253

contemplation or any other such thing, in which not the act of seeing, but the use of seeing for a purpose has been devised by art), so also one might say that being rational is common to the human essence and a property co-essential with its nature from the beginning, but that the devising of certain significant appellations for existing things belongs to men who possess in themselves the rational power from God, who are always, according to what pleases them, devising for the clarity of the things signified certain words indicative of the things. But if these things prevail, he says that one of two things is established: either the conception of those who conceive is older, or the appellations belonging to God by nature and pre-existing all things are younger than the generation of men. Must one then contend against such things and engage in argument against such manifest folly? And who is so base as to be harmed by such things and to suppose, if the words were believed to be of the rational power, either that he must confess the sounds of the words to be older than those who speak them, or that he must think he sins against the divine, when men, as far as they are able, after they become men, name the divine? For that the transcendent nature has no need of words impressed through voice and tongue has already been said, and it would be superfluous to create a disturbance in the argument with the same things. For that which is by nature without need and perfect and without excess neither lacks any of the things it needs, nor has any of the things it does not need. Since, therefore, that he has no need of nominal appellation has been demonstrated from the preceding arguments and is confessed by the common consent of those who have sense, no one would deny that it is the height of impiety to attribute to God things that are not needed. But I think it is not necessary to dwell on these and similar things, nor to refute in detail the things said in sequence; for to the more attentive, the very argument labored by our adversary will appear as an advocate for the doctrines of piety. For he says that the essence itself is incorruptibility and likewise immortality. But as for me, whether these things are added to the divine nature, or the essence is these very things according to their meaning, I think there is no need to contend with him; for whichever of these statements prevails, it will completely support our argument. For if not being subject to corruption is added to the essence, then not being by generation is certainly also added to it, and thus the concept of unbegottenness will be pushed outside the meaning related to the essence. But if, because God is not corrupted, someone were to say the essence is incorruptibility, and because He is superior to death, for this reason he were to define the nature itself as immortality, since the Son is incorruptible and immortal, the essence of the Only-begotten would also be incorruptibility and immortality. If, then, the Father is incorruptibility and the Son is incorruptibility, and each of these is essence, and no difference is conceived according to the notion of incorruptibility, then in no way at all will the essence differ from the essence, since in both equally the nature is alien to corruption. And even if, repeating the same things again, he binds us, as he thinks, with the inescapable necessities of his dilemmas, saying that if what is added is distinguished by us from what is, the divine is made out to be composite, but if its simplicity is confessed, incorruptibility and unbegottenness will surely appear to be significant of the essence itself, again we will show him to be an ally of our arguments. For if saying that something is added to the divine essence in every case makes it composite, he will certainly not reject fatherhood as being outside the essence, but will confess him to be Father by nature, just as he is incorruptible and immortal, and thus, even unwillingly, he will admit the Son into the kinship of the nature. For it will not be possible, when he is Father by nature, for the Son to be separated from the natural relation to him. But if he says that fatherhood is added to God outside of his nature, he will certainly grant us the authority to say that something is added to the Father, with the simplicity being in no way set aside, if that which pertains to unbegottenness is signified as outside the essence. But if he says it is significant of the essence itself

253

θεωρία ἢ εἴ τι τοιοῦτον ἕτερον, ἐφ' ὧν οὐ τὸ βλέπειν, ἀλλὰ τὸ πρός τι κεχρῆσθαι τῷ βλέπειν παρὰ τῆς τέχνης ἐφεύρηται), οὕτω καὶ τὸ λογικὸν μὲν εἶναι κοινὸν ἄν τις εἴποι τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης οὐσίας καὶ ἴδιον ἄνωθεν συγκατουσιωμένον τῇ φύσει, τὸ δὲ τοῖς οὖσι σημαντικάς τινας ἐφευρίσκειν προσηγορίας τῶν ἀνθρώπων εἶναι τῶν τὴν λογικὴν δύναμιν θεόθεν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς κεκτημένων, τῶν ἀεὶ κατὰ τὸ ἀρέσκον αὐτοῖς πρὸς τὴν τῶν δηλουμένων σαφήνειαν λέξεις τινὰς τῶν πραγμάτων ἐμφαντικὰς ἐφευ 2.1.552 ρισκόντων. ἀλλ' 20ἐὰν ταῦτα κρατῇ, δυοῖν20 φησι κατασκευάζεσθαι θάτερον, ἢ τῶν ἐπινοούντων τὴν ἐπίνοιαν πρεσβυτέραν ἢ τὰς τῷ θεῷ κατὰ φύσιν προσηκούσας προσηγορίας καὶ πάντων προϋπαρχούσας τῆς τῶν ἀνθρώπων γενέσεως ὑστέρας20. ἆρα καὶ πρὸς τὰ τοιαῦτα διαμάχεσθαι χρὴ καὶ πρὸς τὴν οὕτως ἔκδηλον ἄνοιαν διὰ τοῦ λόγου συμ πλέκεσθαι; καὶ τίς οὕτως εὐτελής, ὡς διὰ τῶν τοιούτων βλαβῆναι καὶ νομίσαι, εἰ τῆς λογικῆς δυνάμεως εἶναι πι στευθείη τὰ ῥήματα, ἢ πρεσβυτέρας τῶν λαλούντων ὁμο λογεῖν εἶναι τὰς τῶν ῥημάτων φωνὰς ἢ πλημμελεῖν εἰς τὸ θεῖον οἴεσθαι, τῶν ἀνθρώπων, καθὼς χωροῦσι μετὰ τὸ 2.1.553 γενέσθαι ἄνθρωποι, τὸ θεῖον ὀνομαζόντων; τὸ γὰρ μὴ δεῖσθαι τὴν ὑπερέχουσαν φύσιν ῥημάτων διὰ φωνῆς καὶ γλώττης ἐκτυπουμένων ἤδη τε εἴρηται καὶ περιττὸν ἂν εἴη διὰ τῶν αὐτῶν ὄχλον ἐντιθέναι τῷ λόγῳ. τὸ γὰρ ἀπροσ δεὲς τῇ φύσει καὶ τέλειον καὶ ἀπέριττον οὔτε τι τῶν δεόν των οὐκ ἔχει οὔτε τῶν μὴ δεόντων τι ἔχει. ἐπεὶ οὖν τὸ μὴ δεῖν αὐτῷ τῆς ὀνοματικῆς κλήσεως ἐκ τῶν φθασάντων ἀποδέδεικται λόγων καὶ ἐκ τῆς κοινῆς τῶν νοῦν ἐχόντων συγκαταθέσεως ὁμολογεῖται, οὐδεὶς ἂν ἀντείποι τῆς ἐσχάτης ἀσεβείας εἶναι τὸ προσμαρτυρεῖν τῷ θεῷ τὰ μὴ δέοντα. 2.1.554 Ἀλλ' οὐδὲν οἶμαι χρῆναι τούτοις καὶ τοῖς τοιούτοις ἐνδιατρίβειν οὐδὲ τὰ καθεξῆς εἰρημένα δι' ἀκριβείας ἐλέγ χειν· ἱκανῶς γὰρ τοῖς ἐπιστατικωτέροις αὐτὸς ὁ τῷ ἀντι δίκῳ πονηθεὶς λόγος συνήγορος τῶν τῆς εὐσεβείας δογμά των ἀναφανήσεται. φησὶ γὰρ 20τὴν οὐσίαν αὐτὴν 2.1.555 ἀφθαρσίαν εἶναι καὶ ἀθανασίαν ὡσαύτως20. ἐγὼ δὲ εἴτε πρόσεστι ταῦτα τῇ θείᾳ φύσει εἴτε αὐτὰ ταῦτα κατὰ τὸ σημαινόμενον ἡ οὐσία ἐστίν, οὐδὲν οἶμαι χρῆναι πρὸς αὐτὸν διαμάχεσθαι· ὅ τι γὰρ ἂν νικήσῃ τῶν εἰρη μένων, τὸν ἡμέτερον πάντως συστήσει λόγον. εἰ μὲν γὰρ προσείη τῇ οὐσίᾳ τὸ μὴ φθείρεσθαι, πρόσεστιν αὐτῇ πάν τως καὶ τὸ μὴ διὰ γεννήσεως εἶναι, καὶ οὕτως ὁ τῆς ἀγεν νησίας λόγος ἔξω τῆς κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν σημασίας ἀπ 2.1.556 ωσθήσεται. εἰ δὲ ὅτι οὐ φθείρεται ὁ θεός, ἀφθαρσίαν τις λέγοι τὴν οὐσίαν εἶναι, καὶ ὅτι θανάτου κρείττων ἐστί, διὰ τοῦτο αὐτὴν τὴν φύσιν ἀθανασίαν εἶναι ὁρίζοιτο, ἄφθαρτος δὲ ὁ υἱὸς καὶ ἀθάνατος, ἀφθαρσία ἂν εἴη καὶ ἀθανασία καὶ τοῦ μονογενοῦς ἡ οὐσία. εἰ οὖν ἀφθαρσία μὲν ὁ πατήρ, ἀφθαρσία δὲ ὁ υἱός, οὐσία δὲ τούτων ἑκάτερον, οὐδεμία δὲ κατὰ τὴν τῆς ἀφθαρσίας ἔννοιαν ἐπινοεῖται διαφορά, κατ' οὐδὲν πάντως ἡ οὐσία τῆς οὐσίας διενεχθήσεται, εἴπερ ἐπίσης ἐπ' ἀμφοτέρων ἡ φύσις τῆς φθορᾶς ἠλλο 2.1.557 τρίωται. κἂν τὰ αὐτὰ πάλιν ἐπαναλαμβάνων ταῖς ἀφύ κτοις ἡμᾶς, ὡς οἴεται, τῶν διλημμάτων ἀνάγκαις καταδῇ, λέγων εἰ μὲν διορίζοιτο παρ' ἡμῶν τὸ προσὸν τοῦ ὄντος, σύνθετον τὸ θεῖον κατασκευάζεσθαι, εἰ δὲ ἡ ἁπλότης ὁμο λογοῖτο, αὐτῆς τῆς οὐσίας σημαντικὴν τὴν ἀφθαρσίαν καὶ τὴν ἀγεννησίαν πάντως ἀναφανήσεσθαι, πάλιν αὐτὸν σύμ 2.1.558 μαχον τῶν ἡμετέρων ἀποδείξομεν λόγων. εἰ γὰρ πάντη σύνθετον ποιεῖ τὴν θείαν οὐσίαν τῷ προσεῖναί τι λέγειν αὐτῇ, οὐδὲ τὴν πατρότητα πάντως ἐκτὸς τῆς οὐσίας ἀπο ποιήσεται, ἀλλὰ φύσει πατέρα ὁμολογήσει ὡς ἄφθαρτόν τε καὶ ἀθάνατον, καὶ οὕτως καὶ μὴ βουλόμενος εἰς τὴν τῆς φύσεως οἰκειότητα τὸν υἱὸν καταδέξεται. οὐ γὰρ ἔσται δυνατὸν ἐκείνου φύσει πατρὸς ὄντος τῆς φυσικῆς πρὸς 2.1.559 αὐτὸν σχέσεως τὸν υἱὸν ἀφορίζεσθαι. εἰ δὲ ἔξω τῆς φύ σεως προσεῖναι λέγοι τῷ θεῷ τὴν πατρότητα, καὶ ἡμῖν δώσει πάντως κατ' ἐξουσίαν προσεῖναί τι λέγειν τῷ πατρί, ὡς οὐδὲν τῆς ἁπλότητος ἀθετουμένης, εἰ ἔξω τῆς οὐσίας τὸ κατὰ τὴν ἀγεννησίαν σημαίνοιτο. εἰ δὲ αὐτῆς φησι τῆς οὐσίας σημαντικὸν