37

of the names, to confess that the substances also are different. {ΒΑΣ.} How could one use words more lightly? Who, in a short while turning to the opposite, now says that the difference in names necessarily reveals the variation of the substances; and now again that the commonality does not make the substances common? But, I think, we are doing something similar to those who judge a murderer for slander, or a blow, or some such transgression. Let us therefore move on to the main point of his evils. This man, having observed that a common conception exists in all Christians alike (at least those who are truly worthy of this name) about the Son being begotten light, who shone forth from the unbegotten light, and life itself, and good itself, having come forth from the life-giving spring of the paternal goodness; then having considered that, if he did not unsettle these concepts of ours, nothing more would come to him from his sophisms, since the one who confesses the Father to be light, and the Son also light, the concept of light being one and the same, would automatically be led to the confession of kinship in substance; for between light and light, according to the very definition of light, there is no variation, neither in pronunciation, nor in the concept itself; therefore, in order to take this from us, he surrounds the doctrine of faith with the nets of his contrivances, teaching that these are entirely incomparable and have no community with each other, and saying that the opposition of the unbegotten to the begotten is also that of light to light, or forcing us, while fleeing this, to confess that God is composite. Or rather, let us listen to his very words. {ΕΥΝ.} Does the word 'light', he says, signify something different in the case of the unbegotten than in the case of the begotten, or is it the same in each case? For if it is one thing and another, it is clear that what is composed of one thing and another is also composite; but what is composite is not unbegotten; but if it is the same, then by as much as the begotten is different from the unbegotten, by so much must light be different from light, and life from life, and power from power. {ΒΑΣ.} See and understand the horror of his impiety. By as much, he says, as the unbegotten differs 29.632 from the begotten, by so much will light differ from light, and life from life, and power from power. Let us ask him then: By what measure is the unbegotten distinguished from the begotten? Is it by some small amount, and so much that they could at some time come together into the same thing? Or is this entirely impossible, and more impossible than for the same person at the same time to be living and dead, and at the same time to be healthy and sick, and to be awake and asleep together? For such things are set against each other in extreme opposition, so that when one is present the other is necessarily absent, things that are by nature entirely unable to coexist and are incompatible. Therefore, since the opposition of the unbegotten to the begotten is in this way, he who calls the Father light, and the Son also light, but says that this light is distinguished from that light by as much as the begotten is distinguished from the unbegotten, is he not clearly, even if he pretends to be benevolent with his word, supposedly calling the Son light also, but in the force of what is said leading the mind to the opposite? For consider what is opposed to the unbegotten: another unbegotten, or the begotten? The begotten, clearly. And what is opposed to light? Another light, or darkness? Darkness, certainly. If, therefore, by as much as the begotten is different from the unbegotten, by so much must light be different from light, to whom among all is the impiety not clear, that, under the name of light, introducing that which is opposite to light, he suggests that the substance of the Only-begotten is contrary to the nature of light? Or let him show us a light opposed to light, and having that measure of opposition which the begotten has to the unbegotten. But if this neither exists, nor could he himself devise it, let not the art with which deeply

37

τῶν ὀνομάτων, παρηλλα γμένας ὁμολογεῖν καὶ τὰς οὐσίας. {ΒΑΣ.} Πῶς ἄν τις εὐκολώτερον χρήσαιτο λόγοις; ὅς γε, δι' ὀλίγου πρὸς τὰ ἐναντία περιτρεπόμενος, νῦν μέν φησι τὴν διαφορὰν τῶν ὀνομάτων ἀναγκαίως τῶν οὐσιῶν τὴν παραλλαγὴν ὑποφαίνειν· νῦν δὲ πάλιν τὴν κοινωνίαν μὴ κοινοποιεῖν τὰς οὐσίας; Ἀλλ', οἶ μαι, προσόμοιόν τι ποιοῦμεν τοῖς τὸν ἀνδροφόνον ἐκ λοιδορίας, ἢ πληγῆς, ἤ τινος τῶν τοιούτων ἁμαρτημά των κρίνουσιν. Ἐπὶ οὖν τὸ κεφάλαιον τῶν κακῶν αὐτοῦ με ταβῶμεν. Θεασάμενος οὗτος, ὅτι κοινὴ ἡ πρόληψις πᾶσιν ὁμοίως Χριστιανοῖς ἐνυπάρχει (τοῖς γε ὡς ἀληθῶς τῆς προσηγορίας ταύτης ἀξίοις) περὶ τοῦ φῶς εἶναι τὸν Υἱὸν γεννητὸν, ἐκ τοῦ ἀγεννήτου φωτὸς ἀπολάμψαντα, καὶ αὐτοζωὴν, καὶ αὐτο άγαθον ἐκ τῆς ζωοποιοῦ πηγῆς τῆς πατρικῆς ἀγαθό τητος προελθόντα· εἶτα ἐνθυμηθεὶς, ὅτι, εἰ μὴ ταύ τας ἡμῶν τὰς ἐννοίας διασαλεύσειεν, οὐδὲν αὐτῷ πλέον τῶν σοφισμάτων γενήσεται, ὡς τοῦ γε φῶς ὁμολογοῦντος τὸν Πατέρα, φῶς δὲ καὶ τὸν Υἱὸν, τῆς τοῦ φωτὸς ἐννοίας μιᾶς καὶ τῆς αὐτῆς ὑπαρ χούσης, αὐτομάτως εἰς τὴν ὁμολογίαν τῆς κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν οἰκειότητος ὑπαχθησομένου· φωτὶ γὰρ πρὸς φῶς, κατ' αὐτὸν τὸν τοῦ φωτὸς λόγον, οὐδε μία, οὔτε κατὰ τὴν προφορὰν, οὔτε κατ' αὐτὴν τὴν ἔννοιαν, ἐστὶ παραλλαγή· ἵνα οὖν τοῦτο ἡμῶν ἀφέληται, τοῖς τῶν τεχνασμάτων δικτύοις τὸν τῆς πίστεως λόγον περιστοιχίζεται, ἀσύμβλητα ταῦτα καὶ ἀκοινώνητα παντελῶς ἀλλήλοις εἶναι διδάσκων, καὶ τὴν τοῦ ἀγεννήτου πρὸς τὸ γεννητὸν ἀντίθεσιν, ταύτην καὶ τῷ φωτὶ πρὸς τὸ φῶς εἶναι λέγων, ἢ τοῦτο φεύγοντας ἡμᾶς σύνθετον εἶναι τὸν Θεὸν ὁμολογεῖν ἀναγκάζων. Μᾶλλον δὲ αὐτῆς αὐτοῦ τῆς λέξεως ἀκούσωμεν. {ΕΥΝ.} Πότερον ἄλλο τι σημαίνει, φησὶ, τὸ φῶς ἐπ' ἀγεννήτου παρὰ τὸ γεννητὸν, ἢ ταυτὸν ἑκάτερον; Εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἕτερόν τι καὶ ἕτερον, εὔδηλον, ὅτι καὶ σύνθετον τὸ ἐξ ἑτέρου καὶ ἑτέρου συγκείμενον· τὸ δὲ σύνθετον οὐκ ἀγέννητον· εἰ δὲ ταυτὸν, ὅσον παρήλλακται τὸ γεννητὸν πρὸς τὸ ἀγέννητον, τοσοῦ τον ἀνάγκη παρηλλάχθαι τὸ φῶς πρὸς τὸ φῶς, καὶ τὴν ζωὴν πρὸς τὴν ζωὴν, καὶ τὴν δύναμιν πρὸς τὴν δύναμιν. {ΒΑΣ.} Ὁρᾶτε καὶ συνίετε τὸ τῆς ἀσεβείας φρι κτόν. Ὅσον, φησὶ, τὸ ἀγέννητον τοῦ γεννητοῦ διενή 29.632 νοχε, τοσοῦτον διοίσει τὸ φῶς πρὸς τὸ φῶς, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ πρὸς τὴν ζωὴν, καὶ ἡ δύναμις πρὸς τὴν δύνα μιν. Ἐρωτήσωμεν τοίνυν αὐτόν· Τὸ δὲ ἀγέννητον τοῦ γεννητοῦ πόσῳ μέτρῳ διώρισται; ἆρα μικρῷ τινι, καὶ τοσούτῳ, ὥστε δύνασθαί ποτε καὶ εἰς ταυτὸν ἀλλήλοις συμβῆναι; ἢ τοῦτο παντελῶς ἀμήχανον, καὶ πλέον ἀδυνατώτερον τοῦ τὸν αὐτὸν ζῇν ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ καὶ τεθνάναι, καὶ ὑγιαίνειν κατὰ ταυτὸν καὶ νοσεῖν, καὶ ἐγρηγορέναι ὁμοῦ καὶ καθεύδειν; Τοιαῦτα γὰρ ὅσα κατὰ τὴν ἄκραν ἀντίθεσιν ἀλλήλοις ἀντικαθέστη κεν, ὥστε παρόντος τοῦ ἑτέρου ἀναγκαίως ἀπεῖναι θάτερον, ἃ καὶ ἀσυνύπαρκτα παντελῶς καὶ ἀσύμ βατα εἶναι πέφυκε. Κατὰ δὴ οὖν τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον πρὸς τὸ γεν νητὸν τῷ ἀγεννήτῳ τῆς ἀντιθέσεως οὔσης, ὁ τὸν Πα τέρα φῶς ὀνομάζων, φῶς δὲ καὶ τὸν Υἱὸν, τοσοῦτον δὲ τοῦτο τὸ φῶς ἐκείνου τοῦ φωτὸς διωρίσθαι λέγων, ὅσον τὸ γεννητὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀγεννήτου διώρισται, οὐχὶ δῆλός ἐστι, κἂν τῷ ῥήματι προσποιῆται φιλανθρω πεύεσθαι, φῶς ὀνομάζων δῆθεν καὶ τὸν Υἱὸν, ἀλλὰ τῇ γε δυνάμει τῶν λεγομένων πρὸς τὸ ἐναντίον ἀπάγων τὴν ἔννοιαν; Σκοπεῖτε γὰρ τί ἀντίκειται τῷ ἀγεννήτῳ, ἄλλο ἀγέννητον, ἢ τὸ γεννητόν; Τὸ γεν νητὸν δηλονότι. Τί δὲ ἀντίκειται τῷ φωτί; φῶς ἕτε ρον, ἢ τὸ σκότος; Τὸ σκότος πάντως. Εἰ τοίνυν ὅσον παρήλλακται τὸ γεννητὸν πρὸς τὸ ἀγέννητον, τοσοῦ τον ἀνάγκη παρηλλάχθαι τὸ φῶς πρὸς τὸ φῶς, τίνι τῶν ἁπάντων ἄδηλος ἡ ἀσέβεια, ὅτι, ἐν προσηγορίᾳ φωτὸς τὸ ἀντικείμενον τῷ φωτὶ παρεισάγων, ἐναν τίαν εἶναι τῇ τοῦ φωτὸς φύσει τὴν οὐσίαν τοῦ Μονο γενοῦς ὑποβάλλει; Ἢ δεικνύτω ἡμῖν φῶς ἀντικείμε νον τῷ φωτὶ, κἀκεῖνο τὸ μέτρον τῆς ἀντιθέσεως ἔχον, ὃ τῷ γεννητῷ πρὸς τὸ ἀγέννητόν ἐστιν. Εἰ δὲ τοῦτο οὔτε ἐστὶν, οὔτ' ἂν αὐτὸς ἐπινοήσειε, μὴ ἀγνοείσθω ἡ τέχνη μεθ' ἧς βαθέως