129

by conception both because of the differences of the energies and certain analogies and relations20. For these names are tediously bandied about concerning him. 20But how20, he says, 20is it not absurd, or rather, unlawful, to compare the unbegotten to these things? 2.1.364 To what things? To the grain of wheat, he says, and to the only-begotten God. Do you see the reverence? He makes out the small grain of wheat and the only-begotten God to be equally distant from the dignity of the unbegotten God. And that we are not misrepresenting his argument, it is possible to learn his meaning from the very things he has written. 20For how20, he says, 20is it not absurd, or rather, unlawful, to compare the unbegotten to these things20? And having said this, he introduces the argument concerning the wheat and the Lord on an equal footing, judging it equally absurd to compare God to either one of these. 2.1.365 But it is certainly known to everyone that things which are distant from something by an equal measure are also equal to one another; so that, according to the wise theologian, the maker of the ages, who has grasped the whole nature of existing things, was shown to be of equal standing with the tiniest seed, if indeed he himself and the grain of wheat fall equally short of the comparison with God. 2.1.366 But so great is the impiety of the argument. But it would be time to examine the very argument leading to blasphemy, in what way it is logically consistent with itself. For having said it is absurd to compare God to the wheat and to Christ, concerning the wheat he says that God is not, in its likeness, susceptible to change; but concerning the only-begotten, he was silent about his not being susceptible to change, and by this clearly showed the lowliness of his dignity. In that he ought not, like the wheat, to be compared to God, he left the argument hanging, having established in this part by no other reasoning the incomparability of the Son to the Father, as if the things considered concerning the grain were sufficient to also indicate the Son's difference from the Father 2.1.367 in terms of inferiority. but 20concerning the incorruptibility of the Father20 he discourses on the grounds that 20it does not belong to him from an energy20. But whether the true life energizing itself is some kind of energy, and whether it is identical in meaning both to live forever and never to be dissolved into corruption, I do not yet add to the argument, 2.1.368 but I will save it for its proper places. That, however, the concept of incorruptibility is one, understood in the same way for both the Father and the Son, and that the incorruptibility of the Father in no way differs from the incorruptibility of the Son, with no variation concerning incorruptibility found, neither by any decrease or increase nor by any other mode of difference—this I say is opportune to say both now and always, so that by this his argument may have no place, in testifying for the Father, through the concept of incorruptibility, that which is not shared with the Son. 2.1.369 For as incorruptibility is comprehended in the Father, so also it is not doubted to be in the only-begotten. For that which is not subject to corruption, which is and is called incorruptibility, has an equal, or rather the same, meaning of whomever it may be said. What then has he learned that he testifies only for the unbegotten God that incorruptibility is not his from an energy, as if by this he were showing the Father's difference from the only-begotten? 2.1.370 For if he supposes his 2.1.370 created god to be corruptible, he rightly, by the difference between the corruptible and the incorruptible, demonstrates the difference in nature; but if each is likewise not subject to corruption, and neither more nor less is comprehended in the natural incorruptibility, how does he show the incomparability of the Father with respect to the only-begotten Son? Or what does he mean by testifying that the Father's incorruptibility is not from an energy? 2.1.371 But he reveals his purpose in the following argument. 20Not from energies20, he says, 20is he incorruptible and unbegotten as Father and Creator20. I ask the hearer to pay closest attention to this. How does he think the meaning of these two names is the same, I mean, of creatorship and of fatherhood? For he defines each of these to be equally an energy, clearly thus

129

ἐπινοίας διά τε τὰς ἑτερότητας τῶν ἐνεργειῶν καὶ ἀναλογίας τινὰς καὶ σχέ σεις20. ταῦτα γὰρ κατακόρως ἐπ' αὐτοῦ διαθρυλεῖ τὰ ὀνό ματα. 20ἀλλὰ πῶς20, φησίν, 20οὐκ ἄτοπον, ἀθέμιτον δὲ μᾶλλον, τούτοις παραβάλλειν τὸν ἀγέννητον; 2.1.364 τίσι τούτοις; τῷ σίτῳ, φησί, καὶ τῷ μονογενεῖ θεῷ. ὁρᾷς τὴν εὐλάβειαν; ἴσον ἀπέχειν τῆς ἀξίας τοῦ ἀγεννήτου θεοῦ κατασκευάζει τὸν βραχὺν σῖτον καὶ τὸν μονογενῆ θεόν. καὶ ὅτι οὐ συκοφαντοῦμεν τὸν λόγον, παρ' αὐτῶν ἔστι τῶν γεγραμμένων μαθεῖν αὐτοῦ τὴν διάνοιαν. 20πῶς γάρ20, φησίν, 20οὐκ ἄτοπον, ἀθέμιτον δὲ μᾶλλον, τούτοις πα ραβάλλειν τὸν ἀγέννητον20; καὶ ταῦτα εἰπὼν ἐπάγει κατὰ τὸ ὁμότιμον τὸν περὶ τοῦ σίτου καὶ τοῦ κυρίου λόγον, ἴσον εἰς ἀτοπίαν κρίνων ἑνὶ τούτων παραβάλλειν τὸν θεόν. 2.1.365 παντὶ δὲ γνώριμον πάντως τὸ τοιοῦτόν ἐστιν, ὅτι τὰ ἴσῳ τῷ μέτρῳ τινὸς ἀφεστηκότα καὶ αὐτὰ πρὸς ἄλληλα τὸ ἴσον ἔχει· ὥστε κατὰ τὸν σοφὸν θεολόγον ὁ τῶν αἰώνων ποιητὴς καὶ πάσης περιδεδραγμένος τῶν ὄντων <τῆς> φύσεως ἰσο στάσιος ἀνεδείχθη τῷ βραχυτάτῳ σπέρματι, εἴπερ ἐπίσης ἀπολείπεται τῆς πρὸς τὸν θεὸν συγκρίσεως καὶ αὐτὸς καὶ ὁ σῖτος. 2.1.366 Ἀλλ' ἡ μὲν ἀσέβεια τοῦ λόγου τοσαύτη. καιρὸς δ' ἂν εἴη καὶ αὐτὴν ἐξετάσαι τὴν εἰς τὴν βλασφημίαν κατα σκευήν, ἐν τίνι πρὸς ἑαυτὴν τῷ λόγῳ δι' ἀκολουθίας συνήρ τηται. εἰπὼν γὰρ ἄτοπον εἶναι τῷ σίτῳ καὶ τῷ Χριστῷ τὸν θεὸν παραβάλλειν περὶ τοῦ σίτου φησὶν ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ θεὸς καθ' ὁμοιότητα τούτων πρὸς μεταβολὴν ἐπιτήδειος, περὶ δὲ τοῦ μονογενοῦς τὸ μὴ εἶναι αὐτὸν πρὸς μεταβολὴν ἐπιτήδειον σιωπήσας καὶ διὰ τούτου σαφῶς ἐνδειξάμενος τὸ ταπεινὸν τῆς ἀξίας, ἐν τῷ μὴ δεῖν αὐτὸν ὡς καὶ τὸν σῖτον τῷ θεῷ συγκρίνειν ἀφῆκε τὸν λόγον μετέωρον, οὐδενὶ ἄλλῳ λογισμῷ κατασκευάσας ἐν τῷ μέρει τούτῳ τὸ πρὸς τὸν πατέρα τοῦ υἱοῦ ἀπαράθετον, ὡς ἱκανῶν ὄντων τῶν περὶ τὸν κόκκον θεωρηθέντων καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ τὴν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα 2.1.367 κατὰ τὸ ταπεινότερον παραλλαγὴν συνενδείξασθαι. ἀλλὰ 20περὶ τῆς ἀφθαρσίας τοῦ πατρὸς20 διαλέγεται ὡς 20οὐκ ἐξ ἐνεργείας προσούσης αὐτῷ20. ἐγὼ δὲ εἰ μὲν ἐνέργειά τίς ἐστιν ἡ ὄντως ζωὴ ἑαυτὴν ἐνεργοῦσα καὶ εἰ ταὐτόν ἐστι τῷ σημαινομένῳ τό τε ἀεὶ ζῆν καὶ τὸ μηδέ ποτε εἰς φθορὰν διαλύεσθαι οὔπω τῷ λόγῳ προστίθημι, 2.1.368 ἀλλὰ τοῖς ἰδίοις ταμιεύσομαι τόποις. ὅτι μέντοι μία <ἡ> τῆς ἀφθαρσίας ἐστὶ διάνοια ὡσαύτως ἐπί τε τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ νοουμένη καὶ κατ' οὐδὲν τὸ τοῦ πατρὸς ἄφθαρτον τῆς ἀφθαρσίας τοῦ υἱοῦ παραλλάσσει, οὔτε ὑφέσει τινὶ καὶ ἐπιτάσει οὔτε τινὶ ἄλλῳ διαφορᾶς τρόπῳ τῆς κατὰ τὴν ἀφθαρσίαν παραλλαγῆς εὑρισκομένης, τοῦτο καὶ νῦν φημι εὔκαιρον εἶναι καὶ ἀεὶ λέγειν, ὡς ἂν μηδεμίαν ἔχοι διὰ τούτου χώραν ὁ λόγος αὐτῷ τῇ κατὰ τὴν ἀφθαρσίαν ἐννοίᾳ τῷ πατρὶ προσμαρτυρῶν τὸ πρὸς τὸν υἱὸν ἀκοινώνητον. 2.1.369 ὡς γὰρ περὶ τὸν πατέρα ἡ ἀφθαρσία καταλαμβάνεται, οὕτως καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ μονογενοῦς εἶναι οὐκ ἀμφιβάλλεται. τὸ γὰρ τῆς φθορᾶς ἀπαράδεκτον, ὅπερ ἀφθαρσία καὶ ἔστι καὶ λέγεται, ἴσον μᾶλλον δὲ τὸν αὐτὸν ἔχει λόγον ἐφ' οὗπερ ἂν λέγηται. τί οὖν μαθὼν μόνῳ προσμαρτυρεῖ τῷ ἀγεν νήτῳ θεῷ τὸ μὴ ἐξ ἐνεργείας εἶναι τὴν ἀφθαρσίαν αὐτῷ, ὡς διὰ τούτου τὴν κατὰ τοῦ μονογενοῦς παραλλαγὴν τοῦ 2.1.370 πατρὸς δεικνύων; εἰ μὲν γὰρ φθαρτὸν ὑποτίθεται τὸν 2.1.370 κτιστὸν ἑαυτοῦ θεόν, καλῶς τῇ τοῦ φθαρτοῦ πρὸς τὸ ἄφθαρτον διαφορᾷ τὴν κατὰ φύσιν παραλλαγὴν ἀποδείκνυσιν· εἰ δὲ ἀνεπίδεκτος φθορᾶς ὡσαύτως ἑκάτερος καὶ οὔτε τὸ μᾶλλον οὔτε τὸ ἧττον ἐν τῇ κατὰ φύσιν ἀφθαρσίᾳ κατα λαμβάνεται, πῶς δείκνυσι τοῦ πατρὸς πρὸς τὸν μονογενῆ υἱὸν τὸ ἀσύγκριτον; ἢ τί βούλεται τὸ μὴ ἐξ ἐνεργείας προσμαρτυρεῖσθαι τῷ πατρὶ τὸ ἄφθαρτον; 2.1.371 Ἀλλ' ἐκκαλύπτει τὸν σκοπὸν τῷ μετὰ ταῦτα λόγῳ. 20οὐκ ἐξ ἐνεργειῶν20, φησίν, 20ἄφθαρτός ἐστιν καὶ ἀγέννητος ὡς πατήρ τε καὶ δημιουργός20. τούτῳ μοι προσέχειν μάλιστα τὸν ἀκροατὴν ἀξιῶ. πῶς ταὐτὸν οἴεται τῶν δύο τούτων ὀνομάτων τὸ σημαινόμενον, τῆς δημιουργίας λέγω καὶ τῆς πατρότητος; ἐνέργειαν γὰρ εἶναι τούτων ἑκάτερον ἐπίσης ὁρίζεται σαφῶς οὕτω