89

they will not deny the only-begotten God, unless perhaps they should also deny that he is God. Therefore simplicity will have no community in meaning with unbegottenness, such that on account of being uncompounded the nature is called unbegottenness, lest they draw down one of two absurdities upon themselves, either denying the divinity of the only-begotten or attributing unbegottenness 2.1.27 to him as well. For since the divine is simple in nature, and according to them 'unbegotten' is a name for simplicity, they will either make the Son out to be composite, by which it is jointly proved that he is not even God, or if they should confess his divinity, and the divine is simple as has been said, they will in every way make him out to be unbegotten on account of his simplicity, if indeed simplicity is considered the same as unbegottenness. But that what is said may become clearer, I will take up again what was stated. 2.1.28 We say this, that for each of the names there is a particular meaning, and neither is the indivisible interpreted by 'unbegotten' nor 'unbegotten' by 'simple'; but in 'simple' we have understood the uncompounded, and in 'unbegotten' we have been taught 2.1.29 the not being from some cause. But we think we ought to believe that the Son, being God from God, is himself also simple because the divine is pure of all composition, and in the same way also in his case neither to signify the simplicity of the essence through the title 'Son,' nor in turn by 'simplicity' to represent the meaning of 'Son', but that from the former the hypostasis from the Father is made manifest, and from 'simple' that which such a word indicates. Since, therefore, the account of simplicity according to essence is one and the same whether spoken of the Father or of the Son, differing neither by any subtraction nor addition, but 'begotten' has a great difference in meaning from 'unbegotten' (for it is possible to understand in one of the names what is not in the other), for this reason we say there is no necessity, since the Father is unbegotten, because his essence is simple, that his essence should be called 20unbegottenness20. 2.1.30 For neither, since the Son is simple, who is believed to be the same and begotten, do we call the essence simplicity, but just as the essence is simple and not simplicity, so also the essence is unbegotten and not 20unbegottenness20. In the same way, since the Son is also begotten, the argument is separated from all necessity, because his essence is simple, that his essence should be defined as generation, but here too each of the names has its own particular emphasis; for the title 'begotten' presents to you that which is 'from something,' and 'simple' that which is free from composition. 2.1.31 But these things do not seem so to them; for they wish, since the essence of the Father is simple, that it be considered nothing other than unbegottenness, because he is also called unbegotten. To whom it is also possible to say this: since they also name the Father creator and maker, and he who is so named is simple according to essence, it is time for these wise men to declare the essence of the Father "1creation"2 and "1making"2, since the principle of 2.1.32 simplicity traces every meaning of a name said of him back to the essence. Let them therefore either separate unbegottenness from the definition of the divine essence, letting it remain with its own proper emphasis, or, if on account of the simplicity of the subject they should define the essence by unbegottenness, for the same reason let them also contemplate creation and making in the essence of the Father, as if the power in the essence were not creating and making, but the 2.1.33 power itself were understood as a creature and a product. But if they reject this as wicked and absurd, let them be persuaded by the consequence to reject that other argument along with this one; for as the essence of the maker is not a product, so neither is the essence of the unbegotten unbegottenness. For the sake of brevity and clarity I will take up the same argument again; if the Father is called unbegotten not because he has not been begotten, but because he is a simple and uncompounded essence, for this same reason the Son will also be named unbegotten; for he too is a uniform and uncompounded 2.1.34 essence. But if we will of necessity confess the Son to be begotten, because he was begotten, it is clear that we will also call the Father unbegotten, because he was not begotten. But if both the truth and the consequence of the premises compel this, it is manifest that the name 'unbegotten' is not of essence, but is significant of a certain difference of concepts, that which distinguishes the begotten from the not begotten. 2.1.35 Then let us examine this also in addition to what has been said. If they say the name 'unbegotten' signifies the essence and not the having hypostasis without a cause, by what name will they establish the Father's being without a cause, since unbegottenness has been assigned by them to the 2.1.36 indication of essence? For if not the distinguishing difference of the hypostases through the term 'unbegotten'

89

μονογενῆ θεὸν οὐκ ἀρνήσονται, εἰ μὴ ἄρα καὶ τὸ θεὸν εἶναι αὐτὸν ἀρνήσαιντο. οὐκοῦν οὐδεμίαν κατὰ τὸ σημαι νόμενον κοινωνίαν ἡ ἁπλότης πρὸς τὸ ἀγέννητον ἕξει, ὡς διὰ τὸ ἀσύνθετον ἀγεννησίαν τὴν φύσιν λέγεσθαι, ἵνα μὴ δυοῖν ἀτόποιν τὸ ἕτερον καθ' ἑαυτῶν ἐπισπάσωνται, ἢ ἀρ νούμενοι τοῦ μονογενοῦς τὴν θεότητα ἢ κἀκείνῳ τὴν ἀγεν 2.1.27 νησίαν ἐπιφημίζοντες. ἐπεὶ γὰρ ἁπλοῦν μὲν τῇ φύσει τὸ θεῖον, ὄνομα δὲ κατ' αὐτοὺς τῆς ἁπλότητός ἐστι τὸ ἀγέν νητον, ἢ σύνθετον εἶναι τὸν υἱὸν κατασκευάσουσιν, ᾧ τὸ μηδὲ θεὸν εἶναι συναποδείκνυται, ἢ εἰ ὁμολογοῖεν ἐπ' αὐτοῦ τὴν θεότητα, ἁπλοῦν δὲ καθὼς εἴρηται τὸ θεῖόν ἐστι, τὸν αὐτὸν καὶ ἀγέννητον διὰ τὴν ἁπλότητα πάντως εἶναι κατα σκευάσουσιν, εἴπερ ἡ ἁπλότης ταὐτὸν τῇ ἀγεννησίᾳ νομί ζεται. ὡς δ' ἂν σαφέστερον τὸ λεγόμενον γένοιτο, πάλιν τὸ ῥηθὲν ἀναλήψομαι. 2.1.28 Ἡμεῖς τοῦτό φαμεν, ὅτι ἑκατέρῳ τῶν ὀνομάτων ἴδιόν τι τὸ σημαινόμενον ὕπεστι καὶ οὔτε τῷ ἀγεννήτῳ τὸ ἀμερὲς ἑρμηνεύεται οὔτε τῷ ἁπλῷ τὸ ἀγέννητον· ἀλλ' ἐν μὲν τῷ ἁπλῷ τὸ ἀσύνθετον ἐνοήσαμεν, ἐν δὲ τῷ ἀγεννήτῳ τὸ μὴ 2.1.29 ἐξ αἰτίας εἶναί τινος ἐδιδάχθημεν. τὸν δὲ υἱὸν ἐκ θεοῦ θεὸν ὄντα καὶ αὐτὸν ἁπλοῦν πιστεύειν οἰόμεθα δεῖν διὰ τὸ πάσης συνθέσεως καθαρεύειν τὸ θεῖον καὶ κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον καὶ ἐπὶ τούτου μήτε διὰ τῆς τοῦ υἱοῦ προσηγορίας τὴν ἁπλότητα τῆς οὐσίας σημαίνειν μήτ' αὖ τῇ ἁπλότητι παριστᾶν τὸ τοῦ υἱοῦ σημαινόμενον, ἀλλ' ἐκ τούτου μὲν τὴν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ὑπόστασιν φανεροῦσθαι, ἐκ δὲ τοῦ ἁπλοῦ ὅπερ ἐμφαίνει ἡ τοιαύτη φωνή. ἐπεὶ οὖν ὁ μὲν τῆς κατ' οὐσίαν ἁπλότητος λόγος εἷς καὶ ὁ αὐτὸς κἂν ἐπὶ πατρὸς λέγηται κἂν ἐπὶ υἱοῦ, οὔτε ὑφέσει τινὶ οὔτε πλεονασμῷ διαλλάσσων, τὸ δὲ γεννητὸν τῷ ἀγεννήτῳ πολλὴν κατὰ τὸ σημαινόμενον τὴν διαφορὰν ἔχει (τοῦτο γὰρ ἔστιν ἐν τῷ ἑτέρῳ τῶν ὀνομάτων νοῆσαι, ὃ ἐν τῷ ἄλλῳ οὐκ ἔστι), διὰ τοῦτό φαμεν μηδεμίαν ἀνάγκην εἶναι ἀγεννήτου ὄντος τοῦ πατρός, ἐπειδὴ ἁπλῆ ἐστιν αὐτοῦ ἡ οὐσία, 20ἀγεννησίαν20 2.1.30 λέγεσθαι αὐτοῦ τὴν οὐσίαν. οὐδὲ γὰρ ἁπλοῦ ὄντος τοῦ υἱοῦ, τοῦ αὐτοῦ καὶ γεννητοῦ εἶναι πεπιστευμένου, ἁπλότητα λέγομεν τὴν οὐσίαν, ἀλλ' ὥσπερ ἁπλῆ ἐστιν ἡ οὐσία καὶ οὐχ ἁπλότης, οὕτω καὶ ἀγέννητός ἐστιν ἡ οὐσία καὶ οὐκ 20ἀγεννησία20. τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον γεννητοῦ ὄντος καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ, πάσης ἀνάγκης ὁ λόγος κεχώρισται, ἐπειδὴ ἁπλῆ αὐτοῦ ἐστιν ἡ οὐσία, γέννησιν αὐτοῦ τὴν οὐσίαν ὁρί ζεσθαι, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐνταῦθα ἰδίαν ἔμφασιν ἑκάτερα τῶν ὀνο μάτων ἔχει· ἥ τε γὰρ τοῦ γεννητοῦ προσηγορία τὸ ἔκ τινός σοι παρίστησι καὶ τὸ ἁπλοῦν τὸ ἀπηλλάχθαι συνθέσεως. 2.1.31 ἀλλ' οὐ ταῦτα κἀκείνοις δοκεῖ· βούλονται γάρ, ἐπειδὴ ἁπλῆ ἐστιν τοῦ πατρὸς ἡ οὐσία, μὴ ἄλλο τι ἢ ἀγεννησίαν αὐτὴν εἶναι νομίζεσθαι, διότι καὶ ἀγέννητος λέγεται. πρὸς οὓς καὶ τοῦτο ἔστιν εἰπεῖν ὅτι, ἐπειδὴ καὶ κτίστην τὸν πατέρα καὶ δημιουργὸν ὀνομάζουσιν, ἁπλοῦς δὲ κατ' οὐσίαν ἐστὶν ὁ ταῦτα ὀνομαζόμενος, ὥρα τοῖς σοφοῖς τούτοις "1κτίσιν"2 καὶ "1δημιουργίαν"2 τὴν οὐσίαν τοῦ πατρὸς ἀποφαίνεσθαι, ἐπείπερ πᾶσαν σημασίαν τοῦ περὶ αὐτὸν λεγομένου ὀνόματος ὁ τῆς 2.1.32 ἁπλότητος λόγος εἰς τὴν οὐσίαν ἀνάγει. ἢ τοίνυν χωρισά τωσαν τοῦ ὁρισμοῦ τῆς θείας οὐσίας τὴν ἀγεννησίαν ἐπὶ μόνης τῆς ἰδίας ἐμφάσεως μένουσαν ἤ, εἴπερ διὰ τὴν ἁπλό τητα τοῦ ὑποκειμένου τῇ ἀγεννησίᾳ τὴν οὐσίαν ὁρίζοιντο, διὰ τὴν αὐτὴν αἰτίαν καὶ τὴν κτίσιν καὶ τὴν δημιουργίαν τῇ τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίᾳ ἐνθεωρείτωσαν, ὡς οὐχὶ κτιζούσης καὶ δημιουργούσης τῆς ἐν τῇ οὐσίᾳ δυνάμεως, ἀλλ' αὐτῆς 2.1.33 τῆς δυνάμεως κτίσμα καὶ δημιούργημα νοουμένης. εἰ δὲ τοῦτο ἀποβάλλουσιν ὡς πονηρόν τε καὶ ἄτοπον, πεισθή τωσαν ἐκ τῆς ἀκολουθίας κἀκεῖνον τούτῳ συναποβάλλειν τὸν λόγον· ὡς γὰρ οὐκ ἔστι δημιούργημα ἡ τοῦ δημιουρ γοῦ οὐσία, οὕτως οὐδὲ ἀγεννησία ἡ τοῦ ἀγεννήτου οὐσία. συντομίας δὲ χάριν καὶ σαφηνείας πάλιν τὸν αὐτὸν ἐπανα λήψομαι λόγον· εἰ μὴ διὰ τὸ γεγεννῆσθαι, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸ ἁπλῆ καὶ ἀσύνθετος οὐσία ὁ πατὴρ εἶναι ἀγέννητος λέγεται, διὰ τὴν αὐτὴν ταύτην αἰτίαν ἀγέννητος καὶ ὁ υἱὸς ὀνομα σθήσεται· οὐσία γὰρ καὶ οὗτός ἐστι μονοειδὴς καὶ ἀσύν 2.1.34 θετος. εἰ δὲ τὸν υἱόν, ἐπειδὴ ἐγεννήθη, γεννητὸν ἐξ ἀνάγ κης ὁμολογήσομεν, δῆλον ὅτι καὶ τὸν πατέρα, ἐπειδὴ οὐκ ἐγεννήθη, προσεροῦμεν ἀγέννητον. εἰ δὲ τοῦτο ἥ τε ἀλή θεια καὶ ἡ τῶν κειμένων ἀκολουθία καταναγκάζει, πρό δηλον ὅτι οὐχὶ οὐσίας ἐστὶ τὸ ἀγέννητον ὄνομα, ἀλλὰ δια φορᾶς τινος νοημάτων σημαντικὸν τῆς τὸ γεννηθὲν τοῦ μὴ γεννηθέντος διαστελλούσης. 2.1.35 Εἶτα καὶ τοῦτο τοῖς εἰρημένοις προσεξετάσωμεν. εἰ τὸ ἀγέννητον ὄνομά φασι τὴν οὐσίαν σημαίνειν καὶ μὴ τὸ ἄνευ αἰτίας τὴν ὑπόστασιν ἔχειν, ποίῳ ὀνόματι τὸ ἄνευ αἰτίας εἶναι τὸν πατέρα συστήσουσι, τῆς ἀγεννησίας εἰς τὴν 2.1.36 τῆς οὐσίας ἔνδειξιν παρ' αὐτῶν ἀποτεταγμένης; εἰ γὰρ μὴ τὴν διασταλτικὴν τῶν ὑποστάσεων διαφορὰν διὰ τῆς τοῦ ἀγεννήτου φωνῆς