73

But it is another thing that he has no 1.1.576 cause superior to himself. But even if he should spit upon the argument, we, paying no heed to the mocking laughter, will answer with confidence what we have already said, that the Father is the same as the unbegotten, and that it signifies having begotten the Son, and indicates his being from nothing. 1.1.577 But he also contends against what has been said and says (and indeed the argument is again turned to the contrary): 20For if because of having begotten the Son God is Father, and by the same meaning he is Father and unbegotten, then because of having begotten the Son God is unbegotten, but before begetting him he was not unbegotten.20 Let us see, then, his argument of inversion, how by resolving the composition of the former sophism to its contrary, he again surrounds us through this 1.1.578 with inescapable necessities. The former syllogism had this absurdity: if 'Father' signifies God's being from nothing, of necessity it will no longer indicate his having begotten the Son. This one, through the inversion to the contrary, proposes another absurdity to us against our dogma. What then is the analysis of what was shown there? 20If because of having begotten,20 he says, 20the Son, 1.1.579 God is Father.20 The former syllogism did not present this to us, but the consequence of the syllogism supposedly showed the inability, if the unbegotten were signified through the Father, to also signify the relation to the Son; but that God is Father because he has begotten the Son, not even the construction of the former sophism determined. What, then, is being inverted by this dialectical and technical cleverness, I do not yet understand. 1.1.580 But nevertheless let us examine the meaning of what was said. 20If because of having begotten the Son God is unbegotten, but before begetting him, he was not unbegotten.20 Again, the argument of truth is ready and simple against what was said: that the title of Father indicates both having begotten the Son, as has been previously demonstrated by us in what was said before, and that the one who has begotten is not conceived of as being from any 1.1.581 cause. For if you look to that which is from him, the hypostasis of the Only-begotten is known through the appellation of Father; but if you examine what is before him, the title of Father indicates the beginninglessness of the one who has begotten the Son. But to say that 20before begetting the Son, God was not unbegotten20 brings a double accusation against the writer, both of slander against us and of insolence against the dogma; for he disparages what was neither said by the Teacher nor indeed confessed by us, and says that God later became 1.1.582 Father at some point, being clearly something else before and not a Father. For by the means with which he supposedly derides the absurdity of our argument, he proclaims his own lawlessness concerning the dogma. For, holding it as confessed that previously being something else, he afterwards by progression both became and was named Father, he says this, that before begetting the Son and for this reason being called Father, he was not even unbegotten, if indeed unbegottenness is known by the concept of 1.1.583 Father. How much folly this has, I think needs no refutation; for it sufficiently presents itself even on its own to those who have sense. For if God was something else before becoming Father, what will the champions of the dogma say? In what state will they say he is to be contemplated? What name for his state then: a child, an infant, a babe, a youth? Or will they say none of these things, perhaps blushing at the manifest absurdity, but they will not deny that he was perfect from the beginning? Then how can he who is not yet a Father be perfect? Or will they not take away his power, but say that it was not fitting for him to be a Father at the same time as 1.1.584 he existed? And if it was not good nor fitting for him from the beginning to be the Father of such a child, how as he went on did he acquire what was not good? But it is now good and fitting to the majesty of God to have become the Father of such a one. Therefore they will construct his being in the beginning as without share in the good, and as long as God did not have the Son (but may God be merciful to the argument)

73

ἕτερον δὲ τὸ μηδεμίαν αὐτὸν ὑπερ 1.1.576 κειμένην αἰτίαν ἔχειν. ἀλλὰ κἂν ἐκεῖνος διαπτύῃ τὸν λόγον, ἡμεῖς παρ' οὐδὲν τὸν γέλωτα τὸν χλευαστικὸν ποιησάμενοι θαρροῦντες ἀποκρινούμεθα ὅπερ εἰρήκαμεν ἤδη, ὅτι καὶ ταὐτόν ἐστιν ὁ πατὴρ τῷ ἀγεννήτῳ καὶ τὸ γεγεννηκέναι τὸν υἱὸν σημαίνει καὶ τὸ ἐξ οὐδενὸς εἶναι παρίστησιν. 1.1.577 Ὁ δὲ καὶ ἐπαγωνίζεται τοῖς εἰρημένοις καί φησι (καὶ μέντοι καὶ πρὸς τοὐναντίον ἀναστρέφει πάλιν ὁ λόγος)· 20εἰ γὰρ διὰ τὸ γεγεννηκέναι τὸν υἱὸν ὁ θεός ἐστι πατήρ, κατὰ ταὐτὸν δὲ σημαινόμενον πατήρ ἐστι καὶ ἀγέννητος, διὰ τὸ γεγεννηκέναι τὸν υἱὸν ὁ θεός ἐστιν ἀγέννητος, πρὶν δὲ γεννῆσαι τοῦ τον οὐκ ἦν ἀγέννητος20. ἴδωμεν τοίνυν καὶ τὸν τῆς ἀναστροφῆς αὐτοῦ λόγον, πῶς πρὸς τοὐναντίον ἀναλύων τὴν τοῦ προτέρου σοφίσματος σύνθεσιν πάλιν ἡμᾶς καὶ διὰ τού 1.1.578 του ταῖς ἀφύκτοις ἀνάγκαις περιστοιχίζεται. ὁ πρότερος εἶχε συλλογισμὸς τοῦτο τὸ ἄτοπον· εἰ ὁ πατὴρ σημαίνει τὸ ἐξ οὐδενὸς εἶναι τὸν θεόν, ἐξ ἀνάγκης τὸ γεγεννηκέναι τὸν υἱὸν οὐκέτι ἐνδείξεται. οὗτος διὰ τῆς πρὸς τοὐναντίον ἀναστροφῆς ἑτέραν ἡμῖν ἀτοπίαν κατὰ τοῦ ἡμετέρου δόγ ματος ἐπαγγέλλεται. τίς οὖν ἡ τοῦ ἐκεῖ δειχθέντος ἀνά λυσις; 20εἰ διὰ τὸ γεγεννηκέναι20, φησί, 20τὸν υἱὸν ὁ 1.1.579 θεός ἐστι πατήρ20. τοῦτο ἡμῖν ὁ πρότερος συλλογισμὸς οὐ παρέστησεν, ἀλλὰ τὸ μὲν μὴ δύνασθαι, εἰ τὸ ἀγέννητον διὰ τοῦ πατρὸς σημανθείη, καὶ τὴν πρὸς τὸν υἱὸν σχέσιν σημαίνειν ἡ ἀκολουθία τοῦ συλλογισμοῦ δῆθεν ἐδείκνυεν, τὸ δὲ διὰ τοῦτο τὸν θεὸν εἶναι πατέρα, διότι γεγέννηκε τὸν υἱόν, οὐδὲ ἡ τοῦ προτέρου σοφίσματος κατασκευὴ διωρί σατο. τί οὖν ἐστι τὸ ἀναστρεφόμενον ὑπὸ τῆς διαλεκτικῆς τε καὶ τεχνικῆς ἀγχινοίας, οὔπω συνίημι. 1.1.580 Πλὴν ἀλλὰ σκοπήσωμεν τὴν τῶν εἰρημένων διάνοιαν. 20εἰ διὰ τὸ γεγεννηκέναι τὸν υἱὸν ὁ θεός ἐστιν ἀγέννητος, πρὶν δὲ γεννῆσαι, τοῦτον οὐκ ἦν ἀγέννητος20. πάλιν ἕτοιμος πρὸς τὸ εἰρημένον καὶ ἁπλοῦς τῆς ἀληθείας ὁ λόγος, ὅτι καὶ τὸ γεγεννηκέναι τὸν υἱὸν ἡ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐνδείκνυται κλῆσις, καθὼς ἡμῖν ἐν τοῖς προ ειρημένοις προαποδέδεικται, καὶ τὸ μὴ ἐξ αἰτίας νοεῖσθαί 1.1.581 τινος τὸν γεννήσαντα. ἐὰν μὲν γὰρ πρὸς τὸ ἐξ αὐτοῦ βλέ πῃς, ἡ τοῦ μονογενοῦς ὑπόστασις διὰ τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς προσ ηγορίας γνωρίζεται· ἐὰν δὲ τὸ πρὸ αὐτοῦ ἐξετάζῃς, ἡ τοῦ πατρὸς κλῆσις τὸ ἄναρχον τοῦ τὸν υἱὸν γεγεννηκότος ἐν δείκνυται. τὸ δὲ λέγειν ὅτι 20πρὶν γεννῆσαι τὸν υἱὸν οὐκ ἦν ἀγέννητος20 ὁ θεὸς διπλῆν φέρει τὴν κατηγο ρίαν τῷ λογογράφῳ, τῆς τε καθ' ἡμῶν συκοφαντίας καὶ τῆς κατὰ τοῦ δόγματος ὕβρεως· τό τε γὰρ μήτε παρὰ τοῦ διδασκάλου ῥηθὲν μήτε μὴν παρ' ἡμῶν ὡς ὁμολογούμενον διασύρει καὶ τὸν θεόν φησιν ὕστερόν ποτε γεγενῆσθαι πα 1.1.582 τέρα, ἄλλο τι ὄντα πρότερον δηλαδὴ καὶ οὐ πατέρα. δι' ὧν γὰρ τὸ ἄτοπον δῆθεν τοῦ ἡμετέρου λόγου καταχλευάζει, τὴν ἑαυτοῦ περὶ τὸ δόγμα παρανομίαν βοᾷ. ὡς γὰρ ὁμο λογούμενον ἔχων ὅτι πρότερον ἄλλο τι ὢν μετὰ ταῦτα κατὰ προκοπὴν ἐγένετό τε καὶ ὠνομάσθη πατήρ, τοῦτό φησιν ὅτι πρὶν γεννῆσαι τὸν υἱὸν καὶ διὰ τοῦτο κληθῆναι πατήρ, οὐδὲ ἀγέννητος ἦν, εἴπερ ἡ ἀγεννησία τῇ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐν 1.1.583 νοίᾳ γνωρίζεται. τοῦτο ὅσην ἔχει τὴν ἄνοιαν, οὐδὲν οἶμαι δεῖν τοῦ ἐλέγχοντος· ἱκανῶς γὰρ καὶ δι' ἑαυτοῦ παρίστησι τοῖς γε νοῦν ἔχουσιν. εἰ γὰρ ἄλλο τι ἦν ὁ θεὸς πρὸ τοῦ γενέσθαι πατήρ, τί ἐροῦσιν οἱ προστάται τοῦ δόγματος; ἐν ποίᾳ καταστάσει θεωρεῖσθαι φήσουσι; τί ὄνομα τῇ τότε διαγωγῇ, παῖς νήπιον βρέφος μειράκιον; ἢ τούτων μὲν ἐροῦσιν οὐδὲν τὸ περιφανὲς ἴσως τῆς ἀτοπίας ἐρυθριῶντες, τέλειον δὲ αὐτὸν ἐξ ἀρχῆς εἶναι οὐκ ἀπαρνήσονται; εἶτα πῶς τέλειος ὁ μήπω πατὴρ εἶναι δυνάμενος; ἢ τὸ μὲν ἰσχύειν οὐκ ἀφαιρήσονται, φήσουσι δὲ μὴ πρέπειν ὁμοῦ τῷ 1.1.584 εἶναι αὐτὸν καὶ πατέρα εἶναι; καὶ εἰ μὴ καλὸν μηδὲ πρέπον αὐτῷ τὸ ἐξ ἀρχῆς εἶναι πατέρα τοιούτου παιδός, πῶς προϊὼν τὸ μὴ καλὸν ἐπεκτήσατο; ἀλλὰ καλόν ἐστι νῦν καὶ τῇ μεγαλειότητι τοῦ θεοῦ πρέπον τὸ τοιούτου γενέσθαι πατέρα. οὐκοῦν ἀμέτοχον αὐτὸν τοῦ καλοῦ τὸ κατ' ἀρχὰς εἶναι κατασκευάσουσι, καὶ ἕως οὐκ εἶχε τὸν υἱὸν ὁ θεός (ἵλεως δὲ εἴη τῷ λόγῳ ὁ θεός)