35

to consider; that the properties of the hypostases, like some flower of the things appearing in the rainbow, flash upon each of those believed in the Holy Trinity, but that concerning the property according to nature, no difference of one from the other is conceived, but in the community of the substance the distinguishing properties shine forth for each. For there too in the example, the substance that radiates that many-colored light was one, refracted through the sun's ray, but the flower of the appearance was multiform, the word teaching us, even through creation, not to suffer emptiness in the reasonings concerning the dogma, whenever, falling into what is difficult to contemplate, we become dizzy in assenting to what is said. For just as in the case of things seen by the eyes, experience proved to be superior to the reasoning of the cause, so too in the case of the transcendent dogmas, faith is superior to comprehension through reasonings, teaching both what is separate in hypostasis and what is united in substance. Since, therefore, the word contemplated something common in the Holy Trinity, and something particular, the account of the community is referred to the substance, while the hypostasis is the particular mark of each. 38.6 But perhaps someone thinks that the account given concerning the hypostasis does not agree with the meaning of the Apostle’s scripture in what he says concerning the Lord that: “the radiance of his glory and the character of his hypostasis.” For if we have defined hypostasis to be the concurrence of the properties belonging to each, and it is confessed that just as in the case of the Father there is something particularly contemplated by which He alone is known, and in the same way the same is believed concerning the Only-begotten, how here does the Scripture attest the name of hypostasis to the Father alone, and says the Son is the form of the hypostasis, being characterized not by his own, but by the Father’s distinctive marks? For if hypostasis is the particular sign of each one’s existence, and it is confessed that it is proper to the Father to be unbegotten, and the Son is formed by the properties of the Father, then does it no longer remain for the Father exclusively for him alone to be called unbegotten, if indeed the existence of the Only-begotten is also characterized by what is particular to the Father. 38.7 But we say this, that here the word fulfills a different purpose for the Apostle, looking to which he used these words, saying "radiance of glory" and "character of hypostasis," which he who understands accurately will find nothing to contradict what we have said, but the argument being conducted according to some particular meaning. For the apostolic argument does not treat of how the hypostases might be distinguished from one another by their apparent signs, but how the genuine and inseparable and conjoined relation of the Son to the Father might be understood. For he did not say: "who being the glory of the Father," although this is true, but omitting this as being acknowledged, teaching that one should not conceive of one kind of glory in the case of the Father and another in the case of the Son, he defines the glory of the Only-begotten as the radiance of the Father's own glory, establishing from the example of light that the Son is conceived together with the Father without interval. For as the radiance is from the flame, yet the radiance is not later after the flame, but at the same time the flame shone forth and the light was radiated with it, so he wishes the Son to be understood as from the Father, yet not that the Only-begotten is defined by some interval-making extension from the Father's existence, but to always apprehend together with the cause that which is from it. In the same way, therefore, as if interpreting the meaning previously given, he also says "character of hypostasis," guiding us by corporeal examples toward the understanding of invisible things. For as the body is altogether in a figure, but the account of the figure is one, and the account of the body another, and one giving the definition of each of these would not confuse it with that of the other, yet even if you distinguish in word the figure from the

35

ἀναλογίσασθαι· τὰς μὲν τῶν ὑποστάσεων ἰδιότητας, ὥσπερ τι ἄνθος τῶν κατὰ τὴν ἴριν φαινομένων, ἐπαστράπτειν ἑκάστῳ τῶν ἐν τῇ Ἁγίᾳ Τριάδι πιστευομένων, τῆς δὲ κατὰ τὴν φύσιν ἰδιότητος μηδεμίαν ἑτέρου πρὸς τὸ ἕτερον ἐπινοεῖσθαι διοφοράν, ἀλλ' ἐν τῇ κοινότητι τῆς οὐσίας τὰς γνωριστικὰς ἰδιότητας ἐπιλάμπειν ἑκάστῳ. Καὶ γὰρ κἀκεῖ ἐν τῷ ὑπο δείγματι ἡ ἀπαυγάζουσα τὴν πολύχρωμον ἐκείνην αὐγὴν μία οὐσία ἦν, ἡ διὰ τῆς ἡλιακῆς ἀκτῖνος ἀνακλωμένη, τὸ δὲ ἄνθος τοῦ φαινομένου πολυειδές, παιδεύοντος ἡμᾶς τοῦ λόγου καὶ διὰ τῆς κτίσεως μὴ κενοπαθεῖν τοῖς περὶ τοῦ δόγματος λόγοις, ὅταν εἰς τὸ δυσθεώρητον ἐμπεσόντες πρὸς τὴν τῶν λεγομένων συγκατάθεσιν ἰλιγγιάσωμεν. Ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐπὶ τῶν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς φαινομένων κρείττων ἐφάνη τοῦ λόγου τῆς αἰτίας ἡ πεῖρα, οὕτω καὶ τῶν ὑπερανα βεβηκότων δογμάτων κρείττων ἐστὶ τῆς διὰ λογισμῶν κατα λήψεως ἡ πίστις, καὶ τὸ κεχωρισμένον ἐν ὑποστάσει καὶ τὸ συνημμένον ἐν τῇ οὐσίᾳ διδάσκουσα. Ἐπεὶ οὖν τὸ μέν τι κοινὸν ἐν τῇ Ἁγίᾳ Τριάδι, τὸ δὲ ἰδιάζον ὁ λόγος ἐνεθεώ ρησεν, ὁ μὲν τῆς κοινότητος λόγος εἰς τὴν οὐσίαν ἀνά γεται, ἡ δὲ ὑπόστασις τὸ ἰδιάζον ἑκάστου σημεῖόν ἐστιν. 38.6 Ἀλλ' ἴσως οἴεταί τις μὴ συμβαίνειν τὸν ἀποδοθέντα περὶ τῆς ὑποστάσεως λόγον τῇ διανοίᾳ τῆς τοῦ Ἀποστόλου γραφῆς ἐν οἷς φησι περὶ τοῦ Κυρίου ὅτι· «Ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως». Εἰ γὰρ ὑπό στασιν ἀποδεδώκαμεν εἶναι τὴν συνδρομὴν τῶν περὶ ἕκασ τον ἰδιωμάτων, ὁμολογεῖται δὲ ὥσπερ ἐπὶ τοῦ Πατρὸς εἶναί τι τὸ ἰδιαζόντως ἐπιθεωρούμενον δι' οὗ μόνος ἐπιγι νώσκεται, κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ τρόπον καὶ περὶ τοῦ Μονογε νοῦς τὸ ἴσον πιστεύεται, πῶς ἐνταῦθα τὸ τῆς ὑποστά σεως ὄνομα τῷ Πατρὶ μόνῳ προσμαρτυρεῖ ἡ Γραφή, τὸν δὲ Υἱὸν μορφὴν λέγει τῆς ὑποστάσεως, οὐκ ἐν ἰδίοις, ἀλλ' ἐν τοῖς τοῦ Πατρὸς γνωρίσμασι χαρακτηριζόμενον; Εἰ γὰρ ἡ ὑπόστασις τὸ ἰδιάζον τῆς ἑκάστου ὑπάρξεως σημεῖόν ἐστι, τοῦ δὲ Πατρὸς ἴδιον τὸ ἀγεννήτως εἶναι ὁμολογεῖται, μεμόρφωται δὲ ὁ Υἱὸς τοῖς τοῦ Πατρὸς ἰδιώμασιν, ἄρα οὐκέτι διαμένει τῷ Πατρὶ κατ' ἐξαίρετον ἐπ' αὐτοῦ μόνου τὸ ἀγέννητον λέγεσθαι, εἴπερ τῷ ἰδιάζοντι τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ ἡ τοῦ Μονογενοῦς χαρακτηρίζεται ὕπαρξις. 38.7 Ἀλλ' ἡμεῖς τοῦτό φαμεν ὅτι ἕτερον πληροῖ σκοπὸν ἐνταῦθα τῷ Ἀποστόλῳ ὁ λόγος, πρὸς ὃν βλέπων ταύταις ἐχρήσατο ταῖς φωναῖς, δόξης ἀπαύγασμα λέγων καὶ χαρακτῆρα τῆς ὑποστάσεως, ὅνπερ ὁ ἀκριβῶς νοήσας οὐδὲν εὑρήσει τοῖς παρ' ἡμῶν εἰρημένοις μαχόμενον, ἀλλ' ἐπί τινος ἰδιαζούσης ἐννοίας τὸν λόγον διεξαγόμενον. Οὐ γὰρ ὅπως διακριθεῖεν ἀπ' ἀλλήλων αἱ ὑποστάσεις διὰ τῶν ἐπιφαινομένων σημείων ὁ ἀποστολικὸς πραγματεύεται λόγος, ἀλλ' ὅπως τὸ γνήσιόν τε καὶ ἀδιάστατον καὶ συνημ μένον τῆς τοῦ Υἱοῦ πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα σχέσεως νοηθείη. Ὡς γὰρ οὐκ εἶπεν· «ὃς ὢν δόξα τοῦ Πατρός», καίτοιγε τὸ ἀληθὲς οὕτως ἔχει, ἀλλὰ τοῦτο παραλιπὼν ὡς ὁμολογού μενον, τὸ μὴ ἄλλο τι δόξης εἶδος ἐπὶ τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ ἕτερον ἐπὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ νοεῖν διδάσκων, αὐτῆς τῆς τοῦ Πατρὸς δόξης ἀπαύγασμα τὴν τοῦ Μονογενοῦς διορίζεται δόξαν, τὸ ἀδιαστάτως συνεπινοεῖσθαι τῷ Πατρὶ τὸν Υἱὸν κατασκευάζων ἐκ τοῦ κατὰ τὸ φῶς ὑποδείγματος. Ὡς γὰρ ἐκ τῆς φλογὸς μὲν ἡ αὐγή, οὐ μὴν ὑστέρα μετὰ τὴν φλόγα ἐστὶν ἡ αὐγή, ἀλλ' ὁμοῦ τε ἡ φλὸξ ἀνέλαμψε καὶ συναπηυ γάσθη τὸ φῶς, οὕτω βούλεται καὶ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς μὲν τὸν Υἱὸν νοεῖσθαι, οὐ μὴν παρατάσει τινὶ διαστηματικῇ τῆς τοῦ Πατρὸς ὑπάρξεως τὸν Μονογενῆ διορίζεσθαι, ἀλλ' ἀεὶ τῷ αἰτίῳ τὸ ἐξ αὐτοῦ συνυπολαμβάνειν. Κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν οὖν τρόπον, ὥσπερ ἐφερμηνεύων τὸν προαποδοθέντα νοῦν, καὶ ὑποστάσεως χαρακτῆρά φησι τοῖς σωματικοῖς ἡμᾶς ὑποδείγμασι πρὸς τὴν τῶν ἀοράτων χειραγωγῶν κατα νόησιν. Ὡς γὰρ τὸ σῶμα πάντως ἐστὶν ἐν σχήματι, ἀλλ' ἕτερος μὲν ὁ τοῦ σχήματος, ἕτερος δὲ ὁ τοῦ σώματος λόγος, καὶ οὐκ ἄν τις ἀποδιδοὺς τὸν ἑκατέρου τούτων ὁρισμὸν συνενεχθείη τῷ περὶ τοῦ ἑτέρου, πλὴν ἀλλὰ κἂν λόγῳ διακρίνῃς τὸ σχῆμα τοῦ