40

the unbegotten, necessarily God will be shown to us as composite. But what do I say? That, if the light were not something other than the unbegotten, it would no longer be possible to predicate it of the Son, just as the unbegotten itself is not. One might also learn from that source the difference of the things signified by the words. God is said to dwell in light, and to be clothed with light, surely He does not dwell in His own unbegottenness, nor have it placed around Himself from without, as the argument says (or these things are indeed ridiculous); but 'begotten' and 'unbegotten' are certain identifying properties. For if there were nothing characterizing the substance, it would in no way reach our understanding. For since the Godhead is one, it is impossible to grasp a distinct concept of Father or of Son, unless the mind is articulated by the addition of the properties. But indeed, with regard to God appearing composite, if light were not taken to be the same as the unbegotten, we can say this, that if we took 'unbegotten' as part of the substance, the argument would have a place, saying that what is composed of different things is composite; but if we posit the substance of God to be light, or life, or the good, being wholly what He is, life, and wholly light, and wholly good, and life has 'unbegotten' as an attendant quality; how is He who is simple in substance not uncompounded? For indeed the modes which indicate His property will not injure the principle of simplicity; or in this way, at least, everything that is said about God will show us God to be composite. And, as it seems, if we are to preserve the concept of the simple and indivisible, either we will say nothing about God except 'unbegotten', and we will refuse to call Him invisible, incorruptible, unchangeable, creator, judge, and all the things we now accept for doxology; or, accepting these names, what shall we do? Shall we refer them all to the substance and place them there? Therefore, we shall prove Him not only composite, but also composed of dissimilar parts, because one thing and another is signified by each of these names; but shall we take them as outside the substance? Whatever argument, therefore, they may devise 29.641 for each of those, let them also demonstrate this for the appellation 'unbegotten'. But having filled his discourse with empty nonsense, and having exalted himself over all who have ever devoted themselves to the knowledge of God, as if he himself had cut a new and fresh path leading to God, which none of his predecessors had discovered, he finally introduces, as if taught by the very substance of God, the blasphemy against the Son. {EUN.} That she who is above sovereignty and altogether incapable of generation, instructing by these things the mind that approaches with good will, exhorts it to repel as far as possible by the law of nature the comparison with another. {BAS.} Does he not clearly show that he himself was deemed worthy of the revelation of the ineffable mysteries, having brought his mind to God with good will? And for this reason he repels the Only-begotten as far as possible from the communion of the Father, not even deigning to admit Him to comparison; but also says that by a law of nature the substance of the Only-begotten has been separated from that of the Father. What does he mean by this? That the God of all was unable, even if He wished, to admit the Only-begotten to intimacy of substance, being excluded from connection with Him by a law of nature, not being, as it seems, master of Himself, but yoked under the terms of necessity. For such are the things comprehended by the law of nature, which are brought under what seems good to nature without choice. For just as it is natural for fire to heat, not by choice, and it is necessarily incapable of coldness, being deprived of communion with it by the law of nature; so he wishes God the Father also to have His substance estranged from the Son by a law of nature. And 29.644 yet the laws of nature do not create a separation of the Son from the Father, but an necessary and unbreakable communion. For if he were saying by will the

40

τὸ ἀγέννη τον, ἀναγκαίως ἡμῖν σύνθετος ὁ Θεὸς ἀποδειχθήσε ται. Ἐγὼ δὲ τί φημί; Ὅτι, εἰ μὴ ἕτερόν τι εἴη τοῦ ἀγεννήτου τὸ φῶς, οὐκέτι τῷ Υἱῷ δυνατὸν ἐπιλέ γεσθαι, ὥσπερ οὐδὲ αὐτὸ τὸ ἀγέννητον. Μάθοι δ' ἄν τις κἀκεῖθεν τῶν σημαινομένων ὑπὸ τῶν φωνῶν τὸ διάφορον. Φῶς οἰκεῖν εἴρηται ὁ Θεὸς, καὶ ἀναβάλλε σθαι φῶς, οὐδήπου ἐνοικεῖν αὐτὸν τῇ ἑαυτοῦ ἀγεννη σίᾳ, οὐδὲ ἔξωθεν ἑαυτῷ περικειμένην ἔχειν, τοῦ λόγου λέγοντος (ἢ ταῦτα μὲν καταγέλαστα)· τὸ δὲ γεννητὸν καὶ ἀγέννητον γνωριστικαί τινές εἰσιν ἰδιό τητες. Εἰ γὰρ μηδὲν εἴη τὸ τὴν οὐσίαν χαρακτη ρίζον, οὐδενὶ ἂν τρόπῳ πρὸς τὴν σύνεσιν ἡμῶν διικνοῖτο. Μιᾶς γὰρ οὔσης θεότητος, ἀμήχανον ἰδιά ζουσαν ἔννοιαν Πατρὸς λαβεῖν ἢ Υἱοῦ, μὴ τῇ τῶν ἰδιωμάτων προσθήκῃ τῆς διανοίας διαρθρουμένης. Ἀλλὰ μὴν πρός γε τὸ σύνθετον ἀναφανήσεσθαι τὸν Θεὸν, εἰ μὴ ταυτὸν ληφθείη τῷ ἀγεννήτῳ τὸ φῶς, ἐκεῖνο εἰπεῖν ἔχομεν, ὅτι, εἰ μὲν ὡς μέρος τῆς οὐ σίας τὸ ἀγέννητον ἐλαμβάνομεν, εἶχεν ἂν αὐτοῦ χώραν ὁ λόγος, σύνθετον εἶναι λέγων τὸ ἐκ διαφόρων συγκείμενον· εἰ δὲ οὐσίαν μὲν Θεοῦ τὸ φῶς τιθέμεθα, ἢ τὴν ζωὴν, ἢ τὸ ἀγαθὸν, ὅλον, ὅπερ ἐστὶ, ζωὴν ὄντα, καὶ ὅλον φῶς, καὶ ὅλον ἀγαθὸν, παρεπό μενον δὲ ἔχει ἡ ζωὴ τὸ ἀγέννητον· πῶς οὐκ ἀσύνθε τος ὁ κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν ἁπλοῦς; Οὐ γὰρ δὴ οἱ δεικτι κοὶ τῆς ἰδιότητος αὐτοῦ τρόποι τὸν τῆς ἁπλότητος λόγον παραλυπήσουσιν· ἢ οὕτω γε πάντα, ὅσα περὶ Θεοῦ λέγεται, σύνθετον τὸν Θεὸν ἡμῖν ἀναδείξει. Καὶ, ὡς ἔοικεν, εἰ μέλλοιμεν τὴν τοῦ ἁπλοῦ καὶ ἀμεροῦς ἔννοιαν διασώζειν, ἢ οὐδὲν ἐροῦμεν περὶ Θεοῦ πλὴν τὸ ἀγέννητον, καὶ παραιτησόμεθα αὐτὸν ὀνομά ζειν ἀόρατον, ἄφθαρτον, ἀναλλοίωτον, δημιουργὸν, κριτὴν, καὶ πάντα ὅσα νῦν εἰς δοξολογίαν παραλαμβά νομεν· ἢ δεχόμενοι τὰ ὀνόματα ταῦτα, τί καὶ ποιήσο μεν; πότερον εἰς τὴν οὐσίαν ἅπαντα φέροντες κατα θήσομεν; Οὐκοῦν οὐχὶ μόνον σύνθετον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐξ ἀνομοιομερῶν αὐτὸν συγκείμενον ἀποδείξομεν, διὰ τὸ ἄλλο καὶ ἄλλο ὑφ' ἑκάστου τούτων τῶν ὀνομάτων σημαίνεσθαι· ἀλλ' ἔξω τῆς οὐσίας ἐκληψόμεθα; Ὅνπερ τοίνυν ἂν ἐπ' ἐκείνων ἑκάστου λόγον ἐπινοή 29.641 σωσι, τοῦτον καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς τοῦ ἀγεννήτου προσηγορίας καταδειξάσθωσαν. Ἐμπλήσας δὲ τὸν λόγον φλυαρίας κενῆς, καὶ πάντων ὁμοῦ τῶν πώποτε περὶ τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ γνῶσιν ἐσχολακότων κατεπαρθεὶς, ὡς αὐτὸς ὁδόν τινα καινὴν καὶ πρόσφατον τετμηκὼς πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν φέ ρουσαν, ἣν οὐδεὶς τῶν προτέρων ἐξεῦρε, τελευταῖον ἐπάγει, ὡς παρ' αὐτῆς δεδιδαγμένος τοῦ Θεοῦ τῆς οὐσίας, τὴν κατὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ βλασφημίαν. {ΕΥΝ.} Ὅτι ἡ μὲν ἀνωτέρω βασιλείας καὶ πάν τη γενέσεως ἀνεπίδεκτος, τούτοις παιδεύουσα τὴν μετ' εὐνοίας προσιοῦσαν διάνοιαν, ἀπωθεῖν ὡς ποῤ ῥωτάτω παρακελεύεται νόμῳ φύσεως τὴν πρὸς ἕτερον σύγκρισιν. {ΒΑΣ.} Ἆρα οὐχὶ σαφῶς ἐνδείκνυται, ὅτι αὐτὸς ἠξιώθη τῆς τῶν ἀποῤῥήτων ἀποκαλύψεως, μετ' εὐ νοίας τὴν διάνοιαν προσαγαγὼν τῷ Θεῷ; Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἀπωθεῖται ὡς ποῤῥωτάτω τὸν Μονογενῆ τῆς τοῦ Πατρὸς κοινωνίας, μηδὲ εἰς σύγκρισιν αὐτὸν ἀξιῶν παραδέχεσθαι· ἀλλὰ καὶ νόμῳ φύσεως τὴν τοῦ Μονογενοῦς οὐσίαν ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ Πατρὸς διωρί σθαι φησί. Τί τοῦτο λέγων; Ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς τῶν ὅλων οὐδὲ βουλόμενος ἐδύνατο πρὸς τὴν τῆς οὐσίας οἰκειό τητα τὸν Μονογενῆ παραδέξασθαι, νόμῳ φύσεως τῆς συναφείας τῆς πρὸς αὐτὸν ἐξειργόμενος, οὐκ ὢν, ὡς ἔοικεν, αὐτὸς ἑαυτοῦ κύριος, ἀλλὰ τοῖς τῆς ἀνάγκης ὅροις ὑπεζευγμένος. Τοιαῦτα γάρ ἐστι τὰ τῷ τῆς φύσεως νόμῳ κατειλημμένα, ἀπροαιρέτως εἰς τὸ τῇ φύσει δοκοῦν ὑπαγόμενα. Ὡς γὰρ τῷ πυρὶ φύσει τὸ θερμαίνειν, οὐ προαιρέσει, καὶ ἀναγκαίως ἀνεπίδεκτόν ἐστι τῆς ψυχρότητος, τῷ τῆς φύσεως νόμῳ τὴν πρὸς αὐτὸ κοινωνίαν ἀφῃρημένον· οὕτω βούλεται καὶ τὸν Θεὸν καὶ Πατέρα νόμῳ φύσεως ἠλλοτριωμένην ἔχειν πρὸς τὸν Υἱὸν τὴν οὐσίαν. Καί 29.644 τοιγε οἱ τῆς φύσεως νόμοι οὐχὶ διάστασιν ἀπ' ἀλλή λων Υἱῷ πρὸς Πατέρα, ἀλλ' ἀναγκαίαν καὶ ἄῤῥηκτον τὴν κοινωνίαν ποιοῦσιν. Εἰ μὲν γὰρ βουλήσει ἔλεγε τὸ