231

not by qualities, but by volitional impulses shaping the subject, so of necessity if one were to define fatherhood as an energy, he will not otherwise demonstrate the hypostasis of the Son, 2.1.375 unless it is worked out in some passible matter. For if it were thought to be impassible, its impassibility will certainly become resistant to the one energizing, and the energy being hindered, that which is energized will certainly not exist. So it is one of two things: either through these arguments they will make the substance of the Only-begotten passible, so that it might receive the energy, or, shrinking from this because of its manifest impiety, they will establish that it does not exist at all. 2.1.376 For that which is by nature unable to suffer, does not in any way admit a creative energy from another. Therefore, the one who names the Son the result of some energy defines him also as one of the passible things, as many as came forth through energy, or if he were to deny the passion, he will also deny his hypostasis along with the passion. But since in each of the alternatives presented in the dilemma the impiety is clear—both to say he does not exist and to suppose him passible—the 2.1.377 truth is manifest, being revealed through the refutation of the absurdities. For if he both truly is and is not passible, it is clear that he is not from an energy, but as is fitting for the true God from the true God the Father, impassibly from eternity having been radiated and shone forth. But 20in respect to his very substance20, he says, 20God is incorruptible20. But what other of the concepts befitting God does not pertain to the very substance of the Son, justice, goodness, eternity, the inability to admit any evil, the being unlimited in everything conceived 2.1.378 according to goodness? Is there anyone who says that any of the good things is acquired by the divine nature, and that not everything whatsoever that is good both originates from there and is contemplated in it, as the prophet says, "For if anything is beautiful, it is his, and if anything is good, it is from him"? And to this he adds "20and 2.1.379 to be unbegotten in substance20." But I, if he says this meaning that the substance of the Father exists unbegottenly, agree with what is said and do not oppose the doctrine; for none of the pious at all supposes that the Father of the Only-begotten is begotten; but if he shows this in the form of his argument, but establishes that "20unbegottenness20" itself is substance, this I say must not be passed over unexamined, lest he might unnoticeably suborn the easily deceived into assenting to his blasphemy. 2.1.380 That the concept of unbegottenness is one thing, therefore, and the account of the divine substance another, the refutation comes from the very things said by him. 20In respect to his very20, he says, 20substance he is incorruptible and unbegotten, it being unmixed and pure from all otherness and difference20. He says these things about God, whose substance he says is incorruptibility and unbegottenness. Therefore he has stated three names in relation to God: substance, the 2.1.381 incorruptible, the unbegotten. If the meaning of these three names in relation to God is one, the Godhead is absolutely these three things; as if someone wishing to characterize man should say he is rational, capable of laughter, and has broad nails; in which cases, because there is no difference in nature in each, we say that the names are equivalent to one another and that the three are one with respect to the subject, humanity being 2.1.382 outlined by these names. If, therefore, the Godhead is this—unbegottenness and incorruptibility and substance—by all necessity in the removal of one of these, † the Godhead is also destroyed along with it. For just as one would not call what is not rational or capable of laughter a man, so also in the case of these three names, I mean of the unbegotten and of the incorruptible and of substance, if the Godhead is characterized by these, whenever one of the three is not present, the account of the Godhead 2.1.383 is completely erased by what is lacking. Therefore, let him answer what opinion he holds concerning the Only-begotten God. Does he think him begotten or unbegotten? He will surely say begotten, if he is not to contradict his own words. If therefore substance and the incorruptible, through which the Godhead is known, are the same as the unbegotten, he in whom the unbegotten is not present

231

οὐχὶ ποιότησιν, ἀλλὰ προαιρετικαῖς ὁρμαῖς διαμορφοῦντα τὸ ὑπο κείμενον, οὕτως ἐξ ἀνάγκης εἰ ἐνέργειάν τις ὁρίζοιτο τὴν πατρότητα, οὐκ ἄλλως ἀποδείξει τοῦ υἱοῦ τὴν ὑπόστασιν, 2.1.375 μὴ κατά τινα παθητικὴν πάντως ἀπεργασθεῖσαν ὕλην. εἰ γὰρ ἀπαθὴς νομισθείη, ἀντίτυπος πάντως ἡ ἀπάθεια τῷ ἐνεργοῦντι γενήσεται, κωλυομένης δὲ τῆς ἐνεργείας οὐκ ἔσται πάντως τὸ ἐνεργούμενον. ὡς δυοῖν θάτερον, ἢ παθη τὴν διὰ τούτων τοῦ μονογενοῦς τὴν οὐσίαν ποιήσουσιν, ἵνα τὴν ἐνέργειαν δέξηται, ἢ τοῦτο διὰ τὸ προφανὲς τῆς ἀσε βείας ὀκνοῦντες τὸ μηδὲ ὅλως αὐτὴν εἶναι κατασκευάσουσιν. 2.1.376 ὃ γὰρ παθεῖν ἀποπέφυκεν, οὐδὲ τὴν ποιητικὴν ἐνέργειαν ὑφ' ἑαυτοῦ πάντως προσίεται. ὁ τοίνυν ἐνεργείας τινὸς ἀποτέλεσμα τὸν υἱὸν ὀνομάζων ἕν τι καὶ τοῦτον τῶν παθη τῶν διορίζεται ὅσα δι' ἐνεργείας ἔσχε τὴν πρόοδον, ἢ εἴπερ ἀρνοῖτο τὸ πάθος, καὶ τὴν ὑπόστασιν αὐτοῦ μετὰ τοῦ πάθους ἀρνήσεται. ἀλλ' ἐπειδὴ καθ' ἑκάτερον τῶν κατὰ τὸ διλήμματον προφαινομένων σαφὴς ἡ ἀσέβεια καὶ τὸ μὴ εἶναι λέγειν καὶ τὸ παθητὸν αὐτὸν οἴεσθαι, πρόδηλος ἡ 2.1.377 ἀλήθεια διὰ τῆς τῶν ἀτόπων ἀναιρέσεως ἀναφαινομένη. εἰ γὰρ καὶ ἀληθῶς ἔστι καὶ παθητὸς οὐκ ἔστι, δῆλον ὅτι οὐκ ἐξ ἐνεργείας ἐστίν, ἀλλ' ὡς εἰκὸς ἀληθινὸν εἶναι θεὸν ἐκ τοῦ ἀληθινοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ πατρὸς ἀπαθῶς ἐξ ἀϊδίου ἀπαυ γασθέντα τε καὶ ἐκλάμψαντα. ἀλλὰ 20κατ' αὐτὴν τὴν οὐσίαν20, φησίν, 20ἄφθαρτός ἐστιν ὁ θεός20. τί δὲ ἄλλο τῶν θεοπρεπῶν νοημάτων οὐκ αὐτῆς ἔχεται τοῦ υἱοῦ τῆς οὐσίας, τὸ δίκαιον, τὸ ἀγαθόν, τὸ ἀΐδιον, τὸ τοῦ κακοῦ παντὸς ἀνεπίδεκτον, τὸ ἐν παντὶ τῷ κατὰ τὸ ἀγαθὸν νοου 2.1.378 μένῳ ἀπεριόριστον; ἆρά τίς ἐστιν ὁ λέγων ἐπίκτητόν τι τῶν καλῶν εἶναι τῇ θείᾳ φύσει καὶ οὐ πᾶν ὅτιπέρ ἐστι καλὸν ἐκεῖθέν τε ἀφορμᾶσθαι καὶ ἐν αὐτῇ θεωρεῖσθαι, οὕτω τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος Ὅτι εἴ τι καλόν, αὐτοῦ, καὶ εἴ τι ἀγαθόν, παρ' αὐτοῦ ἐστι; συνάπτει δὲ τούτῳ τὸ 20καὶ 2.1.379 ἀγέννητον κατ' οὐσίαν εἶναι20. ἐγὼ δέ, εἰ μὲν οὕτω νοῶν τοῦτο λέγει, ὅτι ἀγεννήτως ἔστι τοῦ πατρὸς ἡ οὐσία, συντίθεμαι τῷ λεγομένῳ καὶ οὐκ ἀντιβαίνω τῷ δόγματι· οὐδὲ γάρ τις ὅλως τῶν εὐσεβούντων γεννητὸν εἶναι τὸν πατέρα τοῦ μονογενοῦς ὑποτίθεται· εἰ δὲ τοῦτο μὲν ἐνδεί κνυται κατὰ τὸ σχῆμα τοῦ λόγου, κατασκευάζει δὲ τὸ αὐτὴν 20τὴν ἀγεννησίαν20 οὐσίαν εἶναι, τοῦτό φημι δεῖν μὴ παραδραμεῖν ἀνεξέταστον, ὡς ἂν μὴ λάθοι τοὺς εὐεξα πατήτους πρὸς τὴν συγκατάθεσιν τῆς βλασφημίας ὑποποιού 2.1.380 μενος. ὅτι τοίνυν ἄλλο τι τῆς ἀγεννησίας ἐστὶ τὸ νόημα καὶ ἄλλος τῆς θείας οὐσίας ὁ λόγος, ἐξ αὐτῶν τῶν παρ' αὐτοῦ λεγομένων ἐστὶν ὁ ἔλεγχος. 20Κατ' αὐτήν20, φησί, 20τὴν οὐσίαν ἄφθαρτός ἐστι καὶ ἀγέννητος ἀμιγῆ καὶ καθαρὰν οὖσαν πάσης ἑτερότητος καὶ διαφορᾶς20. περὶ θεοῦ ταῦτα λέγει, οὗ τὴν οὐσίαν ἀφθαρσίαν τε καὶ ἀγεννησίαν εἶναί φησι. τρία τοίνυν ἐπὶ θεοῦ εἶπεν ὀνόματα, τὴν οὐσίαν, τὸ ἄ 2.1.381 φθαρτον, τὸ ἀγέννητον. εἰ μία τῶν τριῶν τούτων ὀνομά των ἐπὶ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστιν ἡ ἔννοια, ἡ θεότης ταῦτα τὰ τρία πάντως ἐστίν· ὡς εἴ τις λέγοι τὸν ἄνθρωπον χαρακτηρίσαι βουλόμενος λογικὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι γελαστικόν τε καὶ πλατυώ νυχον· ἐφ' ὧν, διὰ τὸ μηδεμίαν κατὰ τὴν φύσιν ἐν ἑκάστῳ διαφορὰν εἶναι, ἰσοδυναμεῖν τε ἀλλήλοις τὰ ὀνόματα λέγομεν καὶ ἓν εἶναι τῷ ὑποκειμένῳ τὰ τρία, τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα τὴν 2.1.382 διὰ τῶν ὀνομάτων τούτων ὑπογραφεῖσαν. εἰ τοίνυν τοῦτό ἐστιν ἡ θεότης, ἡ ἀγεννησία τε καὶ ἡ ἀφθαρσία καὶ ἡ οὐσία, κατὰ πᾶσαν ἀνάγκην ἐν τῇ τοῦ ἑνὸς τούτων ἀφαι ρέσει † συναναιρεῖσθαι καὶ τὴν θεότητα. ὡς γὰρ τὸν μὴ λογικὸν οὐδὲ γελαστικὸν προσείποι τις ἂν οὐδὲ ἄν θρωπον, οὕτως καὶ ἐπὶ τούτων τῶν τριῶν ὀνομάτων, τοῦ τε ἀγεννήτου φημὶ καὶ τοῦ ἀφθάρτου καὶ τῆς οὐσίας, εἰ διὰ τούτων ἡ θεότης χαρακτηρίζεται, ὅταν ἕν τι τῶν τριῶν μὴ ὑπάρχῃ, διεγράφη πάντως τῷ λείποντι καὶ ὁ τῆς θεό 2.1.383 τητος λόγος. οὐκοῦν ἀποκρινάσθω τίνα περὶ τοῦ μονο γενοῦς θεοῦ ἔχει τὴν δόξαν. γεννητὸν αὐτὸν ἢ ἀγέννητον οἴεται; γεννητὸν ἐρεῖ πάντως, εἴπερ τοῖς ἰδίοις μὴ μάχοιτο. εἰ οὖν ταὐτόν ἐστι τῷ ἀγεννήτῳ ἡ οὐσία τε καὶ τὸ ἄφθαρ τον, δι' ὧν ἡ θεότης γνωρίζεται, ᾧ μὴ πρόσεστι τὸ ἀγέν