90

we are taught, but we will suppose this utterance to be indicative of nature itself, as if somehow flowing from the underlying reality and through the pronunciation of syllables revealing what is sought, it is entirely necessary either that God is not unbegotten, or that he is not called so, since no utterance provides such a meaning specifically for him. 2.1.37 For since unbegottenness, as they say, does not signify being without cause, but indicates the nature, their sophism will certainly be turned back against them to the contrary, and "unbegotten" will be found to escape <from> their dogma concerning God. For with no other verb or noun representing that the Father was not begotten, and with "unbegotten," according to their wisdom, interpreting something else and not "not having been begotten," their argument is gone, having collapsed and slipped away to Sabellius. 2.1.38 For by this sequence it is entirely necessary that the Father be considered the same as the Son, the distinction between begotten and unbegotten having been broken off from their dogma, so that one of two things: either they will retract their opinion about the name as signifying a difference of each one's property and not nature, or, abiding by their decisions about this utterance, they will agree with Sabellius; for there is no way that the difference of the hypostases will remain unconfused, if it is not distinguished by the 2.1.39 begotten from the unbegotten. So if the name signifies a difference, the substance will be un-signified by this appellation; for the account of the difference is one thing, and the account of the substance is another. But if they draw down the meaning of the utterance to the nature, they will consequently be dragged down into the deceit of those called Son-Fathers, the clear statement concerning the 2.1.40 hypostases having been removed from the argument. But if they say that nothing prevents both the distinction with respect to the begotten from being signified by unbegottenness and it from representing the substance itself, let them distinguish for us the appropriate meanings of the name, so that it can properly fit with each of the 2.1.41 two divided notions of "unbegotten." For the indication of the difference from this name has no ambiguity, being established by the principle of distinction; for instead of "1the Son is begotten"2 and "1the Father is not begotten"2, we too agree that one is called unbegotten and the other begotten, by a certain paronymy of the terms; but from what concept the indication of the substance will be clarified through this appellation, they would not be able to say. 2.1.42 But passing this over in silence, the new theologian ironically goes through other nonsense for us in his preceding discourse. 20that he is simple20, he says, 20being God he is called unbegotten, for this reason God is unbegottenness20. What does the concept of simplicity have in common with the notion of unbegotten? For the Only-begotten is both begotten and is not doubted to be simple. 20But also without parts20, he says, 20and uncompounded20. What has this to do with the question? For neither is the Son multiform and composite, but nevertheless he is not for this 2.1.43 reason unbegotten. But he is also alien to quantity, he says, and to magnitude. Let these things be so. For the Son is also unlimited in magnitude and without quantity, and yet he is Son. But this is not the question. For the task is to demonstrate according to what meaning of "unbegotten" the substance is known. For just as from this utterance the principle of the difference of properties was grasped, so they demanded that the indication of being should also be beyond doubt from one of the things signified by this same 2.1.44 appellation. But he is silent on this, and says 20that 'unbegotten' should not be applied to God by conception. For things so spoken with utterances20, he says, 20are naturally dissolved along with them20. But what of the things that are said is not dissolved as soon as it is said? For it is not as if, like potters or brick-makers, according to the impression of the word once made in the mouth, we keep the things uttered by the voice indissoluble, but at the same time the word has been brought forth through the sound and what was said is no more. 2.1.45 For when the breath of the voice has been poured out again into the air, no trace of the things spoken has been imprinted upon the place in which the outpouring of the voice occurred; so if he characterizes the word by conception with this, that the word does not remain but disappears along with the voice of the speaker, he would not be slow to call every word "conception," since no substance of any word 2.1.46 remains after its utterance. For not even "unbegottenness" itself, which he exempts from "conception," will he be able to show is indissoluble and fixed after it has been uttered, since the phrase brought forth by the sound from the mouth does not remain in the air. And thus one might learn the incoherence of his statements, that even if we, being silent, write down the concepts of the soul, not the things that subsist

90

διδασκόμεθα, ἀλλ' αὐτῆς τῆς φύσεως ἐν δεικτικὴν εἶναι τὴν φωνὴν ταύτην ὑποληψόμεθα οἷον ἀπορ ρέουσάν πως τοῦ ὑποκειμένου πράγματος καὶ διὰ τῆς τῶν συλλαβῶν ἐκφωνήσεως ἐκκαλύπτουσαν τὸ ζητούμενον, ἀνάγκη πᾶσα ἢ μὴ εἶναι τὸν θεὸν ἀγέννητον ἢ μὴ λέγεσθαι, μηδε μιᾶς φωνῆς τὴν τοιαύτην ἔμφασιν ἰδιαζόντως ἐπ' αὐτοῦ 2.1.37 παρεχομένης. τῆς γὰρ ἀγεννησίας, καθὼς οὗτοί φασιν, οὐ τὸ ἄνευ αἰτίας εἶναι διασημαινούσης, ἀλλὰ τὴν φύσιν ἐν δεικνυμένης, περιτραπήσεται πάντως αὐτοῖς πρὸς τοὐναντίον τὸ σόφισμα καὶ εὑρεθήσεται διαφεῦγον <ἐκ> τοῦ δόγματος αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τοῦ θεοῦ τὸ ἀγέννητον. μηδενὸς γὰρ ἑτέρου ῥήματος ἢ ὀνόματος τὸ μὴ γεννηθῆναι τὸν πατέρα παρι στῶντος, τοῦ δὲ ἀγεννήτου κατὰ τὴν σοφίαν αὐτῶν ἄλλο τι καὶ οὐχὶ τὸ μὴ γεγεννῆσθαι διερμηνεύοντος, οἴχεται καὶ συνερρύη πρὸς τὸν Σαβέλλιον αὐτοῖς κατολισθήσας ὁ λόγος. 2.1.38 ἀνάγκη γὰρ πᾶσα διὰ τῆς ἀκολουθίας ταύτης τὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι νομίζεσθαι τῷ υἱῷ τὸν πατέρα, τῆς κατὰ τὸ γεννητὸν καὶ ἀγέννητον διαφορᾶς ἐκ τοῦ δόγματος αὐτῶν ἐκκλα πείσης, ὥστε δυοῖν θάτερον ἢ ἀναθήσονται τὴν περὶ τοῦ ὀνόματος δόξαν ὡς διαφορὰν τῆς ἑκατέρου ἰδιότητος καὶ οὐχὶ φύσιν σημαίνοντος, ἢ παραμένοντες τοῖς ἐγνωσμένοις περὶ ταύτης τῆς φωνῆς Σαβελλίῳ συνθήσονται· οὐ γὰρ ἔστιν ὅπως ἡ τῶν ὑποστάσεων διαφορὰ τὸ ἀσύγχυτον ἕξει, μὴ τῷ 2.1.39 γεννητῷ διαστελλομένη πρὸς τὸ ἀγέννητον. ὥστε εἰ μὲν διαφορὰν σημαίνει τὸ ὄνομα, ἡ οὐσία ἔσται διὰ τῆς προση γορίας ταύτης ἀσήμαντος· ἄλλος γὰρ τῆς διαφορᾶς καὶ ἕτερος τῆς οὐσίας ὁ λόγος· εἰ δὲ πρὸς τὴν φύσιν τὴν ση μασίαν τῆς φωνῆς καθέλκουσιν, εἰς τὴν τῶν Υἱοπατόρων λεγομένων ἀπάτην ἀκολούθως ὑποσυρήσονται, τῆς κατὰ τὰς 2.1.40 ὑποστάσεις τρανώσεως ὑφαιρεθείσης τοῦ λόγου. εἰ δὲ λέ γουσι κωλύειν μηδὲν καὶ τὴν πρὸς τὸ γεννητὸν ἀντιδιαστολὴν ἐκ τῆς ἀγεννησίας σημαίνεσθαι καὶ αὐτὴν παριστᾶν τὴν οὐσίαν, διαστειλάτωσαν ἡμῖν τὰς προσφυεῖς τοῦ ὀνόματος σημασίας, ὡς δύνασθαι κυρίως ἁρμόζειν πρὸς ἑκατέραν 2.1.41 διασχισθεῖσαν τοῦ ἀγεννήτου τὴν ἔννοιαν. ἡ μὲν γὰρ τῆς διαφορᾶς ἐκ τοῦ ὀνόματος τούτου δήλωσις ἀμφιβολίαν οὐκ ἔχει, τῷ τῆς ἀντιδιαστολῆς λόγῳ συνισταμένη· ἀντὶ γὰρ τοῦ "1γεγέννηται ὁ υἱὸς"2 καὶ "1οὐ γεγέννηται ὁ πατὴρ"2 τὸν μὲν ἀγέννητον τὸν δὲ γεννητὸν λέγεσθαι κατά τινα ῥημά των παρωνυμίαν καὶ ἡμεῖς συντιθέμεθα· ἡ δὲ τῆς οὐσίας δεῖξις ἐκ ποίας διανοίας διὰ τοῦ προσρήματος τούτου σαφη νισθήσεται, εἰπεῖν οὐκ ἂν ἔχοιεν. 2.1.42 Ἀλλὰ τοῦτο σιωπήσας ὁ καινὸς θεολόγος ἑτέρους ἡμῖν φληνάφους ἐπὶ τῆς προλαβούσης λογογραφίας εἴρων διέξεισιν. 20ὅτι ἁπλοῦς20, φησίν, 20ὢν ὁ θεὸς ἀγέννητος λέγεται, διὰ τοῦτο ἀγεννησία ἐστὶν ὁ θεός20. τί κοινὸν ὁ τῆς ἁπλότητος ἔχει λόγος πρὸς τὴν τοῦ ἀγεννήτου διάνοιαν; καὶ γὰρ καὶ ὁ μονογενὴς καὶ γεννητός ἐστι καὶ ἁπλοῦς εἶναι οὐκ ἀμφιβάλλεται. 20ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀμερής20, φησί, 20καὶ ἀσύνθετος20. τί καὶ τοῦτο πρὸς τὸ ζητούμενον; οὐδὲ γὰρ ὁ υἱὸς πολυειδὴς καὶ συγκείμενος, ἀλλ' ὅμως οὐ διὰ 2.1.43 τοῦτο ἀγέννητος. ἀλλὰ καὶ ποσότητος, φησί, καὶ πηλικό τητος ἠλλοτρίωται. ἔστω καὶ ταῦτα. καὶ γὰρ καὶ ὁ υἱὸς ἀπεριόριστος τῷ πηλίκῳ καὶ ἄποσος καὶ ὅμως υἱός. ἀλλὰ τὸ ζητούμενον οὐ τοῦτό ἐστι. πρόκειται γὰρ ἀποδειχθῆναι κατὰ τίνα τοῦ ἀγεννήτου σημασίαν ἡ οὐσία γνωρίζεται. ὡς γὰρ ἐκ τῆς φωνῆς ταύτης ὁ τῆς τῶν ἰδιωμάτων διαφορᾶς κατελήφθη λόγος, οὕτως ἠξίουν ἀναμφίβολον εἶναι καὶ τοῦ εἶναι τὴν ἔνδειξιν ἔκ τινος τῶν σημαινομένων διὰ τῆς αὐτῆς 2.1.44 ταύτης προσηγορίας. ἀλλὰ τοῦτο μὲν σιωπᾷ, λέγει δὲ 20μὴ δεῖν κατ' ἐπίνοιαν ἐπιφημίζεσθαι τῷ θεῷ τὸ ἀγέννητον. τὰ γὰρ οὕτω λελεγμένα ταῖς φω ναῖς20, φησί, 20συνδιαλύεσθαι πέφυκε20. τί δὲ τῶν λε γομένων οὐχ ὁμοῦ τῷ λεχθῆναι καὶ διαλύεται; οὐ γὰρ ὥσπερ κεραμεύοντες ἢ πλινθευόμενοι κατὰ τὴν ἅπαξ γενο μένην ἐν τῷ στόματι τοῦ λόγου τύπωσιν ἀδιάλυτα φυλάσσο μεν τὰ διὰ τῆς φωνῆς προφερόμενα, ἀλλ' ὁμοῦ τε προενή νεκται διὰ τοῦ φθόγγου ὁ λόγος καὶ τὸ ῥηθὲν οὐκ ἔστι. 2.1.45 πάλιν γὰρ πρὸς τὸν ἀέρα τοῦ τῆς φωνῆς πνεύματος ἀνα χεθέντος, οὐδὲν ἴχνος τῶν εἰρημένων ἐνετυπώθη τῷ τόπῳ, ἐν ᾧ γέγονε τῆς φωνῆς ἡ ἀνάχυσις· ὥστε εἰ τούτῳ τὸν κατ' ἐπίνοιαν λόγον χαρακτηρίζει, τῷ μὴ μένειν λόγον ἀλλὰ τῇ φωνῇ τοῦ φθεγγομένου συναφανίζεσθαι, οὐκ ἂν φθάνοι πάντα λόγον ὀνομάζων ἐπίνοιαν, μηδεμιᾶς ὑποστάσεως ἐν 2.1.46 οὐδενὶ λόγῳ μετὰ τὴν προφορὰν διαμενούσης. οὐδὲ γὰρ αὐτὴν τὴν ἀγεννησίαν, ἣν ἐξαιρεῖ τῆς ἐπινοίας, ἀδιάλυτον καὶ παγίαν μετὰ τὸ προενεχθῆναι δεῖξαι δυνήσεται, τῆς προενεχθείσης διὰ τοῦ φθόγγου ῥήσεως ἐκ τοῦ στόματος ἐν τῷ ἀέρι μὴ συμμενούσης. καὶ οὕτω δ' ἄν τις μάθοι τὸ τῶν εἰρημένων ἀσύστατον, ὅτι κἂν σιωπῶντες τὰς τῆς ψυχῆς ἐννοίας ἀπογραφώμεθα, οὐ τὰ μὲν ὑφεστῶτα