471

them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Therefore we who are reborn into this faith ought to piously understand the concepts from the names. For he did not say: “baptizing them in the name of the incorporeal and the incarnate” or “of the immortal and the one who experienced death” or “of the unbegotten and the begotten,” but “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” so that hearing the names in addition, from natural things, in which *, we might understand the Father as the cause of a substance like his own, and hearing the name of the Son, we might understand the Son to be like the Father, of whom he is the Son. We believed, therefore, in a Father and a Son and a Holy Spirit, not in a creator and a creature. For creator and creature is one thing, Father and the Son is another, because each of these is separated in concept. For in saying “creature,” I first say “creator,” and “Son” *, being understood from corporeal things and on account of the passions and emanations of corporeal fathers and sons, * purely establishes the concept of the existence of the incorporeal Son from the incorporeal Father, 3.272. for this reason also that of “creature,” because he interwove the concept of a corporeal thing *. And since what he makes is a creature, he is a son, he called him only Son, having taken from the creator and the creature the impassibility of the creator with respect to the creature, and of the creature, its stable subsistence from the impassible creator, and being of the sort the creator wished, he has taught us purely the perfect concept concerning the Father and the Son from the corporeal father and son and from the corporeal creator and creature. For when there is removed from “creature” that which subsists externally and the material and the other things which the name “corporeal creature” contains, there remains from “creature” only the concept, I say, of the creator’s impassibility and the created thing’s perfection and its being as the creator wished it to be. If, therefore, from “creator” and “creature,” we again cast out the other things and take only the concept of subsistence from an impassible, perfect, and stable creator, and of the creature being such as he wished, it is consistent, since we have been taught especially to believe in a Father and a Son, that from the names of the Father and the Son, we must piously receive some one concept. 4. “For this reason, in these cases too, when that which pertains to passion or emanation is cast out—so that the Father is understood as Father of the Son and the Son is not conceived seminally and perfected by corporeal natures and things always moving towards growth and decay, as corporeal things have their characters—only the concept of ‘like’ will be left. For just as in the case of the creature, we will say again that when all corporeal things were cast out, there was left the concept of the creator’s impassibility, and the creature’s perfection, stability, and being as he wished it, so also in the case 3.273 of the Father and Son, when all corporeal things are cast out, there will be left only the generation of a like and consubstantial living being, since every father is understood to be the father of a substance like his own. But if, along with all the other corporeal concepts cast out from the names of Father and Son, the concept that provides for us to understand the Father as the cause of a like and consubstantial living being were also cast out, then it will no longer be a Father and Son who are believed in, but a creator and a creature, and the names of Father and Son will be superfluous, contributing nothing of their own. And thus he will be creator as God, but in no way at all a Father. For that the Father is called Father not of an energy, but of a substance like himself, which subsisted according to such an energy, has been made clear from natural reasonings. For God, having many energies, is understood by one energy to be creator, inasmuch as he is creator of heaven and earth and all things in them, and also of invisible things. But being Father of the only-begotten, he is understood not as creator, but as Father who has begotten. But if someone, because of the suspicion concerning the passions related to corporeal fathers and sons, fearing that the incorporeal might suffer something in begetting, if

471

αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος.» οὐκοῦν οἱ ἀναγεννώμενοι εἰς ταύτην τὴν πίστιν εὐσεβῶς νοεῖν τὰς ἐκ τῶν ὀνομάτων ἐννοίας ὀφείλομεν. οὐ γὰρ εἶπε· βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ ἀσάρκου καὶ σαρκωθέντος ἢ τοῦ ἀθανάτου καὶ θανάτου πεῖραν λαβόντος ἢ τοῦ ἀγεννήτου καὶ γεννητοῦ, ἀλλ' εἰς τὸ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος, ἵνα τῶν ὀνομάτων προσακούοντες ἀπὸ τῶν φυσικῶν, ἐν οἷς *, τὸν πατέρα αἴτιον ὁμοίας αὐτοῦ οὐσίας ἐννοῶμεν, καὶ τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ υἱοῦ ἀκούοντες ὅμοιον νοήσωμεν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ πατρός, οὗ ἐστιν ὁ υἱός. ἐπιστεύσαμεν οὖν εἰς πατέρα καὶ υἱὸν καὶ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, οὐκ εἰς κτίστην καὶ κτίσμα. ἄλλο γάρ ἐστι κτίστης καὶ κτίσμα, ἄλλο πατὴρ καὶ ὁ υἱός, διότι κεχώρισται τούτων ἑκάτερον τῇ ἐννοίᾳ. τὸ γὰρ κτίσμα λέγων πρῶτον κτίστην φημί, καὶ τὸ υἱός *, ὡς ἀπὸ σωματικῶν προσλαμβανόμενον καὶ διὰ τὰ πάθη καὶ τὰς ἀπορροίας τῶν σωματικῶν πατέρων καὶ υἱῶν, * καθαρῶς τὴν τοῦ ἐξ ἀσωμάτου πατρὸς ἀσωμάτου υἱοῦ ὕπαρξιν 3.272 ἵστησιν ἔννοιαν, διὰ τοῦτο καὶ τὴν τοῦ κτίσματος, ὅτι σωματικοῦ παρέπλεξεν ἔννοιαν *. καὶ ἐπειδὴ τὸ κτίσμα ὃ ποιεῖ, υἱός ἐστιν, υἱὸν ἐκάλεσεν μόνον ἀπὸ τοῦ κτιστοῦ καὶ τοῦ κτίσματος λαβὼν τὸ ἀπαθὲς τοῦ κτίζοντος ὡς πρὸς τὸ κτίσμα καὶ τοῦ κτίσματος τὸ ἐξ ἀπαθοῦς τοῦ κτίζοντος ὑφεστὸς πάγιον καὶ οἷον ὁ κτίζων ἐβούλετο, τελείαν ἐκ τοῦ σωματικοῦ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ καὶ ἐκ σωματικοῦ κτιστοῦ καὶ κτίσματος τὴν περὶ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ καθαρῶς ἡμᾶς ἐπαίδευσεν ἔννοιαν. ἀφαιρουμένου γὰρ ἀπὸ τοῦ κτίσματος τοῦ τε ἔξωθεν ὑφεστῶτος καὶ τοῦ ὑλικοῦ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων, ὅσαπερ σωματικοῦ κτίσματος τὸ ὄνομα περιέχει, μόνη ἀπὸ τοῦ κτίσματος μένει ἡ ἀπαθής φημι τοῦ κτίζοντος καὶ τελεία τοῦ κτιζομένου καὶ οἷον ἠβούλετο ὁ κτίζων εἶναι τὸ κτιζόμενον, ἔννοια. εἰ οὖν ἀπὸ τοῦ κτιστοῦ καὶ τοῦ κτίσματος τὰ ἄλλα πάλιν ἐκβάλλοντες, τὴν ἐξ ἀπαθοῦς τοῦ κτίζοντος καὶ τελείου τε καὶ παγίου καὶ οἷον ἐβούλετο εἶναι τὸ κτίσμα μόνην λαμβάνομεν ἔννοιαν, ἀκόλουθόν ἐστιν ἀπὸ τῶν τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ ὀνομάτων ἐπειδὴ μάλιστα εἰς πατέρα καὶ υἱὸν πιστεύειν ἐδιδάχθημεν, μίαν οὖν τινα εὐσεβῶς λαμβάνειν ἡμᾶς ἔννοιαν δεῖ. 4. «∆ιὸ καὶ ἐπὶ τούτων, ἐκβαλλομένου τοῦ κατὰ τὸ πάθος ἢ ἀπορροήν, ὥστε τὸν πατέρα πατέρα νοεῖσθαι τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τὸν υἱὸν μὴ σπερματικῶς καταβεβλημένον σωματικοῖς φύσεως τελειοῦσθαι καὶ κινουμένοις ἀεὶ πρὸς αὔξην καὶ φθοράν, ὡς τὰ σωματικὰ ἔχει τοὺς χαρακτῆρας, μόνη παραλειφθήσεται ἔννοια τοῦ ὁμοίου. ὡς γὰρ ἐπὶ τοῦ κτίσματος πάλιν ἐροῦμεν, ὅτι πάντων ἐκβεβλημένων τῶν σωματικῶν παρελείφθη ἡ ἀπαθὴς μὲν τοῦ κτίζοντος, τελεία δὲ καὶ οἵαν ἠβούλετο καὶ παγία ἡ τοῦ κτίσματος ἔννοια, οὕτω καὶ ἐπὶ 3.273 τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ, ἐκβεβλημένων τῶν σωματικῶν πάντων, παραλειφθήσεται μόνη ἡ ὁμοίου καὶ κατ' οὐσίαν ζῴου γενεσιουργία, ἐπειδὴ πᾶς πατὴρ ὁμοίας οὐσίας αὐτοῦ νοεῖται πατήρ. εἰ δὲ μετὰ τῶν λοιπῶν ἁπάντων ἐκ τῶν τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ ὀνομάτων σωματικῶν ἐκβαλλομένων ἐννοιῶν συνεκβάλλοιτο καὶ ἡ ὁμοίου κατ' οὐσίαν ζῴου αἴτιον τὸν πατέρα παρέχουσα ἡμῖν νοεῖν, οὐκέτι ἔσται πατὴρ καὶ υἱὸς πιστευόμενος, ἀλλὰ κτίστης καὶ κτίσμα, καὶ περιττὰ τὰ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ ὀνόματα, μηδὲν παρ' ἑαυτῶν εἰσφερόμενα. καὶ ἔσται οὕτως κτίστης μὲν ὡς θεός, κατ' οὐδὲν δὲ ὅλως πατήρ. ὅτι γὰρ οὐκ ἐνεργείας λέγεται πατὴρ ὁ πατήρ, ἀλλ' ὁμοίας ἑαυτῷ οὐσίας, τῆς κατὰ τὴν τοιάνδε ἐνέργειαν ὑποστάσης, δῆλον ἐκ τῶν φυσικῶν καθέστηκε λογισμῶν. πολλὰς γὰρ ἐνεργείας ἔχων ὁ θεὸς ἄλλῃ μὲν ἐνεργείᾳ κτίστης νοεῖται, καθὸ οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς καὶ πάντων τῶν ἐν τούτοις, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν ἀοράτων κτίστης ἐστί. πατὴρ δὲ μονογενοῦς ὢν οὐχ ὡς κτίστης, ἀλλ' ὡς πατὴρ γεννήσας νοεῖται. εἰ δέ τις διὰ τὴν ὑπόνοιαν τὴν περὶ τῶν κατὰ τοὺς σωματικοὺς πατέρας τε καὶ υἱοὺς τῶν παθῶν, δεδιὼς μή τι πάθῃ γεννῶν ὁ ἀσώματος, εἰ