72

does not admit of separation. Therefore, as long as I hear of rest, I only understand a cessation of motion.

But if for things that exist simultaneously there is not 1221generation and rest, then he who decrees this clearly counterfeits the word of truth, and dogmatizes about the motionless unity of rational beings pre-existing along with their generation. But if one should say, And how is rest spoken of in relation to God, when it does not have a pre-conceived motion? I say, first, Creator and creation are not the same, so that what can belong to the one can by necessity be observed in the other in the same way, since in this way the natural difference between them will in no way be manifest; then, to speak properly, God is neither moved at all nor is He at rest (for this is characteristic of things that are by nature limited and have a beginning of their being), nor indeed does He do anything at all, nor does He suffer any of the things which, for our sake, are conceived and said of Him, because He is by nature beyond all motion and rest, and is in no way subject to our modes of being.

Let these things be said by way of digression concerning the need to say that none of the things that exist by nature acts in an absolute way, so that we do not foolishly introduce something after God as uncaused, but that the acting is naturally accomplished by that which is by nature constituted to act when it is being actualized.

OE (75). ..»....BUT IF INCORPOREAL, NOT YET INDEED IS EVEN THIS OF THE ESSENCE

INDICATIVE, ..». From the same discourse, on the text, «But if incorporeal, not yet is even this of the essence

indicative, just as neither is the unbegotten, (14∆_298> and the without-beginning, and the immutable, and incorruptible, and whatever is said to be about God or of God».

Directing his argument, as I think, against those who maliciously introduce the Son as dissimilar to the Father, by considering the 'unbegotten' to be the essence of the Father, and teaching them from similar things what they ought to recognize, the teacher says these things, so that, being driven by the truth towards piety, they might obediently confess with us that 'unbegotten' signifies only that the Father has no generation, being conscious that if they were to insist that 'unbegotten' is the essence of God, they would reasonably have to say that 'incorporeal' is also the essence of God, and 'without-beginning,' and 'immortal,' and 'immutable,' and 'incorruptible,' and all the things that God is said to be by way of privative negation because of his transcendence; at least being consistent with themselves, they will be forced, and thus they will be convicted of being sick with a Hellenic polytheism, positing many essences of God, and not one, or rather, to speak more properly and truly; and being ashamed to say this, as it is impious, they will certainly abstain from their folly, even if unwillingly. For privative or negative terms contemplated about something are not that very thing about which they are contemplated, since they would surely be among those things that signify what it is, as if being that thing itself, and not signifying what that thing is not; but if this were so, these things would be shown to be the definition of that 1224 about which they are said, which is absurd and impossible. For the definitions of things are not gathered from what they are not, but from what they are, unfolding the concise summary of things, which is their name. Therefore, none of the things that are said to be about God or of God can ever be the essence of God, because not even an affirmation—one that is alone and fitting for God alone, being unrelated and entirely free of any activity towards anything—can reveal that very thing according to what it is.

72

διαστολήν οὐκ ἐπιδέχεται. Ἕως δ᾿ ἄν οὖν στάσιν ἀκούω, παῦλαν μόνον μανθάνω κινήσεως.

Εἰ δέ τῶν ἅμα κατά τήν ὕπαρξιν οὐκ ἔστι 1221γένεσις καί στάσις, ἄρα παραχαράττει, σαφῶς τόν τῆς ἀληθείας λόγον ὁ τοῦτο θεσπίζων, καί τήν ἀκίνητον ἅμα τῇ γενέσει προϋπάρχουσαν ἑνάδα τῶν λογικῶν δογματίζων. Εἰ δέ τις λέγοι, Καί πῶς ἐπί Θεοῦ λέγεται στάσις, μή ἔχουσα προεπινοουμένην κίνησιν; φημί πρῶτον μέν, Οὐ ταὐτόν Κτίστης και κτίσις, ἵν᾿ ὅπερ ἑνί δυνατόν προσεῖναι, κατ᾿ ἀνάγκην τῷ ἑτέρῳ ὡσαύτως ἐπιθεωρηθῆναι δύνηται, ἐπεί οὕτωγε οὐδαμῶς τό κατά φύσιν διάφορον τούτων ἔσται καταφανές· ἔπειτα κυρίως εἰπεῖν, ὁ Θεός οὔτε κινεῖται παντελῶς οὔτε ἵσταται (τοῦτο γάρ τῶν κατά φύσιν πεπερασμένων καί ἀρχήν τοῦ εἶναι ἐχόντων ἐστίν ἴδιον), οὔτε μήν τι ποιεῖ παντάπασιν, οὔτε πάσχει τῶν ὅσα ἐπ᾿ αὐτοῦ δι᾿ ἡμᾶς καί νοεῖται καί λέγεται, διά τό κατά φύσιν ὑπέρ πᾶσαν εἶναι κίνησίν τε καί στάσιν, καί μηδενί λόγῳ τοῖς καθ᾿ ἡμᾶς ὑποβάλλεσθαι τρόποις.

Ταῦτα παρεκβατικῶς εἰρήσθω περί τοῦ μηδέν χρῆναι λέγειν τῶν ὄντων κατά φύσιν ἀπολελυμένως ἐνεργεῖν, ἵνα μή ἀναίτιόν τι τῶν μετά Θεόν ἀφρόνως εἰσάγωμεν, ἐνεργεῖσθαι δέ φυσικῶς τό ἐνεργεῖν τοῦθ᾿ ὅπερ ἐνεργούμενον πέφυκεν ἐνεργεῖν.

ΟΕ (75). ..»....ΑΛΛ' ΕΙ ΑΣΩΜΑΤΟΝ, ΟΥΠΩ ΜΕΝ ΟΥ∆Ε ΤΟΥΤΟ ΤΗΣ ΟΥΣΙΑΣ

ΠΑΡΑΣΤΑΤΙΚΟΝ, ..». Τοῦ αὐτοῦ λόγου εἰς τό, «Ἀλλ' εἰ ἀσώματον, οὔπω μέν οὐδέ τοῦτο τῆς οὐσίας

παραστατικόν, ὥσπερ οὐδέ τό ἀγέννητον, (14∆_298> καί τό ἄναρχον, καί τό ἀναλλοίωτον, καί ἄφθαρτον, καί ὅσα περί Θεοῦ ἤ περί Θεόν εἶναι λέγεται».

Πρός τούς ἀνόμοιον μάλιστα τῷ Πατρί τόν Υἱόν κακούργως εἰσάγοντας, διά

τοῦ νομίζειν οὐσίαν εἶναι τοῦ Πατρός τό ἀγέννητον, ὡς οἶμαι, τόν λόγον ποιούμενος, καί ἐκ τῶν ὁμοίων τό δέον αὐτούς ἐπιγνῶναι διδάσκων, ταῦτά φησιν ὁ διδάσκαλος, ἵν' ὑπό τῆς ἀληθείας πρός τήν εὐσέβειαν συνελαυνόμενοι εὐπειθῶς σύν ἡμῖν τό μή ἔχειν γένεσιν τόν Πατέρα μόνον δηλοῦν τό ἀγέννητον ὁμολογήσωσι, συνειδότες ὡς εἴπερ οὐσίαν Θεοῦ τό ἀγέννητον εἶναι βιάσαιντο, οὐσίαν Θεοῦ καί τό ἀσώματον ἐξ ἀνάγκης, καί τό ἄναρχον, καί τό ἀθάνατον, καί τό ἀναλλοίωτον, καί τό ἄφθαρτον, καί ὅσα διά τῆς στερητικῆς ἀναιρέσεως διά τήν ὑπεροχήν ὁ Θεός εἶναι λέγεται, λέγειν εἰκότως, ἑαυτοῖς γοῦν στοιχοῦντες, ἐκβιασθήσονται, καί οὕτω πολλάς οὐσίας Θεοῦ, καί οὐ μίαν, μᾶλλον δέ, κυριώτερον εἰπεῖν καί ἀληθέστερον, πολυθεΐαν ἑλληνικήν νοσοῦντες ἐλεγχθήσονται, ὅπερ ὡς ἀσεβές εἰπεῖν αἰσχυνόμενοι τῆς ἀπονοίας πάντως ἀφέξονται καί μή βουλόμενοι. Τά γάρ στερητικά ἤ ἀναιρετικά περί τι θεωρούμενα οὐκ αὐτό ἐκεῖνο τυγχάνει ὄντα τό περί ὅ θεωροῦνται, ἐπεί πάντως ἔσονται τῶν σημαινόντων τό τί ἐστιν, ὡς ἐκεῖνο αὐτό ὄντα, ἀλλ᾿ οὐ τό τί οὐκ ἔστιν αὐτό ἐκεῖνο σημαίνοντα· εἰ δέ τοῦτο, ὅρος ἐκείνου τοῦ 1224 περί ὅ λέγονται εἶναι ταῦτα δειχθήσεται, ὅπερ ἄτοπον καί ἀδύνατον. Οὐ γάρ ἐκ τῶν ὧν οὐκ ἔστι τῶν πραγμάτων οἱ ὅροι συνάγονται, ἀλλ᾿ ἐκ τῶν ὧν ἅ ἔστιν, ἐξαπλοῦντα τήν σύντομον τῶν πραγμάτων περίληψιν, ἥτις ὀνομασία τούτων ὑπάρχει. Οὐδέν οὖν τό σύνολον τῶν περί Θεοῦ ἤ περί Θεόν εἶναι λεγομένων οὐσία εἶναι Θεοῦ πώποτε δύναται, ὅτι μηδέ θέσιν, μόνην καί μόνῳ Θεῷ ἁρμόζουσαν, ἄσχετον, καί τῆς περί τι παντάπασιν ἐνεργείας ἄφετον αὐτό ἐκεῖνο κατά τό τί ποτε εἶναι ἐμφῆναι δύναται.