὸν ὄντα Λόγον, ἐπιφέρει γοργῶς Οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν, ὡς Υἱὸς δηλαδὴ πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα, ὡς ἔμφυτος, ὡς ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας αὐτοῦ, ὡς Μονογενής: οὗτος, οὐκ ὄντος δευτέρου. Ἐπειδὴ δὲ προσήκειν ἡγοῦμαι τὰ περὶ τῆς τοιαύτης δυσσεβείας ἐξηγεῖσθαι σπουδάζοντας, γυμνοτέραν αὐτῶν καταστῆσαι τὴν δυσφημίαν, διὰ τὴν τῶν ἀκεραιοτέρων ἀσφάλειαν: φυλάξεται γὰρ ὁ μαθὼν, καὶ ὡς ὄφιν ὑπεραλεῖται κατὰ μέσην λανθάνοντα τὴν ὁδόν: ἀναγκαίως αὐτὴν ἐκθήσομαι τὴν ἐκείνων δόξαν, ὡς ἐν ἀντιθέσεως σχήματι. λάβοι γὰρ ἂν ὄντως τὰς λύσεις ἐφεξῆς, καθ' οὕσπερ ἂν ἐπιδοίη τρόπους ὁ πάντα σοφῶν Θεός.
« Εὐνομίου δόξα περὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ. » ” Ὁ Μονογενὴς, φησὶ, τοῦ Θεοῦ Υἱὸς, οὐκ ἔστιν αὐτο„κυρίως ὁ Λόγος αὐτοῦ: ἀλλ' ὁ μὲν ἐνδιάθετος λόγος τοῦ ” Θεοῦ καὶ Πατρὸς ἐν αὐτῷ κινεῖται καὶ ἔστιν ἀεί: ὁ δὲ ἐξ „αὐτοῦ γεννηθῆναι λεγόμενος Υἱὸς τὸν ἐνδιάθετον αὐτοῦ ” λόγον δεχόμενος, πάντα τε οἶδεν ἐκμαθὼν, καὶ καθ' ὁμοιό„τητα τὴν ἐκείνου, λόγος καλεῖται καὶ ἔστιν.„ Εἶτα πρὸς βεβαίωσιν, ὡς οἴεται, τῆς ἑαυτοῦ δυσσεβείας καὶ τῶν διεστραμμένων ἐννοιῶν τοιούτους τινὰς ἀναπλέκει συλλογισμοὺς, ἵνα, καθὰ γέγραπται, ταῖς τῶν οἰκείων ἁμαρτημάτων σειραῖς ὁ δείλαιος κατασφίγγηται. ” Εἰ ὁ Λόγος, φησὶν, ὁ ἐν τῷ Θεῷ καὶ Πατρὶ φυσικός τε „καὶ ἐνδιάθετος αὐτός ἐστιν ὁ Υἱὸς, ἔστι δὲ ὁμοούσιος τῷ ” γεννήσαντι, τὶ τὸ κωλύον ἔτι Λόγον εἶναί τε καὶ καλεῖσθαι „καὶ τὸν Πατέρα, ὡς ὁμοούσιον Λόγῳ; ” Καὶ πάλιν: Εἰ ὁ Λόγος ἐστὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Πατρὸς ὁ „Υἱὸς, καὶ παρ' αὐτὸν οὐκ ἔστιν ἕτερος: διὰ ποίου λόγου, ” φησὶν, ὁ Πατὴρ πρὸς αὐτὸν εὑρίσκεται λέγων ’Υἱός μου „‘εἶ σύ: ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννηκά σε:’ πρόδηλον γὰρ ὡς οὐ ” δίχα λόγου τὰς πρὸς αὐτὸν διαλέξεις ὁ Πατὴρ ἐποιήσατο, „ἐπεὶ πᾶν τὸ λαλούμενον, ἐν λόγῳ πάντως λαλεῖται, καὶ ” οὐχ ἑτέρως. καὶ αὐτὸς δέ που φησὶν ὁ Σωτὴρ, ὅτι ‘οἶδα „’τὸν Πατέρα, καὶ τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ τηρῶ:‘ καὶ πάλιν ’Ὁ ” ‘λόγος ὃν ἀκούετε, οὐκ ἔστιν ἐμὸς, ἀλλὰ τοῦ πέμψαντός με „’Πατρός.‘ ὅτε τοίνυν ἐν λόγῳ Πατὴρ μὲν πρὸς αὐτὸν δια” λέγεται, συνομολογεῖ δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς, ποτὲ μὲν ὅτι τηρεῖ τὸν „λόγον τοῦ Πατρὸς, ποτὲ δὲ πάλιν, ὡς οὐ τὸν αὐτοῦ λόγον, ” ἀλλὰ τὸν τοῦ Πατρὸς ἤκουον οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι: πῶς οὐκ ἂν εἴη, „φησὶν, ἀνενδοιάστως ὁμολογούμενον, ὡς ἕτερός ἐστιν ὁ ” Υἱὸς παρὰ τὸν ἐνδιάθετον, ἤτοι τὸν ἐν κινήσει νοηματικῇ „λόγον, οὗ μετέχων καὶ ἀναπιμπλάμενος καλεῖται λόγος ὁ ” προφορικὸς καὶ τῆς τοῦ Πατρὸς οὐσίας ἐκφαντικὸς, του„τέστιν ὁ Υἱός.” Τοιαῦτα μὲν οὖν ὁ παράφρων ἑαυτῷ συνείρει κακὰ, καὶ πάσαις ὁμοῦ ταῖς θείαις γραφαῖς ἀντιφωνῶν οὐκ αἰσχύνεται, τὸ γεγραμμένον ἐφ' ἑαυτῷ δεικνύων ἀληθές “Ὅταν ἔλθῃ ” ἀσεβὴς εἰς βάθος κακῶν καταφρονεῖ.“ λίαν γὰρ ὄντως ἐβάθυνεν εἰς κάκωσιν ἐξ ἀνοίας ὁ θεομάχος, τὸ μὲν ἐξ ἀληθείας ὀρθοῦσθαι παραιτούμενος, τῇ δὲ σαθρότητι τῶν οἰκείων ὀκλάζων λογισμῶν: ὅτι γὰρ ὁ Μονογενὴς τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Πατρὸς Υἱὸς αὐτοκυρίως ἐστὶν ὁ Λόγος αὐτοῦ, διὰ τῶν ὑποτεταγμένων εἰσόμεθα.
« Λύσις ἐφεξῆς τῆς Εὐνομίου κακοδοξίας. » Δυσμαθὴς ὁ παράφρων αἱρετικός: πῶς γὰρ ἂν ὅλως εἰς κακότεχνον ψυχὴν εἰσέλθοι σοφία; ἢ τί τῶν τοιούτων γένοιτ' ἂν, εἰπέ μοι, κακοτεχνέστερον, οἵ γε κατὰ τὸ γεγραμμένον, ” ἀπὸ μὲν τῆς ἀληθείας τὴν ἀκοὴν ἀποστρέφουσιν, ἐπὶ δὲ “τοὺς μύθους” τῶν οἰκείων διανοημάτων εὐπετέστερον τρέχουσιν, ἵνα δὴ καὶ δικαίως ἀκούσειαν, οὐ τὰ ἐκ τῆς θείας λαλοῦντες γραφῆς “οὐαὶ οἱ προφητεύοντες ἀπὸ καρδίας ” αὐτῶν, καὶ οὐκ ἀπὸ στόματος Κυρίου:“ τίς γὰρ ἀπὸ στόματος Κυρίου ” λαλῶν, λέγει Ἀνάθεμα Ἰησοῦς;“ ὃ δὴ καὶ ποιοῦσί τινες τῶν τῆς εὐσεβείας δογμάτων ἀνέδην κατασοβαρευόμενοι: καὶ καθάπερ ἔφη τις τῶν ἁγίων προφητῶν ” Πάντα τὰ ὀρθὰ διαστρέφοντες:“ φασὶ γὰρ ἕτερον μὲν εἶναι τὸν φυσικὸν καὶ ἐνδιάθετον ἐν τῷ Θεῷ καὶ Πατρὶ λόγον, ἕτερον δὲ αὖ πάλιν τὸν ὠνομασμένον Υἱὸν καὶ Λόγον: καὶ φέρουσι πρὸς ἀπόδειξιν τῆς ἑαυτῶν, ὡς οἴονται, δόξης, μᾶλλον δὲ ἀχαλίνου δυσσεβείας, λέγοντα τὸν Κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν τὸν Χριστὸν ἐν ταῖς πρὸς Ἰουδαίους ὁμιλίαις, ὅτι ” οἶδα τὸν Πατέρα καὶ τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ τηρῶ:“ πρὸς δέ γε τούτῳ καὶ τὸ πρὸς αὐτὸν εἰρημένον παρὰ τοῦ Πατρός ” Ἐκ γαστρὸς πρὸ ἑωσφόρου ἐξεγέννησά σε:“ εἶτά φασι τὸν ἐκ τοῦ οἰκείου πατρὸς ἰὸν ἐρευγόμενοι Εἰ ὁ λαλῶν ἕτερος ὡς πρὸς τὸν ᾧ διαλέγεται: διαλέγεται δὲ διὰ λόγου πρὸς τὸν Υἱὸν ὁ Πατήρ: ἕτερος ἄρα παρ' αὐτὸν ὁ ἔμφυτος ἂν εἴη λόγος, ὁ ἐν ᾧπερ ἐποιεῖτο τὰς διαλέξεις ὁ Πατήρ: καὶ πάλιν Εἰ αὐτός που, φησὶν, ὁ Υἱὸς τηρεῖν τὸν τοῦ Πατρὸς λόγον διισχυρίσατο: πῶς οὐκ ἂν ἕτερος εἴη λοιπὸν ὁ τηρῶν παρὰ τὸν τηρούμενον: πρὸς δέ γε ταῦτα χαλεπὸν μὲν ἴσως οὐδὲν ἀντιλέγειν: ” Δώσει γὰρ ὁ Κύριος ῥῆμα τοῖς “εὐαγγελιζομένοις δυνάμει πολλῇ.” χρῆν δέ γε τοὺς οἵπερ εἰσὶ τὴν τοιαύτην νοσοῦντες ἀμαθίαν ἀναμιμνήσκεσθαι τοῦ λέγοντος “Ὢ οἱ ἐγκαταλιπόντες ὁδοὺς εὐθείας τοῦ πορεύ” εσθαι ἐν ὁδοῖς σκότους:“ ἡμᾶς δὲ ἀκόλουθον πρὸς τὸν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς ἀναφθέγγεσθαι μυσταγωγόν ” Ἀπόστρεψον “τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς μου τοῦ μὴ ἰδεῖν ματαιότητα:” ματαιότης γὰρ ὄντως, λῆρός τε καὶ ἕτερον οὐδὲν τὰ ἐκ τῆς ἐκείνων κενοφωνούμενα ἀπαιδευσίας: οὐ γὰρ ὡς λόγον ἔχων ἕτερον ἐν ἑαυτῷ τοῦ Πατρὸς, ὁ Υἱὸς τὸν τοῦ Πατρὸς ἔφασκε λόγον τηρεῖν: ἀλλ' οὐδ' ὥσπερ τινὰ παιδαγωγὸν ἐπικομιζόμενος πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἀφῖχθαι διισχυρίσατό ποτε, ὡς δὲ μόνος ἐνυπάρχων κατὰ φύσιν τῷ Πατρὶ, ἔχων τε αὖ πάλιν ὁμοίως ἐν ἑαυτῷ τὸν Πατέρα, μεσολαβοῦντος ἑτέρου μηδενός: “Ἐγὼ, ” φησὶν, ἐν τῷ Πατρὶ καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοὶ,“ οὐχ ὁ ἔμφυτος, ἀλλ' οὐδὲ ἕτερός τις λόγος: ἀλλ' ὁ Πατήρ: ἐν ἐμοί. πῶς οὖν ἄρα νοῆσαι προσήκοι τὸ παρ' αὐτοῦ πρὸς τοὺς Ἰουδαίους εἰρημένον, εἴποι τις ἂν ἡμῖν, καὶ μάλα εἰκότως: πρὸς δὴ τοῦτο ἐροῦμεν ἀληθεύοντες τὰ εἰς νοῦν ἀναβαίνοντα τὸν ἡμέτερον Ἐδίδασκεν ὁ Σωτὴρ τὸν δυσπειθέστατον τῶν Ἰουδαίων λαὸν, καὶ κατὰ βραχὺ τῆς νομικῆς ἐξέλκων λατρείας τοὺς ἀκροωμένους, ἐπεφώνει πολλάκις ” Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ “ἀλήθεια,” μονονουχὶ λέγων Ἀποσείσασθε τὸν νομικὸν, ὦ οὗτοι, ζυγόν: καταδέξασθε τὴν ἐν πνεύματι λατρείαν: οἰχέσθω λοιπὸν ἡ σκιὰ, χωρείτω μακρὰν ὁ τύπος, ἐπέλαμψεν ἡ ἀλήθεια. ἀλλ' οὐ πᾶσιν ἐδόκει ποιεῖν ὀρθῶς, ἀνατρέπων τὰ Μωυσέως, μᾶλλον δὲ ἄγων ἐπὶ τὸ ἀληθέστερον, ὡς καί τινας ἤδη βοᾶν Εἰ ἦν οὗτος παρὰ Θεοῦ ὁ ἄνθρωπος, οὐκ ἂν ἔλυε τὸ σάββατον: ὅπερ ἂν ἦν ἄντικρυς ἁμαρτίαν καταψηφίζεσθαι τοῦ μὴ εἰδότος αὐτήν. πρὸς οὖν τὰς τοιαύτας τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἀπονοίας ἀπολογούμενος, πάντα μὲν ὑφαιρεῖ τὸν ἐν τοῖς ῥήμασι κόμπον, ὑφειμένως δὲ καὶ οὐ τρανῶς ἐκδιδάσκειν βούλεται, ὡς οὐκ ἄν τι παρὰ τὸ δοκοῦν ἐργάσαιτο τῷ Θεῷ καὶ Πατρὶ, ὁ μὴ εἰδὼς ἁμαρτίαν Υἱός: ἵνα δὲ μὴ γυμνότερον λέγων Ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ οἶδα, παροτρύνῃ πάλιν αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ καταλεύειν αὐτόν. ἢ γὰρ ἂν εὐθὺς ἀναζέοντες εἰς ὀργὰς ἐπεπήδων λέγοντες Θεῷ μόνῳ τὸ μὴ ἁμαρτάνειν οἰκεῖον: σὺ δὲ ἄνθρωπος ὢν, μὴ λάλει τὰ μόνῳ πρέποντα Θεῷ: ὃ δὴ καὶ ἑτέρωθί που πεπράχασι, λέγοντες λιθάζειν αὐτὸν εἰκότως, ὅτιπερ ἄνθρωπος ὢν, ἑαυτὸν ποιεῖ Θεόν: περιεσταλμένως ὁ Σωτὴρ, ἅτε δὴ καὶ ἄνθρωπος γεγονὼς καὶ ὡς ὑπὸ νόμον μετὰ τῶν ὑπὸ νόμον, τὸν λόγον ἔφη τηρεῖν τοῦ Πατρὸς, μονονουχὶ λέγων Οὐδαμοῦ τὸ τοῦ Πατρὸς θέλημα παρεκβήσομαι: ἐν γὰρ τῷ τὸν θεῖον ἐξέρχεσθαι νόμον ἡ ἁμαρτία γίνεται, ἐγὼ δὲ ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ οἶδα, κατὰ φύσιν ὑπάρχων Θεός: οὐκοῦν διδάσκων οὐ λυπῶ τὸν Πατέρα. λοιπὸν ἐπιτιμάτω μηδεὶς τῷ κατὰ φύσιν μὲν νομοθέτῃ, διὰ δὲ τὴν πρὸς ἡμᾶς ὁμοίωσιν νομοφύλακι. εἰδέναι δὲ τὸν Πατέρα φησὶν, οὐχ ἁπλῶς καθάπερ ἡμεῖς, ἀπεριεργότερον δὲ αὐτὸ τοῦτο μόνον, ὅτιπερ εἴη Θεὸς, ἀλλ' ἐξ ὧν ἔστιν αὐτὸς τὴν τοῦ Πατρὸς φύσιν διισχυρίζεται νοεῖν. ἐπειδὴ δὲ οἶδεν ὑπομένειν οὐκ εἰδότα τροπὴν τὸν γεννήσαντα, οἶδε δηλονότι καὶ ἑαυτὸν ἄτρεπτον ἐξ ἀτρέπτου Πατρός: τὸ δὲ τροπὴν οὐκ εἰδὸς, πῶς ἂν λέγοιτό τι καὶ ἁμαρτάνειν, καὶ οὐχὶ μᾶλλον ἀκλονήτως ἐν τοῖς ἰδίοις ἑστάναι φυσικοῖς πλεονεκτήμασιν; Εἰκαῖον οὖν ἄρα τῶν Ἰουδαίων τὸ φρόνημα ἤγουν τὸ κατηγόρημα, παρὰ τὴν τοῦ Πατρὸς βούλησιν ἕτερόν τι φρονεῖν οἰομένων τὸν Υἱόν: τηρεῖ γὰρ, ὥς φησι, τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἀγνοεῖ τὸ ἁμαρτάνειν φυσικῶς: οἶδε γὰρ τὸν Πατέρα τοῦτο παθεῖν οὐ δυνάμενον, ᾧπέρ ἐστιν ὁμοούσιος ὡς Υἱὸς ἀληθινός. ἐπειδὴ δὲ πρὸς τοῦτό φασι καὶ τὸ συνημμένον τῇ παρ' αὐτῶν ἀντιθέσει “Ἐκ γαστρὸς πρὸ ἑωσφόρου ἐξεγέννησά ” σε:“ φέρε δὴ πάλιν, καὶ ἐπὶ τούτῳ τὸν περὶ τῆς εὐσεβείας ἀναπτύξωμεν λόγον. οὐ γὰρ ἐπειδήπερ τὰ τοιαῦτά φησι πρὸς τὸν Υἱὸν ὁ Πατὴρ, διὰ τοῦτο δὴ πάντως οἴεσθαι χρὴ, λόγον μὲν ἐνυπάρχειν ἔμφυτον αὐτῷ, ἕτερον δέ τινα παρ' ἐκεῖνον ἐννοεῖν τὸν Υἱόν: ἀλλὰ πρῶτον μὲν ἐκεῖνο καθ' ἑαυτοὺς ἐνθυμώμεθα, ὅτι προφήτης ἐν πνεύματι λαλεῖν μελετήσας μυστήρια, τὸ πρόσωπον ἡμῖν ὑποκρίνεται τοῦ Υἱοῦ, καὶ δὴ καὶ εἰσφέρει παρὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἀκούοντα αὐτόν ” Υἱός “μου εἶ σὺ,” καὶ τὰ τούτοις ἀκόλουθα. καὶ οὐ δήπου πάντως ἡ κατὰ τὸ ἀνθρώπινον σχῆμα γενομένη διασκευὴ, δύο λόγους ἡμᾶς ἀναγκάσει νοεῖν, ἀλλὰ τοῖς ἡμετέροις ἔθεσιν ἀναθέντες τὴν διὰ τῶν τοιούτων ἀπαραίτητον οἰκονομίαν, αἰτιασόμεθα μὲν, εἰ γεμὴν πράττοιμεν ὀρθῶς, τῆς ἑαυτῶν φύσεως τὴν ἀσθένειαν, οὔτε λόγους ἐχούσης οὔτε μὴν τρόπους θεωρημάτων τοὺς τοῖς ὑπὲρ ἡμᾶς μυστηρίοις ἀκριβῶς διακονουμένους, ἢ καὶ ἀνεγκλήτως διερμηνεύειν ἰσχύοντας τὰ θεοπρεπέστερα: τὸ νικᾶν δὲ πάλιν ἐπιτρέψομεν τῇ θείᾳ φύσει τὸν ἐν ἡμῖν νοῦν τε καὶ λόγον, οὐχ ὡς λέγεται πάντως νοοῦντες τὰ περὶ αὐτῆς, ἀλλ' ὡς αὐτῇ πρέπει καὶ βούλεται. ἢ εἴπερ οὐκ ὀρθῶς τοῖς τοιούτοις ἡμᾶς ἀποκεχρῆσθαι λόγοις οἴονταί τινες τῶν ἀνοσίων αἱρετικῶν, τὴν δὲ καθ' ἡμᾶς ἀναβαίνειν συνήθειαν οὐκ ἐπιτρέπουσι τὸ σχῆμα τοῦ λόγου, δικαίως ἀκούσονται Νοείσθω καθ' ἡμᾶς καὶ γεννῶν ὁ Πατὴρ, μὴ ἀρνείσθω γαστέρα καὶ τὰς ἐπὶ τῷ τίκτειν ὠδῖνας. “Ἐκ ” γαστρὸς γὰρ ἐξεγέννησά σε,“ φησὶ τῷ Υἱῷ. ἀλλ' ἴσως, μᾶλλον δὲ πάντως, ἐροῦσιν ἐκ τῆς καθ' ἡμᾶς ὁμοιότητος τὴν ἐφ' Υἱῷ γνησίαν ὠδῖνα σημαίνεσθαι τοῦ Πατρός. οὐκοῦν εὐσεβῶς κἀκεῖνο νοείσθω, κἂν ὡς ἐν ἀνθρωπίνῳ λαλῆται σχήματι, καὶ λέλυται τὸ πικρὸν αὐτῶν καὶ ἀνόσιον πρόβλημα. Ἐξήρκει μὲν οὖν, ὡς οἶμαι, καὶ ταῦτα: ἐπειδὴ δὲ χρῆναι δεῖν ὑπειλήφαμεν τὰ ἐκ τῆς ἐκείνων δυστροπίας ἐπινοηθέντα προβλήματα, καθάπερ τινὰ πολεμίων ἐσμὸν, τῇ τῶν εὐσεβῶν δογμάτων ὀρθότητι κατακρούεσθαι, φέρε δὴ παραθέντες αὐτὰ κατὰ λόγον ἑκάστῳ τὸν δέοντα, τὸ ἀντιστατοῦν ἀντεγείρωμεν, καὶ θερμοτέροις κατ' αὐτῶν ἐξοπλίσωμεν θεωρήμασι τὴν ἀεὶ νικῶσαν ἀλήθειαν: πρόβλημα δὲ πάλιν, ὡς παρ' ἐκείνων, τῶν ἐπιλυόντων αὐτὸ συλλογισμῶν προτετάξεται, τὴν τοῦ λόγου νῆψιν εἰς ἀκριβεστέραν χωρεῖν ἐρεθίζον βάσανον, καὶ οἱονεί τινος ποταμίου ῥεύματος φορὰν, ἐπὶ τὸ πρανὲς ἀεὶ καταφέρον τὴν ἐπὶ τὸ βούλεσθαι τὸ ἀντιτεῖνον μανθάνειν ἀεὶ τῶν ἐντευξομένων ἀγαθὴν προθυμίαν.
« Προβλήματα ἤτοι ἀντιθέσεις ὡς ἐκ τῶν αἱρετικῶν. » Εἰ μὴ ἕτερος, φησὶν, ἐνυπάρχει τῷ Θεῷ καὶ Πατρὶ ” λόγος, οὐσιώδης τε καὶ ἐνδιάθετος παρὰ τὸν ἐξ αὐτοῦ „μονογενῆ Υἱὸν, ὃς δὴ καὶ κατὰ τὴν ἐκείνου μίμησιν κα” λεῖται λόγος, ἄτοπόν τι τὸ ἐντεῦθεν ἐκβήσεται, καὶ ὁμολο„γεῖν ἡμᾶς ἀναγκαῖον τοὺς ὀρθὰ φρονεῖν οἰομένους, ὅτιπερ ” εἰ ὁμοούσιός ἐστιν ὁ Λόγος τῷ Πατρὶ, καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ δὲ τῷ „Λόγῳ, οὐδὲν ἔτι τὸ κωλύον ὁρᾶται λόγον εἶναί τε καὶ ” καλεῖσθαι τὸν Πατέρα, ὡς ὁμοούσιον Λόγῳ.„
« Πρὸς τοῦτο λύσις. » Οὐδεὶς, ὦ βέλτιστοι, τρόπος ἡμᾶς ἀναγκάσει Λόγον οἴεσθαι δεῖν τὸν Πατέρα νοεῖν τε καὶ λέγειν, ἢ καὶ εἶναι δύνασθαι πιστεύειν, ὅτιπέρ ἐστιν ὁμοούσιος Λόγῳ: οὐ γὰρ πάντως τὰ τῆς αὐτῆς ὄντα φύσεως, τὴν εἰς ἄλληλα χωρήσει μεταβολὴν καὶ ἀνάκρασιν ὥσπερ τινὰ τὴν ἐξ ἑτέρου πρὸς τὸ ἕτερον ἐπιδέξεται, ὡς ἐκ πλήθους εἰς ἑνάδα δύνασθαι συσταλῆναι τὰ σημαινόμενα, ἢ καὶ ἐκ δυάδος εἰς μονάδα τυχόν. οὐ γὰρ ἐπειδήπερ ὁμοούσιος ὑπῆρχεν ὁ προπάτωρ Ἀδάμ πως τῷ ἐξ αὐτοῦ φύντι παιδὶ, διὰ τοῦτο χωρήσει μὲν ὁ πατὴρ εἰς υἱὸν, ἀνταναβήσεται δὲ αὖθις ὁ υἱὸς εἰς πατέρα: ἀλλ' ἓν ὑπάρχων πρὸς αὐτὸν, ὡς πρὸς τὴν ἑνότητα τῆς οὐσιώδους ποιότητος, φορέσει τὸ ἴδιον, καὶ υἱὸς μέν τις ὁ ἐκ πατρός τινος νοηθήσεται: πατὴρ δὲ πάλιν ὁ γεννήτωρ τινὸς ἀναδεδειγμένος. εἰ δὲ οἴεσθε σοφὸν ἐπὶ τούτῳ κατασκευάζειν λόγον, ἓν δὲ εἶναι πάντως ἡ ὁμοουσιότης ἀναγκάσει τὸ ὁμοούσιον τῷ ὁμοουσίῳ, καὶ διαστολὴν οὐδεμίαν ἐπιτρέψει κρατεῖν, ὡς ἕκαστον εἶναι καθ' ἑαυτὸ, καὶ ἐν ᾧπέρ ἐστι: τί τὸ πεπεικὸς τὸν ἁπάντων Κριτὴν πατέρα μὲν μὴ κολάζειν ὑπὲρ υἱοῦ, υἱὸν δὲ ὑπὲρ πατρὸς μὴ εἰσπράττεσθαι δίκας; ” Ψυχὴ γὰρ, “φησὶν, ἡ ἁμαρτάνουσα, αὐτὴ ἀποθανεῖται, ὁ δὲ υἱὸς οὐ ” λήψεται τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ, οὐδὲ ὁ πατὴρ “λήψεται τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ.” ἐπειδὴ δὲ ὁμοούσιον ὄντα τὸν πατέρα τῷ υἱῷ, οὐκ εἰς τὸν τῆς υἱότητος τόπον ὁ τοῦ τὰ δίκαια κρίνοντος καταφέρει λόγος, οὔτε μὴν ἀνατίθησι τὸν υἱὸν εἰς τὴν τῆς πατρότητος θέσιν, ἀλλ' ἰδιαζόντως ἑκάτερον οἶδεν, οὔτε τοῦτο εἰς ἐκεῖνο χωροῦν, οὔτε μὴν ἐκεῖνο πρὸς τοῦτο βαδίζον, καίτοι μιᾶς οὔσης ἐπ' ἀμφοῖν τῆς οὐσίας: πρόδηλον δήπουθεν, ὡς οὐδεὶς ἀναγκάσει τρόπος μεταχωρῆσαι λοιπὸν εἰς τὸ εἶναι Λόγον, τὸν Θεὸν καὶ Πατέρα, ἐπείπερ ἐστὶν ὁμοούσιος Λόγῳ: μένει γὰρ πάντως ἐφ' ἑαυτῷ, τουτέστι Πατὴρ, κἂν ὁ ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεννηθεὶς νοῆται καὶ ὑπάρχῃ Λόγος, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο Υἱὸς, ἵνα μὴ καὶ ἐν χείροσι τῶν καθ' ἡμᾶς φαίνηται τὰ θειότερα.
« Ἄλλο πρὸς τὸ ἴσον τῇ ἀντιθέσει σχῆμα, διὰ τῆς εἰς ἄτοπον ἀπαγωγῆς. » Ὡς οὐδεμίαν ἔχων παραλλαγὴν πρὸς τὸν ἑαυτοῦ Πατέρα ὁ Υἱὸς, εἰκὼν δὲ ὑπάρχων ἀκριβεστάτη, “καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ” ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ,“ πρὸς τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ μαθητὰς εὑρίσκεται λέγων ” Ὁ ἑωρακὼς ἐμὲ ἑώρακε τὸν Πατέρα.“ ἀλλ' εἴπερ οὕτως ἔχων ὁμοούσιός ἐστι τῷ Πατρὶ, τὴν δὲ εἰς ἄλληλα πάντως ἀνάχυσιν ἐπιδέξεται τὰ ὁμοούσια, οὐδὲν κωλύσει κατὰ τὸ εἰκὸς Πατέρα νοεῖσθαι τὸν Υἱὸν, ὡς ὁμοούσιον Πατρὶ, καὶ μεταχωρεῖν εἰς ἐκεῖνο δυνάμενον, οὐδενὸς πρὸς τοῦτο παραποδίζοντος, εἴπερ ἐξαρκεῖ πρὸς τὸν τῆς μεταβολῆς τρόπον, ἤτοι μεταστάσεως, ὁ τῆς ὁμοουσιότητος λόγος. οὐκοῦν νοείσθω Πατὴρ ὁ Υἱὸς, λεγέτω δὲ, ὡς τοῦτο ὑπάρχων ἤδη, πρὸς τὸν ἀληθῶς ὄντα Πατέρα ” Ἐκ γαστρὸς πρὸ “ἑωσφόρου ἐξεγέννησά σε:” ἀναλαμβανέτω δὲ εἰς ἑαυτὸν καὶ πᾶσαν ἁπλῶς τὴν Πατρὶ πρέπουσαν φωνήν. οὗ δὴ γεγονότος, τὸ πᾶν ἤδη συγκέχυται, καὶ τὸ ἀεὶ ὡσαύτως ἔχον, τουτέστιν ἡ ἁγία καὶ ὁμοούσιος Τριὰς, συσταλήσεται πρὸς ἑνάδα λοιπὸν, εἴπερ τὸ ἑκάστῳ κυρίως τε καὶ ἰδιαζόντως προσὸν, τῷ τῆς ὁμοουσιότητος ἀφανισθήσεται λόγῳ, καὶ ἀνατρέψει τὴν τῶν προσώπων διαστολὴν ἡ τῆς φύσεως ταυτότης. ἀλλὰ τοῦτο ἄτοπον: οὐκ ἄρα ἔσται Λόγος ὁ Πατὴρ, ὡς ὁμοούσιος Λόγῳ, μενεῖ δὲ ἄτρεπτος, τοῦτο ὑπάρχων ὅπερ ἐστὶ, κἂν ἔχῃ πρὸς τὸν ἴδιον Λόγον τὸ ὁμοφυὲς, ἤτοι τὸ ὁμοούσιον. καὶ δέδεικται λοιπὸν εἰκαῖον τὸ ἐκείνων πρόβλημα. Ἄλλο. Εἰ πᾶς λόγος τινός ἐστι λόγος, τοῦ προσχέοντος ἀπὸ γλώττης δηλονότι, ἢ καὶ ἐκ καρδίας ἐρευγομένου καὶ ἀναφέροντος: ἔσται δὲ Λόγος ὁ Πατὴρ, ἐπείπερ ἐστὶν ὁμοούσιος Λόγῳ: ἑαυτοῦ λόγος ἔσται λοιπὸν, μᾶλλον δὲ οὐδενὸς, ἢ καὶ ὅλως οὐχ ὑπάρχει: πῶς γὰρ ἔσται λόγος, μὴ ὄντος τινὸς, οὗ λόγος ἐστίν; ἀλλὰ τοῦτο ἄτοπον: οὐ γὰρ ἔσται ποτὲ τοῦ μὴ εἶναι δεκτικὴ ἡ θεία καὶ ἀκήρατος φύσις, οὐδὲ μεταχωρήσει ποτὲ εἰς Λόγον ὁ Πατὴρ, κἂν ὁμοούσιος ὑπάρχῃ Λόγῳ: μενεῖ δὲ Πατὴρ, οὗ καὶ Λόγος ἐστὶν ὁ Υἱός. Ἄλλο. Εἰ τροπῆς ἁπάσης καὶ ἀλλοιώσεως τῆς κατὰ τὸν τῆς οὐσίας λόγον ἡ θεία φύσις ἀνεπίδεκτος εἶναι πιστεύεται: πῶς τὸν οἰκεῖον ὥσπερ ἀφεὶς τόπον, εἰς τὸ εἶναι Λόγος ὁ Πατὴρ μεταστήσεται; τροπῆς γὰρ ἔσται δεκτικὸς, ὡς ἐξ ἀνάγκης τοῦτο παθὼν, ὁ αὐτὸς δὲ οὐκ ἔσται μὴ τηρήσας ὅπερ ἦν ἐξ ἀρχῆς. εἰ δὲ τοῦτο ἄτοπον: τὸ γὰρ ἀλλοιοῦσθαι τῆς θείας φύσεως παντελῶς ἀλλότριον: οὐκ ἄρα ἕξει τὴν μεταβολὴν τὴν εἰς Λόγον ὁ Πατὴρ, ἀλλ' ἔσται Πατὴρ ἀεὶ, τὸ ἄτρεπτον ἔχων καὶ ἀναλλοίωτον ὡς Θεός.
« Ἄλλο ὡς ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ, διηγηματικῶς. » Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ Πατρὸς ἀληθινοῦ πεφηνότα δεικνύων ἑαυτὸν ὁ Μονογενὴς τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγος τε καὶ Υἱὸς, “Πάντα, φησὶν, ὅσα ἔχει ὁ Πατὴρ ἐμά ἐστιν:” ἀλλ' εἰ καὶ πάντων ἐστὶ τῶν ἐνόντων τῷ Πατρὶ φυσικῶς ἰδιωμάτων κληρονόμος ὁ Υἱὸς, ὡς ἐξ αὐτοῦ κατὰ φύσιν ὑπάρχων: ἀλλά γε τὸ εἶναι Πατὴρ οὐχ ἕξει ποτέ: καὶ τοῦτο γὰρ ἓν τῶν προσόντων τῷ γεννήτορι: μενεῖ δὲ ὁ Υἱὸς οὐδενὸς ἀποστερούμενος τῶν ἐνόντων τῷ Πατρὶ, κἂν μὴ νοῆται Πατὴρ, πάντα δὲ ἔχων ἐν ἑαυτῷ τελείως τὰ τῆς τοῦ Πατρὸς οὐσίας ἴδια καὶ ἐξαίρετα. τὸν αὐτὸν δὴ τοῦτον τοιγαροῦν καὶ τῷ προσώπῳ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐφαρμόσαντες λόγον, πάντα μὲν ἔχειν αὐτὸν τὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ φαμεν φυσικῶς, μὴ μὴν δύνασθαί ποτε, καὶ εἰς υἱότητα καὶ εἰς τὸ εἶναι Λόγος μεταχωρεῖν, ὡς δὲ ἄτρεπτον ὄντα κατὰ φύσιν τοῦτο μένειν ὅπερ ἐστὶν, ἵνα πρὸς τῷ εἶναι Θεὸς καὶ Πατὴρ, ὑπάρχῃ καὶ ἀναλλοίωτος, ἀναλλοίωτον ἔχων ἐν ἑαυτῷ τὸν ἐξ αὐτοῦ πεφηνότα Λόγον, τουτέστι τὸν Υἱόν. Ἄλλο. Κατῃτιᾶτό τινας διὰ τῶν ἁγίων προφητῶν ὁ Νομοθέτης καὶ Θεὸς λέγων “Ἀνὰ μέσον ἁγίου καὶ βεβήλου ” οὐ διέστελλον:“ πολλὴ γὰρ ὄντως ἐν τούτοις ὁρᾶται τρόπων διαφορὰ, ἤτοι ἐναντιότης, παρὰ τοῖς ἐθέλουσι φιλοκρινεῖν. ἀλλ' εἴπερ ἐνδέχεται τὴν τῶν ὁμοουσίων εἰς ἑαυτὴν ἀνακιρνᾶσθαι φύσιν, καὶ τὰ ἐν ἰδιαζούσαις τε καὶ ἀτόμοις ὑποστάσεσιν ὄντα δραπετεύσει πρὸς ὅπερ ἂν βούληται τῶν ὁμογενῶν, ἢ ὁμοειδῶν: ποῖος ἡμῖν ἄρα διαστέλλει λόγος τῶν ἁγίων τὸν βέβηλον, εἰ μηδαμόθεν ὁρᾶται τοῦ ἰδίως ὄντος, ἢ τοῦ τίς ἐστι, διαφορὰ, διὰ δὲ τὴν ταυτότητα τῆς οὐσίας ἐν τῷ ἑτέρῳ κεῖται τὸ ἕτερον; ἔστω τοίνυν ἡμῖν, ἀδιαφορούσης ἐντεῦθεν τῆς ἐφ' ἑκάστῳ γνώσεως, συγκεχυμένα τὰ πάντων εἰς πάντα: καὶ ὁ μὲν προδότης Ἰούδας, ὡς Πέτρος ἢ Παῦλος, ὡς ὁμοούσιος Πέτρῳ καὶ Παύλῳ: Πέτρος δ' αὖ πάλιν ἢ Παῦλος, Ἰούδας, ἅτε δὴ καὶ πρὸς αὐτὸν ὄντες ὁμοούσιοι. ἀλλ' ἔστι τὸ οὕτω φρονεῖν ἀλογώτατον, καὶ οὐκ ἀναιρήσει πάντως τὴν κατά τι τῶν ὁμογενῶν ἢ ὁμοειδῶν πρὸς ἄλληλα διαφορὰν τὸ εἶναι τῆς αὐτῆς οὐσίας αὐτά. οὐκ ἄρα καὶ τὸ ἐφ' ἡμῶν ἀσθενοῦν κατὰ τῆς θείας οὐσίας τοσοῦτον ἐκνεανιεύσεται, ὡς ἐπαναγκάσαι Λόγον εἶναί τε καὶ καλεῖσθαι τὸν Θεὸν καὶ Πατέρα, ἐπειδήπερ ἐστὶν ὁμοούσιος Λόγῳ. μένει γὰρ ἀεὶ Πατὴρ, τὴν τοῦ τί ἐστι κατὰ τοῦτο διαφορὰν οὐδαμόθεν ζημιοῦσθαι δυνάμενος, ἀλλ' οὐδὲ τῇ ταυτότητι τῆς οὐσίας τὸ μηδὲν ἰδίως κεκτῆσθαι παραχωρῶν: καὶ πλεονεκτήσει μὲν οὐδαμῶς κατὰ τοῦτο τὸν Υἱὸν, γνήσιον δὲ μᾶλλον ἀποδείξει, καὶ ἐξ αὐτοῦ κατὰ φύσιν ἔχοντα τὸ ἄτρεπτον καὶ ἀναλλοίωτον τοῦ γεννήσαντος, καὶ διὰ τοῦ κεκτῆσθαι καὶ αὐτὸν ἰδίως καὶ μόνον τὴν υἱότητα, καὶ εἰς Πατέρα μὴ μεταβάλλεσθαι, ὥσπερ οὖν οὐδὲ ἐκεῖνος εἰς Υἱόν.
« Πρόβλημα, ἤτοι ἀντίθεσις ἑτέρα ὡς παρὰ τῶν αἱρετικῶν. » „Οὐκ εὐλόγως, φασὶν, ὡς οὐ φρονοῦσιν ὀρθῶς ἐπισκή” πτετε τοῖς ἕτερον εἶναι λέγουσι τὸν ἔμφυτον ἐν τῷ Θεῷ „καὶ Πατρὶ Λόγον παρὰ τὸν Υἱόν: καίτοι σαφῶς αὐτοῦ ” λέγοντος ἀκούοντες ἐν ταῖς εὐαγγελικαῖς ἐξηγήσεσιν, ὅτι „οἶδα τὸν Πατέρα καὶ τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ τηρῶ. εἰ δὲ, ” καθάπερ αὐτὸς διισχυρίσατο, τὸν τοῦ Πατρὸς τηρεῖ λόγον, „ἕτερος ἂν εἴη πάντως δήπου καὶ ἀναγκαίως, ὡς πρὸς αὐτὸν, ” ἐπειδήπερ ἀνάγκη τὴν τῆς ἑτερότητος σώζεσθαι διαφορὰν „τῷ τηροῦντι πρὸς τὸ τηρούμενον.”
« Λύσεις ἐφεξῆς διάφοροι δεικνύουσαι σαφῶς, ὅτι ὁ Λόγος ἐστὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Πατρὸς ὁ Υἱός. » Εἰ μὴ αὐτός ἐστιν ὁ Μονογενὴς Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Πατρὸς ὁ Λόγος αὐτοῦ, ἕτερος δέ τις ἐνυπάρχει τῷ Θεῷ παρ' αὐτὸν, ὃν ἐνδιάθετον ὀνομάζουσιν, οἱ τὴν ἐναντίαν προϊσχόμενοι δόξαν λεγέτωσαν ἡμῖν, πότερόν ποτε ὁ διὰ τῆς αὐτῶν ἀμαθίας ἐπινοούμενος λόγος ἐνυπόστατός ἐστιν, ἢ οὐχί: εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἐροῦσιν ὑφεστάναι καθ' ἑαυτὸν ἐν ὑπάρξει νοούμενον ἰδίᾳ, δύο δὴ πάντως ὁμολογήσουσιν εἶναι υἱούς: εἰ δὲ ἀνυπόστατον ἐροῦσιν αὐτὸν, οὐδενὸς μεσολαβοῦντος ἔτι καὶ διατειχίζοντος τὸν Υἱὸν, πῶς ἔσται τρίτος ἐκ Πατρὸς, καὶ οὐχὶ μᾶλλον προσεχῶς, ὡς Υἱὸς πρὸς Πατέρα;
« Ἄλλο διὰ τῶν αὐτῶν θεωρημάτων. » Λόγον μὲν ὑπάρχειν τῷ Θεῷ καὶ Πατρὶ τὸν ἐνδιάθετον οἱ δι' ἐναντίας ὁρίζονται, δι' οὗ κατὰ τὴν αὐτῶν ἀκαλλεστάτην ὑπόνοιαν, τὴν τοῦ Πατρὸς βούλησιν ὁ Υἱὸς ἐκδιδάσκεται: ἀλλ' ὅσην ἔχει μωρίαν αὐτοῖς τὸ ἐπὶ τούτῳ δόγμα, θεωρεῖν ἀναγκαῖον. ἐννοῆσαι δὲ τοιῶσδε προσήκει τὸν ἐπὶ τῷ πράγματι λογισμόν. τὸ πατὴρ ὄνομα, ὡς πρὸς τὸν υἱὸν οὐδὲν ἔχει τὸ μέσον, ὡς ἐξ ἀνάγκης εἰσβαῖνον. τί γὰρ ἔσται μέσον πατρὸς πρὸς υἱὸν, ἦ αὖ πάλιν υἱοῦ πρὸς πατέρα; ἀλλ' εἴπερ κατὰ τὴν ἐκείνων ἀμαθίαν διατειχίζει τοῦ Πατρὸς τὸν Υἱὸν μεσολαβοῦσα βούλησις καὶ λόγος ἐνδιάθετος, ὃν καὶ ταύτης εἶναί φασιν ἑρμηνευτικὸν, οὐκ ἔτ' ἂν νοοῖτο πατὴρ ὅλως ὁ Πατὴρ, ἀλλ' οὐδὲ υἱὸς ὁ Υἱὸς, εἴπερ ἐν ἰδίαις ὑποστάσεσι κεῖσθαι νοήσομεν τήν τε βούλησιν τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τὸν ταύτην διερμηνεύοντα λόγον. εἰ δὲ ἀνυπόστατα δώσομεν ὑπάρχειν αὐτὰ, ἀμέσως ἄρα καὶ προσεχῶς ὁ Υἱός ἐστιν ἐν τῷ Θεῷ καὶ Πατρί: ποῖ δὴ ἄρα λοιπὸν ὁ ἐνδιάθετος χωρήσει λόγος, ἢ ποῖον ἕξει τόπον ἡ βούλησις, ἑτέρα νοουμένη παρὰ τὸν Υἱόν;
« Ἄλλο διὰ τῆς εἰς ἄτοπον ἀπαγωγῆς. » Ὁμοούσιον εἶναι πιστεύομεν τὴν ἁγίαν καὶ προσκυνουμένην Τριάδα, κἂν ἡ τῶν αἱρετικῶν μανία μὴ βούληται: ἀλλ' οἶμαι προσήκειν ἐπὶ τῶν ὁμοουσίων παραδέχεσθαι καὶ τὸ ἀλλήλοις αὐτὰ κατὰ πάντα προσεοικέναι, κατά γε τὸν τῶν φυσικῶν ἰδιωμάτων λόγον. εἴπερ οὖν κατὰ τὴν τινῶν ἀβουλίαν ἐνυπάρχει τῷ Θεῷ καὶ Πατρὶ λόγος τις ἕτερος ἐνδιάθετος παρὰ τὸν Υἱὸν, ἕξει πάντως καὶ ὁ Υἱὸς λόγον ἐνδιάθετον ἐν ἑαυτῷ, ὡς εἰκὼν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀπαράλλακτος τῆς ὑποστάσεως χαρακτὴρ, καθὰ γέγραπται: ἕξει δὲ ὁμοίως αὐτῷ καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ Ἅγιον, κατὰ τὴν ἴσην τῶν νοημάτων ἀναλογίαν. γέγονεν οὖν ἡμῖν ἡ Τριὰς ἐν διπλῷ, καὶ ἐν συνθέσει λοιπὸν ἡ θεία φαίνεται φύσις. ἀλλὰ τοῦτο ἄτοπον: ἐν δὲ ταῖς ἁπλαῖς οὐσίαις, οὐδὲν ἕτερόν τι ἐστὶ τὸ παρ' αὐτάς: οὐδὲν ἄρα διακωλύσει τὴν ἁγίαν καὶ ὁμοούσιον Τριάδα προσεχῶς συνῆφθαι, μεσολαβοῦντος οὐδενός.
« Ἄλλο διηγηματικῶς. » Ὅτε τὰ ὀνόματα προτατττομένων τῶν ἄρθρων ἡ θεία τίθησι γραφὴ, τότε καὶ ἕν τι σημαίνει, ὃ μόνον ἐστὶ κυρίως καὶ ἀληθινῶς, ὁποῖον εἶναι λέγεται: ἄρθρον δὲ οὐ προθεῖσα, γενικωτέραν ποιεῖται κατὰ παντὸς τοῦ σημαινομένου τὴν δήλωσιν, οἷον: ἥξει γὰρ ὁ λόγος καὶ δι' ἐναργοῦς ἀποδείξεως: πολλοὶ καλοῦνται θεοί: ἀλλ' ὅταν μετὰ τοῦ ἄρθρου λέγηται Ὁ Θεὸς, τὸν μόνον ὄντα καὶ κυρίως σημαίνει: ἁπλούστερον δὲ, καὶ ἄρθρου χωρὶς, ἕνα τυχὸν τῶν εἰς τοῦτο κατὰ χάριν κεκλημένων. καὶ πάλιν ἄνθρωποι πολλοί: ἀλλ' ὅτε μετὰ τοῦ ἄρθρου φησὶν ὁ Σωτήρ Ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, ὡς ἐκλελοχισμένον ἀπὸ μυριάδων ἑαυτὸν κατασημαίνει. τοῦτον ἐχόντων τῶν ὀνομάτων τὸν τύπον παρὰ τῇ θείᾳ γραφῇ, πῶς ἄρα προσήκει νοῆσαι τό Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος; εἰ μὲν γὰρ πᾶς λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ διὰ τούτου σημαίνεται, ὡς ὑπάρχων ἐν ἀρχῇ, δεικνύτωσαν αὐτοὶ, καὶ ληροῦμεν ἡμεῖς: εἰ δὲ προτάξας τὸ ἄρθρον ὁ εὐαγγελιστὴς, ὡς ἕνα καὶ κυρίως ὄντα σημαίνει, βοῶν Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος: τί μάτην φιλονεικοῦσιν ἕτερον ἐπεισφέροντες, ἵνα μόνον ἐκπέμπωσι τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρὸς τὸν Υἱόν; ἐννοοῦντας δὲ τὸ ἐπὶ τούτοις ἄτοπον παραιτεῖσθαι προσήκει τὴν τῶν ἑτεροδοξούντων ἀβουλίαν.
« Ἄλλο, δεικνύον ὅτιπερ οὐ κατὰ τὸν ἐνδιάθετον λόγον, ὡς ἐκεῖνοί φασι, μορφοῦται ὁ Υἱὸς, ἀλλ' εἰκών ἐστιν αὐτοῦ τοῦ Πατρός. » Εἰ διὰ τοῦτο Λόγος ἐστί τε καὶ ὀνομάζεται κατ' ἐκείνους ὁ Μονογενὴς Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὅτι δὴ τὸν ἐνδιάθετον τοῦ Πατρὸς δεχόμενος λόγον, οἱονεὶ μορφοῦται πρὸς ἐκεῖνον, τί μὴ λέγων ὁρᾶται πρὸς τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ μαθητάς Ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ λόγος τοῦ πατρὸς ἕν ἐσμεν, ὁ ἑωρακὼς ἐμὲ ἑώρακε τὸν λόγον τοῦ πατρός; ἐπειδὴ δὲ πάντα ὑπερβὰς ἑαυτὸν ἐξομοιοῖ μόνῳ μόνος τῷ Πατρὶ, οὐδενὸς ἄρα μέσου χωροῦντος πρὸς τὴν ὁμοίωσιν, αὐτῷ τῷ γεννήτορι καὶ οὐχ ἑτέρῳ τινὶ παρ' αὐτὸν προσεοικὼς ὁ Υἱὸς νοηθήσεται.
« Ἀντίθεσις, ὡς ἐκ τῶν δι' ἐναντίας. » ” Ἕτερον, φασὶν, ὄντα τὸν Υἱὸν παρὰ τὸν ἐνδιάθετον τοῦ „Θεοῦ λόγον εὑρίσκομεν, οὐ ταῖς ἑαυτῶν ἐννοίαις εἰς τοῦτο ” προσέχοντες, ἀλλὰ τοῖς ἀπὸ τῆς θείας γραφῆς θεωρήμασι: „τί γὰρ ἐροῦμεν ὅταν ἀκούσωμεν τοῦ Υἱοῦ λέγοντος πρὸς ” τὸν Πατέρα ’Δόξασόν σου τὸν Υἱόν:‘ τοῦ δὲ Πατρὸς αὖ „πάλιν ἀποκρινομένου καὶ λέγοντος ’Καὶ ἐδόξασα καὶ ” ‘πάλιν δοξάσω.’ ἆρα οὐχὶ πάντως ἐν λόγῳ δώσομεν „ἀπολογεῖσθαι τῷ Υἱῷ τὸν Πατέρα; πῶς οὖν οὐχ ἕτερος ” παρὰ τὸν Υἱὸν ὁ δι' οὗ πρὸς αὐτὸν ὁ Πατὴρ ἀντιφθέγ„γεται;„
« Πρὸς τοῦτο λύσεις ἐφεξῆς διάφοροι. » Ἀποθαυμάζειν ἄξιον, μᾶλλον δὲ ἤδη καὶ ὀλοφύρεσθαι τοὺς ἀνοσίους αἱρετικοὺς, καὶ δὴ κἀκεῖνο λέγειν ἐπ' αὐτοῖς τὸ ἐν προφήταις λαλούμενον ” Μὴ κλαίετε τὸν τεθνηκότα “μηδὲ θρηνεῖτε αὐτόν: κλαύσατε κλαυθμῷ τὸν” τοιαῦτα περὶ τοῦ Μονογενοῦς φρονοῦντα καὶ λέγοντα: τί γὰρ ἂν γένοιτο τῶν τοιούτων ἀθλιώτερον, εἴ γε κυρίως τε καὶ ἀληθῶς ταύτην εἶναι τοῦ Πατρὸς ὑπετόπασαν τὴν φωνὴν, ἧς οὐ μόνος ὑπήκουσεν ὁ Σωτὴρ, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτὴ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ἡ περιεστῶσα πληθὺς, μᾶλλον δὲ τῶν ἁγίων μαθητῶν ὁ χορός; ἔδει γὰρ μᾶλλον αὐτοὺς τὰ θεοπρεπῆ φαντάζεσθαι πλεονεκτήματα, καὶ μὴ τοῖς καθ' ἡμᾶς νόμοις ὑπάγειν πειρᾶσθαι τὰ ὑπὲρ ἡμᾶς. τὴν μὲν γὰρ τοῦ σώματος ἀκοὴν σωματικὴ προσαράσσει φωνὴ, καὶ κτύπος ὁ διὰ χειλέων εἰς ἀέρα προκύψας, ἢ διά τινος μηχανῆς ἑτέρας ἐπινοηθείς: τὴν δὲ ἐν ἀῤῥήτοις φωναῖς ἠρέμα καὶ οἱονεὶ κατὰ νοῦν στρεφομένην βούλησιν τοῦ Πατρὸς, μόνος οἶδεν ἐν αὐτῷ φυσικῶς ὑπάρχων ὁ Υἱὸς ὡς σοφία αὐτοῦ. φωνῇ δὲ τῇ διὰ κτύπου κεχρῆσθαι τὸν Θεὸν ὑπολαμβάνειν παντελῶς ἀπίθανον, εἴπερ οἰόμεθα δεῖν ἀποσώζειν τῇ ὑπὲρ πάντα φύσει τὰ ὑπὲρ τὴν κτίσιν. ἄλλως τε καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς ὁ Χριστὸς οὐκ ἔφη αὐτὴν φωνὴν εἶναι τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Πατρὸς, ἀλλ' οὐδὲ τῆς παρ' ἑτέρου δεόμενον ἑρμηνείας πρὸς τὸ δύνασθαι μαθεῖν τὴν τοῦ Πατρὸς βούλησιν ἑαυτὸν ἐπιδεικνύει λέγων “Οὐ δι' ἐμὲ ἡ φωνὴ αὕτη γέγονεν, ἀλλὰ δι' ὑμᾶς:” χρῆν δέ γε, ὦ βέλτιστοι, μᾶλλον εἰπεῖν, εἴ γε καλῶς τὰ τοιαῦτα περὶ αὐτοῦ δοξάζετε Ἠκούσατε μετ' ἐμοῦ τῆς φωνῆς τοῦ Πατρός: νυνὶ δὲ εἰς πᾶν τοὐναντίον περιτρέψας τὸ δηλούμενον, οὔτε φωνῆς ἑαυτὸν δεδεῆσθαι προσομολογεῖ, γεγενῆσθαι δὲ μᾶλλον αὐτὴν δι' ἐκείνους διισχυρίζεται, οὐκ ἐκπεφωνῆσθαι παρὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς, ἀλλὰ γενέσθαι καὶ δι' ἐκείνους. καὶ εἰ πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ ὁ Θεὸς καὶ Πατὴρ ἐργάζεται, δι' αὐτοῦ δὴ πάντως καὶ τοῦτο, μᾶλλον δὲ αὐτὸς ἦν ἡ φωνὴ, οὐχ ἑαυτῷ τὴν τοῦ γεννήσαντος ἑρμηνεύων διάθεσιν: ᾔδει γὰρ ὡς Υἱός: ἀλλὰ ταῖς τῶν περιεστώτων ἀκοαῖς, ἵνα πιστεύσωσιν. Ἄλλο. Εἰ λόγου τινὸς ἐμφύτου δεδεῆσθαί φασι τὸν Υἱὸν, ἵνα διδάσκηται παρ' αὐτοῦ τὴν βούλησιν τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Πατρός: ποῖ ποτε ἄρα χωρήσει λέγων ὁ Παῦλος “Χριστὸς ” Θεοῦ δύναμις καὶ Θεοῦ σοφία;“ πῶς γάρ ἐστι σοφία τοῦ Πατρὸς ὁ Υἱὸς, εἰ σοφίας ὑπάρχων ἐπιδεὴς τὸ τέλειον παρ' ἑτέρου κομίζεται, διὰ τοῦ μανθάνειν ἅπερ οὐκ οἶδε δηλαδή; ἢ πῶς οὐκ ἀνάγκη λέγειν, οὐκ εἶναι τελείαν ἐν τῷ Πατρὶ τὴν σοφίαν αὐτοῦ; καὶ εἰ σοφία τοῦ Πατρός ἐστιν ὁ Υἱὸς, πῶς ἂν ἑτέρα νοοῖτο παρ' αὐτὸν ἡ βούλησις; ὥρα γὰρ λέγειν μὴ ἐν σοφίᾳ τελεῖσθαι τὴν βούλησιν τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Πατρός. ἀλλὰ πολλή τις ἐστὶν ἡ ἐν τούτοις ἀσέβεια, καὶ πανταχόθεν ὁ λόγος τὸ δύσφημον ἔχει. οὐκ ἄρα τῆς παρ' ἑτέρου μαθητείας μέτοχος ὢν ὁ Υἱὸς οἶδε τὰ ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ Πατρὶ, ἀλλ' αὐτὸς ὢν ὁ Λόγος καὶ ἡ σοφία καὶ ἡ βούλησις ” πάντα “ἐρευνᾷ καὶ τὰ βάθη τοῦ Θεοῦ,” καθὰ γέγραπταί που καὶ περὶ τοῦ Πνεύματος. Ἄλλο. Ὡς εἰκόνα καὶ χαρακτῆρα τοῦ Πατρὸς ἀπαράλλακτον εἰσφέρουσιν ἡμῖν τὸν Υἱὸν αἱ θεῖαι γραφαί: καὶ αὐτὸς δέ που φησὶν ὁ Σωτήρ “Ὁ ἑωρακὼς ἐμὲ ἑώρακε τὸν ” Πατέρα.“ ἀλλ' εἴπερ ἔχων οὕτως ὁμοιότητος πρὸς αὐτὸν οὐκ οἶδεν ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ τὰ ἐν αὐτῷ, δεῖται δὲ ὥσπερ τῶν παρ' ἑτέρου διηγημάτων εἰς τὸ μαθεῖν: ὥρα καὶ αὐτὸν ἐν τούτοις εἶναι τὸν Πατέρα νομίζειν, εἴπερ ἐστὶν ἐν ὁμοιότητι τῇ πρὸς τὸν Υἱὸν, δεήσεται δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς τοῦ διερμηνεύοντος τὰ ἐν τῷ γεννήματι κατὰ τὸ ἀφανὲς κείμενα. καὶ γέγονεν ἡμῖν πρὸς τοῖς ἐντεῦθεν ἀτόποις ἡ θεία φύσις καὶ ἀγνοίας δεκτική. ἐπειδὴ δὲ τὸ οὕτω φρονεῖν ἀσεβὲς, χωρητέον ἐπὶ τὰ πρεπωδέστερα: τοῦτο γὰρ τὸ συμφέρον ὁρᾶται καὶ χρήσιμον. Ἄλλο. ” Πάντα,“ φησὶν ὁ μακάριος Παῦλος, ” τὸ Πνεῦμα “ἐρεῦνᾳ καὶ τὰ βάθη τοῦ Θεοῦ:” πρὸς δέ γε τούτῳ “Τίς ” γὰρ οἶδεν ἀνθρώπων τὰ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, εἰ μὴ τὸ πνεῦμα “τοῦ ἀνθρώπου τὸ ἐν αὐτῷ; οὕτω καὶ τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ οὐδεὶς ” ἔγνωκεν, εἰ μὴ τὸ Πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸ ἐν αὐτῷ.“ ὅτε τοίνυν τὸ πάντα ἐξακριβοῦν Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα, οὐ μόνον τοῦ Πατρός ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ: πῶς ἂν ἔτι λοιπὸν ἀγνοήσαι τι τῶν ἐν τῷ γεγεννηκότι τὸ Πνεῦμα ἔχων ἐν ἑαυτῷ φυσικῶς τὸ πάντα εἰδός; οὐκοῦν περιττὸν ἤδη φανεῖται τὸ δι' ἑτέρου μανθάνειν οἴεσθαι τὸν Υἱὸν τὴν τοῦ Πατρὸς θέλησιν, ἀργήσει δὲ πάντως ἡ χρεία τοῦ μάτην μεσιτεύοντος λόγου, κατὰ τὴν ἐκείνων ἀπαιδευσίαν. πάντα γὰρ οἶδεν ὁ Υἱὸς ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ. Ἄλλο διὰ τῆς εἰς ἄτοπον ἀπαγωγῆς. Οἱ τῆς τοῦ Μονογενοῦς κατηγοροῦντες οὐσίας, διὰ τοῦ μὴ εἰδέναι λέγειν αὐτὸν τὸ τοῦ Πατρὸς θέλημα, διδασκάλῳ δὲ ὥσπερ ἀποκεχρῆσθαι πρὸς τὸ μαθεῖν, ἑτέρῳ τῷ παρ' αὐτῶν ἐπινοηθέντι λόγῳ, ὃν δὴ καὶ ἐνδιάθετον ὀνομάζουσι, λεγέτωσαν ἡμῖν, εἴπερ οἴονται δεῖν τὴν οἰκείαν ἐπὶ τούτῳ κρατύνειν δόξαν, πότερόν ποτε κατὰ φύσιν ἴσον ἐροῦσιν ὑπάρχειν τῷ Υἱῷ τὸν ἐνδιάθετον λόγον: ὑποκείσθω γὰρ ὡς καὶ ὑφεστὼς ἤδη καθ' ἑαυτόν: ἢ οὐκ ἴσον μὲν, χείρονα δέ πως, ἢ καὶ ἀμείνω; εἰ μὲν οὖν ἐλάττονα νομιοῦσιν αὐτὸν, καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἀσεβήσουσι τὸν Πατέρα: ἔσται γάρ τι πάντως ἐν αὐτῷ τὸ χεῖρον αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἕτερον παρ' αὐτὸν, τουτέστιν, ὁ ἐνδιάθετος λόγος. εἰ δὲ χείρονα μὲν οὐκ ἐροῦσιν, ἐπιτρέψουσι δὲ αὐτῷ τὸ ἐν ἀμείνοσι κεῖσθαι παρὰ τὸν Υἱὸν, διπλοῦν ἔσται πάντως κατὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς τὸ ἐφ' Υἱῷ κατηγόρημα. πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ γεννήσας ἁλώσεται τὸ χεῖρον ἢ ἐν οἷς ἐστιν αὐτός. εἶτα πρὸς τούτῳ καὶ αὐτὸς ἕξει κρείττονα τὸν ἐνδιάθετον λόγον, εἴπερ ἐστὶν ὁ Πατὴρ ὁμοούσιος τῷ Υἱῷ τῷ κατ' ἐκείνους τὸ ἔλαττον ἀποφερομένῳ. ἀλλ' εἰκός γε δήπου τῆς ἐπ' ἄμφω δυσφημίας ἀποπηδᾶν τοὺς δι' ἐναντίας: ἴσον δὲ κατ' οὐσίαν ὑπάρχειν ἐροῦσι τῷ Υἱῷ τὸν ἐνδιάθετον τοῦ Πατρὸς λόγον. οὐκοῦν λέλυται τὸ ζητούμενον. πῶς γὰρ ὁ εἷς διδάξει τὸν ἕτερον, ὡς εἰδὼς μὴ γινώσκοντα, εἴπερ ἴσοι κατὰ φύσιν εἰσὶν ἀμφότεροι; πανταχόθεν τοιγαροῦν ἀσθενοῦντος τοῦ παρ' ἐκείνοις λόγου, παρέλκον ἂν εἴη λοιπὸν μεσιτεύεσθαι παρά τινος ὑπονοεῖν τὸν Υἱὸν, καὶ οὐχὶ μᾶλλον αὐτὸν εἶναι πιστεύειν τὸν ἐν Θεῷ Πατρὶ Θεὸν Λόγον, ὃς ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ. Ἄλλο. Ἐν Υἱῷ φησιν ὁ μακάριος Παῦλος τοὺς ἁπάσης σοφίας καὶ πάσης γνώσεως ἀποκεκρύφθαι θησαυρούς: ἀλλ' εἴπερ ἐστὶ λέγων τὰ τοιαῦτα ἀληθὴς, πῶς ἂν ἔτι τῆς παρ' ἑτέρου δεδεῆσθαι διδασκαλίας ὑπονοήσαιμεν αὐτὸν, ἢ ἐν τίνι λοιπὸν τὸ ἐν γνώσει τέλειον ἐπιζητήσομεν, εἴπερ ὁ πᾶσαν ἔχων αὐτὴν παρ' ἑτέρου σοφοῦται; πῶς δὲ ὅλως σοφία τὸ σοφούμενον; ἐπειδὴ δὲ οὐ τοῖς παρ' ἐκείνων λόγοις, ἀλλὰ τοῖς διὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος προσέχειν ἡμᾶς ἀναγκαῖον, ἔχει δὲ, ὡς ὁ Παῦλός φησιν, ὁ Υἱὸς τοὺς τῆς σοφίας καὶ πάσης γνώσεως ἐν ἑαυτῷ θησαυροὺς, οὐ παρά τινος ἑτέρου τὰ δι' ὧν ἐστι σοφία γνώσεται, ἀλλ' ὑπάρχων ἐν Πατρὶ πάντα γινώσκει τὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς, ὡς σοφία αὐτοῦ.