445

your nature. First, your nature cannot comprehend the incomprehensible things concerning God; second, that it is impious to fashion God from yourselves according to your substance. For in us what is not is begotten, since we ourselves once were not, but have been begotten from our fathers, who also once did not exist, and so one must reason from the beginning up to Adam. But Adam came from the earth, having once not been, and the earth came from things that were not, because it did not always exist; but God the Father always was. And such as He was in nature, such a Son He begot. He begot him as always existing, not as a fellow-brother, but as one begotten from Himself, like Him in nature, Lord from Lord, God from God, true God from true God. And whatever one reckons concerning the Father, so also must one reckon concerning the Son; whatever one believes concerning the Son, so also must one consider concerning the Father. For so it says, “he who does not believe in the Son as he believes in the Father, and honor the Son as he honors the Father, the wrath of God will remain upon him,” as the divine gospel has it. And again their syllogistic reasoning has failed. For God, being incomprehensible, begot an incomprehensible God before all ages and before time, and there is no interval between Son and Father, but as soon as you think of the Father, you think of the Son; as soon as you name the Son, you point to the Father. For from the Father the Son is conceived, and from the Son the Father is known. For whence is there a Son, if he does not have a Father? And whence is there a Father, 3.220 if he did not beget the only-begotten? For when can a Father not be called Father or a Son Son, so that some might conceive of a Father without a Son, who later, as if having advanced, begot the Son, so that after the begetting the Father might be called Father of the Son, advancing in divinity, he who is perfect and never in need of perfection? 72. And again they make an excuse, wishing to cast away from themselves this healing medicine and saving antidote, the foundation of the faith of the holy church of God, saying: From where is the name of 'substance' brought to us? Why is the Son said to be 'of one substance' with the Father? What scripture has spoken of 'of one substance'? Which of the apostles has spoken of the 'substance' of God? But they do not know that both hypostasis and ousia are the same in meaning. * For the Lord is in his hypostasis, and "the radiance of his glory and the express image of his hypostasis." It is therefore ousia (substance); not property, but this very Being, as Moses says, "He who is sent me," speaking to the sons of Israel. Therefore 'He who is' is Being, and Being happens to be existing substance. But 'of one substance' does not again mean one, but from the 'homo-' it means two perfect things; but they are not different from one another nor foreign to their own unity. But if for piety's sake we have used a certain unwritten word for the bond of truth—for without confessing 'of one substance' there can be no refutation of heresies at all. For just as the serpent hates the smell of asphalt and the breath of a deer and the incense of jet stone and the smoke of styrax, so also Arius and Sabellius hate the word of the true confession of 'of one substance', but we will say also to them: even if the word was not in the divine scriptures, yet it is clearly present in the law and among the apostles and the prophets; "for by two or three witnesses every word shall be established," nevertheless it was permissible for us for piety's sake to use a useful word, securing the holy faith. But what do you say? Tell us, you men: what do you say concerning the Father? Is the Father uncreated? By all means, yes. For who is so foolish as to doubt this? And who is so thunderstruck as not to reckon that the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is uncreated? For you yourselves surely confess 3.221 that he is unbegotten and uncreated and ungenerated. For he has no father before him, nor a definition of years, nor a "beginning of days" according to what is written. If, therefore, he has neither a beginning of time nor an end, it is confessed that he is uncreated and it is beyond doubt; but this is nowhere written concerning him. But for piety's sake

445

ὑμῶν φύσιν, πρῶτα μὲν οὐ δύναται ἡ ὑμῶν φύσις περὶ θεοῦ καταλαμβάνειν τὰ ἀκατάληπτα· δεύτερον δὲ ὅτι ἀσεβές ἐστι θεὸν ἀφ' ὑμῶν ἀπεικάζεσθαι κατὰ τὴν ὑμῶν οὐσίαν. ἐν ἡμῖν γὰρ τὸ μὴ ὂν γεννᾶται, ἐπειδὴ αὐτοὶ οὐκ ἦμέν ποτε, γεγεννήμεθα δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν ἡμῶν πατέρων, τῶν καὶ αὐτῶν ποτε μὴ ὑπαρχόντων, καὶ ἐξ ὑπαρχῆς ἄχρι τοῦ Ἀδὰμ διαληπτέον. Ἀδὰμ δὲ ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς ἐγένετο, οὐκ ὢν ποτέ, ἡ δὲ γῆ ἐγένετο ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων, ὅτι οὐκ ἦν ἀεί· θεὸς δὲ πατὴρ ἦν ἀεί. καὶ ὁποῖος ἦν τῇ φύσει, τοιοῦτον ἐγέννησε τὸν υἱόν. ἐγέννησε δὲ αὐτὸν ἀεὶ ὄντα, οὐ συνάδελφον, ἀλλ' ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεγεννημένον, ὅμοιον αὐτῷ κατὰ φύσιν, κύριον ἐκ κυρίου, θεὸν ἐκ θεοῦ, θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ. καὶ ὁποῖα λογίζεταί τις περὶ πατρός, οὕτω καὶ περὶ υἱοῦ λογιστέον· ὁποῖα πιστεύει περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ, οὕτω καὶ εἰς τὸν πατέρα ἡγητέον. οὕτω γάρ φησιν «ὁ μὴ πιστεύων εἰς τὸν υἱὸν ὡς πιστεύει εἰς τὸν πατέρα, καὶ τιμᾷ τὸν υἱὸν ὡς τιμᾷ τὸν πατέρα, ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ θεοῦ μενεῖ ἐπ' αὐτόν», ὡς ἔχει τὸ θεῖον εὐαγγέλιον. καὶ διέπεσε πάλιν ἡ αὐτῶν συλλογιστικὴ διάνοια. θεὸς γὰρ ἀκατάληπτος ὢν θεὸν ἀκατάληπτον ἐγέννησε πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων καὶ πρὸ χρόνων, καὶ οὐκ ἔστι διάστημα ἀνὰ μέσον υἱοῦ καὶ πατρός, ἀλλ' ἅμα νοεῖς πατέρα, ἅμα νοεῖς υἱόν, ἅμα ὀνομάζεις υἱόν, ἅμα δεικνύεις πατέρα. ἀπὸ γὰρ τοῦ πατρὸς υἱὸς νοεῖται καὶ ἀπὸ υἱοῦ πατὴρ γινώσκεται. πόθεν γὰρ υἱός, εἰ μὴ πατέρα ἔχει; καὶ πόθεν πατήρ, 3.220 εἰ μὴ ἐγέννησε τὸν μονογενῆ; πότε γὰρ δύναται μὴ καλεῖσθαι πατὴρ πατὴρ ἢ υἱὸς υἱός, ἵνα τινὲς νοήσωσι πατέρα ἄνευ υἱοῦ καὶ ὕστερον ὡς εἰς προκοπὴν ἐληλυθότα καὶ γεγεννηκότα τὸν υἱόν, ἵνα μετὰ τὸ γέννημα κληθῇ πατὴρ υἱοῦ ὁ πατήρ, προκόπτων ἐν τῇ θεότητι ὁ τέλειος καὶ μηδέποτε ἐπιδεόμενος τελειώσεως; 72. Πάλιν δὲ προφασίζονται τὸ ἰατικὸν τοῦτο φάρμακον καὶ σωτηριῶδες ἀντίδοτον ἀφ' ἑαυτῶν ἀποβάλλεσθαι βουλόμενοι, τὸ στερέμνιον τῆς πίστεως τῆς ἁγίας τοῦ θεοῦ ἐκκλησίας, λέγοντες· πόθεν τὸ τῆς οὐσίας ὄνομα ἡμῖν φέρεται; διὰ τί ὁμοούσιος ὁ υἱὸς τῷ πατρὶ λέγεται; ποία γραφὴ εἶπε περὶ ὁμοουσιότητος; ποῖος τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐσίαν εἶπε θεοῦ; οὐκ ἴσασι δὲ ὅτι καὶ ὑπόστασις καὶ οὐσία ταὐτόν ἐστι τῷ λόγῳ. * ἔστι γὰρ κύριος ἐν τῇ ὑποστάσει αὐτοῦ, καὶ τὸ «ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ». οὐσία οὖν ἐστιν· οὐχὶ περιουσία, ἀλλὰ αὐτὸ τοῦτο ὄν, ὥς φησι Μωυσῆς «ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέ με» εἰπὼν τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραήλ. ὁ ὢν οὖν ἐστι τὸ ὄν, τὸ δὲ ὂν ἡ οὖσα οὐσία τυγχάνει. τὸ δὲ ὁμοούσιον οὐχ ἕνα πάλιν σημαίνει, ἀλλ' ἀπὸ τοῦ ὁμο δύο σημαίνει τέλεια· ἀλλ' οὐκ ἀλλοῖα ἀλλήλων ἐστὶν οὐδὲ ἀλλότρια τῆς αὐτῶν ἑνότητος. εἰ δὲ ἐχρησάμεθα εὐσεβείας χάριν τινὶ λέξει μὴ γεγραμμένῃ διὰ τὸν σύνδεσμον τῆς ἀληθείας ἄνευ γὰρ τοῦ ὁμολογεῖν ὁμοούσιον πάντως αἱρέσεων οὐ δύναται εἶναι ἔλεγχος. ὥσπερ γὰρ μισεῖ ὁ ὄφις τὴν ὀσμὴν τῆς ἀσφάλτου καὶ τὴν πνοὴν τῆς ἐλάφου καὶ τὸ θυμίαμα τοῦ γαγάτου λίθου καὶ τὸ κάπνισμα τοῦ στύρακος, οὕτω καὶ Ἄρειος καὶ Σαβέλλιος μισεῖ τὸν λόγον τῆς ἐν ἀληθείᾳ ὁμολογίας τοῦ ὁμοουσίου, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτοῖς ἐροῦμεν· εἰ καὶ μὴ ἦν ἡ λέξις ἐν ταῖς θείαις γραφαῖς, ἔστι δὲ καὶ σαφῶς ἔγκειται ἐν νόμῳ καὶ παρὰ ἀποστόλοις καὶ τοῖς προφήταις· «ἐκ γὰρ δύο μαρτύρων ἢ τριῶν σταθήσεται πᾶν ῥῆμα», ὅμως ἐξὸν ἦν ἡμῖν δι' εὐσέβειαν χρήσασθαι λέξει χρησίμῃ, ἐπασφαλιζομένοις τὴν ἁγίαν πίστιν. ὑμεῖς δὲ τί φατε; λέγετε γὰρ ἡμῖν, ὦ οὗτοι· τί λέγετε περὶ τοῦ πατρός; ἄκτιστος ὁ πατήρ; πάντως ὅτι ναί. τίς γὰρ οὕτως ἠλίθιος ἵνα ἀμφιβάλλοι περὶ τούτου; ποῖος δὲ ἐμβρόντητος λογίσασθαι μὴ εἶναι ἄκτιστον τὸν θεὸν καὶ πατέρα τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ; πάντως γὰρ καὶ αὐτοὶ ὁμολογεῖτε 3.221 ὅτι ἀγέννητος καὶ ἄκτιστος καὶ ἀγένητος. οὐ γὰρ ἔχει πρὸ αὐτοῦ πατέρα, οὐδὲ ὁρισμὸν ἐτῶν οὐδὲ «ἀρχὴν ἡμερῶν» κατὰ τὸ γεγραμμένον. εἰ τοίνυν οὔτε ἀρχὴ χρόνου αὐτῷ οὔτε τέλος, ὡμολόγηται ὅτι ἄκτιστος καὶ ἀναμφίβολόν ἐστιν· οὐδαμοῦ δὲ περὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦτο γέγραπται. εὐσεβείας δὲ χάριν