§42. Explanation of ‘Ungenerate,’ and a ‘study’ of Eternity.

The eternity of God’s life, to sketch it in mere outline, is on this wise. He is always to be apprehended as in existence; He admits not a time when He was not, and when He will not be. Those who draw a circular figure in plane geometry from a centre to the distance of the line of circumference tell us there is no definite beginning to their figure; and that the line is interrupted by no ascertained end any more than by any visible commencement: they say that, as it forms a single whole in itself with equal radii on all sides, it avoids giving any indication of beginning or ending. When, then, we compare the Infinite being to such a figure, circumscribed though it be, let none find fault with this account; for it is not on the circumference, but on the similarity which the figure bears to the Life which in every direction eludes the grasp, that we fix our attention when we affirm that such is our intuition of the Eternal. From the present instant, as from a centre and a “point,” we extend thought in all directions, to the immensity of that Life. We find that we are drawn round uninterruptedly and evenly, and that we are always following a circumference where there is nothing to grasp; we find the divine life returning upon itself in an unbroken continuity, where no end and no parts can be recognized. Of God’s eternity we say that which we have heard from prophecy171    from prophecy. Psalm x. 16. Βασιλεύσει Κύριος εἰς τὸν αἰ& 242·να, καὶ εἰς τὸν αἰ& 242·να τοῦ αἰ& 242·νος· Psalm xxix. 10. καθιεῖται Κύριος βασιλεὺς εἰς τὸν αἰ& 242·να· Psalm lxxiv. 12. ῾Ο δὲ θεὸς βασιλεὺς ἡμῶν πρὸ αἰ& 242·νος.; viz.. that God is a king “of old,” and rules for ages, and for ever, and beyond. Therefore we define Him to be earlier than any beginning, and exceeding any end. Entertaining, then, this idea of the Almighty, as one that is adequate, we express it by two titles; i.e., ‘Ungenerate’ and ‘Endless’ represent this infinitude and continuity and ever-lastingness of the Deity. If we adopted only one of them for our idea, and if the remaining one was dropped, our meaning would be marred by this omission; for it is impossible with either one of them singly172    ἑνός τινος τούτων. to express the notion residing in each of the two; but when one speaks of the ‘endless,’ only the absence as regards an end has been indicated, and it does not follow that any hint has been given about a beginning; while, when one speaks of the ‘Unoriginate173    ἄναρχον.,’ the fact of being beyond a beginning has been expressed, but the case as regards an end has been left quite doubtful.

Seeing, then, that these two titles equally help to express the eternity of the divine life, it is high time to inquire why our friends cut in two the complete meaning of this eternity, and declare that the one meaning, which is the negation of beginning, constitutes God’s being (instead of merely forming part of the definition of eternity174    οὐ περὶ τὸ αΐδιον θεωρεῖσθαι), while they consider the other, which is the negation of end, as amongst the externals of that being. It is difficult to see the reason for thus assigning the negation of beginning to the realm of being, while they banish the negation of end outside that realm. The two are our conceptions of the same thing; and, therefore, either both should be admitted to the definition of being, or, if the one is to be judged inadmissible, the other should be rejected also. If, however, they are determined thus to divide the thought of eternity, and to make the one fall within the realm of that being, and to reckon the other with the non-realities of Deity (for the thoughts which they adopt on this subject are grovelling, and, like birds who have shed their feathers, they are unable to soar into the sublimities of theology), I would advise them to reverse their teaching, and to count the unending as being, overlooking the unoriginate rather, and assigning the palm to that which is future and excites hope, rather than to that which is past and stale. Seeing, I say (and I speak thus owing to their narrowness of spirit, and lower the discussion to the level of a child’s conception), the past period of his life is nothing to him who has lived it, and all his interest is centred on the future and on that which can be looked forward to, that which has no end will have more value than that which has no beginning. So let our thoughts upon the divine nature be worthy and exalted ones; or else, if they are going to judge of it according to human tests, let the future be more valued by them than the past, and let them confine the being of the Deity to that, since time’s lapse sweeps away with it all existence in the past, whereas expected existence gains substance from our hope175    Cf. Heb. xi. 1, of faith, ἐλπιζομένων ὑπόστασις πραγμάτων.

Now I broach these ridiculously childish suggestions as to children sitting in the market-place and playing176    Luke vii. 32.; for when one looks into the grovelling earthliness of their heretical teaching it is impossible to help falling into a sort of sportive childishness. It would be right, however, to add this to what we have said, viz., that, as the idea of eternity is completed only by means of both (as we have already argued), by the negation of a beginning and also by that of an end, if they confine God’s being to the one, their definition of this being will be manifestly imperfect and curtailed by half; it is thought of only by the absence of beginning, and does not contain the absence of end within itself as an essential element. But if they do combine both negations, and so complete their definition of the being of God, observe, again, the absurdity that is at once apparent in this view; it will be found, after all their efforts, to be at variance not only with the Only-begotten, but with itself. The case is clear and does not require much dwelling upon. The idea of a beginning and the idea of an end are opposed each to each; the meanings of each differ as widely as the other diametric oppositions177    κατὰ διάμετρον ἀλλήλοις ἀντικειμένων, i.e. Contradictories in Logic., where there is no half-way proposition below178    As in A or E, both of which have the Particular below them (I or O) as a half-way to the contrary Universal. Thus—   A I E All men are mortal. Some men are mortal. No men are mortal. E O A   No men are mortal. Some men are not mortal. All men are mortal.   But between A and O, E and I, there is no half-way.. If any one is asked to define ‘beginning,’ he will not give a definition the same as that of end; but will carry his definition of it to the opposite extremity. Therefore also the two contraries179    Beginning (Contraries) Beginningless.   Endless (Contraries) Ending. of these will be separated from each other by the same distance of opposition; and that which is without beginning, being contrary to that which is to be seen by a beginning, will be a very different thing from that which is endless, or the negation of end. If, then, they import both these attributes into the being of God, I mean the negations of end and of beginning, they will exhibit this Deity of theirs as a combination of two contradictory and discordant things, because the contrary ideas to beginning and end reproduce on their side also the contradiction existing between beginning and end. Contraries of contradictories are themselves contradictory of each other. In fact, it is always a true axiom, that two things which are naturally opposed to two things mutually opposite are themselves opposed to each other; as we may see by example. Water is opposed to fire; therefore also the forces destructive of these are opposed to each other; if moistness is apt to extinguish fire, and dryness is apt to destroy water, the opposition of fire to water is continued in those qualities themselves which are contrary to them; so that dryness is plainly opposed to moistness. Thus, when beginning and end have to be placed (diametrically) opposite each other180    ὑπεναντίως διακειμένων. The same term has been used to express the opposition between Ungenerate and Generated: so that it means both Oppositions, i.e. Contraries and Contradictories., the terms contrary to these also contradict each other in their meaning, I mean, the negations of end and of beginning. Well, then, if they determine that one only of these negations is indicative of the being (to repeat my former assertion), they will bear evidence to half only of God’s existence, confining it to the absence of beginning, and refusing to extend it to the absence of end; whereas, if they import both into their definition of it, they will actually exhibit it so as a combination of contradictions in the way that has been said; for these two negations of beginning and of end, by virtue of the contradiction existing between beginning and end, will part it asunder. So their Deity will be found to be a sort of patchwork compound, a conglomerate of contradictions.

But there is not, neither shall there be, in the Church of God a teaching such as that, which can make One who is single and incomposite not only multiform and patchwork, but also the combination of opposites. The simplicity of the True Faith assumes God to be that which He is, viz., incapable of being grasped by any term, or any idea, or any other device of our apprehension, remaining beyond the reach not only of the human but of the angelic and of all supramundane intelligence, unthinkable, unutterable, above all expression in words, having but one name that can represent His proper nature, the single name of being ‘Above every name181    Philip. ii. 9. ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα.’; which is granted to the Only-begotten also, because “all that the Father hath is the Son’s.” The orthodox theory allows these words, I mean “Ungenerate,” “Endless,” to be indicative of God’s eternity, but not of His being; so that “Ungenerate” means that no source or cause lies beyond Him, and “Endless” means that His kingdom will be brought to a standstill in no end. “Thou art the same,” the prophet says, “and Thy years shall not fail182    Psalm cii. 27.,” showing by “art” that He subsists out of no cause, and by the words following, that the blessedness of His life is ceaseless and unending.

But, perhaps, some one amongst even very religious people will pause over these investigations of ours upon God’s eternity, and say that it will be difficult from what we have said for the Faith in the Only-begotten to escape unhurt. Of two unacceptable doctrines, he will say, our account183    Adopting ὁ λόγος from the Venice Cod. (ἑνὶ πάντως ὁ λόγος συνενεχθήσεται). The verb cannot be impersonal: and τις above, the only available nominative, does not suit the sense very well.   Gregory constructs this scheme of Opposition after the analogy of Logical Opposition. Beginning is not so opposed to Beginning-less, as it is to Ending, because with the latter there is no half-way, i.e. no word of definition in common. must inevitably be brought into contact with one. Either we shall make out that the Son is Ungenerate, which is absurd; or else we shall deny Him Eternity altogether, a denial which that fraternity of blasphemers make their specialty. For if Eternity is characterized by having no beginning and end, it is inevitable either that we must be impious and deny the Son Eternity, or that we must be led in our secret thoughts about Him into the idea of Ungeneracy. What, then, shall we answer? That if, in conceiving of the Father before the Son on the single score of causation, we inserted any mark of time before the subsistence of the Only-begotten, the belief which we have in the Son’s eternity might with reason be said to be endangered. But, as it is, the Eternal nature, equally in the case of the Father’s and the Son’s life, and, as well, in what we believe about the Holy Ghost, admits not of the thought that it will ever cease to be; for where time is not, the “when” is annihilated with it. And if the Son, always appearing with the thought of the Father, is always found in the category of existence, what danger is there in owning the Eternity of the Only-begotten, Who “hath neither beginning of days, nor end of life184    Heb. vii. 3..” For as He is Light from Light, Life from Life, Good from Good, and Wise, Just, Strong, and all else in the same way, so most certainly is He Eternal from Eternal.

But a lover of controversial wrangling catches up the argument, on the ground that such a sequence would make Him Ungenerate from Ungenerate. Let him, however, cool his combative heart, and insist upon the proper expressions, for in confessing His ‘coming from the Father’ he has banished all ideas of Ungeneracy as regards the Only-begotten; and there will be then no danger in pronouncing Him Eternal and yet not Ungenerate. On the one hand, because the existence of the Son is not marked by any intervals of time, and the infinitude of His life flows back before the ages and onward beyond them in an all-pervading tide, He is properly addressed with the title of Eternal; again, on the other hand, because the thought of Him as Son in fact and title gives us the thought of the Father as inalienably joined to it, He thereby stands clear of an ungenerate existence being imputed to Him, while He is always with a Father Who always is, as those inspired words of our Master expressed it, “bound by way of generation to His Father’s Ungeneracy.” Our account of the Holy Ghost will be the same also; the difference is only in the place assigned in order. For as the Son is bound to the Father, and, while deriving existence from Him, is not substantially after Him, so again the Holy Spirit is in touch with the Only-begotten, Who is conceived of as before the Spirit’s subsistence only in the theoretical light of a cause185    τὸν τῆς αἰτίας λόγον. This is much more probably the meaning, because of before above, than “on the score of the different kind of causation” (Non omne quod procedat nascitur, quamvis omne procedat quod nascitur. S. August.). It is a direct testimony to the ‘Filioque’ belief. “The Spirit comes forth with the Word, not begotten with Him, but being with and accompanying and proceeding from Him.” Theodoret. Serm. II.. Extensions in time find no admittance in the Eternal Life; so that, when we have removed the thought of cause, the Holy Trinity in no single way exhibits discord with itself; and to It is glory due.

Τὸ ἀΐδιον τῆς θείας ζωῆς, ὡς ἄν τις ὅρῳ τινὶ περιλαβὼν ὑπογράψειε, τοιοῦτόν ἐστιν. ἀεὶ μὲν ἐν τῷ εἶναι καταλαμβάνεται, τοῦ δὲ ποτὲ μὴ εἶναι καὶ ποτὲ μὴ ἔσεσθαι τὸν λόγον οὐκ ἐπιδέχεται. ἀλλ' ὥσπερ ἐπὶ τοῦ κυκλοτεροῦς σχήματος οἱ τὰ ἐπίπεδα γεωμετροῦντες ἐξίσης ἀπὸ τοῦ κέντρου πρὸς τὸ διάστημα τῆς γραμμῆς πρὸς ἑαυτὴν ἑλιχθείσης ἀόριστον εἶναι τὴν ἀρχὴν τοῦ σχήματος λέγουσι, μήτε εἰς τέλος ὁμολογούμενον μήτε εἰς ἀρχὴν φανερὰν τῆς γραμμῆς διασπωμένης, ἀλλ' ἐκ τῶν ἴσων διαστημάτων πανταχόθεν ἐκ τοῦ κέντρου πρὸς ἑαυτὴν ἡνωμένης ἐκφυγεῖν τὸ ἀρχήν τινα καὶ τελευτὴν ἐπιδέξασθαι, οὕτω καὶ μηδεὶς συκοφαντείτω τὸν λόγον ὡς περιγεγραμμένῳ σχήματι τὴν ἀόριστον φύσιν προσεικαζόντων. οὐ γὰρ πρὸς τὴν περιγραφὴν τοῦ κύκλου βλέποντες, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὸ ὅμοιον τοῦ πανταχόθεν ἀλήπτου τῆς ζωῆς ἀφορῶντές φαμεν τοῦ ἀϊδίου τὴν ἔννοιαν τοιαύτην εἶναι. ἀπὸ γὰρ τοῦ νῦν ἐνεστῶτος ὥσπερ ἀπὸ κέντρου καὶ σημείου τινὸς πανταχόθεν τὴν διάνοιαν πρὸς τὸ ἄπειρον τῆς ζωῆς ἐπεκτείνοντές τε καὶ περιάγοντες ἴσως καὶ ὁμοίως ὑπὸ τῆς ἀκαταληψίας ἐν κύκλῳ περιελκόμεθα, συνεχῆ καὶ ἀδιάστατον αὐτὴν πρὸς ἑαυτὴν τὴν θείαν ζωὴν ἁπανταχόθεν καταλαμβάνοντες καὶ οὐδὲν πέρας κατ' οὐδὲν μέρος ἐπιγνῶναι δυνάμενοι. τοῦτο λέγομεν περὶ τῆς ἀϊδιότητος τοῦ θεοῦ, ὃ παρὰ τῆς προφητείας ἠκούσαμεν, ὅτι θεὸς καὶ βασιλεὺς προαιώνιος καὶ βασιλεύει τὸν αἰῶνα καὶ ἐπ' αἰῶνα καὶ ἔτι, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἀνώτερον μὲν πάσης ἀρχῆς, περισσότερον δὲ παντὸς τέλους εἶναι διοριζόμεθα. ταύτην οὖν τὴν ἔννοιαν ὡς πρέπουσαν τῷ θεῷ τῶν ὅλων περὶ αὐτὸν ἔχοντες δύο προσηγορίαις τὸ νοηθὲν ἐξαγγέλλομεν, τῷ ἀγεννήτῳ καὶ τῷ ἀτελευτήτῳ τὸ ἄπειρον καὶ διηνεκὲς καὶ ἀΐδιον τῆς ζωῆς τοῦ θεοῦ παριστῶντες. εἰ γὰρ τὸ ἕτερον τούτων μόνον εἰς τὴν διάνοιαν ταύτην παραληφθείη, σιωπηθείη δὲ τὸ λειπόμενον, χωλεύσει πάντως τὸ σημαινόμενον ἐν τῷ λείποντι. οὐ γὰρ ἔστι δυνατὸν « δι' » ἑνός τινος τούτων τὴν ἐν ἑκατέρῳ σημασίαν ὑγιῶς παραστῆσαι. ὁ γὰρ ἀτελεύτητον εἰπὼν τὴν πρὸς τὸ τέλος μόνον ἀλλοτρίωσιν ἔδειξεν, οὐ μήν τι καὶ περὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς διελέχθη: καὶ ὁ τὸν ἄναρχον ὀνομάσας τὸ μὲν ὑπὲρ ἀρχὴν εἶναι τὸ σημαινόμενον ἔδειξε, τὸν δὲ περὶ τοῦ τέλους λόγον ἀφῆκεν ἀμφίβολον.
Τούτων οὖν, ὡς ἔφην, τῶν ὀνομάτων ἐπίσης τὸ ἀΐδιον τῆς θείας ζωῆς παριστώντων, καιρὸς ἂν εἴη κατεξετάσαι, πῶς οὗτοι διατεμόντες τοῦ ἀϊδίου τὸ σημαινόμενον τὸ μὲν τῆς ἀρχῆς ἀναιρετικὸν νόημα οὐσίαν εἶναί φασιν, [οὐ περὶ τὸ ἀΐδιον θεωρεῖσθαι] τὸ δὲ τοῦ τέλους ἀνεπίδεκτον ἐν τοῖς ἔξω τῆς οὐσίας λογίζονται, οὐκ οἶδα τίνι διανοίᾳ τὸ τοιοῦτον ἀποκληροῦντες, ὥστε τὸ μὲν ἀρχὴν μὴ ἔχειν ἐν οὐσίᾳ τίθεσθαι, τὸ δὲ τέλος μὴ ἔχειν ὡς ἐκτὸς τῆς οὐσίας ἀποποιεῖσθαι. ἐχρῆν γάρ, ἐπειδὴ τὰ δύο περὶ τὸ αὐτὸ θεωρεῖται, ἢ ἀμφότερα εἰς τὸν τῆς οὐσίας παραδέχεσθαι λόγον ἤ, εἰ τὸ ἓν ἀπόβλητον ἔκριναν, συναποβάλλειν τούτῳ καὶ τὸ λειπόμενον. εἰ δὲ πάντως ἀρέσκει διελόντας τοῦ ἀϊδίου τὴν ἔννοιαν τὸ μέν τι εἰς οὐσίαν τῆς θείας φύσεως κατατάττειν, τὸ δὲ ἐν τοῖς μὴ οὖσι λογίζεσθαι, (ἐπειδὴ ταπεινοῖς λογισμοῖς τὰ τοιαῦτα κρίνειν ἐθέλουσι, πρὸς τὸ ὕψος τῶν περὶ θεοῦ νοημάτων ὥσπερ τὰ πτερορρυήσαντα τῶν ὀρνέων οὐκ ἀνιπτάμενοι), συμβουλεύσαιμι ἂν αὐτοῖς ἔγωγε μεταλαβεῖν πρὸς τὸ ἐναντίον τὰ δόγματα, ὡς τὸ μὲν ἀτελεύτητον ἐν οὐσίᾳ λογίζεσθαι, περιορᾶν δὲ μᾶλλον τοῦ ἀτελευτήτου τὸ ἄναρχον, τῷ μέλλοντι καὶ τῷ κατ' ἐλπίδας πλέον ἢ τῷ παρῳχηκότι καὶ ἑώλῳ τὰ πρωτεῖα προσνέμοντας. ἐπειδὴ γάρ (λέγω δὲ ταῦτα διὰ τοὺς μικροὺς τὰ ψυχάρια ἑκουσίως τῇ τῶν νηπίων ὑπολήψει συγκατάγων τὸν λόγον) ἐπειδὴ τοίνυν τὸ παρελθὸν τῆς ζωῆς ἀντ' οὐδενός ἐστι τῷ ζήσαντι, πᾶσα δὲ ἡ σπουδὴ τοῖς ζῶσι πρὸς τὸ μέλλον καὶ προσδοκώμενον γίνεται, τιμιώτερον ἂν εἴη τοῦ ἀνάρχου τὸ ἀτελεύτητον, ὅτι πρὸς τὸ μέλλον καὶ προσδοκώμενον τὸ ἀθάνατον φέρεται. ὥστε ἢ θεοπρεπῆ καὶ ὑψηλὰ « τὰ » περὶ τῆς θείας φύσεως ἔστω νοήματα, ἢ εἴπερ ἀνθρωπίνοις λογισμοῖς κρίνουσι τὰ τοιαῦτα, τὸ μέλλον ἔστω τοῦ παρῳχηκότος αὐτοῖς τιμιώτερον, καὶ τούτῳ τοῦ θεοῦ τὴν οὐσίαν περιγραφέτωσαν, ἐπειδὴ πᾶν τὸ παρελθὸν ἤδη τοῦ χρόνου τῇ παρόδῳ συναφανίζεται, τὸ δὲ προσδοκώμενον διὰ τῆς ἐλπίδος τὴν ὑπόστασιν ἔχει.
Ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν ὡς παιδίοις τοῖς ἐν τῇ ἀγορᾷ καθημένοις καὶ παίζουσι γελοῖα καὶ παιδαριώδη προφέρω: οὐδὲ γὰρ ἔστι τὸ χαμαιρριφές τε καὶ γήϊνον τῶν τῆς αἱρέσεως δογμάτων ἐπισκεπτόμενον μὴ οὐχὶ πάντως εἰς μειρακιώδη τινὰ παιδιὰν ὑποφέρεσθαι. ἐκεῖνο δὲ προσθεῖναι τῷ λόγῳ καλῶς ἔχειν φημί, ὅτι τῆς τοῦ ἀϊδίου σημασίας δι' ἀμφοτέρων κατὰ τὸν ῥηθέντα λόγον συμπληρουμένης, ἔκ τε τῆς « τῆς » ἀρχῆς καὶ ἐκ τῆς τοῦ τέλους ἀλλοτριώσεως, εἰ μὲν ἐν τῷ ἑνὶ τὴν οὐσίαν τοῦ θεοῦ περιγράφοιεν, ἡμιτελὴς αὐτοῖς καὶ ἡμίτομος ὁ τῆς οὐσίας λόγος ἀναφανήσεται, ἐν μόνῳ τῷ ἀνάρχῳ νοούμενος, τὸ δὲ ἀτελεύτητον ἐν ἑαυτῷ κατ' οὐσίαν μὴ κεκτημένος. εἰ δὲ ἀμφότερα συνθέντες τὸν τῆς οὐσίας λόγον δι' ἑκατέρων συναπαρτίσουσι, πάλιν σκοπήσωμεν τὴν συναναδεικνυμένην ἀτοπίαν τῷ λόγῳ: εὑρεθήσεται γὰρ αὐτοῖς οὐκέτι πρὸς τὸν μονογενῆ μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ πρὸς ἑαυτὸν ἀλλοτρίως ἔχων. σαφὴς δὲ ὁ λόγος καὶ οὐδὲ πολλῆς τῆς ἐπιστασίας δεόμενος. ὁ γὰρ τῆς ἀρχῆς καὶ ὁ τοῦ τέλους λόγος ἐναντίως ἑκάτερος πρὸς τὸν ἕτερον ἔχει, καὶ διάφορον ἐπ' ἀμφοτέρων τὸ σημαινόμενον, ὥσπερ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν λοιπῶν τῶν κατὰ διάμετρον ἀλλήλοις ἀντικειμένων, οἷς οὐδὲν ὕπεστι μέσον. ὁ γὰρ ἐρωτηθεὶς τὸν περὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς λόγον οὐ τὸν αὐτὸν ἀποδώσει τῷ περὶ τοῦ τέλους ὅρῳ, ἀλλ' ἐπὶ τὸ ἐναντίον ἐκείνῳ προάξει τὸν ὡρισμένον τῆς ἀρχῆς λόγον. οὐκοῦν καὶ τὰ ἑκατέρῳ τούτων ἀντικείμενα κατὰ τὸ ἴσον μέτρον τῆς ἀντιθέσεως καὶ ἀπ' ἀλλήλων διενεχθήσεται, καὶ ἄλλο τι ὁμολογηθήσεται εἶναι τὸ ἄναρχον, ὅπερ ἀντίκειται τῷ ὑπὸ τῆς ἀρχῆς δηλουμένῳ, ἄλλο δέ τι τὸ ἀτελεύτητον, ὅπερ ἀναιρετικὸν τοῦ τέλους ἐστίν. εἰ οὖν ταῦτα τὰ δύο εἰς τὴν οὐσίαν τοῦ θεοῦ φέροντες ἀναθήσουσι, τό τε ἀτελεύτητόν φημι καὶ τὸ ἄναρχον, δύο τινῶν ἐναντίων καὶ ἀσυμφώνων συνδρομὴν τὸν θεὸν ἑαυτῶν ἀποδείξουσι. τὴν γὰρ τοῦ τέλους πρὸς τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐναντίωσιν ἡ ἑκατέρῳ τούτων ἀντικειμένη διάνοια καὶ ἐφ' ἑαυτῆς ἐπιδείκνυται. τὰ γὰρ τοῖς ἀντικειμένοις ἐναντία καὶ ἀλλήλοις ἐναντία πάντως ἐστίν. ἀληθὴς δὲ ὁ λόγος ὅτι πάντα, ὅσα τοῖς ἐναντίως ἔχουσι κατὰ τὴν φύσιν ἀντικαθίσταται, ταῦτα καὶ πρὸς ἄλληλα τὸ ἐναντίον ἔχει, ὡς ἐπὶ τῶν ὑποδειγμάτων ἔστιν ἰδεῖν. τῷ πυρὶ τὸ ὕδωρ ἀνθέστηκεν: οὐκοῦν καὶ αἱ ἀναιρετικαὶ τούτων δυνάμεις ἀλλήλαις ἐναντιώσονται. εἰ γὰρ σβεστικὴ τοῦ πυρός ἐστιν ἡ ὑγρότης, ἀναιρετικὴ δὲ τοῦ ὕδατός ἐστιν ἡ ξηρότης, τὴν τοῦ ὕδατος πρὸς τὸ πῦρ ἐναντίωσιν καὶ αἱ ἀντικείμεναι τούτοις ποιότητες καὶ ἐφ' ἑαυτῶν διεσώσαντο, ὡς ἐναντίως ἔχειν ὁμολογεῖσθαι τῷ ξηρῷ τὴν ὑγρότητα. οὕτως οὖν καὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς καὶ τοῦ τέλους ὑπεναντίως διακειμένων, τὰ ἀντικείμενα τούτοις ὀνόματα καὶ ἀλλήλοις μάχεται κατὰ τὴν ἔννοιαν, τὸ ἄναρχον λέγω καὶ τὸ ἀτελεύτητον. εἰ τοίνυν τὸ ἕτερον τούτων μόνον τῆς οὐσίας ἐνδεικτικὸν εἶναι ὁρίζονται (πάλιν γὰρ τὸν αὐτὸν ἐπαναλήψομαι λόγον), ἐξ ἡμισείας προσμαρτυρήσουσιν οὕτω τῷ θεῷ τὸ εἶναι, ἐν μόνῳ τῷ ἀνάρχῳ περιγράφεσθαι λέγοντες αὐτοῦ τὴν οὐσίαν, πρὸς δὲ τὸ ἀτελεύτητον οὐκέτι ἐκτείνοντες: εἰ δὲ ἀμφότερα εἰς τὸν τῆς οὐσίας λόγον φέροντες καταθήσουσιν, οὐδὲν ἕτερον ἢ ἐξ ἐναντίων αὐτὴν συγκεῖσθαι ἀποφανοῦνται κατὰ τὸν ῥηθέντα τρόπον, τῇ κατὰ τὸ τέλος πρὸς τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐναντιώσει τῷ ἀτελευτήτῳ καὶ ἀνάρχῳ κατ' οὐσίαν διασχιζομένην. καὶ οὕτως εὑρίσκεται αὐτῶν ὁ θεὸς ποικίλον τι χρῆμα καὶ σύνθετον, ἐξ ἀντικειμένων τινῶν συγκεκροτημένος.
Ἀλλ' οὔτε ἔστιν οὔτε μὴ γένηται δόγμα τοιοῦτον ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ θεοῦ, ὥστε τὸν ἁπλοῦν καὶ ἀσύνθετον μὴ μόνον πολυειδῆ καὶ ποικίλον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐξ ἐναντίων συγκείμενον ἀποφαίνεσθαι. ἡ γὰρ ἁπλότης τῶν τῆς ἀληθείας δογμάτων τὸν θεὸν ὅπερ ἐστὶν ὑποτίθεται, οὔτε ὀνόματι οὔτε διανοήματι οὔτε τινὶ ἄλλῃ καταληπτικῇ ἐπινοίᾳ περιληφθῆναι δυνάμενον, οὐ μόνον ἀνθρωπίνης, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀγγελικῆς καὶ πάσης ὑπερκοσμίου καταλήψεως ὑψηλότερον μένοντα, ἄφραστόν τε καὶ ἀνεκφώνητον καὶ πάσης τῆς διὰ λόγων σημασίας ἀνώτερον, ἓν ὄνομα γνωριστικὸν τῆς ἰδίας ἔχοντα φύσεως, τὸ μόνον αὐτὸν ὑπὲρ πᾶν εἶναι ὄνομα: ὃ δὴ καὶ τῷ μονογενεῖ κεχάρισται, διὰ τὸ πάντα ὅσα ἔχει ὁ πατὴρ καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ εἶναι. τῆς δὲ ἀϊδιότητος αὐτοῦ, οὐχὶ τῆς οὐσίας ἐνδεικτικὰς εἶναι τὰς φωνὰς ταύτας ὁμολογεῖ τῆς εὐσεβείας ὁ λόγος, τήν τε ἀγέννητόν φημι καὶ τὴν ἀτελεύτητον, ὡς τοῦ μὲν ἀγεννήτου τὸ μηδεμίαν αὐτοῦ ὑπερκεῖσθαι ἀρχὴν καὶ αἰτίαν ἐνδεικνυμένου, τοῦ δὲ ἀτελευτήτου τὸ εἰς μηδὲν πέρας στήσεσθαι αὐτοῦ τὴν βασιλείαν σημαίνοντος. Σὺ γάρ, φησίν, ὁ αὐτὸς εἶ, καὶ τὰ ἔτη σου οὐκ ἐκλείψουσι, διὰ μὲν τοῦ εἶναι τὸ μὴ ἐξ αἰτίας τινὸς ὑποστῆναι σημαίνων, διὰ δὲ τοῦ ἐφεξῆς τὴν ἄπαυστόν τε καὶ ἀτελεύτητον μακαριότητα τῆς ζωῆς ἐνδεικνύμενος.
Ἀλλ' ἴσως ἐρεῖ τις καὶ τῶν εὐλαβεστέρων ἐπιστὰς τοῖς περὶ τοῦ ἀϊδίου ἡμῖν ἐξητασμένοις, ὅτι χαλεπόν ἐστι τὸν περὶ τοῦ μονογενοῦς λόγον διὰ τῶν εἰρημένων παρελθεῖν ἀπροσκόπως. δύο γὰρ ἀπεμφαινόντων δογμάτων, ἑνὶ ὁ λόγος συνενεχθήσεται. ἢ γὰρ ἀγέννητον εἶναι καὶ τὸν υἱὸν κατασκευάσομεν, ὅπερ ἄτοπον, ἢ οὐδὲ τὸ ἀΐδιον αὐτῷ συγχωρήσομεν, ὅπερ ἴδιον τῶν βλασφημούντων ἐστίν. εἰ γὰρ τῷ ἀνάρχῳ καὶ ἀτελευτήτῳ ἡ ἀϊδιότης γνωρίζεται, ἀνάγκη πᾶσα ἢ ἀσεβεῖν μὴ ὁμολογοῦντας τοῦ υἱοῦ τὸ ἀΐδιον, ἢ πρὸς τὴν τῆς ἀγεννησίας ὑπόληψιν ἐν ταῖς περὶ τοῦ μονογενοῦς ὑπονοίαις ἐκφέρεσθαι. τί οὖν ἡμεῖς; εἰ μέν τινα χρονικὴν ἔμφασιν ὑπερετίθει τῆς τοῦ μονογενοῦς ὑποστάσεως ὁ τὸν πατέρα τοῦ υἱοῦ μόνῳ τῷ τῆς αἰτίας λόγῳ προθεωρῶν, εἰκότως ἂν ὁ τῆς ἀϊδιότητος ἡμῖν περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ λόγος ἐκινδυνεύετο. νυνὶ δὲ τὸ ποτὲ μὴ ἔσεσθαι ἐπὶ τῆς προαιωνίου φύσεως ἴσως καὶ ὁμοίως ἐπί τε τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς ζωῆς καὶ τῆς τοῦ μονογενοῦς [ἀλλὰ καὶ τῆς τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος ὁμολογίας] οὐ δέχεται: ἔνθα γὰρ χρόνος οὐκ ἔστι, καὶ τὸ ποτὲ συνανῄρηται. εἰ δὲ ἀεὶ ἐν τῷ εἶναι καταλαμβάνεται ὁ υἱὸς τῇ περὶ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐννοίᾳ συναναφαινόμενος, τίς ὁ φόβος προσμαρτυρεῖν τῷ μονογενεῖ τὸ ἀΐδιον, τῷ μήτε ἀρχὴν ἡμερῶν μήτε ζωῆς ἔχοντι τέλος; ὡς γὰρ ἐκ φωτὸς φῶς καὶ ζωὴ ἐκ ζωῆς καὶ ἐξ ἀγαθοῦ ἀγαθὸς σοφός τε καὶ δίκαιος καὶ δυνατὸς καὶ τὰ ἄλλα πάντα ὡσαύτως ἐκ τοιούτου τοιοῦτος, οὕτω καὶ ἐξ ἀϊδίου πάντως ἀΐδιος.
Ἀλλ' ὑφαρπάζει τὸν λόγον ὁ ἀντιλογικός τε καὶ φίλερις, ὡς τῆς ἀκολουθίας ταύτης καὶ ἐξ ἀγεννήτου ἀγέννητον ὑπονοεῖσθαι ποιούσης. ἀλλὰ νηψάτω τῇ καρδίᾳ καὶ ταῖς ἰδίαις ἐπιστήτω φωναῖς ὁ μαχόμενος, ὅτι τὸ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ὁμολογῶν τὴν τοῦ ἀγεννήτου ὑπόνοιαν ἐπὶ τοῦ μονογενοῦς ἀπεπέμψατο, καὶ οὐδεὶς ἔπεστι φόβος καὶ ἀΐδιον αὐτὸν καὶ οὐκ ἀγέννητον λέγειν. ὅτι μὲν γὰρ οὐ διαστήματι χρονικῷ τοῦ υἱοῦ τὸ εἶναι περιορίζεται, ἀλλὰ καὶ πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων καὶ μετὰ τούτους τὸ ἄπειρον αὐτοῦ τῆς ζωῆς ἁπανταχόθεν ἐκκέχυται, κυρίως τῇ τοῦ ἀϊδίου προσηγορίᾳ κατονομάζεται: ὅτι δὲ πάλιν υἱὸς καὶ ὢν καὶ λεγόμενος συνημμένως τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς ἔννοιαν ἑαυτῷ συνθεωρεῖσθαι δίδωσι, τὸ ἀγεννήτως εἶναι δοκεῖν διὰ τούτου ἐκπέφευγεν, ἀεὶ συνὼν τῷ ἀεὶ ὄντι πατρί, καθὼς εἶπε καὶ ἡ θεόπνευστος ἐκείνη τοῦ διδασκάλου ἡμῶν φωνή, ὅτι γεννητῶς τῇ ἀγεννησίᾳ τοῦ πατρὸς συναπτόμενος. ὁ δὲ αὐτὸς ἡμῖν καὶ περὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος λόγος, ἐν μόνῃ τῇ τάξει τὴν διαφορὰν ἔχων. ὡς γὰρ συνάπτεται τῷ πατρὶ ὁ υἱὸς καὶ τὸ ἐξ αὐτοῦ εἶναι ἔχων οὐχ ὑστερίζει κατὰ τὴν ὕπαρξιν, οὕτω πάλιν καὶ τοῦ μονογενοῦς ἔχεται τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, ἐπινοίᾳ μόνῃ κατὰ τὸν τῆς αἰτίας λόγον προθεωρουμένου τῆς τοῦ πνεύματος ὑποστάσεως: αἱ δὲ χρονικαὶ παρατάσεις ἐπὶ τῆς προαιωνίου ζωῆς χώραν οὐκ ἔχουσιν. ὥστε τοῦ λόγου τῆς αἰτίας ὑπεξῃρημένου ἐν μηδενὶ τὴν ἁγίαν τριάδα πρὸς ἑαυτὴν ἀσυμφώνως ἔχειν.