467

writing. “20Therefore, he does not wish him to be any of the things he mentioned before. For he says he is an image of all these things. Therefore, if he is an image of substance, he can no longer be substance-itself. And if he is an image of will, he can no longer be will-itself. And if of power, no longer power. And if of glory, no longer glory. For the image is not an image of itself, but of something else.20” But these things, Marcellus, are stale and false. For Asterius wishes him to be all the things he mentioned before, saying “king from king, lord from lord, God from God,” and he refutes your lifeless image, which according to you is constituted by human art alone. For he calls him a living image of all these things, and an impression of a living image from the one who begot him; and he calls the image of substance, substance-itself; and of will, will-itself; and of power, power-itself; and of glory, glory-itself; and not of itself, but of another's image. But you, not confessing the Son to be God from God, nor light from light, nor power from power, wish the Son to be neither God, nor light, nor power, nor substance, nor will, nor glory. But the body impiously does away with these things in the consummation with † these things. And you deny that “the Word was God,” but you call him Son of God either by name only or as a man, so that God would be begetting one of a different kind, begetting the Son by adoption, according to “I have begotten and exalted sons,” and according to “you have received the spirit of adoption,” and “bring to the Lord, O sons of God.” Therefore, when Asterius calls the Son an exact image of the Father’s substance and power and 3.264 will and glory, he certainly means that the paternal characters, as it were, are in the Son, and the Father’s attributes have been impressed or given to the Son, not being other things apart from him. Therefore, he wishes him to be all the things he mentioned before. For he does not mean an image in colors, nor does he introduce a third painter, so that, disagreeing with the Father, he might paint the qualities with colors elsewhere and call this a son. For thus you, understanding and not understanding, say: “20Therefore, if he is an image of substance, he cannot be substance-itself, and if of will, no longer will-itself.20” For according to us, if he is a living image of substance, he can be and is substance-itself. And thus we call the image of substance, substance, through a most similar imitation of both life and energy, and so also the image of will, will—the “angel of great counsel”—and of power and glory, power and glory. And illustrative of these things is “For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself,” and “as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will.” For “as, so” is an exact impression of iconic imitation and likeness.” 10. And after a few other things “For God the Word, who provides life and beauty and form to others, is not himself without life and without beauty and without form, being conceived in deadness or in non-being, but he is formed with the paternal characters, not as being one thing himself, and having other characters of form, but in his being are the characters and in the characters is his being. But the image, being an image of another and not of itself, as you also wish, bearing in itself the characters of the original, represents otherness, but an otherness as likeness. For he is not an image of himself, but of another, being what he is, “the image of the invisible God.” The Son, therefore, is an image of the Father, living from the living, in motion and energy, in power and will and glory, not lifeless, nor motionless, having on the one hand its being and being depicted in another, but on the other hand not being in motion in and through itself. And he is an exact image, not with the exactness making a father, but an exact Son.” The excerpts of Acacius here are completed. 3.265 But now the orthodox and our brothers and confessors say that they have received from some of the disciples left by Marcellus a statement of confession concerning the faith, offered as a defense; of which the subtle points, since I myself have not comprehended it, I have set down here. and it is the

467

γράφων. «20οὐδὲν οὖν αὐτὸν ὧν προεῖπεν εἶναι βούλεται. πάντων γὰρ τούτων εἰκόνα αὐτὸν εἶναι λέγει. οὐκοῦν εἰ οὐσίας ἐστὶν εἰκών, οὐκέτι αὐτοουσία δύναται εἶναι. καὶ εἰ βουλῆς ἐστιν εἰκών, οὐκέτι αὐτοβουλὴ εἶναι δύναται. καὶ εἰ δυνάμεως, οὐκέτι δύναμις. καὶ εἰ δόξης, οὐκέτι δόξα. ἡ γὰρ εἰκὼν οὐχ ἑαυτῆς, ἀλλ' ἑτέρου τινὸς εἰκών ἐστιν.20» ἕωλα δέ, Μάρκελλε, καὶ ψευδῆ ταῦτα. πάντα γὰρ αὐτὸν ἃ προεῖπεν Ἀστέριος εἶναι βούλεται, λέγων «βασιλεὺς βασιλέα, κύριος κύριον, θεὸς θεόν», καὶ λύει σου τὴν ἄψυχον εἰκόνα, τὴν κατὰ σὲ ἀνθρωπίνῃ τέχνῃ συνεστῶσαν μόνῃ. πάντων γὰρ τούτων ζῶσαν εἰκόνα λέγει καὶ ζῶντος εἰκόνος ἐκμαγεῖον οὖσαν τοῦ γεγεννηκότος, καὶ οὐσίας αὐτοουσίαν εἰκόνα λέγει καὶ βουλῆς αὐτοβουλὴν καὶ δυνάμεως αὐτοδύναμιν καὶ δόξης αὐτοδόξαν, καὶ οὐχ ἑαυτῆς, ἀλλ' ἑτέρου εἰκόνος. σὺ δὲ θεὸν ἐκ θεοῦ τὸν υἱὸν οὐχ ὁμολογῶν οὐδὲ φῶς ἐκ φωτὸς οὐδὲ δύναμιν ἐκ δυνάμεως, οὔτε θεὸν οὔτε φῶς, οὐ δύναμιν οὐκ οὐσίαν, οὐ βουλὴν, οὐ δόξαν τὸν υἱὸν εἶναι θέλεις. ἀλλὰ τὸ σῶμα ταῦτα ἀφανίζει ἀσεβῶς ἐν τῇ συντελείᾳ μετὰ † τούτων. καὶ ἀρνῇ μὲν τὸ «θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος», υἱὸν δὲ θεοῦ καλεῖς ἢ ὀνόματι μόνῳ ἢ ὡς ἄνθρωπον, ἵν' ἑτερογενῆ γεννῶν εἴη ὁ θεός, θέσει γεννῶν τὸν υἱόν, κατὰ τὸ «υἱοὺς ἐγέννησα καὶ ὕψωσα», καὶ κατὰ τό «ἐλάβετε πνεῦμα υἱοθεσίας», καὶ τὸ «ἐνέγκατε τῷ κυρίῳ, υἱοὶ θεοῦ». οὐσίας οὖν καὶ δυνάμεως καὶ 3.264 βουλῆς καὶ δόξης ἀπαράλλακτον λέγων Ἀστέριος εἰκόνα τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ πατρός, πάντως οἱονεὶ τοὺς πατρικοὺς χαρακτῆρας ἐνεῖναι λέγει τῷ υἱῷ καὶ τὰ ἐπινοούμενα τοῦ πατρὸς τετυπῶσθαι ἢ δεδόσθαι τῷ υἱῷ, οὐκ ἄλλα παρ' αὐτὸν ὄντα. πάντα οὖν ἃ προεῖπεν αὐτὸν εἶναι βούλεται. οὐ γὰρ τὴν ἐν χρώμασιν εἰκόνα νοεῖ οὐδὲ τρίτον ζωγράφον εἰσάγει, ἵνα διαφωνοῦντος πρὸς τὸν πατέρα διὰ χρωμάτων τὰς ποιότητας ἀλλαχοῦ γράφῃ καὶ τοῦτο υἱὸν καλῇ. οὕτω γὰρ σὺ νοήσας καὶ μὴ νοήσας φῄς· «20οὐκοῦν εἰ οὐσίας ἐστὶν εἰκών, οὐ δύναται αὐτοουσία εἶναι, καὶ εἰ βουλῆς, οὐκέτι αὐτοβουλή.20» καθ' ἡμᾶς γὰρ εἰ οὐσίας ἐστὶν εἰκὼν ζῶσα, αὐτοουσία δύναται εἶναι καὶ ἔστι. καὶ οὕτως οὐσίας οὐσίαν εἰκόνα λέγομεν διὰ μίμησιν ὁμοιοτάτην ζωῆς τε καὶ ἐνεργείας, οὕτω δὲ καὶ βουλῆς βουλὴν εἰκόνα τὸν «μεγάλης βουλῆς ἄγγελον», καὶ δυνάμεως καὶ δόξης δύναμιν καὶ δόξαν. καὶ τούτων παραστατικὸν τὸ «ὥσπερ γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ ἔχει ζωὴν ἐν ἑαυτῷ, οὕτως καὶ τῷ υἱῷ ἔδωκε ζωὴν ἔχειν ἐν ἑαυτῷ», καὶ «ὥσπερ ὁ πατὴρ ἐγείρει τοὺς νεκροὺς καὶ ζωοποιεῖ οὕτως καὶ ὁ υἱὸς οὓς θέλει ζωοποιεῖ». τὸ γὰρ «ὥσπερ, οὕτως» εἰκονικῆς ἐστι μιμήσεως καὶ ὁμοιώσεως ἀκριβὲς ἐκμαγεῖον.» 10. Καὶ μεθ' ἕτερα ὀλίγα «οὐ γὰρ ὁ λόγος θεός, ὁ ἄλλοις παρέχων ζωὴν καὶ κάλλος καὶ μορφήν, αὐτὸς ἄζωος καὶ ἀκαλλὴς καὶ ἄμορφός ἐστιν, ἐν νεκρότητι ἢ τῷ μὴ εἶναι νοούμενος, ἀλλὰ πατρικοῖς χαρακτῆρσι μεμόρφωται, οὐχ ὡς ἕτερος αὐτὸς ὤν, ἑτέρους δὲ τοὺς χαρακτῆρας τῆς μορφῆς ἔχων, ἀλλ' ἐν τῷ εἶναι αὐτοῦ οἱ χαρακτῆρές εἰσι καὶ ἐν τοῖς χαρακτῆρσι τὸ εἶναι αὐτοῦ. ἡ δὲ εἰκών, ἑτέρου καὶ οὐχ ἑαυτῆς εἰκὼν οὖσα, καθὰ καὶ σὺ θέλεις, τοῦ πρωτοτύπου ἐν ἑαυτῇ τοὺς χαρακτῆρας φέρουσα, τὴν ἑτερότητα παρίστησιν, ἑτερότητα δὲ ὡς ὁμοιότητα. οὐχ ἑαυτῆς γάρ, ἑτέρου δέ τινος εἰκών ἐστιν οὗτος, ὤν, ὃ ἔστιν, «εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου». εἰκὼν οὖν τοῦ πατρὸς ὁ υἱός, ζῶσα ζῶντος, ἐν κινήσει καὶ ἐνεργείᾳ, δυνάμει τε καὶ βουλῇ καὶ δόξῃ, οὐκ ἄψυχος, οὐδὲ ἀκίνητος, ἐν ἑτέρῳ μὲν τὸ εἶναι ἔχουσα καὶ γραφομένη, αὐτὴ δὲ ἐν ἑαυτῇ καὶ δι' ἑαυτῆς ἐν κινήσει μὴ οὖσα. καὶ εἰκών ἐστιν ἀπαράλλακτος, οὐ τῆς ἀπαραλλαξίας πατέρα ποιούσης, ἀλλ' υἱὸν ἀπηκριβωμένον.» Πεπλήρωνται τὰ ἐνθάδε Ἀκακίου. 3.265 Νῦν δέ φασιν οἱ ὀρθόδοξοι καὶ ἀδελφοὶ ἡμέτεροι καὶ ὁμολογηταὶ παρὰ τινῶν ὑπὸ Μαρκέλλου καταλειφθέντων μαθητῶν ἔκθεσιν εἰληφέναι ὁμολογίας περὶ πίστεως ἀπολογουμένης· ἧς τὰ λεπτολογήματα, αὐτὸς μὴ κατειληφὼς αὐτήν, ἐνταῦθα παρεθέμην. καὶ ἔστι τὸ