89

definitive propositions exist, into which those who think themselves wise have fallen from much ignorance.

PE (85). BUT LET IT BE OF ENERGY ALSO, IF IT SEEMS GOOD, NOT EVEN SO WILL YOU TAKE US..».

But let it be of energy also, if it seems good, not even so will you take us. But this very thing the consubstantial would have worked, even if the supposition of energy concerning this is otherwise absurd».

Since those who have their tongue sharpened like a razor against the truth

would say, supposedly asking: Is the name 'Father' of substance or of energy, so that they might deduce from this that the Son is of another substance from the Father, as the same substance does not admit of two different and proper names (for if 'Father' is a name of substance, 'Son' could never be (14∆_366> the name of the same); and if of energy, so that they might show those who confess the Son to be clearly a work of the Father, as an effect. After the teacher, having gone through the literal meaning antithetically, immediately said to them that the name 'Father' is neither of substance nor of energy, but of relation, and of how the Father is toward the Son, or the Son toward the Father, he condescended to them, saying: “Let it be of energy also, if this seems good,” and he adds: “But this very thing the consubstantial would have worked.” How then does the consubstantial work? one of the overly inquisitive who cannot stand to be ignorant of anything beneficial might perhaps ask. This will be smoothed out in the following manner.

They say there are two energies in general among beings, 1268 one that naturally brings forth from beings those things that are of the same kind and consubstantial and in every way the same as themselves. In accordance with this, the teacher, condescending gently to the sophists, in order that they might at least for a little while hold back from blaspheming, says: “Let it be according to you,” in keeping with the stated purpose of the argument, “that the Father is also a name of energy.” To which he adds: “But this very thing the Father would have worked,” that is, the consubstantial, as an energy subsisting essentially and living, just as indeed the divinely-minded teachers of the truth have called the Only-begotten Word of God and Son of the Father a living Word and a power and a self-subsistent wisdom. The other energy, they say, is productive of external things, according to which someone, working on something external and of a different substance, constructs something else, foreign to his own substance, from some pre-existing matter. And they say that this energy is scientifically composed with the arts. Concerning which the divinely-minded teacher says, “Even if it is otherwise absurd,” that is, contrary to the manner in which it was understood, “The supposition of energy concerning (14∆_368> this,” and especially when taken in the case of the Father and the Son, for whom the pious mind cannot bear to accept even the first [energy] in its proper sense, because the ineffable and incomprehensible existence of the Only-begotten from the Father and with the Father and in the Father is even beyond this.

PS (86). ..».... «...FOR GOD IS PROPERLY OUR GOD, BUT NOT PROPERLY FATHER»

From the second discourse On the Son, on the passage: “But ‘God’ would be said not of the Word, but of the visible. For how could He be God of Him who is properly God? Just as also ‘Father’ is not of the visible, but of the Word. For he was twofold, so that the one is properly upon both, but the other not properly; but with us it is the opposite. For God is properly our God, but not properly Father».

The phrase 'properly on both' must be taken, of 'Father,' and of 'God,' as both upon

of Christ can be said properly because of the one hypostasis. For God is properly the Father of Christ, as he is Son and God the Word and one of the Holy Trinity

89

προτάσεις ὑπάρχουσιν ὁριστικαί, οἷς περιπτώκασιν ἐκ πολλῆς ἀμαθίας οἱ ἑαυτούς οἰόμενοι σοφούς.

ΠΕ (85). ΕΣΤΩ ∆Ε ΚΑΙ ΕΝΕΡΓΕΙΑΣ, ΕΙ ∆ΟΚΕΙ, ΟΥ∆Ε ΟΥΤΩΣ ΗΜΑΣ ΑΙΡΗΣΕΤΕ..».

Ἔστω δέ καί ἐνεργείας, εἰ δοκεῖ, οὐδέ οὕτως ἡμᾶς αἱρήσετε. Αὐτό δέ τοῦτο ἐνεργηκώς ἄν εἴη τό ὁμούσιον, εἰ καί ἄτοπος ἄλλως ἡ τῆς περί τοῦτο ἐνεργείας ὑπόληψις».

Ἐπειδή οἱ τήν γλῶσσαν ὡσεί ξυρόν κατά τῆς ἀληθείας ἠκονημένην ἔχοντες

ἔλεγον δῆθεν ἐρωτῶντες· Ὁ Πατήρ οὐσίας ἐστίν, ἤ ἐνεργείας ὄνομα εἶναι τό, Πατήρ, ἐντεῦθεν συναγάγωσι τό ἑτερούσιον εἶναι τῷ Πατρί τόν Υἱόν, ὡς τῆς αὐτῆς οὐσίας δύο μή ἐπιδεχομένης καί διάφορα κυρίως ὀνόματα (εἰ γάρ τό Πατήρ οὐσίας ἐστίν ὄνομα, οὐκ ἄν ποτε (14∆_366> τῆς αὐτῆς ὄνομα εἴη τό Υἱός)· εἰ δέ ἐνεργείας, σαφῶς τοῦ Πατρός ποιήμα τόν Υἱόν ὁμολογοῦντας δείξωσιν, ὡς ἐνέργημα, μετά τό τήν κυριολεξίαν ἀντιθετικῶς διελθεῖν εὐθέως πρός αὐτούς τόν διδάσκαλον εἰρηκότα οὔτε οὐσίας εἶναι τό Πατήρ ὄνομα, οὔτε ἐνεργείας, ἀλλά σχέσεως, καί τοῦ πῶς ἔχει πρός τόν Υἱόν ὁ Πατήρ, ἤ ὁ Υἱός πρός τόν Πατέρα, συμπεριφορικῶς ἐνήγαγεν εἰπών· " Ἔστω καί ἐνεργείας, εἰ τοῦτο δοκεῖ», καί ἐπιφέρει· "Αὐτό δέ τοῦτο ἐνηργηκώς ἄν εἴη τό ὁμοούσιον». Πῶς οὖν ἐνεργεῖ τό ὁμοούσιον; ζητήσαι τις ἄν τυχόν τῶν ἄγαν ἐξεταστικῶν καί μηδέν τῶν συμφερόντων ἀγνοεῖν ἀνεχομένων. Τοῦτο δέ κατά τοιόνδε τρόπον ὁμαλισθήσεται.

∆ύο καθόλου τάς ἐνεργείας εἶναί φασιν ἐν τοῖς οὖσι, 1268 μίαν μέν τήν προάγουσαν ἐκ τῶν ὄντων φυσικῶς τά ὁμογενῆ καί ὁμοούσια καί ἑαυτοῖς πάντη ταὐτά. Καθ᾿ ἥν συμπεριενεχθείς τοῖς λογολέσχαις ἐπιεικῶς πρός τό μικρόν γοῦν ἐπισχεῖν αὐτούς τοῦ βλασφημεῖν φησιν ὁ διδάσκαλος. " Ἔστω δέ καθ᾿ ὑμᾶς», κατά τόν ἀποδοθέντα σκοπόν τοῦ λόγου, " καί ἐνεργείας ὄνομα ὁ Πατήρ. Οἷς ἐπάγει· "Αὐτό δέ τοῦτο ἐνηργηκώς ἄν εἴη ὁ Πατήρ», δηλονότι τό ὁμοούσιον, ὡς ἐνέργειαν οὐσιωδῶς ὑφεστῶσαν καί ζῶσαν,ὥσπερ οὖν ἀμέλει καί λόγον ζῶντα καί δύναμιν καί σοφίαν αὐθυπόστατον τόν μονογενῆ Θεοῦ Λόγον καί Υἱόν τοῦ Πατρός εἰρήκασιν οἱ θεόφρονες τῆς ἀληθείας διδάσκαλοι. Τήν δέ ἑτέραν ἐνέργειάν φασιν εἶναι τῶν ἐκτός ἀπεργαστικήν, καθ᾿ ἥν περί τι τῶν ἔξωθεν καί ἑτερούσιων ἐνεργῶν τις ἕτερόν τι τῆς ἰδίας οὐσίας ἀλλότριον ἐκ προϋποκειμένη ὕλης τινός κατασκευάζει. Ταύτην δέ τήν ἐνέργειαν ταῖς τέχναις ἐπιστημονικῶς συγκεῖσθαί φασι. Περί ἧς ὁ θεόφρων διδάσκαλός φησι, "Εί καί ἄτοπος ἄλλως», παρ᾿ ὅν ἐλήφθη δηλονότι τρόπον, " Ἡ τῆς περί (14∆_368> τοῦτο ἐνεργείας ὑπόληψις», καί μάλιστα ἐπί Πατρός καί Υἱοῦ λαμβανομένης, ἐφ᾿ ὧν οὐδέ τήν πρώτην κυρίως δέξασθε ὁ εὐσεβής ἀνέχεται νοῦς, διά τό καί ὑπέρ ταύτην εἶναι τήν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός καί ἅμα τῷ Πατρί καί ἐν τῷ Πατρί ἄφραστον καί ἀπερινόητον ὕπαρξιν τοῦ Μονογενοῦς.

ΠS (86). ..».... «...ΗΜΩΝ ΓΑΡ ΚΥΡΙΩΣ ΘΕΟΣ Ο ΘΕΟΣ, ΟΥ ΚΥΡΙΩΣ ∆Ε ΠΑΤΗΡ»

Ἐκ τοῦ β´ περί Υἱοῦ λόγου, εἰς τό· " Θεός δέ λέγοιτο ἄν οὐ τοῦ Λόγου, τοῦ ὁρωμένου δέ. Πῶς γάρ εἴη τοῦ κυρίως Θεοῦ Θεός; ὥσπερ καί Πατήρ οὐ τοῦ ὁρωμένου, τοῦ Λόγου δέ. Καί γάρ ἦν διπλοῦς, ὥστε τό μέν κυρίως ἐπ᾿ ἀμφοῖν, τό δέ οὐ κυρίως· ἐναντίως δέ ἐφ᾿ ἡμῶν ἔχει. Ἡμῶν γάρ κυρίως Θεός ὁ Θεός, οὐ κυρίως δέ Πατήρ».

Τό μέν κυρίως ἐπ᾿ ἀμφοῖν θετέον, τοῦ, Πατήρ, καί τοῦ, Θεός, ὡς ἀμφοῖν ἐπί

Χριστοῦ κυρίως λέγεσθαι δυναμένων διά τήν μίαν ὑπόστασιν. Χριστοῦ γάρ Πατήρ κυρίως ἐστίν ὁ Θεός, ὡς Υἱοῦ καί Θεοῦ Λόγου καί ἑνός τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος ὑπάρχοντος