88

when the truth shines around them, these gloomy thoughts have no foundation, for having disregarded all the names found by Scripture for a God-befitting doxology, spoken equally of the Father and the Son, they came to the name of 20unbegottenness20, which was concocted by these very men for the rejection of the majesty of the only- 2.1.16 begotten God. For while the pious confession teaches the faith in the only-begotten God, "that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father," these men, having thrust aside all the pious utterances by which the majesty of the Son is signified as of equal honor to the worthiness of the Father, from this devise for themselves the principles 2.1.17 and premises of their godless transgression concerning the dogma. For since the only-begotten God, as the voice of the Gospel teaches, came forth from the Father and is from Him, taking up this thought with other names, through them they tear apart the true 2.1.18 faith. For while the truth teaches that the Father is not from some higher cause, these men have named such a concept unbegottenness, and the subsistence of the only-begotten from the Father they signify by the word of 20generation20, then, putting together the two terms, both 20unbegottenness20 and 20generation20, which are contradictorily opposed to each other, they thereby deceive the foolish among their followers; for "1was begotten"2 and "1was not begotten,"2 as one might clarify by an example, is like "1sits"2 2.1.19 and "1does not sit"2 and whatever is said in such a manner. But they, having diverted these terms from the natural meaning of the words, strive contentiously to apply another meaning to them for the destruction of piety. For since, as has been said, the meaning of the words "sits" and "does not sit" is not equivalent (for in one of the meanings the other is somehow destroyed), they sophistically claim this opposition in the form of the utterance to be indicative of a difference in substance, defining that for one generation is substance, 2.1.20 and for the other, non-generation. And yet just as it is not possible to consider the sitting or not sitting of a man to be the substance of a man (for one would not give the same definition when defining both the seat of a man and the man himself), so the unbegotten substance, according to the analogy of the example we have stated, is certainly something else in its own definition compared to what is signified by not being begotten. 2.1.21 But these men, looking to that evil purpose, so that the denial of the divinity of the only-begotten might be especially established for them, do not say that the substance of the Father is unbegottenly, but, reversing the argument, they define unbegottenness as substance, so that by the contrast with what is begotten they might construct a difference of nature through the opposition 2.1.22 of the names. And they look toward impiety with a myriad eyes, but toward the impossibility of this endeavor they are dim-sighted, as if having closed the eyes of their soul. For who, not having the senses of his soul completely bleared, does not perceive the harshness and inconsistency of the principle of their dogma, and how their argument which makes unbegottenness a substance stands on nothing? For in this way their deceit is constructed. But I shall state as far as is possible, strongly in my own voice rebutting the argument of the enemies. 2.1.23 They say 20that God is called unbegotten, and that the divine is simple in nature, and the simple does not admit of any composition; if, therefore, God is uncompounded in nature, upon whom the name of unbegotten is placed, "unbegotten" would be the name of the nature itself, and the nature is nothing other 2.1.24 than unbegottenness20. To them we say this, that the meaning of 20uncompounded20 is one thing, and that of 20unbegotten20 is another. For the one indicates the simplicity of the subject, while the other indicates its not being from a cause, and the meanings of the names do not overlap one another, even if both are spoken of the one thing. But from the designation "unbegotten" we have learned that the one so named is without cause, and from "simple" that he is pure of composition; 2.1.25 and neither of these is said in place of the other. Therefore there is no necessity, since the divine is simple in nature, for its nature to be called unbegottenness; but insofar as it is without parts and uncompounded, it is called simple, and insofar as it was not begotten, unbegotten. But if the term "unbegotten" does not signify being without cause, but simplicity were to take the place of the meaning of such a name, and for this reason he were called unbegotten according to the argument of the heresy, because he is simple and uncompounded, and the meaning of simple and unbegotten is one, then the simplicity of the Son will surely be named 20unbegottenness20. 2.1.26 For simple by nature is also the

88

περιλαμπούσης οὐδεμίαν ἔχει κατα σκευὴν τὰ ζοφώδη ταῦτα νοήματα, πάντων τῶν ὀνομάτων ὑπεριδόντες τῶν εἰς θεοπρεπῆ τινα δοξολογίαν παρὰ τῆς γραφῆς εὑρεθέντων, ὁμοίως ἐπὶ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ λεγομένων, ἦλθον ἐπὶ τὸ τῆς 20ἀγεννησίας20 ὄνομα τὸ παρ' αὐτῶν τούτων ἐπὶ ἀθετήσει τῆς μεγαλειότητος τοῦ μονο 2.1.16 γενοῦς θεοῦ συμπεπλασμένον. τῆς γὰρ εὐσεβοῦς ὁμολογίας τὴν εἰς τὸν μονογενῆ θεὸν πίστιν δογματιζούσης, Ἵνα πάντες τιμῶσι τὸν υἱὸν καθὼς τιμῶσι τὸν πατέρα, πάσας οὗτοι τὰς εὐσεβεῖς φωνὰς αἷς ἡ τοῦ υἱοῦ μεγαλειότης ὁμοτίμως πρὸς τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς ἀξίαν διασημαίνεται παρωσάμενοι ἐντεῦθεν ἑαυτοῖς τῆς ἀθέου περὶ τὸ δόγμα παρανομίας τὰς ἀρχὰς 2.1.17 καὶ τὰς ὑποθέσεις ἐπινοοῦσιν. ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ὁ μονογενὴς θεός, ὡς ἡ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου διδάσκει φωνή, ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐξῆλθε καὶ παρ' αὐτοῦ ἐστιν, ἄλλοις ὀνόμασι τὴν διάνοιαν ταύτην μεταλαβόντες δι' ἐκείνων τὴν ἀληθῆ πίστιν κατα 2.1.18 σπαράσσουσι. τὸ γὰρ μὴ ἔκ τινος ὑπερκειμένης αἰτίας εἶναι τὸν πατέρα τῆς ἀληθείας διδασκούσης, οὗτοι ἀγεννη σίαν ὠνόμασαν τὸ τοιοῦτον νόημα, καὶ τὴν ἐκ πατρὸς τοῦ μονογενοῦς ὑπόστασιν τῷ τῆς 20γεννήσεως20 διασημαίνουσι ῥήματι, εἶτα συνθέντες τὰς δύο φωνὰς τὴν 20ἀγεννησίαν20 τε καὶ τὴν 20γέννησιν20 ἀντιφατικῶς ἐναντιουμένας ἀλλήλαις ἐντεῦθεν τοὺς ἀνοήτους τῶν ἑπομένων αὐτοῖς παρακρούονται· τὸ γὰρ "1ἐγεννήθη"2 καὶ "1οὐκ ἐγεννήθη"2 ὡς ἄν τις ὑπο δείγματι σαφηνίσειε, τοιοῦτόν ἐστιν οἷον καὶ τὸ "1κάθηται"2 2.1.19 καὶ "1οὐ κάθηται"2 καὶ ὅσα τῷ τοιούτῳ λέγεται τρόπῳ. οἱ δὲ τῆς κατὰ φύσιν τῶν ῥημάτων ἐμφάσεως τὰς φωνὰς ταύτας παρακινήσαντες ἄλλην αὐτοῖς ἐφαρμόζειν διάνοιαν ἐπὶ καθαιρέσει τῆς εὐσεβείας φιλονεικοῦσιν. οὐκ ἰσοδυνα μούσης γάρ, καθὼς εἴρηται, τῆς τῶν ῥημάτων σημασίας τοῦ κάθηται καὶ οὐ κάθηται (ἀναιρεῖται γάρ πως ἐν θα τέρῳ τῶν σημαινομένων τὸ ἕτερον) ταύτην τὴν περὶ τὸ σχῆμα τῆς προφορᾶς ἐναντίωσιν τῆς κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν παρ αλλαγῆς ἐνδεικτικὴν εἶναι σοφίζονται, τῷ μὲν τὴν γέννησιν 2.1.20 τῷ δὲ τὴν μὴ γέννησιν οὐσίαν εἶναι διοριζόμενοι. καίτοι ὥσπερ οὐκ ἔστιν οὐσίαν ἀνθρώπου νομίσαι τὸ καθῆσθαι ἢ μὴ καθῆσθαι τὸν ἄνθρωπον (οὐ γὰρ τὸν αὐτὸν ἄν τις ἀποδοίη λόγον καθέδραν τε ἀνθρώπου καὶ ἄνθρωπον αὐτὸν ὁριζόμενος), οὕτως ἡ μὴ γεννηθεῖσα οὐσία κατὰ τὴν ἀνα λογίαν τοῦ ῥηθέντος ἡμῖν ὑποδείγματος ἄλλο τι πάντως ἐστὶ τῷ ἰδίῳ λόγῳ πρὸς τὸ ἐκ τοῦ μὴ γεννηθῆναι δηλού 2.1.21 μενον. ἀλλ' οὗτοι πρὸς τὸν πονηρὸν ἐκεῖνον σκοπὸν ἀφο ρῶντες, ὡς ἂν μάλιστα τῆς τοῦ μονογενοῦς θεότητος ἡ ἄρνησις αὐτοῖς κυρωθείη, οὐχὶ τὴν οὐσίαν τοῦ πατρὸς ἀγεννήτως εἶναί φασιν, ἀλλ' ἀναστρέψαντες τὸν λόγον οὐσίαν τὴν ἀγεννησίαν ὁρίζονται, ἵνα τῇ πρὸς τὸ γεννητὸν ἀντι διαστολῇ τὸ τῆς φύσεως παρηλλαγμένον διὰ τῆς ἐναντιώ 2.1.22 σεως τῶν ὀνομάτων κατασκευάσωσι. καὶ πρὸς μὲν τὴν ἀσέ βειαν μυρίοις ὀφθαλμοῖς βλέπουσι, πρὸς δὲ τὸ ἀμήχανον τῆς περὶ τοῦτο σπουδῆς ὡς μεμυκότες τὰ ὄμματα τῆς ψυχῆς ἀμβλυώττουσι. τίς γὰρ μὴ παντάπασι λημῶν τὰ τῆς ψυχῆς αἰσθητήρια οὐ διορᾷ τῆς τοῦ δόγματος αὐτῶν ἀρχῆς τὸ ἀπαγὲς καὶ ἀσύστατον καὶ ὡς ἐπ' οὐδενὸς βέ βηκεν αὐτοῖς ὁ λόγος ὁ τὴν ἀγεννησίαν οὐσίαν ποιῶν; οὑτωσὶ γὰρ αὐτοῖς ἡ ἀπάτη κατασκευάζεται. λέξω δὲ καθώς ἐστι δυνατὸν ἰσχυρῶς τῇ ἐμαυτοῦ φωνῇ τὸν τῶν ἐχθρῶν ἀνθυποφέρων λόγον. 2.1.23 Φασὶν 20ἀγέννητον τὸν θεὸν ὀνομάζεσθαι, ἁ πλοῦν δὲ εἶναι τῇ φύσει τὸ θεῖον, τὸ δὲ ἁπλοῦν μηδεμίαν ἐπιδέχεσθαι σύνθεσιν· εἰ οὖν ἀσύν θετος κατὰ τὴν φύσιν ἐστὶν ὁ θεός, ᾧ τὸ τοῦ ἀγεννήτου ἔπεστιν ὄνομα, αὐτῆς ἂν εἴη τῆς φύ σεως ὄνομα τὸ ἀγέννητον, καὶ ἔστιν οὐδὲν ἕτε 2.1.24 ρον ἢ ἀγεννησία ἡ φύσις20. πρὸς οὓς τοῦτό φαμεν, ὅτι ἕτερον τοῦ 20ἀσυνθέτου20 καὶ ἕτερον τοῦ 20ἀγεννήτου20 τὸ σημαινόμενον. τὸ μὲν γὰρ τὴν ἁπλότητα τοῦ ὑποκειμένου, τὸ δὲ τὸ μὴ ἐξ αἰτίας εἶναι παρίστησι, καὶ οὐκ ἐπαλλάσ σονται πρὸς ἀλλήλας αἱ τῶν ὀνομάτων ἐμφάσεις, κἂν περὶ τὸ ἓν ἀμφότερα λέγηται. ἀλλ' ἐκ μὲν τῆς τοῦ ἀγεννήτου προσηγορίας τὸ ἄνευ αἰτίας εἶναι τὸν οὕτως ὠνομασμένον ἐμάθομεν, ἐκ δὲ τῆς τοῦ ἁπλοῦ τὸ καθαρεύειν συνθέσεως· 2.1.25 οὐδέτερον δὲ τούτων ἀντὶ τοῦ ἄλλου λέγεται. οὔκουν οὐ δεμίαν ἀνάγκην ἔχει, ἐπειδὴ ἁπλοῦν ἐστι τῇ φύσει τὸ θεῖον, ἀγεννησίαν αὐτοῦ τὴν φύσιν κατονομάζεσθαι· ἀλλὰ καθ' ὃ μὲν ἀμερής ἐστι καὶ ἀσύνθετος, ἁπλοῦς λέγεται, καθ' ὃ δὲ οὐκ ἐγεννήθη, ἀγέννητος. εἰ δὲ μὴ σημαίνοι τὸ ἄνευ αἰτίας εἶναι ἡ φωνὴ τοῦ ἀγεννήτου, ἀλλ' ἡ ἁπλότης ἀντεισ έρχοιτο τῇ σημασίᾳ τοῦ τοιούτου ὀνόματος καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἀγέννητος κατὰ τὸν λόγον τῆς αἱρέσεως λέγοιτο, διότι ἁπλοῦς ἐστι καὶ ἀσύνθετος, μία δὲ τοῦ ἁπλοῦ τε καὶ ἀγεν νήτου ἡ σημασία, καὶ ἡ τοῦ υἱοῦ ἁπλότης 20ἀγεννησία20 2.1.26 πάντως ὀνομασθήσεται. ἁπλοῦν γὰρ εἶναι τῇ φύσει καὶ τὸν