29

indicates that the highest nature is released and unrestrained, how is he not ridiculous who conceives of things beyond it, or attempts to surpass it with his reasonings? And the "Was" is also co-extensive with the unexcelled nature of this beginning. For the "Was" does not indicate an existence from a point in time, like, "There was a man in the land of Uz"; and, "There was a man from Arimathea"; and, "And the earth was invisible"; but the evangelist himself has shown us in another passage the meaning of such a "Was", saying: "He who is, and who was, and the Almighty." For as is "the one who is", so also is "the one who was", likewise eternal and timeless. But to say that he who was in the beginning was not, is characteristic neither of one preserving the concept of the beginning, nor of one connecting the existence of the Only-Begotten to it. For what is before the beginning is inconceivable, and the being of the Word of God is inseparable from it. So that however much you may wish to go back with the busy workings of your mind, you will not be able to surpass the "was", and to get beyond it with your reasonings. Therefore, let this question be asked by us in turn: was God the Word in the beginning with God, or did he come to be later? For if He was, "Keep your tongue from evil," from the blasphemy that "He was not"; but if, which it is not even lawful to say, I will use your 29.601 own words more fittingly against you, that the statement contains an excess not only of blasphemy, but also of madness, to demand from men an accounting for the words of the Spirit, and to confess to be a disciple of the Gospels, but to rebel against these very Gospels. For consider the divine words, how precisely and clearly they testify to the generation of the Son before the ages. For since Matthew became the narrator of the birth according to the flesh, as he himself says: "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David"; and Mark made the preaching of John the beginning of the Gospel, saying: "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Isaiah the prophet: 'The voice of one crying in the wilderness'"; and Luke himself also approached theology through the physical beginnings; necessarily the evangelist John, coming last to write, having lifted his thought above all that is perceptible, and the time that accompanies such things, or rather having been exalted by the power of the Spirit, he approached that which is beyond all things, almost testifying himself, that "even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know him so no longer." For taking hold of the beginning itself, and leaving all physical and temporal concepts below his own theology, he out-voiced the preceding proclamations with the sublimity of his knowledge. Not from Mary, he says, is the beginning, nor from these times. But what? "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"; the existence from eternity, the impassible generation, the connaturality with the Father, the majesty of his nature, embracing all in these few words, and by the addition of "was" leading it back to the beginning, as if stopping the mouths of those who blaspheme that "He was not", and cutting off from afar the inroads of such sophistries. Then, through his theology, having impressed as it were a clear outline of the nature of the Only-Begotten, he points it out with his voice to those who already know, saying: "He was in the beginning with God"; again here by the addition of "was", joining the generation of the Only-Begotten with the eternity of the Father; and again: "Life was, and the life was the light of men," and "the true light was." But nevertheless, though the word is thus secured on all sides by additions of the eternal, having thrust aside all the testimonies of the Spirit, and not even seeming to hear the "Was" so frequently proclaimed to us, 29.604 "Not being," he says, "he was begotten." Therefore, he was begotten later. And if he was not in the beginning, as you say, what more manifest battle could one show against the words of the Gospels in which we have believed? And indeed, who of the right-minded would not agree with this, that just as an eye, having fallen from the brightly lit places, necessarily through a lack of

29

ἀπολελυμένον καὶ ἄσχετον τὴν ἀνωτάτω φύ σιν δηλοῖ, πῶς οὐ καταγέλαστος ὁ τὰ ἐξωτέρω ταύτης ἐπινοῶν, ἢ ἐπιχειρῶν αὐτὴν τοῖς λογισμοῖς ὑπερβάλλειν; Συμπαρεκτείνεται δὲ καὶ τὸ Ἦν τῷ ἀνυπερθέτῳ τῆς ἀρχῆς ταύτης. Οὐ γὰρ τὴν ἀπὸ χρόνου ὕπαρξιν τὸ Ἦν ὑποφαίνει, ὡς τὸ, Ἄνθρωπος ἦν ἐν χώρᾳ τῇ Αὐσίτιδι· καὶ, Ἦν ἄνθρωπος ἐξ Ἀρμαθαΐμ· καὶ τὸ, Ἡ δὲ γῆ ἦν ἀό-ρατος· ἀλλ' αὐτὸς ἡμῖν ὁ εὐαγγελιστὴς ἐν ἑτέρῳ λό γῳ τοῦ τοιούτου Ἦν τὸ σημαινόμενον ἔδειξεν, εἰ πών· Ὁ ὢν, καὶ ὁ ἦν, καὶ ὁ παντοκράτωρ. Οἷον γὰρ τὸ ὢν, τοιοῦτον καὶ τὸ ἦν, ἀΐδιον ὁμοίως καὶ ἄχρονον. Οὐκ ὄντα δὲ λέγειν τὸν ἐν ἀρχῇ ὄντα, οὔτε διασώζοντός ἐστι τὴν ἔννοιαν τῆς ἀρχῆς, οὔτε συν άπτοντος αὐτῇ τὴν ὕπαρξιν τοῦ Μονογενοῦς. Ἀνεπι νόητον μὲν γὰρ τῆς ἀρχῆς τὸ πρεσβύτερον, ἀχώριστον δὲ ταύτης τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγου τὸ εἶναι. Ὥστε ἐφ' ὅσον ἂν βουληθῇς ταῖς τοῦ νοῦ πολυπραγμοσύναις ἀναδρα μεῖν, ὑπερβῆναι τὸ ἦν, καὶ ἔξω τούτου γενέσθαι τοῖς λογισμοῖς οὐ δυνήσῃ. Ἀντερωτάσθω τοίνυν καὶ παρ' ἡμῶν· πότε ρον ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν ὁ Θεὸς Λόγος, ἢ ὕστε ρον προσεγένετο; Εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἦν, Παῦσον τὴν γλῶσσάν σου ἀπὸ κακοῦ, τῆς τοῦ, ὅτι οὐκ ἦν, βλασφημίας· εἰ δὲ, ὅπερ οὐδὲ θέμις εἰπεῖν, τοῖς 29.601 σοῖς οἰκειότερον πρὸς σὲ χρήσομαι ῥήμασιν, ὅτι οὐ βλασφημίας μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ παρανοίας ὑπερβολὴν ὁ λόγος ἔχει, ἀνθρώπους ἀπαιτεῖν τῶν λόγων τοῦ Πνεύ ματος τὰς εὐθύνας, καὶ μαθητὴν μὲν εἶναι τῶν Εὐ αγγελίων ὁμολογεῖν, αὐτῶν δὲ τούτων κατεξανίστα σθαι. Σκόπει γὰρ τὰς θείας φωνὰς, ὡς ἀκριβῶς καὶ σαφῶς τῇ πρὸ αἰώνων γενέσει τοῦ Υἱοῦ μαρτυ ροῦσιν. Ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ὁ μὲν Ματθαῖος τῆς κατὰ σάρκα γεννήσεως ἐξηγητὴς γέγονεν, ὡς αὐτός φησι· Βίβλος γενέσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ υἱοῦ ∆αβίδ· ὁ δὲ Μάρκος ἀρχὴν τοῦ Εὐαγγελίου τὸ Ἰωάννου πεποίηκε κήρυγμα, εἰπών· Ἀρχὴ τοῦ Εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, καθὼς γέγραπται ἐν Ἡσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ· Φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ· ὁ δὲ Λουκᾶς καὶ αὐτὸς διὰ τῶν σωματικῶν ἀρχῶν τῇ θεολογίᾳ προσέβη· ἀναγκαίως ὁ εὐαγγελιστὴς Ἰωάννης, τελευ ταῖος ἐλθὼν εἰς τὸ γράφειν, παντὸς αἰσθητοῦ, καὶ χρόνου τοῦ τοῖς τοιούτοις παρεπομένου, τὴν διάνοιαν ὑπεράρας, μᾶλλον δὲ ὑψωθεὶς τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ Πνεύματος, αὐτῷ προσέβη τῷ πάντων ἐπέκεινα, μο νονουχὶ διαμαρτυρόμενος καὶ αὐτὸς, ὅτι, εἰ καὶ ἐγνώ καμεν κατὰ σάρκα Χριστὸν, ἀλλὰ νῦν οὐκέτι γι νώσκομεν. Λαβόμενος γὰρ αὐτῆς τῆς ἀρχῆς, καὶ πά σας τὰς σωματικάς τε καὶ χρονικὰς ἐννοίας κατωτέ ρας τῆς ἑαυτοῦ θεολογίας ἀπολιπὼν, ὑπερεφώνησε τὰ προλαβόντα κηρύγματα τῇ μεγαλοφυΐᾳ τῆς γνώ σεως. Οὐκ ἀπὸ Μαρίας, φησὶν, ἡ ἀρχὴ, οὐδὲ ἀπὸ τῶνδε τῶν χρόνων. Ἀλλὰ τί; Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος· τὴν ἐξ ἀϊδίου ὕπαρξιν, τὴν ἀπαθῆ γέννη σιν, τὸ συμφυὲς τῷ Πατρὶ, τὸ μεγαλεῖον τῆς φύσεως, πάντα ἐν τοῖς ὀλίγοις ῥήμασι συλλαβὼν, καὶ τῇ προσ θήκῃ τοῦ Ἦν ἀναγαγὼν εἰς τὴν ἀρχὴν, ὥσπερ ἀποφράττων τὰ στόματα τῶν, ὅτι οὐκ ἦν, βλασφη μούντων, καὶ πόῤῥωθεν τὰς τῶν τοιούτων σοφισμά των παρεισδύσεις ὑποτεμνόμενος. Εἶτα διὰ τῆς θεολογίας οἷον ὑπογραφήν τινα ἐναργῆ τῆς φύσεως τοῦ Μονογενοῦς ἐντυπώσας, ὡς ἤδη γνωρίζουσιν ὑπο δείκνυσι τῇ φωνῇ λέγων· Οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν· πάλιν ἐνταῦθα τῇ προσθήκῃ τοῦ Ἦν, τῇ ἀϊδιότητι τοῦ Πατρὸς τοῦ Μονογενοῦς συνάπτων τὴν γέννησιν· καὶ πάλιν· Ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων, καὶ ἦν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν. Ἀλλ' ὅμως οὕτω πανταχόθεν τοῦ λόγου ταῖς τοῦ ἀϊ δίου προσθήκαις ἠσφαλισμένου, πάσας παρωσά μενος τὰς μαρτυρίας τοῦ Πνεύματος, καὶ οὐδὲ ἀκούειν δοκῶν οὕτως ἡμῖν πυκνῶς ἐμβοῶντος τὸ Ἦν 29.604 Οὐκ ὢν, φησὶν, ἐγεννήθη. Οὐκοῦν ὕστερον προσ γεγέννηται. Εἰ δὲ τοῦτο ἐν ἀρχῇ οὐκ ἦν, ὥς φατε, τίνα περιφανεστέραν μάχην ἐπιδείξειέ τις πρὸς τὰς φωνὰς τῶν Εὐαγγελίων αἷς πεπιστεύκαμεν; Καὶ μὴν ἐκεῖνό γε τίνι οὐκ ἂν τῶν εὐγνωμόνων συνδόξειεν, ὅτι ὥσπερ ὀφθαλμὸς, τῶν περιλαμπομέ νων τόπων ἐκπεσὼν, ἀναγκαίως δι' ἐρημίαν τοῦ