21

next, so that in saying "in the beginning was the Word" he might show that the Word is in the Father in potentiality, for God is the beginning of all things that have come into being, "from whom are all things", and in "and the Word was with God," that the Word is with God in actuality, for 2.2.13 "all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made," and in having said that the Word is God, he does not divide the Godhead, since the Word is in him and he is in the Word; for he says, "the Father is in me, and I in the Father." And he adds further to these things, laying bare his own mind through what he adduces next, saying: The holy apostle and disciple of the Lord, John, therefore, mentioning his eternity, became a true witness of the Word, saying "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with 2.2.14 God, and the Word was God." here mentioning nothing of the generation of the Word, but using three successive testimonies, he was confirming that the Word was in the beginning. And he adds to these things, saying: The economy according to the flesh we know pertains to the man, but the eternity according to the spirit we have believed to be united to the Father. 2.2.15 Proceeding from these things, he next says these things: If therefore he himself says these things, "I came forth from the Father and have come," and again "and the word that you hear is not mine but the Father's who sent me" and "all that the Father has is mine," it is clear that reasonably he also said that, "the Father is in me, and I in the Father," so that the Word who says this might be in God, 2.2.16 and the Father in the Word, because the Word is the power of the Father. for a trustworthy witness has called him "power of God and wisdom of God." Not 20on account of the precise harmony in all20 therefore 20words and deeds20, as Asterius said, 20does the Savior say, "I and the Father are one,"20 but because it is impossible for either the Word of God or God to be divided from his own Word. Since if Asterius thinks the Savior said this 20on account of the harmony in all things20, and does not wish to learn the truth by paying attention to the second economy, it is necessary to remind him, how sometimes it is possible to see an 2.2.17 apparent disharmony. For so the sayings teach us. For what harmony at the time of the passion in his saying this, "Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass," and adding that, "yet not as I will, but as you will." For it was not of one in harmony first to say, "let this cup pass"; and what is added also seems to have nothing to do with harmony, 2.2.18 for he says, "not my will, but yours, Father, be done." Do you hear how the letter indicates an apparent disharmony, of one willing, and the other not willing. For that the Father willed it is clear from the fact that what he willed came to pass; but that the Son did not will it is clear through his declining it. And again, "I seek not," he says, "my own will but the will of the Father who sent me." 2.2.19 How then does he say 20the Savior said "I and the Father are one" on account of the harmony in all things20? And after a little he adds: How can the Son have 20harmony20 with the Father, or the Father with the Son, when the Son says, "All that the Father has is mine"? For it was plainly of the Son overreaching 2.2.20 the Father to say, "All that the Father has is mine." For on this account, omitting to say "all that the Father has is common," he said, "all that the Father has is mine." And yet it was not proper for one in harmony to speak thus, but rather: "all that the Father has is common." For if the Acts of the Apostles, praising the harmony of those at that time coming to the faith, said, "all things were common to them," and in the case of men who are able to be in harmony one ought to consider all things to be common, how much more was it necessary for the Father and the Son to have fellowship, being divided into two hypostases? But as it is, in saying "all that the Father has is mine," the Son appears to be overreaching the Father; and in asserting not even of his own word

21

ἑξῆς ἵν' ἐν μὲν τῷ φῆσαι «ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος» δείξῃ δυνάμει ἐν τῷ πατρὶ εἶναι τὸν λόγον ἐν ἀρχὴ γὰρ ἁπάντων τῶν γεγο νότων ὁ θεὸς «ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα», ἐν δὲ τῷ «καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν» ἐνεργείᾳ πρὸς τὸν θεὸν εἶναι τὸν λόγον «πάντα» γὰρ 2.2.13 «δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν», ἐν δὲ τῷ θεὸν εἶναι τὸν λόγον εἰρηκέναι μὴ διαιρεῖν τὴν θεότητα, ἐπειδὴ ὁ λόγος τε ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ αὐτὸς ἐν τῷ λόγῳ· «ἐν ἐμοὶ» γάρ φησιν «ὁ πατήρ, κἀγὼ ἐν τῷ πατρί». καὶ ἔτι τούτοις προστίθησιν, ἀπογυμνῶν τὸν ἴδιον νοῦν δι' ὧν ἑξῆς ἐπάγει, λέγων ὁ τοίνυν ἱερὸς ἀπόστολός τε καὶ μαθητὴς τοῦ κυρίου Ἰωάννης τῆς ἀιδιότητος αὐτοῦ μνημονεύων ἀληθὴς ἐγίγνετο τοῦ λόγου μάρτυς, «ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος» λέγων «καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς 2.2.14 τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος». οὐδὲν γενέσεως ἐνταῦθα μνημο νεύων τοῦ λόγου, ἀλλ' ἐπαλλήλοις τρισὶν μαρτυρίαις χρώμενος, ἐβεβαίου ἐν ἀρχῇ τὸν λόγον εἶναι. καὶ προστίθησιν τούτοις λέγων τὴν μὲν κατὰ σάρκα οἰκονομίαν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ διαφέρειν γιγνώσκομεν, τὴν δὲ κατὰ πνεῦμα ἀιδιότητα ἡνῶσθαι τῷ πατρὶ πεπιστεύκαμεν. 2.2.15 τούτοις προϊὼν ἑξῆς ἐπιλέγει ταῦτα εἰ οὖν αὐτὸς λέγει ταῦτα «ἐγὼ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐξῆλθον καὶ ἥκω», καὶ αὖθις «καὶ ὁ λόγος, ὃν ἀκούετε, οὐκ ἔστιν ἐμός, ἀλλὰ τοῦ πέμψαντός με πατρός» καὶ «πάντα ὅσα ἔχει ὁ πατὴρ ἐμά ἐστιν», δῆλον ὅτι εἰκότως κἀκεῖνο ἔλεγεν «ἐν ἐμοὶ ὁ πατὴρ κἀγὼ ἐν τῷ πατρί», ἵνα ἐν θεῷ μὲν ᾖ ὁ λόγος ὁ τοῦτο λέγων, 2.2.16 ἐν δὲ τῷ λόγῳ ὁ πατήρ, ὅτι δύναμις τοῦ πατρὸς ὁ λόγος. «θεοῦ» γὰρ αὐτὸν «δύναμιν καὶ θεοῦ σοφίαν» ἀξιόπιστος εἴρηκεν μάρτυς. οὐ 20διὰ τὴν ἐν ἅπασιν20 οὖν 20λόγοις τε καὶ ἔργοις ἀκριβῆ συμ φωνίαν20, ὡς Ἀστέριος ἔφη, 20ὁ σωτὴρ λέγει «ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν»20, ἀλλὰ διότι ἀδύνατόν ἐστιν, ἢ λόγον θεοῦ ἢ θεὸν τοῦ ἑαυτοῦ μερίζεσθαι λόγου. ἐπεὶ εἰ 20διὰ τὴν ἐν ἅπασιν συμ φωνίαν20 τοῦτο εἰρηκέναι τὸν σωτῆρα Ἀστέριος οἴεται, καὶ μὴ τῇ δευτέρᾳ οἰκονομίᾳ προσέχων τἀληθὲς μανθάνειν ἐθέλει, ἀναγ καῖόν ἐστιν ὑπομνῆσαι αὐτόν, πῶς ἐνίοτε τὸ κατὰ τὸ σὴν φαι2.2.17 νόμενον ἀσυμφωνίαν ἔστιν ἰδεῖν. οὕτω γὰρ ἡμᾶς τὰ ῥητὰ διδάσ κει. ποία γὰρ ἐν καιρῷ τοῦ πάθους συμφωνία τοῦτο λέγοντος «πάτερ, εἰ δυνατόν, παρελθέτω τὸ ποτήριον τοῦτο», ἐπιφέροντος δὲ κἀκεῖνο «πλὴν μὴ ὡς ἐγὼ θέλω, ἀλλ' ὡς σύ». οὐ συμφωνοῦν τος γὰρ ἦν πρῶτον μὲν τὸ λέγειν «παρελθέτω τὸ ποτήριον τοῦτο»· οὐδὲν δὲ ἐχόμενον συμφωνίας καὶ τὸ ἐπιφερόμενον εἶναι δοκεῖ, 2.2.18 λέγει γὰρ «μὴ τὸ ἐμὸν, ἀλλὰ τὸ σὸν γενέσθω, πάτερ, θέλημα». ἀκούεις ὅπως ἀσυμφωνίαν κατὰ τὸ φαινόμενον δηλοῖ τὸ γράμμα, τοῦ μὲν θέλοντος, τοῦ δὲ μὴ θέλοντος. ὅτι μὲν γὰρ ἐβούλετο ὁ πατὴρ δῆλον ἀφ' ὧν ὃ ἐβούλετο γέγονεν· ὅτι δὲ οὐκ ἐβούλετο ὁ υἱὸς δῆλον δι' ὧν παραιτεῖται. καὶ αὖθις «οὐ ζητῶ» φησὶν «τὸ θέλημα τὸ ἐμὸν ἀλλὰ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ πέμψαντός με πατρός». 2.2.19 πῶς οὖν 20διὰ τὴν ἐν ἅπασιν συμφωνίαν τὸν σωτῆρα εἰρη κέναι20 φησὶν 20»ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν»20; καὶ μετὰ βραχέα ἐπιλέγει πῶς 20συμφωνίαν20 ἔχειν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα ὁ υἱὸς δύναται ἢ ὁ πατὴρ πρὸς τὸν υἱόν, τοῦ υἱοῦ «πάντα ὅσα ἔχει ὁ πατὴρ ἐμά ἐστιν» λέγοντος; ἄντικρυς γὰρ πλεονεκτοῦντος ἦν τοῦ υἱοῦ 2.2.20 τὸν πατέρα τὸ λέγειν «πάντα ὅσα ἔχει ὁ πατὴρ ἐμά ἐστιν». τού του γὰρ χάριν παρεὶς τὸ πάντα ὅσα ἔχει ὁ πατὴρ κοινά ἐστιν εἰπεῖν «πάντα ὅσα ἔχει ὁ πατὴρ ἐμά ἐστιν» ἔφη. καίτοι οὐκ ἦν ἴδιον τοῦ συμφωνοῦντος οὕτω λέγειν, ἀλλά· πάντα ὅσα ἔχει ὁ πατὴρ κοινά ἐστιν. εἰ γὰρ αἱ τῶν ἀποστόλων Πράξεις τὴν τῶν τηνικαῦτα προσιόντων τῇ πίστει συμφωνίαν ἐπαινοῦσαι «πάντα ἦν αὐτοῖς κοινὰ» ἔφασαν, καὶ ἐπ' ἀνθρώπων τῶν συμφωνεῖν δυναμένων κοινὰ εἶναι πάντα νομίζειν ὀφείλει, πόσῳ μᾶλλον ἔδει τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὸν υἱὸν κοινωνίας μετέχειν, εἰς δύο ὑποστάσεις διῃρημένους; νυνὶ δὲ ἐν μὲν τῷ λέγειν «πάντα ὅσα ἔχει ὁ πατὴρ ἐμά ἐστιν» πλεονεκτῶν ὁ υἱὸς τὸν πατέρα φαίνεται· ἐν δὲ τῷ φάσκειν μηδὲ τοῦ ἑαυτοῦ λόγου