444

faith and the knowledge of his truth, so that none of his servants might fall into any suspicion and such a one fall from hope, he says, “that they may be one, as you and I are one, so also they may be one. For you and I are one,” because he is God from God and of one substance in divinity. And the “we are one” does not signify a singular. For he did not say that I am one, but you and I; and the “we are one,” to refute Sabellius and his school, who thinks the Son and the Father are a mixture and the Father 3.218 likewise with the Holy Spirit. For this reason he says, we are one, and did not say, I am one. For there are two perfect beings, Father and Son, but one because of the equality, because of the one divinity and one power and one likeness. Therefore, in divinity the Father and Son are one, in the incarnation the Son and the disciples are one, those who through the worthiness of the calling of the disciples are brought to the ineffable nature of his love for humanity, into one unity of adoption, through the good pleasure of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. And again the error of those who vainly think wrongly about their own master has been refuted. 70. And having passed over this text, I will examine the following ones. But the sophists rush forward, inventing certain phrases for themselves, having been occupied with syllogisms and reasonings of foolishness, being men attempting to reason about God, as also the prophet refutes them saying, “Will a man trip up God, because you are tripping me up?” For what again do these fine fellows say? As we also arranged the other text interpreted above, but extended to us by them for questioning, the “did he beget the Son willing or not willing,” as we have shown that in God there happens to be nothing hesitant, but at the same time all things in him are perfect and he does not first will before he acts nor does he act without a plan and he does not plan in order to prepare something, nor does his preparation need a plan; so that with him the begotten is always begotten and did not begin in time, but always exists begotten with the Father and never ceases, as also here repeating the phrase I again set it down, that he begot neither willing nor not willing, but in a nature beyond will; for the Son is an offspring of nature beyond will and all thought and suspicion. 71. And to this phrase, as I said, the new Aristotelians invent for us another similar one. For they have copied his venom and abandoned the guilelessness and gentleness of the Holy Spirit, as the Lord says, “Learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.” But these, having abandoned gentleness, have rather given themselves over to cleverness, having put on Aristotle and the other dialecticians of the world, whose fruits they also pursue, knowing no fruit of righteousness nor having been deemed worthy 3.219 to have the gift of the Spirit in themselves, these contentious men. They say at least to us, when we say to them that the being Son was with the being Father—for since the Father said to Moses that “you shall say to them: He who is has sent me,” and again the Gospel says concerning the Son that “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”—if we say that He who is was with Him who is, they say to us: Was then that which is begotten or that which is not begotten? For if he was, how was he begotten? But if he was begotten, how was he? And this belongs to the same foolishness which is occupied with investigations and enters into lofty things and “meddles with things above and does no good.” For we will say to them: From where do you get this suspicion to think these things? And if they say that reason demands to examine things in this way, we too say: Therefore tell us, you men, do you reason about your own things or the things of God? Then they say: From ourselves, as rational beings, we reason about the things of God. Does God therefore differ in nothing from your condition, both nature and substance? Yes, they say. If, therefore, the nature of God differs from

444

τὴν πίστιν καὶ τὴν τῆς ἀληθείας αὐτοῦ γνῶσιν, ὅπως μὴ ἐν ὑπονοίᾳ τινὶ γένηταί τις τῶν αὐτοῦ δούλων καὶ τῆς ἐλπίδος ἐκπέσοι ὁ τοιοῦτος, φησίν, «ἵνα ὦσιν ὡς ἐγὼ καὶ σὺ ἕν ἐσμεν, οὕτω καὶ οὗτοι ἓν ὦσιν. ἐγὼ μὲν γὰρ καὶ σὺ ἕν ἐσμεν», διὰ τὸ θεὸν ἐκ θεοῦ καὶ ὁμοούσιον ἐν θεότητι αὐτὸν εἶναι. καὶ τὸ «ἕν ἐσμεν» οὐχ ἑνικὸν σημαίνει. οὐκ εἶπε γὰρ ὅτι ἐγὼ εἷς εἰμι, ἀλλ' ἐγὼ καὶ σύ· καὶ τὸ «ἕν ἐσμεν», ἵνα ἐλέγξῃ Σαβέλλιον καὶ τὴν αὐτοῦ σχολήν, τὸν νομίζοντα τὸν υἱὸν καὶ τὸν πατέρα συναλοιφὴν εἶναι καὶ τὸν πατέρα 3.218 πρὸς τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα ὡσαύτως. διὰ τοῦτο γὰρ λέγει, ἕν ἐσμεν, καὶ οὐκ εἶπεν, εἷς εἰμι. δύο μὲν γὰρ τέλεια, πατὴρ καὶ υἱός, ἓν δὲ διὰ τὴν ἰσότητα, διὰ τὴν μίαν θεότητα καὶ μίαν δύναμιν καὶ μίαν ὁμοιότητα. ἐν τῇ οὖν θεότητι πατὴρ καὶ υἱὸς ἕν, ἐν τῇ ἀνθρωπήσει υἱὸς καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ ἕν, προσαγομένων τῶν διὰ τὴν καταξίωσιν τῆς κλήσεως τῶν μαθητῶν ἐπὶ τὸ ἀνεκδιήγητον τῆς αὐτοῦ φιλανθρωπίας, εἰς μίαν ἑνότητα υἱοθεσίας, διὰ τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος εὐδοκίαν. καὶ πάλιν ἐλήλεγκται ἡ πλάνη τῶν ματαίως περὶ τοῦ ἰδίου αὐτῶν δεσπότου κακῶς φρονούντων. 70. Παρελθὼν δὲ καὶ ταύτην τὴν λέξιν τὰς ἑξῆς διασκοπήσω. προπηδῶσι δέ τινας λέξεις ἑαυτοῖς ἐφευρίσκοντες οἱ σοφισταί, περὶ συλλογισμοὺς ἐσχολακότες καὶ λογισμοὺς ματαιοφροσύνης, ἄνθρωποι ὄντες τὸν θεὸν συλλογίσασθαι πειρώμενοι, ὡς καὶ ὁ προφήτης αὐτοὺς ἐλέγχει φάσκων «εἰ πτερνιεῖ τις θεόν, ὅτι ὑμεῖς πτερνίζετέ με;» τί γὰρ πάλιν φασὶν οἱ γεννάδαι; ὡς καὶ τὴν ἄλλην λέξιν ἄνω ἑρμηνευθεῖσαν ἐτάξαμεν, ὑπ' αὐτῶν δὲ ἡμῖν πρὸς πεῦσιν ἐκτεινομένην, τὸ «θέλων ἐγέννησε τὸν υἱὸν ἢ μὴ θέλων», ὡς ἐν θεῷ ἐδείξαμεν ὅτι οὐδέν τι μελλητικὸν τυγχάνει αὐτῷ, ἀλλ' ἅμα πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ ἐστι τέλεια καὶ οὐ πρῶτον βούλεται πρὶν ἢ ποιῆσαι οὐδὲ ποιεῖ ἄνευ βουλεύματος καὶ οὐ βουλεύεται, ἵνα τι ἑτοιμάσῃ, οὐδὲ ἡ ἑτοιμασία αὐτοῦ βουλῆς ἐπιδέεται· ὥστε παρ' αὐτῷ τὸ γέννημα ἀεὶ γεγέννηται καὶ μὴ ἐν χρόνῳ ἀρξάμενον, ἀλλ' ἀεὶ σὺν πατρὶ γεγεννημένον ὑπάρχει καὶ οὐδέποτε διαλείπει, ὡς καὶ ἐνταῦθα πάλιν δευτερώσας τὴν λέξιν πάλιν τίθημι, ὅτι οὔτε θέλων ἐγέννησεν οὔτε μὴ θέλων, ἀλλὰ ἐν τῇ ὑπὲρ βουλὴν φύσει· φύσεως γάρ ἐστιν γέννημα ὁ υἱὸς ὑπὲρ βουλὴν καὶ πᾶσαν ἔννοιαν καὶ ὑπόνοιαν. 71. Ὁμοίαν δὲ ταύτῃ λέξει, ὡς ἔφην, ἄλλην ἡμῖν ἐφευρίσκουσιν οἱ νέοι Ἀριστοτελικοί. ἐκείνου γὰρ ἀπεμάξαντο τὴν ἰοβολίαν καὶ κατέλιπον τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος τὸ ἄκακον καὶ τὸ πρᾶον, ὡς λέγει ὁ κύριος «μάθετε ἀπ' ἐμοῦ ὅτι πρᾶός εἰμι καὶ ταπεινὸς τῇ καρδίᾳ, καὶ εὑρήσετε ταῖς ψυχαῖς ὑμῶν ἀνάπαυσιν». οὗτοι δὲ τὴν πραότητα καταλελοιπότες δεινότητι μᾶλλον ἑαυτοὺς ἐκδεδώκασιν, ἐνδυσάμενοι Ἀριστοτέλην τε καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους τοῦ κόσμου διαλεκτικούς, ὧν καὶ τοὺς καρποὺς μετίασι, μηδένα καρπὸν δικαιοσύνης εἰδότες μηδὲ πνεύματος καταξιωθέντες 3.219 δωρεὰν ἔχειν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς, οἱ φιλόνεικοι. λέγουσι γοῦν πρὸς ἡμᾶς, ὅταν εἴπωμεν αὐτοῖς ὅτι ὁ ὢν υἱὸς πρὸς τὸν ὄντα πατέρα ἦν ἐπειδὴ γὰρ τῷ Μωυσῇ εἶπεν ὁ πατὴρ ὅτι «ἐρεῖς πρὸς αὐτούς· ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέ με», καὶ πάλιν τὸ εὐαγγέλιον περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ φάσκει ὅτι «ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος», ἐὰν εἴπωμεν ὅτι ὁ ὢν ἦν πρὸς τὸν ὄντα, λέγουσι πρὸς ἡμᾶς· τὸ ὂν τοίνυν ἐγεννήθη ἢ τὸ μὴ ὂν ἐγεννήθη; εἰ γὰρ ἦν, πῶς ἐγεννήθη; εἰ δὲ ἐγεννήθη, πῶς ἦν; καὶ ἔστι τοῦτο τῆς αὐτῆς ματαιοφροσύνης τῆς περὶ ζητήσεις ἀσχολουμένης καὶ τὰ μετέωρα ἐμβατευούσης καὶ τὰ ἄνω «περιεργαζομένης καὶ μηδὲν ἀγαθὸν ἐργαζομένης». ἐροῦμεν γὰρ πρὸς αὐτούς· πόθεν ὑμῖν ἡ ὑπόνοια αὕτη τοῦ ταῦτα διανοηθῆναι; ἐὰν δὲ εἴπωσιν ὅτι οὕτως ἀπαιτεῖ τὸ φρόνημα ἐξετάζειν, λέγομεν καὶ αὐτοί· οὐκοῦν λέγετε ἡμῖν, ὦ οὗτοι, τὰ ἑαυτῶν λογίζεσθε ἢ τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ; εἶτά φασιν· ἀφ' ἑαυτῶν, ὡς λογικοί, τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ λογιζόμεθα. οὐδὲν οὖν διαλλάττει θεὸς τῆς ὑμῶν ἕξεως, φύσεώς τε καὶ οὐσίας; ναί, φασίν. εἰ τοίνυν διαλλάττει φύσις θεοῦ παρὰ τὴν