Ἃ μὲν οὖν εἴποι τις ἂν ἐπικόπτων τὴν περὶ τὸν λόγον αὐτῶν ἑτοιμότητα καὶ ταχύτητα, καὶ τὸ τοῦ τάχους ἐπισφαλὲς ἐν πᾶσι μὲν πράγμασι, μάλιστα δὲ ἐν τοῖς περὶ θεοῦ λόγοις, ταῦτά ἐστιν. ἐπεὶ δὲ τὸ μὲν ἐπιτιμᾷν οὐ μέγα· ῥᾷστον γὰρ καὶ τοῦ βουλομένου παντός· τὸ δὲ ἀντεισάγειν τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γνώμην ἀνδρὸς εὐσεβοῦς καὶ νοῦν ἔχοντος· φέρε, τῷ ἁγίῳ θαρρήσαντες πνεύματι, τῷ παρ’ αὐτῶν μὲν ἀτιμαζομένῳ, παρ’ ἡμῶν δὲ προσκυνουμένῳ, τὰς ἡμετέρας περὶ τῆς θεότητος ὑπολήψεις, αἵ τινές ποτέ εἰσιν, ὥσπερ τινὰ τόκον εὐγενῆ τε καὶ ὥριμον εἰς φῶς προενέγκωμεν· οὐδὲ ἄλλοτε μὲν σιωπήσαντες, τοῦτο γὰρ μόνον ἡμεῖς νεανικοί τε καὶ μεγαλόφρονες, νῦν δὲ καὶ μᾶλλον 1. Ι ἐπικόπτων] ἐπισκώπτων b ΙΙ ’τον λόγον] τῶν λόγων b II 3 ἐν τοῖς] om ἐν c ΙΙ 7 πνεύματι θαρρήσαντες cde || 8 ἤμων] ἥμιν b ΙΙ 10 προσενεγκωμεν f 1. We have stated our objections to the hasty theology of the Euuomians; but it is a harder task to set forth our own. I will endeavour to do so with the aid of the Holy Spirit, — as indeed I have done before, but it is more necessary now than ever, — as briefly ἃς I can. 1. ἐπικόπτων] ’by way of check- ’ Αὐτῶν, the Eunomians. 2. τὸ...ἐπισφαλές] ’the danger.’ 4. τὸ μὲν ἐπισφαλές] κτλ.] taken from Demosth. Olynth. i 7. 6. ἀντεισάγειν] not merely ‘to state in opposition,’ but to ‘instate,’ to ‘substitute.’ 8. προσκυνουμένῳ] This does not compel us to suppose that Gr. used or was acquainted with the last part of our present ‘ Nicene ’ Creed. See the quotations in Hort Two Diss, p. 88. 11. τοῦτο γὰρ μόνον] The verb omitted would prob. have to be expressed by perf. and pres. together; ’have been and are.’ Gr. refers to former outspoken sermons of his such as Orat. XX. For νέαν. cp. i 2. παρρησιαζόμενοι τὴν ἀλήθειαν· ἵνα μὴ τῇ ὑποστολῇ, καθὼς γέγραπται, τὸ μὴ εὐδοκεῖσθαι κατακριθῶμεν. διττοῦ δὲ ὄντος λόγου παντός, τοῦ μὲν τὸ οἰκεῖον κατασκευάζοντος, τοῦ δὲ τὸ ἀντίπαλον ἀνατρέποντος, καὶ ἡμεῖς τὸν οἰκεῖον ἐκθέμενοι πρότερον, οὕτω τὰ τῶν ἐναντίων ἀνατρέψαι πειρασόμεθα· καὶ ἀμφότερα ὡς οἷόν τε διὰ βραχέων, ἵν εὐσύνοπτα γένηται τὰ λεγόμενα, ὥσπερ ὃν αὐτοὶ λόγον εἰσαγωγικὸν ἐπενόησαν πρὸς ἐξαπάτην τῶν ἁπλουστέρων ἢ εὐηθεστέρων, καὶ μὴ τῷ μήκει τοῦ λόγου διαχεθῇ τὰ νοούμενα, καθάπερ ὕδωρ οὐ σωλῆνι σφιγγόμενον, ἀλλὰ κατὰ πεδίου χεόμενον καὶ λυόμενον.

τρεῖς αἱ ἀνωτάτω δόξαι περὶ θεοῦ, ἀναρχία, καὶ πολυαρχία, καὶ μοναρχία. αἱ μὲν οὖν δύο παισὶν ‘Ελλήνων ἐπαίχθησαν, καὶ παιζέσθωσαν. τό τε γὰρ ἄναρχον ἄτακτον· τό τε πολύαρχον στασιῶδες, καὶ οὕτως ἄναρχον, καὶ οὕτως ἄτακτον. εἰς ταὐτὸν γὰρ ἀμφότερα φέρει, τὴν ἀταξίαν, ἡ δὲ εἰς λύσιν· ἀταξία γὰρ μελέτη λύσεως. 2 εὐδοκιμεῖσθαι b || 6 om ὡς f || 7 γενηται] γένωνται b ‘Reg. Cypr.’ || 9 διαχυθῇ bd ’Reg. Cypr.’ || IO νοούμενα] λεγόμενα ’Reg. Cypr.’ 1. τῆ ὑποστολῇ] Heb. x 38, 39 (Hab. ii 4). The word, as the context here shews, implies a disingenuous reticence; cp. Gal. ii 12, 13. 2. διττοῦ δὲ ὄντος] The Bene- dictine editors compare Athenagoras de Resurr. 1. 7. αὐτοί] the Eunomians. Gr. incidentally shews how systematically they went to work. 10. σωλῆνισφιγγ.] ’compressed in α pipe.’ 11. χεόμ. κ. λυόμ.] Cp. ii 13. 2. Atheism, Polytheism, Monotheism, are the three ancient opinions about God. The second ends in the same anarchy as the first, and we leave it to the Gentiles. Our Monotheism, however, is one where Three Persons are joined in equality of nature and in identity of will, — two of the three being derived from the first by what Scripture describes as generation and emission respectively. 12. αἱ ἀνωτάτω δόξαι] ’the most ancient opinions.’ 13. παισὶν Ἑλλήνων] a phrase formed on the fashion of υἱοὶ Ἰσραήλ; but the word παῖδες seems to be chosen with a view to the verb ἐπαίχθησαν. ‘With the first two the children of Greece amused themselves.’ 14. τό τε γάρ] The γάρ gives the reason why Gr. leaves those theories to the children of Greece (imperative). 17. ἀταξία γὰρ μ. λ.] ’Disorder is the prelude to ’For μελέτη (lit. ’practice,’ ’rehearsal’) cp. i 7. ἡμῖν δὲ μοναρχία τὸ τιμώμενον· μοναρχία δέ, οὐχ ἢν ἓν περιγράφει πρόσωπον· ἔστι γὰρ καὶ τὸ ἓν στασιάζον πρὸς ἑαυτὸ πολλὰ καθίστασθαι· ἀλλ’ ἢν φύσεως ὁμοτιμία συνίστησι, καὶ γνώμης σύμπνοια, καὶ ταὐτότης κινήσεως, καὶ πρὸς τὸ ἓν τῶν ἐξ αὐτοῦ σύννευσις, ὅπερ ἀμήχανον ἐπὶ τῆς γενητῆς φύσεως, ὥστε κἂν ἀριθμῷ διαφέρῃ, τῇ γε οὐσίᾳ μὴ τέμνεσθαι. διὰ τοῦτο μονὰς ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς, εἰς δυάδα κινηθεῖσα, μέχρι τριάδος ἔστη. καὶ τοῦτό ἐστιν ἡμῖν ὁ πατήρ, καὶ ὁ υἱός, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα· ὁ μὲν γεννήτωρ καὶ προβολεύς, λέγω δὲ ἀπαθῶς, καὶ ἀχρόνως, καὶ ἀσω- μάτως· τῶν δέ, τὸ μὲν γέννημα, τὸ δὲ πρόβλημα, ἢ οὐκ οἱδ’ ὅπως ἄν τις ταῦτα καλέσειεν, ἀφελὼν πάντῃ τῶν 2. 6 γενητης] γεννήτης def || τῆ γε οὐσία] τῆ ἐξουσία ac (sed τῆ γε οὐσία in marg.) g: τῆ γε οὐσία e in rasura 1. μ. δέ, οὐχ ἢν ἐν] ‘Not a souereignty contained in a single person.’ 2. ἐστι γάρ] Such a sovereignty, of a single person, does not necessarily exclude the thought of discord and confusion. It is possible to conceive of a single entity being divided against itself, and so becoming many. The divine unity, which we believe, is the result of ‘equality of nature, unanimity of judgment, and identity of action’ ‘of will.’ 5. πρὸς τὸ ἐν κτλ.] This complete harmony of mind and will in the Godhead is itself based upon the concurrence of the other Blessed Persons with that One of Their number from whom They are derived, viz. the Father. Gr. does not as yet name the Father, nor indeed any of the Persons, because he is speaking in the abstract of the divine unity and its conditions, and so says τὸ ἐν and not rbv ἔνα. Α comparison of v 14 shews that τῶν ἐξ αὐτοῦ depends on σύννευσις, not on τὸ ἐν. The ‘antecedent’ of ἐξ αὐτοῦ (neut.) is τὸ ἐν. ib. ὅπερ] refers to the whole fourfold description. It is perhaps not impossible that such an unity should exist among creaturely beings, but our experience suggests no instance of it, — only imperfect images of it. The clause is of course parenthetical. 6. ὥστε] again refers to the whole description. It will be seen that οὐσία to Gr. means more than φύσις. There is a moral element in it, and not only a metaphysical; ὁμοτιμία φύσεως is one of the things which secure οὖσ’. μὴ τ. The reading τῆ ἐξουσίᾳ gives no satisfactory sense. 7. μονὰς ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς] The language comes perilously near the Sabellian conception of πλατυσμός (see Dorner Person of Christ div. I, vol. 2, p. 156); but of course Gr.'s tenses κινηθεῖσα, ἔστη) are not to be understood in a temporal sense. There was no time before the κίνησις of which he speaks. For μάρι see ii 9. 9. γενν. κ. προβ.] the γεννήτωρ, of course, of the Son; προβολεύς, of the Spirit. 12. ἀφελών κτλ.] Gr. knows no other way of expressing the relation of the Son and Spirit to the Father, such as might get rid of material suggestions. ὁρωμένων. οὐ γὰρ δὴ ὑπέρχυσιν ἀγαθότητος εἰπεῖν θαρρήσομεν, ὃ τῶν παρ’ Ἕλλησι φιλοσοφησάντων εἰπεῖν τις ἐτόλμησεν, οἷον κρατήρ τις ὑπερερρύῃ, σαφῶς οὑτωσὶ λέγων, ἐν οἷς περὶ πρώτου αἰτίου καὶ δευτέρου φιλοσοφεῖ· μή ποτε ἀκούσιον τὴν γέννησιν εἰσαγάγωμεν, καὶ οἷον περίττωμά τι φυσικὸν καὶ δυσκάθεκτον, ἥκιστα ταῖς περὶ θεότητος ὑπονοίαις πρέπον. διὰ τοῦτο ἐπὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων ὅρων ἱστάμενοι τὸ ἀγέννητον εἰσάγομεν, καὶ τὸ γεννητόν, καὶ τὸ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον, ὥς πού φησιν αὐτὸς ὁ θεὸς καὶ λόγος.

Πότε οὖν ταῦτα; ὑπὲρ τὸ πότε ταῦτα. εἰ δὲ δεῖ τι καὶ νεανικῶς εἰπεῖν, ὅτε ὁ πατήρ. πότε δὲ ὁ πατήρ; οὐκ ἢν ὅτε οὐκ ἦν. τοῦτο οὖν καὶ ὁ υἱός, καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον. πάλιν ἐρώτα με, καὶ πάλιν ἀποκρινοῦμαί σοι. πότε ὁ υἱὸς γεγέννηται; ὅτε ὁ πατὴρ οὐ γεγέννηται. πότε δὲ τὸ πνεῦμα ἐκπεπόρευται; ὅτε ὁ υἱὸς οὐκ ἐκπεπόρευται, ἀλλὰ γεγέννηται ἀχρόνως καὶ ὑπὲρ λόγον· εἰ καὶ μὴ δυνάμεθα τὸ ὑπὲρ χρόνον παραστῆσαι, θέλοντες χρονικὴν ἐκφυγεῖν ἔμφασιν· τὸ γὰρ ὅτε, καὶ πρὸ τοῦδε, καὶ μετὰ 1 θαρρήσωμεν ab II 3 ὑπερερρύη] ὑπερρύη dfg || 4 πέρι] + τῆς f || IO om καὶ f 3. 13 πνεῦμα] + τὸ ἄγιον c ’Colb. I’ || 17 ει] + μὴ ’Coisl. 3’ 3. οἷον κρατήρ τις] The simile is used by Plato Tim. 41 D; but, as Jahn points out in his annotations Elias, in a different connexion. Gr. prob. refers to some Neoplatonic author. 7. ἐπὶ τῶν ἠμ’. ὄρων] keeping to consecrated by Christian usage; cp. i 5. 9. ὥς πού φησιν] John xv 26. 3. The acts thus described are above and before time, although it is impossible to divest ourselves of ternporal notions in attenmpting to illustrate them. The Second and Third Persons are not posterior to the First point of time, though Their being springs out of His. 11. ταῦτα] sc. τὸ γεννητόν and τὸ ἐκπορευόμενον. This is shewn by ὅτε ὁ πατήρ in the next line, ib. ὑπὲρ τὸ πότε] above and be yond a ’when.’ 13. οὐκ ἢν ὅτε οὐκ ἢν] He replies with the phrase so well known at the beginning of the Arian controlanguage versy. ib. τοῦτο] sc. what is implied in οὐκ ἢν ὁτε οὐκ ἢν, eternal. 19. ἔμφασιν] ’an image.’ In order to convey any notion of what is above time, it is impossible to avoid the employment of temporal imagery. Ἔμφασις is, however, used in rhetoric for an innuendo, a sugin gestion of something beyond what the words express; and this may be Gr.'s meaning here. ταῦτα, καὶ ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς, οὐκ ἄχρονα, κἂν ὅτι μάλιστα βιαζώμεθα· πλὴν εἰ τὸ παρεκτεινόμενον τοῖς ἀιδίοις διάστημα τὸν αἰῶνα λαμβάνοιμεν, τὸ μὴ κινήσει τινὶ μηδὲ ἡλίου φορᾷ μεριζόμενον καὶ μετρούμενον, ὅπερ ὁ χρόνος. πῶς οὖν οὐ συνάναρχα, εἰ συναίδια; ὅτι ἐκεῖθεν, εἰ καὶ μὴ μετ’ ἐκεῖνο. τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἄναρχον, καὶ ἀίδιον· τὸ ἀίδιον δέ, οὐ πάντως ἄναρχον, ἕως ἂν εἰς ἀρχὴν ἀναφέρηται τὸν πατέρα. οὐκ ἄναρχα οὖν τῷ αἰτίῳ· δῆλον δὲ τὸ αἴτιον ὡς οὐ πάντως πρεσβύτερον τῶν ὧν αἴτιον· οὐδὲ γὰρ τοῦ φωτὸς ἥλιος. καὶ ἄναρχά πὼς τῷ χρόνῳ, κἂν σὺ μορ- μολύττῃ τοὺς ἁπλουστέρους· οὐ γὰρ ὑπὸ χρόνον τὰ ἐξ ὧν ὁ χρόνος.

Ἠὼς οὖν οὐκ ἐμπαθὴς ἡ γέννησις; ὅτι ἀσώματος. εἰ γὰρ ἡ ἐνσώματος ἐμπαθής, ἀπαθὴς ἡ ἀσώματος. ἐγὼ δέ σε ἀντερήσομαι· πῶς θεός, εἰ κτίσμα; οὐ γὰρ θεὸς τὸ κτιζό- μένον· ἵνα μὴ λέγω, ὅτι κἀνταῦθα πάθος, ἂν σωματικῶς 2 συμπαρεκτεινόμενον c ‘Reg. Cypr.’ || 3 λαμβάνομεν b II 6 ἐκεῖνον def τὸ ’δε ἀίδιον def || 9 ὢν] + ἐστιν bdf 2. πλὴν εἰ κτλ.) The only way, Gr. says, is to adopt the standard of Eternity. Eternity does indeed suggest a kind of temporal duration; that cannot be helped; but we use it to denote ’an interval or ’ commensurate with things of a supra-temporal order, not measured by any measurement known to time. It seems best to connect the πλὴν with εἰ καἰ μὴ δυνάμεθα, and to treat the intervening sentence (in accordance with Gr.s manner) as parenthetical. 5. ἐκεῖθεν] sc. ἐκ τοῦ πατρός. 9. τοῦ φωτὸς ἤλως] The simile is, of course, unscientific; but it serves its purpose. 10. ἄναρχά πὼς τῷ χρ.] In a sense, so far as time is concerned, that which is Begotten and that which Proceeds are without a beginning, as no date can be assigned, prior to which They had not begun. ib. μορμολύττῃ] ‘to scare’ with μορμώ, or bugbear. 4. If difficulty is felt about the ‘generation’ of the Son by the Father, the difficulty is not got rid rid by making the Son a ‘creature’ instead. It only arises from a carnal notion of what is meant by generation, as if there could be no higher hind of generation. 15. πῶς θεός] which the Eunomians acknowledged, though with an interpretation of their own. 16. κἀνταῦθα] i.e. ἐν τῷ κτίζειν. Α work of creation (lit. ‘founding’) as known to man involves time in which to work it out, desire for the accomplishment, the formation of a mental ideal, thought as to the mode of execution, etc. Gr.'s objeel is to shew that the thought of creation on ’s part involves as many difficulties as that of generation. λαμβάνηται, οἷον χρόνος, ἔφεσις, ἀνατύπωσις, φροντίς, ἐλπίς, λύπη, κίνδυνος, ἀποτυχία, διόρθωσις· ἃ πάντα καὶ πλείω τούτων περὶ τὴν κτίσιν, ὡς πᾶσιν εὔδηλον. θαυμάζω δέ, ὅτι μὴ καὶ τοῦτο τολμᾷς, συνδυασμούς τινας ἐννοεῖν, καὶ χρόνους κυήσεως, καὶ κινδύνους ἀμβλώσεως, ὡς οὐδὲ γεννᾷν ἐγχωροῦν, εἰ μὴ οὕτω γεγέννηκεν· ἢ πάλιν πτηνῶν τινὰς καὶ χερσαίων καὶ ἐνύδρων γεννήσεις ἀπαριθμούμενος, τούτων τινὶ τῶν γεννήσεων ὑπάγειν τὴν θείαν καὶ ἀνεκλά- λῆτον, ἢ καὶ τὸν υἱὸν ἀναιρεῖν ἐκ τῆς καινῆς ὑποθέσεως. καὶ οὐδ’ ἐκεῖνο δύνασαι συνιδεῖν, ὅτι ᾧ διάφορος ἡ κατὰ σάρκα γέννησις, — ποῦ γὰρ ἐν τοῖς σοῖς ἔγνως θεοτόκον παρθένον; — τούτῳ καὶ ἡ πνευματικὴ γέννησις ἐξαλλάττουσα· μᾶλλον δέ, ᾧ τὸ εἶναι μὴ ταὐτόν, τούτῳ καὶ τὸ γεννᾷν διάφορον.

τίς οὖν ἐστὶ πατὴρ οὐκ ἠργμένος; ὅς τις οὐδὲ τοῦ εἶναι ἤρξατο· ᾧ δὲ τὸ εἶναι ἤρξατο, τούτῳ καὶ τὸ εἶναι πατρί. οὔκουν πατὴρ ὕστερον, οὐ γὰρ ἤρξατο· καὶ πατὴρ κυρίως, ὅτι μὴ καὶ υἱός· ὥσπερ καὶ υἱὸς κυρίως, ὅτι μὴ καὶ πατήρ. τὰ γὰρ ἡμέτερα οὐ κυρίως, ὅτι καὶ ἄμφω· οὐ γὰρ 4. 1 ἔφεσις χρόνος ac li 4 ἐννοεῖν] ἐπινοεῖν b ‘Reg. ’ 5 κυησεως] κινήσεως d ΙΙ 8 τούτων] + δὴ ’Or. I’ || 9 ἐναίρειν ‘Reg. Cypr.’ || καινῆς] κενῆς be ’Reg. Cypr.’: + σου beg 15 του] rob: του f in rasura || 17 πατρὶ] πατὴρ b ’Reg. a1’ 4. συνδυασμούς] ‘copulation.’ 5. ἀμβλώσεως] ‘miscarriage.’ 6. οὕτω] by such ways as συνδυασμός and so on. 9. ἢ καί] ‘or else, ’ if the generation of the Son does not fit in with your select example, ‘get rid of Him altogether as a result of your novel scheme.’ 12. ἢ πνεῦμ’. γέννησις] i.e. His generation ace. to His divine nature. Ἐξαλλάττειν is freq. used intrans. 5. The Father never ωας anything else but Father. While we human beings are sons, as well as fathers, He is absolutely Father, and that alone. If we say that He ’has begotten’ a Son, we do mean to imply a moment or date. Scripture often uses tenses in a way which differs from that of ordinary life. 15. τίς οὖν] It is the ’s question: ‘What father is there who never began to be a father ?’ 17. οὔκουν π. ὕστ.] ‘He did become Father at some subsequent point, because (ace. to the foregoing argument) He never began to be.’ 18. κυρίως] ‘properly, because He is not at the same time Son.’ on the other hand, Gr. goes on to say, are not ‘properly ’ fathers, because we are ἄμφω, sons as much as fathers. The variety of our relationships makes it impossible to consider any one of them an exhaustive description of a human being; but fatherhood expresses all that the person of God the Father is. τόδε μᾶλλον ἢ τόδε· καὶ ἐξ ἀμφοῖν ἡμεῖς, οὐχ ἑνός, ὥστε μερίζεσθαι, καὶ κατ’ ὀλίγον ἄνθρωποι, καὶ ἴσως οὐδὲ ἄνθρωποι, καὶ οἷοι μὴ τεθελήμεθα, καὶ ἀφιέντες καὶ ἀφιέμενοι, ὡς μόνας τὰς σχέσεις λείπεσθαι ὀρφανὰς τῶν πραγμάτων. ἀλλὰ τὸ ἐγέννησε, φησίν, αὐτό, καὶ τὸ γεγέννηται, τί ἄλλο, ἢ ἀρχὴν εἰσάγει γεννήσεως; τί οὖν ἂν μηδὲ τοῦτο λέγωμεν, ἀλλ’ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς γεγεννημένος, ἵνα σου ῥᾳδίως φύγωμεν τὰς περιέργους ἐνστάσεις καὶ Φιλοχρόνους; ἆρα γραφὴν ἀποίσεις καθ’ ἡμῶν, ὡς παραχαραττόντων τι τῆς γραφῆς καὶ τῆς ἀληθείας; ἢ πᾶσιν εὔδηλον, ὅτι πολλὰ τῶν χρονικῶς λεγομένων ἐνηλλαγμένως τοῖς χρόνοις προΦέρεται, καὶ μάλιστα παρὰ τῇ συνηθείᾳ τῆς γραφῆς, οὐχ ὅσα τοῦ παρεληλυθότος χρόνου μόνον ἐστίν, ἢ τοῦ παρόντος, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὅσα τοῦ μέλλοντος; ὡς τό· Ἵνα τί 5 ἐγέννησεν αὐτὸ φησιν f || 12 τῆς] + θείας b 1. ἐξ ἀμφοῖν] not the same ἄμφω as above, but here as if = ἐκ δυοῖν. Gr. is thinking chiefly how our sonship differs from that of the Eternal Son, and leaves the difference of the fatherhood. Each of us has two parents, not one, so that we are in a way divided between them. 2. κατ’ δλ. ἄνθρ.] another difference; we only gradually attain the position of human beings by a long fashioning in the womb, and some hardly attain it at all. In the last clause no doubt Gr. means idiots and persons otherwise deficient. The wishes of human parents for their offspring are often far from being realised οἶοι μὴ τεθ.). 3. ἀφιέντες] The children in many cases go their way, and the parents theirs, and nothing is left of the sacred relationship except the name. 5. ἐγέννησε] We have been using expressions like ‘begat’ and ‘is begotten,’ which necessarily besides the notion of begetting, the tense-notion of a moment when. To evade the difficulty, Gr. proposes to use a formula which puts the ‘moment’ back before the beginning of time, and to say that the Son ‘was’ already ‘begotten from the beginning.’ 9. γραφὴν ἀποίσεις καθ’ ἤμ’.] a legal term, which has only an accidental relation to the use of γραφὴ immediately after in the sense of ’Scripture.’ It means ‘to file an accusation? ib. παραχαραττόντων] ‘putting a false mark ’ i.e. ‘falsifying’; chiefly used of coin that has been tampered with. 11. ἐνηλλαγμ. τ. χρδν.] Much of our language which denotes time is used in an inverse manner to the time intended. 14. ἴνα τί ἐφρ.] Psalm ii 1. ἐφρύαξαν ἔθνη; οὔπω γὰρ ἐφρυάξαντο· καί, Ἐν ποταμῷ διελεύσονται ποδί· ὅπερ ἐστί, διαβεβήκασι. καὶ μακρὸν ἂν εἴη πάσας ἀπαριθμεῖν τὰς τοιαύτας φωνάς, αἳ τοῖς φιλοπόνοις τετήρηνται.

τοῦτο μὲν δὴ τοιοῦτον. οἷον δὲ αὐτῶν κἀκεῖνο, ὡς λίαν δύσερι καὶ ἀναίσχυντον* βουληθείς, φασι, γεγέννηκε τὸν υἱόν, ἢ μὴ βουλόμενος. εἶτα δεσμοῦσιν, ὡς οἴονται, ἀμφοτέρωθεν ἅμμασιν, οὐκ ἰσχυροῖς, ἁλλὰ καὶ λίαν σαθροῖς. εἰ μὲν γὰρ οὐ θέλων, φασί, τετυράννηται. καὶ τίς το ὁ τυραννήσας; καὶ πῶς ὁ τυραννηθεὶς θεός; εἰ δὲ θέλων, θελήσεως υἱὸς ὁ υἱός· πῶς οὖν ἐκ τοῦ πατρός; καὶ καινήν τινα μητέρα τὴν θέλησιν ἀντὶ τοῦ πατρὸς ἀναπλάττουσιν. ἓν μὲν οὖν τοῦτο χαρίεν αὐτῶν, ἂν τοῦτο λέγωσιν, ὅτι τοῦ πάθους ἀποστάντες ἐπὶ τὴν βούλησιν καταφεύγουσιν· οὐ γὰρ πάθος ἡ βούλησις. δεύτερον δὲ ἴδωμεν τὸ ἰσχυρὸν 3 εἴη] ην f 6 φασι] φησι df || 7 οιονται] οιον τε ’duo Colb.’ || 11 καινὴν] κενὴν ’Reg. Cypr.’ 1. ἐν ποταμῶ Psalm lxv (lxvi) 6. 4. τετήρηνται] ‘have been observed.’ 6. ’Did the Father beget the Son,’ asks the opponent, ‘by an act of will, or not? If not, He was tinder constraint, which is impossible; if so, then the Son owes His being not to the Father only, but also to the Father's will, zvhich thus becomes α kind of motherhood.’ This dilemma is met by a similar one with regard to the ’s οὗκ birth, and by another with regard to creation. Gr. then shews that ἃς a word is not the result of speaking, considered as α separate ajtd sub- stantive thing, but springs direct from the speaker, so the thing willed springs not from will in the abstract, but direct from him who wills. 8. σαθροῖς] Cp. i 3. 11. πῶς οὖν ἐκ τοῦ π.] It certainly seems a strangely captious argument. If it was ever seriously urged by the Eunomians, we must suppose that θέλων is not merely = ἑκών, but ’by willing’; i.e. it was the act of will which produced the Son. Then, as other faculties of the divine being are represented to us as hypostatic — notably the Λόγος — we are driven to suppose that this primary faculty, antecedent and necessary to the production of the Son, is hypostatic also. If that is the case, He does not owe His being solely to the Father, but partly also to the ’s Will, which is thus constituted a kind of mother in the Godhead. But Gr.'s subsequent words ἂν τοῦτο λέγωσιν suggest the doubt whether he did not himself invent this part of the argument for the Eunomians. 13. αὐτῶν] depends upon χαρίεν (av εἴη) by an idiom well known in colloquial English as well as in Greek; ‘it it will be delightful of them.’ 14. οὐ γὰρ πάθος ἢ β.] This is true; nevertheless it is difficult for the human mind to imagine an act of will which is not caused by something which would come under the description of a πάθος. αὐτῶν, ὅ τι λέγουσιν. ἄριστον δὲ αὐτοῖς συμπλακῆναι πρότερον ἐγγυτέρω. σὺ δὲ αὐτὸς ὁ λέγων εὐχερῶς ὅ τι ἃν ἐθέλῃς, ἐκ θέλοντος ὑπέστης τοῦ σοῦ πατρός, ἢ μὴ θέλοντος; εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἐξ οὐ θέλοντος, τετυράννηται. τῆς βίας· καὶ τίς ὁ τυραννήσας αὐτόν; οὐ γὰρ δὴ τὴν φύσιν ἐρεῖς· ἐκείνη γὰρ ἔχει καὶ τὸ σωφρονεῖν. εἰ δὲ θέλοντος, ἀπόλωλέ σοι δι’ ὀλίγας συλλαβὰς ὁ πατήρ. θελήματος γὰρ υἱός, ἁλλ’ οὐ πατρὸς ἀναπέφηνας. ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ τὸν θεὸν μέτειμι καὶ τὰ κτίσματα, καὶ τὸ σὸν ἐρώτημα προσάγω τῇ σῇ σοφίᾳ. θέλων ὑπέστησε τὰ πάντα, ἢ βιασθείς; εἰ μὲν βιασθείς, κἀνταῦθα ἡ τυραννίς, καὶ ὁ τυραννήσας. εἰ δὲ βουλόμενος, ἐστέρηται τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὰ κτίσματα, καὶ σὺ πρὸ τῶν ἄλλων, ὁ τοιούτους ἀνευρίσκων λογισμοὺς καὶ τοιαῦτα σοφιζόμενος. θελήσει γὰρ μέσῃ τοῦ κτίστου διατειχίζεται. ἁλλ’ ἕτερον, οἶμαι, θέλων ἐστὶ καὶ θέλησις, 2 αν] ἔαν b || 3 εθελης] θέλῃς def ΙΙ 7 θεληματος] θελήσεως def || 10 υπεστησε] + θεὸς bcd: + ο θεὸς ef || 14 θελησει] θέλησις b || om γὰρ b || 15 ἐστιν οἴμαι θέλων bdf 1. τὸ ἴσχ’. αὐτ’. ö τι λ] ‘what they consider their strong point? Δεύτερον δὲ corresponds to ἐν μέν. Before, however, entering upon this δεύτερον, which he does at ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ τ. θ., Gr. thinks it best πρότερον) to grapple with his adversaries at closer quarters. This he does in the question σὺ δὲ αὐτός κτλ., which brings the argument home to them personally ἐγγυτέρω). 5. οὐ γὰρ δὴ τὴν φύσιν ἐρεῖς] ‘You will not say that he was compelled by nature. Nature admits equally of self-restraint.’ 10. ὑπέστησε] ‘gave them existence,’ ence? i.e. by creation. 12. ἐσηρηται τοῦ θ.κ. τὰ κτ] As, ace. to their supposed argument, the Son is deprived of the Father by the interposition of the Will from which He sprang, so is creation deprived of its Creator. His Will runs like a wall between it and Him. The Eunomian is the first to suffer the loss, because he invented it; that is poetical justice. 15. ἕτερον οἷμαι] Gr.'s argument is not very clear; because the Eunomians also had distinguished very sharply between the will and the person who wills, — so sharply that they said that the Son could not be the Son of one who willed to beget Him, but only of that will itself. But in so arguing they set up a new, though fictitious, identity. They converted the will itself into a personal agency. This is what Gr. combats. Will is one thing, and the person who wills is another. You might as well say that the thing begotten is the son of beget- ting, or trace the thing spoken to speaking instead of the speaker, as thus erect will into a substantive and independent force. γεννῶν καὶ γέννησις, λέγων καὶ λόγος, εἰ μὴ μεθύομεν. τὰ μὲν ὁ κινούμενος, τὰ δὲ οἷον ἡ κίνησις. οὔκουν θελήσεως τὸ θεληθέν· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἕπεται πάντως· οὐδὲ τὸ γεννηθὲν γεννήσεως, οὐδὲ τὸ ἀκουσθὲν ἐκφωνήσεως, ἀλλὰ τοῦ θέλοντος, καὶ τοῦ γεννήσαντος, καὶ τοῦ λέγοντος. τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ δὲ καὶ ὑπὲρ πάντα ταῦτα, ᾧ γέννησίς ἐστιν ἴσως ἡ τοῦ γεννᾷν θέλησις, ἀλλ’ οὐδὲν μέσον, εἴ γε καὶ τοῦτο δεξώμεθα ὅλως, ἀλλὰ μὴ καὶ θελήσεως κρείττων ἢ γέννησις.

Βούλει τι προσπαίξω καὶ τὸν πατέρα; παρὰ σοῦ γὰρ ἔχω τὰ τοιαῦτα τολμᾷν. θέλων θεὸς ὁ πατήρ, ἢ μὴ θέλων. καὶ ὅπως ἀποφεύξῃ τὸ σὸν περιδέξιον, εἰ μὲν δὴ θέλων, πότε τοῦ θέλειν ἠργμένος; οὐ γὰρ πρὶν εἶναι· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἦν τι πρότερον. ἢ τὸ μὲν αὐτοῦ θελῆσαν, τὸ δὲ 1 μεθύωμεν b ΙΙ 5 γεννῶντος cdefg || 7 δεξ̣ͅομεθα deg ‘Or. 1’ 1. τὰ μέν] i.e. the series θέλων, γεννῶν, λέγων; τὰ δέ, i.e. the series θέλησις, γέννησις, λόγος. 3. οὐδὲ γὰρ ἕπεται πάντως] Gr. is using ἕπεται in its logical sense. He does not mean that in the order of facts the act of will sometimes fails of its effect; he means that it does not ‘follow’ that, because a thing has been willed, that thing is the result of will. It is the result of the personal force lying behind the will. 5. τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ δέ] All this holds true even in the experience of our limited personalities; much more may we suppose it to be so in regard to the divine nature. With God, so far as we know ἴσως), will and action are identical, and there is no medium whatever. 7. καὶ τοῦτο] i.e. the proposition that γέννησις = ἡ τοῦ γ. θ. Gr. evidently inclines rather to the view that ‘the generation ὁ the Son of God is even above and beyond will.’ 7. Gr. retaliates by asking how God comes to be God. If by His will, when did He first will it? is one portion of His being the result of the will of another portion? is He not in this case as much a child of will as the Son? If He is God without willing to be so, then He is under compulsion. ‘How then, is the Son begotten?’ asks the Eunomian. ‘How is He created?’ οἱ. replies. Men do create in the way which it is to assume was ’s way. 9. βούλει τι κτλ.] ’Do you wish me to make sport awhile with the Father also? ’ Hitherto the ‘sport’ has been with the Son. Gr. intentionally uses a shocking expression. 11. καὶ ὅπως ἀποφ.] ’and in order that you may escape: The main verb is the imperative implied in the question πότε. . . ἠργμένος μόνος — ‘tell me when.’ 12. πρὶν εἶναι] sc θεός; ‘not befpre He was so; for He tvas never anything before.’ 13. τὸ μὲν αὐτοῦ] ‘or did one part of Him will it, while the other part was the result of that will? θεληθέν; μεριστὸς οὖν. πῶς δὲ οὐ θελήσεως καὶ οὗτος, κατὰ σέ, πρόβλημα; εἰ δὲ οὐ θέλων, τί τὸ βιασάμενον εἰς τὸ εἶναι; καὶ πῶς θεός, εἰ βεβίασται, καὶ ταῦτα οὐκ ἄλλο τι ἢ αὐτὸ τὸ εἶναι θεός; πῶς οὖν γεγέννηται; πῶς ἔκτισται, εἴπερ ἔκτισται κατὰ σέ; καὶ γὰρ καὶ τοῦτο τῆς αὐτῆς ἀπορίας. τάχα ἂν εἴποις, βουλήσει καὶ λόγῳ. ἀλλ’ οὔπω λέγεις τὸ πᾶν. πῶς γὰρ ἔργου δύναμιν ἔσχεν ἡ βούλησις καὶ ὁ λόγος; ἔτι λείπεται λέγειν. οὐ γὰρ οὕτως ἄνθρωπος.

Πῶς οὖν γεγέννηται; οὐκ ἂν ἢν μεγάλη ἡ γέννησις, εἰ σοὶ κατελαμβάνετο, ὃς οὐδὲ τὴν ἰδίαν ἐπίστῃ γέννησιν, ἢ μικρόν τι ταύτης κατείληφας, καὶ ὅσον αἰσχύνῃ λέγειν· ἔπειτα οἴει τὸ πᾶν γινώσκειν; πολλὰ ἂν κάμοις πρότερον, ἢ εὕροις λόγους συμπήξεως, μορφώσεως, φανερώσεως, ψυχῆς πρὸς σῶμα δεσμόν, νοῦ πρὸς ψυχήν, λόγου πρὸς νοῦν, κίνησιν, αὔξησιν, τροφῆς ἐξομοίωσιν, αἴσθησιν, μνήμην, ἀνάμνησιν, τἄλλα ἐξ ὧν συνέστηκας· καὶ τίνα μὲν τοῦ συναμφοτέρου ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος, τίνα δὲ τὰ μεμερισμένα, τίνα δὲ ἃ παρ’ ἀλλήλων λαμβάνουσιν· 7. 1 ουν] + φησι bedf ΙΙ 6 ειποις] + ὅτι b 8. 13 οιει] οιη e || τα ce race 2. εἰς τὸ εἶναι] again ’ to be so,’ i.e. θεός. 3. καἰ ταῦτα κτλ.] ‘and compelled to that very thing, namely to be God.’ 4. πῶς οὖν] Gr. returns rapidly to the original question, and again parries it by the counter question as to the creation of the Son. The difficulty of imagining the creation is as great as that of imagining the generation. 7. ἔργου δύν. ἔσχειν] ‘how came it to have that effective force?" 9. οὕτως] sc βούλεται καἰ λόγει. 8. You do not understand your own generation, or the law of your own development; how can you expeel to understand that of God? That, however, ἲς no proof that God does not beget. If nothing is to be true but what you understand, must reduce the list of existences, beginning with that of God Himself The mode of the divine generation is evidently beyond us. 14. λόγους συμπ.] ‘the formulae,’ or ‘laws.’ 16. τροφῆς ἐξομ.] ‘assimilation of food.’ 17. μνήμην, ἀνάμν.] Cp. ii 22. ib. τίνα μέν] ‘what things belong to the united compound of soul and body.’ 19. τὰ μεμερ.] We might have expected μεμερισμένων, ‘belong to soul and body apart’; but it ‘which are the things distributable’ to soul and body respectively. ὧν γὰρ ὕστερον ἡ τελείωσις, τούτων οἱ λόγοι μετὰ τῆς γεννήσεως. εἰπὲ τίνες· καὶ μηδὲ τότε φιλοσοφήσῃς θεοῦ γέννησιν· οὐ γὰρ ἀσφαλές. εἰ μὲν γὰρ τὴν σὴν γινώσκεις, οὐ πάντως καὶ τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ· εἰ δὲ μηδὲ τὴν σήν, πῶς τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ; ὅσῳ γὰρ θεὸς ἀνθρώπου δυστεκμαρτότερος, τοσούτῳ καὶ τῆς σῆς γεννήσεως ἀληπτοτέρα ἡ ἄνω γέν- νησις. εἰ δὲ ὅτι μή σοι κατείληπται, διὰ τοῦτο οὐδὲ γεγέννηται, ὥρα σοι πολλὰ διαγράφειν τῶν ὄντων, ἃ μὴ κατείληφας, καὶ πρό γε ἁπάντων τὸν θεὸν αὐτόν· οὐδὲ γὰρ ὅ τι ποτέ ἐστιν εἰπεῖν ἔχεις, καὶ εἰ λίαν τολμηρὸς εἰ, καὶ τὰ περιττὰ μεγαλόψυχος. κατάβαλέ σου τὰς ῥεύσεις, καὶ τὰς διαιρέσεις, καὶ τὰς τομάς, καὶ τὸ ὡς περὶ σώματος διανοεῖσθαι τῆς ἀσωμάτου φύσεως· καὶ τάχα ἃν ἄξιόν τι διανοηθείης θεοῦ γεννήσεως. πῶς γεγέννηται; πάλιν γὰρ τὸ αὐτὸ φθέγξομαι δυσχεραίνων. θεοῦ γέννησις σιωπῇ τιμάσθω. μέγα σοι τὸ μαθεῖν, ὅτι γεγέννηται. τὸ δὲ πῶς, οὐδὲ ἀγγέλοις ἐννοεῖν, μὴ ὅτι γέ σοι νοεῖν συγχωρήσομεν. βούλει παραστήσω τὸ πῶς; ὡς οἶδεν ὁ γεννήσας πατήρ, καὶ ὁ γεννηθεὶς υἱός. τὸ δὲ ὑπὲρ ταῦτα νέφει κρύπτεται, τὴν σὴν διαφεῦγον ἀμβλυωπίαν.

ὄντα οὖν γεγέννηκεν, ἢ οὐκ ὄντα; τῶν ληρημάτων· περὶ ἐμὲ καὶ σὲ ταῦτα, οἳ τὸ μέν τι ἦμεν, ὥσπερ ἐν τῇ ὀσφύι τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ ὁ Λευὶ, τὸ δὲ γεγόναμεν’ ὥστε ἐξ ὄντων τρόπον τινὰ τὸ ἡμέτερον, καὶ οὐκ ὄντων· ἐναντίως περὶ τὴν ἀρχέγονον ὕλην ὑποστᾶσαν σαφῶς ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων, κἄν τινες ἀγένητον ἀναπλάττωσιν. ἐνταῦθα δὲ σύνδρομον τῷ εἶναι τὸ γεγεννῆσθαι, καὶ ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς· ὥστε ποῦ θήσεις τὸ ἀμφίκρημνον τοῦτο ἐρώτημα; τί γὰρ τοῦ ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πρεσβύτερον, ἵν ἐκεῖ θῶμεν τὸ εἶναί ποτε τοῦ υἱοῦ, ἢ τὸ μὴ εἶναι; ἀμφοτέρως γὰρ τὸ ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς λυθήσεται. εἰ μή σοι καὶ ὁ πατήρ, πάλιν ἐρωτώντων ἡμῶν, ἐξ ὄντων, ἢ ἐξ 9. 1 τῶν] ω τῶν e || 6 ἀγένητον] ἀγέννητον def ΙΙ ἀναπλάττουσιν e || 7 τὼ εἶναι τὸ] τὸ εἶναι τὼ ‘Reg.’ a’ 9 η τὸ μὴ] om τὸ cd 1. ὄντα] Α fresh difficulty: was the Son already in existence when He was begotten, or not? Gr. admits that the question might have some meaning in regard to human generation. In one sense we already existed τὸ μέν τι); in another, we then began to be (λγλόναμεν practically=ἐγενήθημεν). 3. ὁ Λευί] Heb. vii 10. 4. τὸ ἡμέτερον] = ἡμεῖς. 6. κἄν τινες ἂγ. ἀναπλ.] The reference is to ’s Timaeus. ib. σύνδρομον τῷ εἰ. τὸ γ.] ’In this ’ of the Eternal Son, ‘generation is coincident with existence, and is from all eternity.’ 7. ποῦ θήσεις] Where will you find a place, a date, for your question to apply to? ‘Already in existence when He was begotten ’ implies a time before the begetting; but there was no such time. He was begotten from the beginning. What was there before ’the begin- ning, ’ that we may say whether the Son then existed or not? In either case, whether we affirm or deny His existence, it is clear that that subsequent moment at which we suppose Him to have been begotten cannot really have been the beginning. 10. εἰ μή σοι κ. ὁ π.] If you still press your question, we will once more ask you about the Father, whether His existence is derived from elements that were beforehand or from elements that were not. Perhaps then you will make out that both propositions are true, and that He has two modes or stages of existence, one before and the other after the absorption of those elements. Or you will choose the latter alternative, and say of Him, as you say of the Son, that He comes into being from nothingness. If you are ready to admit this of the Father (such is the force of the εἰ μή), there is some consistency in what you affirm of the Son. οὐκ ὄντων, κινδυνεύσειεν ἢ δὶς εἶναι, ὃ μὲν προών, ὃ δὲ ὤν, ἢ ταὐτὸν τῷ υἱῷ παθεῖν, ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων εἶναι, διὰ τὰ σὰ τῶν ἐρωτημάτων παίγνια, καὶ τὰς ἐκ ψάμμων οἰκοδομάς, αἱ μηδὲ αὔραις ἵστανται. ἐγὼ μὲν οὖν οὐδέτερον τούτων δέχομαι, καὶ τὴν ἐρώτησίν φημι τὸ ἄτοπον ἔχειν, οὐχὶ τὸ ἄπορον τὴν ἀπάντησιν. εἰ δέ σοι φαίνεται ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι τὸ ἕτερον ἀληθεύειν ἐπὶ παντός, κατὰ τὰς σὰς δια- λεκτικὰς ὑπολήψεις, δέξαι μού τι μικρὸν ἐρώτημα. ὁ χρόνος ἐν χρόνῳ, ἢ οὐκ ἐν χρόνῳ; εἰ μὲν οὖν ἐν χρόνῳ, IO τίνι τούτῳ; καὶ τί παρὰ τοῦτον ὄντι; καὶ πῶς περιέχοντι; εἰ δὲ οὐκ ἐν χρόνῳ, τίς ἢ περιττὴ σοφία χρόνον εἰσάγειν ἄχρονον; τοῦ δέ, Νῦν ἐγὼ ψεύδομαι, δὸς τὸ ἕτερον, ἢ ἀληθεύεσθαι μόνον, ἢ ψεύδεσθαι· οὐ γὰρ ἀμφότερα δώ- σομεν. ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἐνδέχεται. ἢ γὰρ ψευδόμενος ἀληθεύσει, ἢ ἀληθεύων ψεύσεται· πᾶσα ἀνάγκη. τί οὖν θαυμαστόν, ὥσπερ ἐνταῦθα συμβαίνει τὰ ἐναντία, οὕτως ἐκεῖσε ἀμφότερα ψεύδεσθαι, καὶ οὕτω σοι τὸ σοφὸν ἠλίθιον ἀναφανήσεται; ἓν ἔτι μοι λῦσον τῶν αἰνιγμάτων· σεαυτῷ δὲ γεννωμένῳ παρῆς; πάρει δὲ νῦν; ἢ οὐδέτερον; εἰ μὲν γὰρ καὶ παρῆς, καὶ πάρει, ὡς τίς, καὶ τίνι; καὶ πῶς ὁ εἷς ἄμφω γεγόνατε; εἰ δὲ μηδέτερον τῶν εἰρημένων, πῶς 3 ἐκ ψάμμων] εξ ἄμμων a || οἰκοδομίας ac || 12 om η ’duo Reg.’ 1. ö μὲν πρ., δ δὲ ὤν] For this use of δ (here accus.) cp. Matt. xiii 8. 4. μ. αὔραις ἵστανται] ‘cannot even stand a puff of wind’; a natural use of ἴστ’. but difficult to parallel. ib. τούτων] of the two alternatives, ὄντα ἢ οὐκ ὄντα γεγέννηκεν. 5. τὸ ἄπορον τὴν ἀπ’.] Α chiasm: ἀπάντ. corresponds to ἐρώτ., as τὸ ἄπορον to τὸ ἄτοπον. It is not that the encounter presents a difficulty, but the question presents an ab- surdity. 10. τί παρὰ τοῦτον ὄντι] ’what is it besides the time which is in it? and how does it contain that ?’ 12. τοῦ δέ, Νῦν ἐγὼ ψ.] Α well-known puzzle. ’"I am now telling a lie." One thing or the other; is the statement true or false? We will not admit that it is both. you answer, it is impossible to adopt the one alternative to the exclusion of the other, for if he is lying, he speaks the truth, and if he speaks the truth, he lying.’ 15. τί οὖν θαυμαστόν] As, in the case of the ψευδόμενος, contradictories are reconciled, so we need not be surprised if, in the proposed dilemma of ὄντα ἢ οὐκ ὄντα, both alternatives are false. 17. ἠλίθιον] ‘silly.’ σεαυτοῦ χωρίζῃ; καὶ τίς ἡ αἰτία τῆς διαζεύξεως; ἀλλ’ ἀπαίδευτον περὶ τοῦ ἑνός, εἰ ἑαυτῷ πάρεστιν, ἢ μή, πολυπραγμονεῖν. ταῦτα γὰρ ἐπ’ ἄλλων, οὐχ ἑαυτοῦ λέγεται. ἀπαιδευτότερον, εὖ ἴσθι, τὸ ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς γεγεννημένον, εἰ ἢν πρὸ τῆς γεννήσεως, ἢ οὐκ ἦν, διευθύνεσθαι. οὗτος γὰρ περὶ τῶν χρόνῳ διαιρετῶν ὁ λόγος.

Ἀλλ’ οὐ ταὐτόν, φησι, τὸ ἀγέννητον καὶ τὸ γεννητόν. εἰ δὲ τοῦτο, οὐδὲ ὁ υἱὸς τῷ πατρὶ ταὐτόν. ὅτι μὲν φανερῶς ὁ λόγος οὗτος ἐκβάλλει τὸν υἱὸν τῆς θεότητος, ἢ τὸν πατέρα, τί χρὴ λέγειν; εἰ γὰρ τὸ ἀγέννητον οὐσία ΙΟ θεοῦ, τὸ γεννητὸν οὐκ οὐσία· εἰ δὲ τοῦτο, οὐκ ἐκεῖνο. τίς ἀντερεῖ λόγος; ἑλοῦ τοίνυν τῶν ἀσεβειῶν ὁποτέραν βούλει, ὦ κενὲ θεολόγε, εἴπερ ἀσεβεῖν πάντως ἐσπούδακας. ἔπειτα πῶς οὐ ταὐτὸν λέγεις τὸ ἀγέννητον καὶ τὸ γεννητόν; εἰ μὲν τὸ μὴ ἐκτισμένον καὶ ἐκτισμένον, κἀγὼ δέχομαι. οὐ γὰρ ταὐτὸν τῆ φύσει τὸ ἄναρχον καὶ τὸ κτιζόμενον. εἰ δὲ τὸ 1 σεαυτοῦ] ἑαυτοῦ ’in nonnull.’ || 2 απαιδευτον] + το bdf 10. 7 φασι b || 10 χρὴ] + καὶ cef Ἴ’ 13 κενε] καινὲ c 1. ἀλλ’ ἀπαίδευτον] Ἀλλά = at; as above, ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἐνδέχεται. ‘Nay, you will answer, it is stupid to enquire about a single individual, whether he is present with himself, or not. Those things apply to other people, not to oneself.’ 5. διευθύνεσθαι] ‘to be setting people to rights about the question whether.’ 6. περὶ τῶν χρ. διαιρ.] ᾿about things which are divided by an interval of time.’ 10. ‘Begotten and Unbegotten are not the same; therefore if the Son is begotten and the Father unbegotten, the Son differs from the Father.’ The statement is false; it is the very meaning of generation to transmit the nature of the parent. The contrast of begotten and unbegottens is only like that of wise and uniwise, which can be predicated of different individuals without involvomg α difference of nature or essence. To erect Unbegottenness into Constituting the very essence of God brings you into difficulties with other attributes, like Immortal, Unchangesable, able, which have ἃς good a right to be considered ἃς constituting that essence. 7. οὐ ταὐτόν] ‘not the same thing’; i.e. a difference of nature itself is involved. 14. πῶς οὐ ταὐτόν] llOt ’ III what sense do you ’ for Gr. is not prepared to admit that it is true in any sense ; but simply challenging the statement altogether: ’ how can you say so? if you had said thai created and uncreated are not tin same, I should agree with you, but the transmission of the ’s nature is of the very essence of generation.’ γεγεννηκὸς καὶ τὸ γεγεννημένον, οὐκ ὀρθῶς λέγεται. ταὐτὸν γὰρ εἶναι πᾶσα ἀνάγκη. αὕτη γὰρ φύσις γεννήματος, ταὐτὸν εἶναι τῷ γεγεννηκότι κατὰ τὴν φύσιν. ἢ οὕτω πάλιν· πῶς λέγεις τὸ ἀγέννητον καὶ τὸ γεννητόν; εἰ μὲν τὴν ἀγεννησίαν αὐτὴν καὶ τὴν γέννησιν, οὐ ταὐτόν· εἰ δὲ οἷς ὑπάρχει ταῦτα, πῶς οὐ ταὐτόν; ἐπεὶ καὶ τὸ ἄσοφον καὶ τὸ σοφὸν ἀλλήλοις μὲν οὐ ταὐτά, περὶ ταὐτὸν δέ, τὸν ἄνθρωπον· καὶ οὐκ οὐσίας τέμνει, περὶ δὲ τὴν αὐτὴν οὐσίαν τέμνεται. ἢ καὶ τὸ ἀθάνατον, καὶ τὸ ἄκακον, καὶ τὸ ἀναλλοίωτον οὐσία θεοῦ. ἀλλ’ εἰ τοῦτο, πολλαὶ οὐσίαι θεοῦ, καὶ οὐ μία. ἢ σύνθετον ἐκ τούτων τὸ θεῖον. οὐ γὰρ ἀσυνθέτως ταῦτα, εἴπερ οὐσίαι.

ταῦτα μὲν οὔ φασι, κοινὰ γὰρ καὶ ἄλλων. ὃ δὲ μόνου θεοῦ καὶ ἴδιον, τοῦτο οὐσία. οὐκ ἂν μὲν συγχωρήσαιεν εἶναι μόνου θεοῦ τὸ ἀγέννητον οἱ καὶ τὴν ὕλην καὶ 1 γεγεννημένον] + οὐ ταὐτὸν λέγεις dg || 1 φύσις] + γεννήτορος καὶ be || 3 φύσιν] + τὸ γέννημα b || 4 εἰ μὲν] + γὰρ e || 5 τὴν ἄγεν.] om τὴν e 5. τὴν ἀγενν. αὐτήν] ’ unbegottenness itself? the very character of not being begotten. 7. περὶ ταὐτὸν δέ] not, of course, περὶ τὸν αὐτόν. They are opposite characteristics, but both are found in man without any difference of nature being involved. The wise man and the foolish man are alike man. 8. οὐκ οὐσίας τ.] ‘they do not divide the essences; they are divisions (lit. divided) within (in connexion with) the same essence.’ 9. ἢ καὶ τὸ ἀθ’.] Α fresh argument. If τὸ ἀγέννητον constitutes the divine nature, so that it and τὸ θεῖον are convertible terms, a similar case can be made out for these other predicates. Then, since the divine nature is absolutely identified with τὸ ἀγέννητον, and yet at the same time with τὸ ἀθάνατον, we are driven to suppose that these are separate natures, or essences, or that they compose the divine nature by their aggregation. 11. Assume for the sake of argument that to be unbegotten belongs to God alone, though the assertion would by some be denied. It does not follow that unbegottenness is a necessary part of the divine essence. Adam alone was directly fashioned by God; yet Seth is as truly man as Adam. The divine essence is a positive, not α negative thing. If you ask me what it is, I can answer that I hope we may know some day, but not here. Meanwhile, whatever glory there is in the underived existence belongs to the Son who is begotten of the Underived. 13. κοινὰ γάρ] Angels e.g. are ἀθάνατοι; doves and lambs are called ἄκακα. 15. οἱ καὶ τὴν ὔ.] The Platonists. Gr. does not adopt their opinion. He only uses it to embarrass the Eunomian. He might have cited in like manner the ’darkness,’ which the Manichees made to be coeternal with light ; but he disdains to do so. τὴν ἰδέαν συνεισάγοντες ὡς ἀγέννητα. τὸ γὰρ Μανιχαίων πορρωτέρω ῥίψωμεν σκότος. πλὴν ἔστω μόνου θεοῦ. τί δὲ ὁ Ἀδάμ; οὐ μόνος πλάσμα θεοῦ; καὶ πάνυ, φήσεις. ἆρ’ οὖν καὶ μόνος ἄνθρωπος; οὐδαμῶς. τί δή ποτε; ὅτι μὴ ἀνθρωπότης ἡ πλάσις· καὶ γὰρ τὸ γεννηθὲν ἄνθρωπος. οὕτως οὐδὲ τὸ ἀγέννητον μόνον θεός, εἰ καὶ μόνου πατρός, ἁλλὰ δέξαι καὶ τὸ γεννητὸν εἶναι θεόν. ἐκ θεοῦ γάρ, εἰ καὶ λίαν εἰ φιλαγέννητος. ἔπειτα πῶς οὐσίαν θεοῦ λέγεις, οὐ τὴν τοῦ ὄντος θέσιν, ἁλλὰ τὴν τοῦ μὴ ὄντος ἀναίρεσιν; τὸ γὰρ μὴ ὑπάρχειν αὐτῷ γέννησιν ὁ λόγος δηλοῖ, οὐχ ὃ τὴν φύσιν ἐστὶ παρίστησιν, οὐδ’ ὃ ὑπάρχει τὸ μὴ ἔχον γέννησιν. τίς οὖν οὐσία θεοῦ; τῆς σῆς ἀπονοίας τοῦτο λέγειν, ὃς πολυπραγμονεῖς καὶ τὴν γέννησιν. ἡμῖν δὲ μέγα, κἂν εἴποτε καὶ εἰς ὕστερον τοῦτο μάθοιμεν, λυθέντος ἡμῖν τοῦ ζόφου καὶ τῆς παχύτητος, ὡς ἡ τοῦ ἀψευδοῦς ὑπόσχεσις. τοῦτο μὲν οὖν καὶ νοείσθω καὶ ἐλπιζέσθω τοῖς ἐπὶ τούτῳ καθαιρομένοις. ἡμεῖς δὲ τοσοῦτον εἰπεῖν θαρρήσομεν, ὅτι εἰ καὶ μέγα τῷ πατρὶ τὸ μηδαμόθεν 11. 1 ἀγένητα de || 2 ριψωμεν] -ομεν b ΙΙ 5 γὰρ] + καὶ d || 6 fiovov] μόνος c || 11 om ἐστι df || o] ω e2 || 14 om εἰς ’Reg. a’ 15 ws] + φησιν b || 17 τούτω] τοῦτο g || 18 θαρρήσομεν] -ωμεν adef 2. ἔστω] for argument's sake, he will assume that none but God is unbegotten. That does not preclude the possibility of One who is begotten being God likewise, any more than the fact that Adam alone was directly formed by God precludes others who are not so formed from having the same nature as Adam. 6. ovbt τὸ ἂγ. μόνον θεός] It would not be true to say that only what is unbegotten can be God — though nothing can be God which is not begotten of the Father; you must admit that what is begotten of Him is God likewise. 8. πῶς οὐσίαν θ. λ] How can a merely negative attribute be spoken of as constituting the essence of God? Cp. ii 9. 11. ὂ τὴν φύσιν ἐστι] ‘what He is by nature; nor what it is that has no generation.’ 12. τοῦτο λέγειν] ’to ash the question.’ Πολυπρ., cp. ii. 9. 15. ὡς ἡ τοῦ ἂψ. vir.] Prob. Gr. refers to 1 Gor. xiii 12; cp. ii Ὁ ἀψευδής, Tit. i 17. τοῖς ἐπὶ τ. καθαιρ] Gp. ii 12 τοῖς ἐνταῦθα κεκ. . . .πρὸς τὸ ποθούμένον. 18. εἰ καἰ μέγα κτλ.] If it is a great thing to be altogether underived, as the Father is, it is no less a thing to be derived from Him in the way the Son is. He shares the nature and glory of the Selfexistent, and has the additional glory of being begotten of Him. Cp. iv 7. ὡρμῆσθαι, οὐκ ἔλαττον τῷ υἱῷ τὸ ἐκ τοιούτου πατρός. τῆς τε γὰρ τοῦ ἀναιτίου δόξης μετέχοι ἄν, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ ἀναιτίου, καὶ πρόσεστι τὸ τῆς γεννήσεως, πρᾶγμα τοσοῦτον καὶ οὕτω σεβάσμιον τοῖς μὴ πάντῃ χαμαιπετέσι καὶ ὑλικοῖς τὴν διάνοιαν.

Ἀλλ’ εἰ ταὐτὸν τῷ πατρί, φασιν, ὁ υἱὸς κατ’ οὐσίαν, ἀγέννητον δὲ ὁ πατήρ, ἔσται τοῦτο καὶ ὁ υἱός. καλῶς, εἴπερ οὐσία θεοῦ τὸ ἀγέννητον, ἵν ᾖ τις καινὴ μίξις, γεννητοαγέννητον. εἰ δὲ περὶ οὐσίαν ἡ διαφορά, τί τοῦτο ὡς ἰσχυρὸν λέγεις; ἢ καὶ σὺ πατὴρ τοῦ πατρός, ἵνα μηδενὶ λείπῃ τοῦ σοῦ πατρός, ἐπειδὴ ταὐτὸν εἶ κατ’ οὐσίαν; ἢ δῆλον ὅτι, τῆς ἰδιότητος ἀκινήτου μενούσης, ζητήσομεν οὐσίαν θεοῦ, ἥ τις ποτέ ἐστιν, εἴπερ ζητήσομεν; ὅτι δὲ οὐ ταὐτὸν ἀγέννητον καὶ θεός, ὧδε ἂν μάθοις. εἰ 4 σεβασμιον] σεμνὸν ‘Reg, a’ II χαμαιπετέσι] χαμερπέσι b 12. 6 ταῦτον φασι τὼ πατρὶ ο ὑίος b: ταὐτὸν φ. ο ὑίος τὼ πατρὶ df || 7 ἀγέννητος bde || 9 om ’δε c || 10 om η c 12.‘If ’the Father is unbegotten,’ they urge, ‘and the Son is what the Father is, then the Son too is unbegotten.’ That would be true if unbegottenness zuere the actual essence of God; but it is ἴοι. If ‘unbegotten’ and ‘God’ were equivalent terms, then we should be able to put the one for the other, and say not only ’ the God of Israel’ but ‘the Unbegotten of Israel? On this theory, the nature of the begotten Son is not only different from that of the unbegotten Father, but is its exact opposite; and indeed it might be argued that since the positive is prior to the negative, the begotten Son is prior to the unbegotten Father. 7. ἔσται τοῦτο] sc. ἀγέννητον Quite true, Gr. replies, on the assumption that unbegottenness is the essence of God; the Son in that case will be begotten-unbegotten! 9. περὶ οὐσίαν] The prep, is emphatic. It is used as in § 10 sub fin. ‘If the difference between begotten and unbegotten is (not one of nature but only) one affecting the modes of that nature.’ 10. πατὴρ τοῦ π.] ‘Are you your father's father?’ If not, ace. to your argument, you cannot have the same essence as your father. 12. ἰδιότητος] not ’’personality’ but the special distinguishing peculiarities which differentiate one person from another; the ‘property,’ as Hooker calls it (E. P. v 51). If we enquire at all what the nature of God is, we will do so without touching these individual properties. ταὐτὸν ἦν, ἔδει πάντως, ἐπειδὴ τινῶν θεὸς ὁ θεός, τινῶν εἶναι καὶ τὸ ἀγέννητον· ἢ ἐπεὶ μηδενὸς τὸ ἀγέννητον, μηδὲ τὸν θεὸν εἶναι τινῶν. τὰ γὰρ πάντῃ ταὐτὰ καὶ ὁμοίως ἐκφέρεται. ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐ τινῶν τὸ ἀγέννητον, τίνων γάρ; καὶ τινῶν θεὸς ὁ θεός, πάντων γάρ. πῶς οὖν ἂν εἴη ταὐτὸν θεὸς καὶ ἀγέννητον; καὶ πάλιν, ἐπειδὴ τὸ ἀγέννητον καἲ τὸ γεννητὸν ἀντίκειται ἀλλήλοις, ὡς ἕξις καὶ στέρησις, ἀνάγκη καὶ οὐσίας εἰσαχθῆναι ἀντικειμένας ἀλλήλαις, ὅπερ οὐ δέδοται· ἢ ἐπειδὴ πάλιν αἱ ἕξεις τῶν στερήσεων πρότεραι, καὶ ἀναιρετικαὶ τῶν ἕξεων αἱ στερήσεις, μὴ μόνον πρεσβυτέραν εἶναι τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίας τὴν τοῦ υἱοῦ, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀναιρουμένην ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρός, ὅσον ἐπὶ ταῖς σαῖς ὑποθέσεσι.

τίς ἔτι λόγος αὐτοῖς τῶν ἀφύκτων; τάχα ἂν ἐπ’ ἐκεῖνο καταφύγοιεν τελευταῖον· ὡς εἰ μὲν οὐ πέπαυται τοῦ γεννᾷν ὁ θεός, ἀτελὴς ἡ γέννησις, καί ποτε παύσεται. εἰ πέπαυται δέ, πάντως καὶ ἤρξατο. πάλιν οἱ σωματικοὶ τὰ σωματικά. ἐγὼ δὲ εἰ μὲν ἀίδιον αὐτῷ τὸ γεννᾶσθαι, ἢ μή, οὔπω λέγω, ἕως ἂν τὸ Πρὸ πάντων βουνῶν γεννᾶ με ἀκριβῶς ἐπισκέψωμαι. οὐχ ὁρῶ δὲ τίς ἡ ἀνάγκη τοῦ λόγου. εἰ γὰρ ἦρκται κατ’ αὐτοὺς τὸ παυσόμενον, οὐκ ἦρκται πάντως τὸ μὴ παυσόμενον. τί τοίνυν ἀποφανοῦνται περὶ ψυχῆς, ἢ τῆς ἀγγελικῆς φύσεως; εἰ μὲν ἦρκται, καὶ παύσεται· εἰ δὲ οὐ παύσεται, δῆλον ὅτι κατ’ αὐτοὺς οὐδὲ ἦρκται. ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ ἦρκται, καὶ οὐ παύσεται. οὐκ ἄρα ἦρκται κατ’ αὐτοὺς τὸ παυσόμενον. ὁ μὲν οὖν ἡμέτερος λόγος· ὥσπερ ἵππου, καὶ βοός, καὶ ἀνθρώπου, καὶ ἑκάστου τῶν ὑπὸ τὸ αὐτὸ εἶδος, εἷς λόγος ἐστί, καὶ ὂ μὲν ἂν μετέχῃ τοῦ λόγου, τοῦτο καὶ κυρίως λέγεσθαι, ὃ δ’ ἂν μὴ μετέχῃ, τοῦτο ἢ μὴ λέγεσθαι, ἢ μὴ κυρίως λέγεσθαι, οὕτω δὲ καὶ θεοῦ μίαν οὐσίαν εἶναι, καὶ φύσιν, καὶ κλῆσιν, κἂν 13. 4 εἰ ’δε πέπαυται df || 15 λογος] ὄρος ’tres Colb.’ II 16 om καὶ c 17 μὴ λέγεσθαι] μηδὲ λ. df 1. τῶν ἀφύκτων] i.e. which they consider to be so. 3. καί ποτε παύσεται] ‘and some day He will stop,’ viz. when τελεία ἡ γέννησις. This is more pointed than to make πότε interrogative. 6. π,ρὸ πάντων β.] Prov. viii 25. 9. ἀποφανοῦνται] ’will they shew to be the case.’ 12. οὐκἄραἢρκται κ.αὐτοὐςτὸπ.] Therefore the thing which zuill one day stop can never according to them have had a beginning.’ So Gr. turns their logic against them. 13. ὁ μὲν οὖν ἠμ’. λ.] sc. λέγει. 15. εἷς λόγος ἐστί] ’one ’ or ‘principle of existence’; and so, from the observer’s point of view, ‘definition.’ What is implied may be seen by the corresponding words in the apodosis, οὐσίαν κ. φύσιν κ. κλῆσιν. The meaning is not the same as in ὁ ἡμέτερος λ. just before, nor has it any relation to λέγεσθαι directly after. ib. ὃ μὲν ἂν μετέχῃ τ. λ.] ‘what. ever shares that characteristic principle, is rightly called by that name.’ Tοῦτο, however, is grammatically the subject of λῆ., not the predicate. 17. οὕτω δέ] The ‘apodotic’ force of δέ is well known. It recurs again in the next section. ἐπινοίαις τισὶ διαιρουμέναις συνδιαιρῆται καὶ τὰ ὀνόματα. καὶ ὃ μὲν ἂν κυρίως λέγηται, τοῦτο καὶ εἶναι θεόν· ὃ δ’ ἂν ἦ κατὰ φύσιν, τοῦτο καὶ ἀληθῶς ὀνομάζεσθαι· εἴπερ μὴ ἐν ὀνόμασιν, ἀλλ’ ἐν πράγμασίν ἐστιν ἡμῖν ἢ ἀλήθεια. οἱ δέ, ὥσπερ δεδοικότες μὴ πάντα κινεῖν κατὰ τῆς ἀληθείας, θεὸν μὲν εἶναι τὸν υἱὸν ὁμολογοῦσιν, ὅταν βιασθῶσι τῶ λόγῳ καὶ ταῖς μαρτυρίαις, ὁμώνυμον δὲ καὶ μόνης κοινω- νοῦντα τῆς κλήσεως.

Ὅταν δὲ ἀνθυποφέρωμεν αὐτοῖς· τί οὖν; οὐ κυρίως θεὸς ὁ υἱός, ὥσπερ οὐδὲ ζῷον τὸ γεγραμμένον; πῶς οὖν θεός, εἰ μὴ κυρίως θεός; τί γὰρ κωλύει, φασί, καὶ ὁμώνυμα ταῦτα εἶναι, καὶ κυρίως ἀμφότερα λέγεσθαι; καὶ προοίσουσιν ἡμῖν τὸν κύνα, τὸν χερσαῖον, καὶ τὸν θαλάτ- τιον, ὁμώνυμά τε ὄντα, καὶ κυρίως λεγόμενα, — ἔστι γάρ τι καὶ τοιοῦτον εἶδος ἐν τοῖς ὁμωνύμοις, — καὶ εἴτε τι ἄλλο τῇ 4 ἥμιν ἐστιν f 14. 3 προσοίσουσιν bedef 1. κἂν ἐπινοίαις τισι] The distinctive ’notions’ which Gr. has in view are, of course, those of giving and of receiving life, of ‘proceeding ’ and its correlative. They are not, however, to be considered as merely subjective distinctions drawn by us, any more than the distinctions which we draw between one man and another. Td ὀνόματα, sc. πατήρ, υἱός, πνεῦμα. 2. ὃ μὲν ἂν κ. λέγηται] sc. θεός. This seems hardly necessary to say; but it lends a kind of fulness to the following statement, ὃ δ’ ἃν ἢ κατὰ φύσιν θεός), τοῦτο κ. ἅλ’. ὀνομάζεσθαι θεόν). The ὀνομάζεσθαι = λέγεσθαι, and has nothing to do with the ὀνόματα above. 4. οἱ δέ] While names are not of much importance, so long as we get the facts right, they, the Eunomians, when pressed, will use the name of θεός to describe the Son, but explain it to have no foundation in fact. 7. ταῖς μαρτυρίαις] ’’testimonies of Scripture.’ Cp v 2 29. ib. ὁμώνυμον] ‘in an equivocal sense.’ Ὁμώνυμα are in logic which bear the same name but in different senses. 14. ’ The word God,’ they ’is an aequivocum; it is used to denote two things which are essehtially different, as dig, for example, denotes both α beast and α ’ Ah, but in the one case there is no difference in dignity between the two things which bear the same name; in the other, if your theory were true, two beings would bear the same name which cotild not be even distantly compared. 12. ὁμ. ταῦτα εἶναι] The neut. used, as in the preceding section, to avoid the irreverence of a direct reference to the Divine Persons. 13. τὸν κύνα] the name of a fish, as well as of the beast. Both fish and beast are quite properly called ’dog,’ but not in the same sense. 15. τοιοῦτον εἶδος] ’such a class’; namely, ὁμώνυμα both of which ’properly’ bear the common name. αὐτῇ προσχρῆται προσηγορίᾳ, καὶ μετέχει ταύτης ἐπ’ ἴσης, τῇ φύσει διεστηκός. ἀλλ’ ἐκεῖ μέν, ὦ βέλτιστε, δύο φύσεις τιθεὶς ὑπὸ τὴν αὐτὴν προσηγορίαν, οὐδὲν ἀμείνω τὴν ἑτέραν τῆς ἑτέρας εἰσάγεις, οὐδὲ τὴν μὲν πρότερον, τὴν δὲ ὕστερον, οὐδὲ τὴν μὲν μᾶλλον, τὴν δὲ ἧττον οὖσαν τοῦθ’ ὅπερ λέγεται. οὐδὲ γάρ τι συνέζευκται τὸ ταύτην παρέχον αὐταῖς τὴν ἀνάγκην. οὐ γὰρ ὁ μὲν μᾶλλον κύων, ὁ δὲ ἧττον τοῦ ἑτέρου κυνός, οἷον ὁ θαλάττιος τοῦ χερσαίου, ἢ ὁ χερσαῖος ἔμπαλιν τοῦ θαλαττίου· διὰ τί γάρ, ἢ κατὰ τίνα λόγον; ἀλλ’ ἐν ὁμοτίμοις πράγμασι καὶ διαφόροις ἡ κοινωνία τῆς κλήσεως. ἐνταῦθα δὲ τῷ θεῷ παραζευγνὺς τὸ σεβάσμιον, καὶ τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν οὐσίαν εἶναι καὶ φύσιν, ὂ μόνου θεοῦ καὶ οἱονεὶ φύσις θεότητος, εἶτα τῷ πατρὶ μὲν τοῦτο διδούς, τὸν υἱὸν δὲ ἀποστερῶν καὶ ὑποτιθείς, καὶ τὰ δεύτερα νέμων αὐτῷ τῆς τιμῆς καὶ τῆς προσκυνήσεως, κἂν ταῖς συλλαβαῖς χαρίζῃ τὸ ὅμοιον, τῷ πράγματι τὴν θεότητα περικόπτεις, καὶ μεταβαίνεις κακούργως ἀπὸ τῆς τὸ ἴσον ἐχούσης ὁμωνυμίας ἐπὶ τὴν τὰ μὴ ἴσα συνδέουσαν· ὥστε ὁ γραπτός σοι καὶ ὁ ζῶν ἄνθρωπος μᾶλλον ἢ οἱ τοῦ 13 οιονει] οἶον a ΙΙ 17 μεταβαίνεις] ης (non ῃς) a: ει d1 2. δύο φύσεις] perh. ‘two kinds of animals.’ 4. πρότερον...ὕστερον] as well as μᾶλλον and ἦττον, qualify οὖσαν τοῦθ’ ὄπ. λέγ’. 6. οὐδὲ γάρ τι σ.] ’for there is nothing attached to the name which forces such distinctions upon ’ There is nothing in the name ’dog’ to make you care to enquire whether the beast or the fish was the first to bear it, or whether the beast is more of a dog than the fish: the one of ’dog’ is for all practical purposes as good as the other. The common name is borne by creatures which, though different from each other, are equals. 11. ἐνταῦθα δέ] ’ But when come to the case in point, you attach to God an awful solemnity, and say that He is too high to be described as having any essence or nature, — athing which belongs to none but God and constitutes as it were the nature of the Godhead; and you give this to the Father, but take it away from the Son, and make a subject of Him.’ 17. περικόπτεις] ‘mutitate.’ ib. τῆς τὸ 1. ἐχ’. ὁμων.] such as that of the different ’dogs.’ 19. ὁ γραπτός σ. κ. ὁ ζῶν ἆ] The real man and the picture of a man (either of which is spoken of as ’a man’) illustrate more nearly such a Godhead as the Eunomians speak of than the two kinds of ’dogs.’ The picture is not further from being a real man than the Son is from being really God, if the Eunomian account is correct; and at the same time it bears externally a greater resemblance to its original. ὑποδείγματος κύνες τῇ θεότητι πλησιάζουσιν. ἢ δὸς ἀμ- φοτέροις, ὥσπερ τὴν κοινωνίαν τῆς κλήσεως, οὕτω δὲ καὶ τὴν ὁμοτιμίαν τῶν φύσεων, εἰ καὶ διαφόρους ταύτας εἰσάγεις· καὶ καταλέλυκάς σου τοὺς κύνας, οὓς ἐξηῦρες κατὰ τῆς ἀνισότητος. τί γὰρ ὄφελος τῆς ὁμωνυμίας, εἰ τὸ ἰσότιμον ἔχοιεν οἱ παρά σου διαιρούμενοι; οὐ γὰρ ἵνα ἰσότιμα δείξῃς, ἁλλ’ ἵνα ἀνισότιμα, πρὸς τὴν ὁμωνυμίαν καὶ τοὺς κύνας κατέφυγες. πῶς ἄν τις ἐλεγχθείη μᾶλλον καὶ ἑαυτῷ μαχόμενος καὶ θεότητι;

Ἐὰν δὲ λεγόντων ἡμῶν, ὅτι τῷ αἰτίῳ μείζων ὁ πατὴρ τοῦ υἱοῦ, προσλαβόντες τὴν Τὰ δὲ αἴτιον φύσει 3 τῶν φύσεων] τῆς φύσεως ’nonnul.’ || 6 ἰσότιμον] + μὴ bedef 15. 11 om ’δε b ’nonnul.’ 1. ἢ δός] Otherwise, — if the chasm between the two Persons bearing the name of God is not, on your theory, as vast as I have indicated, suppose you admit that the equivocal name is in this instance applied to two natures of equal splendour. You shall call them different natures, if you like; but admit that they are equal. What is the result? You are no longer satisfied with your illustration of the dogs. You invented it to justify an insinuation of inequality. The κατὰ in κατὰ τῆς ἀνισ. appears to be used as in the phrase τοξεύειν κατὰ σκοποῦ, of the point aimed at. 5. εἰ τὸ ἴσ’. ἔχοιεν] It requires great ingenuity to extract any meaning from the sentence, in relation to the context, if the reading μὴ ἔχ. is adopted. The μὴ was evidently introduced by copyists who thought that Gr. was making a statement of his own belief, which was that the name θεός is applied in precisely the same sense to Father and Son. But this ignores Gr.'s argument, — and, it may he added, the meaning of ὁμωνυμία. Gr.'s immediate purpose is to shew that the Eunomian illustration is, from their own point of view, ill-chosen. To be of any service to them, their instance of ’equivocation’ should have been one where the same name is applied to two objects of very different value. 15.‘You admit,’ they say, ‘that the Father is greater than the Son, inasmuch ἃς He is the author of the Son's being; but since He ἲς by nature author of the ’s being, it follows that He is by nature greater than the ’ The fallacy of the argument, Gr. annoers, lies in this, —that they attribute to the underlying essence what is predicated of the particular possessor of that essence. It is like arguing that because so and so is a dead man, therefore man is dead. 10. τῷ αἰτίῳ μ.] lby virtue of being the cause of His existence. 11. προσλαβόντες τὴν . . . πρότασιν] ‘taking ὂν their minor premiss. Πρότασις is the tehnical word for a ‘premiss’; the πρός in προσλ. denotes that this is a second (or minor) premiss. πρότασιν, ἔπειτα τὸ Μεῖζον τῆ φύσει συνάγωσιν· οὐκ οἶδα πότερον ἑαυτοὺς παραλογίζονται, ἢ τοὺς πρὸς οὓς ὁ λόγος. οὐ γὰρ ἁπλῶς ὅσα κατά τινος λέγεται, ταῦτα καὶ κατὰ τοῦ ὑποκειμένου τούτῳ ῥηθήσεται· ἀλλὰ δῆλον κατὰ τίνος, καὶ τίνα. ἐπεὶ τί κωλύει κἀμὲ ταύτην πρότασιν ποιησάμενον τήν, ὅτι ὁ πατὴρ μείζων τῇ φύσει, ἔπειτα προσλαβόντα τὸ Φύσει δὲ οὐ πάντως μείζων οὐδὲ πατήρ, ἐντεῦθεν συναγαγεῖν τὸ Μεῖζον οὐ πάντως μεῖζον· ἤ, Ὁ 1. συνάγωσιν] ‘conclude.’ The Eunomian syllogism is this: ’The Father is greater than the Son inasmuch as the Son owes His existence to Him. But the giving of existence to the Son belongs to the Father by nature. Therefore the Father is greater than the Son by nature.’ 3. οὐ γὰρ ἁπλῶς κτλ.] The reply is that not everything which is predicated of a particular thing (e.g. of Socrates) is predicated of the nature which underlies that thing (in the example chosen, human nature). Everyone recognises what the statements are intended to apply to, and how they apply. So, what we say of the Father does not necessarily apply to the Divine Essence which belongs to Him; some things apply to Him as Father, not as God. 4. κατὰ τίνος, καὶ τίνα] The words are interrogative; if Gr. had intended the indef. pron., he must have said δ. ὅτι κ. τ. It seems necessary to understand κατὰ again before τίνα, ’in regard to what ’ — i.e. in regard to nature, or to individuality, or what. To take the example given by Gr. at the end of the section, if I say that Socrates is a dead man, it is plain that I am speaking of Socrates in particular and of no one else, and that I am speaking of Socrates in relation to the bodily life, not about his soul, nor about his influence. 5. τί κωλύει κἀμέ] Two can play at that game, Gr. says. He too can draw that kind of conclusion, and they shall see whether it will hold. He makes a major premiss of that conclusion of theirs, ’The father is by nature greater than the ’ (We need not suppose that Gr. is for the moment speaking of God: the words would suit any father and son.) The minor premiss is, ’But he is not by nature necessarily greater, or necessarily ’ So far there is no absurdity. He need never have had a son; there might have been nothing else to compare him with. (Gr., 1 repeat, is not speaking of God.) The right conclusion would be that the ’s ’natural’ superiority over his son consists solely in his fatherhood, and not in his nature, —in his relationship, and not in that which he is when considered apart by himself. But the false conclusion which Gr. draws, to illustrate the false conclusions of the Eunomians, is this: ’Therefore the greater is not necessarily greater, ’ or ‘The father is not necessarily father.’ It will be observed that Gr. says μεῖζον, not 6 μείζων, which makes it clearer that the proposition is intended to be quite general: Ἁ thing which is greater than another need not be greater, but might be at the same time equal or less; a father need not be his ’s father, but might be his brother or his son.’ The second paralogism ὁ θεὸς οὐ πάντως θεός) helps to shew that this is Gr.'s meaning. πατὴρ οὐ πάντως πατήρ. εἰ βούλει δὲ οὕτως· ὁ θεός οὐσία· ἡ οὐσία δέ, οὐ πάντως θεός· τὸ ἑξῆς αὐτὸς συνάγαγε· ὁ θεός, οὐ πάντως θεός. ἀλλ’ οἶμαι, παρὰ τὸ πῇ καὶ ἁπλῶς ὁ παραλογισμὸς οὗτος, ὡς τοῖς περὶ ταῦτα τεχνολογεῖν σύνηθες. ἡμῶν γὰρ τὸ μεῖζον τῇ τοῦ αἰτίου φύσει διδόντων, αὐτοὶ τὸ τῇ φύσει μεῖζον ἐπάγουσιν· ὥσπερ ἂν εἰ καὶ λεγόντων ἡμῶν, ὅτι ὁ δεῖνα νεκρὸς ἄνθρωπος, ἁπλῶς ἐπῆγον αὐτοὶ τὸν ἄνθρωπον.

Ἐκεῖνο δὲ πῶς παραδράμωμεν, οὐδενὸς ἧττον τῶν εἰρημένων ὂν ἀξιάγαστον; ‘Ο πατήρ, φησιν, οὐσίας, ἢ ἐνεργείας ὄνομα; ὡς ἀμφοτέρωθεν ἡμᾶς δήσοντες, — εἰ μὲν οὐσίας φήσομεν, συνθησομένους ἑτεροούσιον εἶναι τὸν υἱόν, ἐπειδὴ μία μὲν οὐσία θεοῦ, ταύτην δέ, ὡς οὗτοι, προκατείληφες ὁ πατήρ· εἰ δὲ ἐνεργείας, ποίημα σαφῶς ὁμολογή- 2 σύναγε cdefg ’duo Reg. Or. 1’|| 3 πάρα τὸ πη] παρατροπὴν (om και) b: παρατροπῇ ‘Reg. a’ 3. παρὰ τὸ πῆ κ. ἁπλῶς] ’The fallacy lies in arguing from the conditioned to the absolute’ (lit. ’is on account of that which is so for special reasons and that which is so absolutely’). 4. τοῖς περὶ ταῦτα] ’to use the technical language of logicians’ (lit. ’as it is customary to speak technically for those who concern themselves with these’). 5. ἡμῶν γὰρ κτλ.] ’For when we allow that it is in the nature of a cause to be greater than the thing caused, they infer that it is greater by nature; which is like arguing that because we say, "Such and such a man is dead." therefore man, in the abstract, is ’ The emphasis, of course, is on ὁ δεῖνα, and it seems simplest to take ἄνθρ. along with it as subject, understanding νεκρός alone to be predicate — an arrangement of words like ὁ μέγας τέθνηκε Βασίλειος. But the sense is the Same either way. In the apodosis, τὸν ἄνθρ. is subject, the predicate being supplied from the previous clause, sc. νεκρὸν εἶναι. The commentators from Elias onwards have totally failed to catch the argument, or even to understand the grammar of the passage. If Gr. had intended to say anything so pointless as Petavius (de Trin. II v 12) makes out, viz. that because ὁ δεῖνα is a dead man, therefore he is a man, he must have said τὸ ἄνθρωπον, not τόν. So far Elias, whom Petavius quotes, knew better. 16. ’ Well? they say, ’the word Father must denote either nature or operation: which is it to be?’ Neither, is the answer; it denotes a relation, and α relation which implies community of nature between the Father and the Son. 10. ἀξιάγαστον] ‘astonishing,’ from ἄγαμαι ’to wonder. ib. οὐσίας, ἢ ἐνεργ. ὄν.] ’is it a name denoting essence, or operation?’ 12. ἑτεροούσιον] A word modelled on the false analogy of ὁμοούσιος. It should be ἐτερούσιος. σοντας, ἁλλ’ οὐ γέννημα. οὗ γὰρ ὁ ἐνεργῶν, ἐκεῖ πάντως καὶ τὸ ἐνεργούμενον. καὶ πῶς τῷ πεποιηκότι ταὐτὸν τὸ πεποιημένον, θαυμάζειν φήσουσι. σφόδρα ἂν ᾐδέσθην ὑμῶν καὶ αὐτὸς τὴν διαίρεσιν, εἰ τῶν δύο τὸ ἕτερον δέξασθαι ἢν ἀναγκαῖον, ἁλλὰ μὴ τὰ δύο διαφυγόντα τρίτον εἰπεῖν ἀληθέστερον· ὅτι οὔτε οὐσίας ὄνομα ὁ πατήρ, ὦ σοφώτατοι, οὔτε ἐνεργείας, σχέσεως δὲ καὶ τοῦ πῶς ἔχει πρὸς τὸν υἱὸν ὁ πατήρ, ἢ ὁ υἱὸς πρὸς τὸν πατέρα. ὡς γὰρ παρ’ ἡμῖν αἱ κλήσεις αὗται τὸ γνήσιον καὶ οἰκεῖον γνωρίζουσιν, οὕτω κἀκεῖ τὴν τοῦ γεγεννημένου πρὸς τὸ γεγεννηκὸς ὁμοφυίαν σημαίνουσιν. ἔστω δέ, ὑμῶν χάριν, καὶ οὐσία τις ὁ πατήρ· συνεισάξει τὸν υἱόν, οὐκ ἀλλοτριώσει, κατὰ τὰς κοινὰς ἐννοίας καὶ τὴν τῶν κλήσεων τούτων δύναμιν. ἔστω καὶ ἐνεργείας,εἰ τοῦτο δοκεῖ· οὐδὲ οὕτως ἡμᾶς αἱρήσετε. αὐτὸ δὲ τοῦτο ἐνηργηκὼς ἂν εἴη τὸ ὁμοούσιον, εἰ καὶ ἄτοπος ἄλλως ἡ τῆς περὶ τοῦτο ἐνεργείας ὑπόληψις. ὁρᾶς ὅπως ὑμῶν, καὶ κακομαχεῖν ἐθελόντων, τὰς στροφὰς διαφεύγομεν; ἐπεὶ δέ σου τὸ ἐν τοῖς λογισμοῖς καὶ ταῖς στροφαῖς ἄμαχον 16. 5 διαφυγόντα] φυγόντα b || 11 οὐσία] οὐσίας e ‘Reg. Cypr. || 14 αἱρήσετε] σητεb·. σεται d || 15 ’δε] γὰρ ’Reg. Cypr. aliiq. Reg. et Colb.’ || 16 ἄλλως] + πὼς df || πέρι] πρὸς b || 17 om καὶ bc 1. οὗ γὰρ ὁ ἐνεργῶν] lit. ’where there is one performing an operation, there is also the result of the operation.’ It is not very obvious why γέννησις should not be included under the head of ἐνέργεια, and Gr. does not much object to it. But evidently Gr. ’s opponent made ἐνεργεῖν = ποιεῖν. 3. ᾐδέσθην] iron. ‘I should have stood in great ’awe.’ 7. σχέσεως] ’relation’’, explained by τοῦ πῶς ὦι πρός κτλ. 10 κὰκεῖ when used in ref. to the Godhead. 12. συνεισάξει] ’will at the same moment imply the Son.’ 15. αὐτὸδἐ τοῦτο] ’His operation will still have produced that very result consubstantial with Himself.’ ib. εἰ καἰ ἄτοπος] The καὶ be taken closely with ἄτοπος and disjoined from εἰ, which has here the force of ’since.’ The reading ἢ, adopted by the Benedictines, makes ἄλλως superfluous. The notion of such an operation as results in a Son’ would be absurd if it did not imply a real (i.e. a consubstantial) Son. 17. κακομαχεῖν] ‘to fight unscrupulously: The word στροφάς, ’twists,’ shews that the μάχη is a wrestling-match, not a battle. ἔγνωμεν, ἴδωμέν σου καὶ τὴν ἐκ τῶν θείων λογίων ἰσχύν, ἃν ἄρα δέξῃ κἀντεῦθεν πείθειν ἡμᾶς.

Ἡμεῖς μὲν γὰρ ἐκ μεγάλων καὶ ὑψηλῶν τῶν τοῦ υἱοῦ τὴν θεότητα καὶ κατειλήφαμεν, καὶ κηρύσφωνῶν σομεν. τίνων τούτων; τῆς θεός, τῆς λόγος, ὁ ἐν ἀρχῇ, ὁ μετὰ τῆς ἀρχῆς, ἡ ἀρχή· Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος· καί, Μετά σου ἡ ἀρχή· καί, ‘Ο καλῶν αὐτὴν ἀπὸ γενεῶν ἀρχήν. ἐπειδὴ υἱὸς μονογενής· ‘Ο μονογενὴς υἱός, ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός, ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο. ὁδός, ἁλήθεια, ζωή, φῶς· Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ὁδός, καὶ ἡ ἁλήθεια, καὶ ἡ ζωή· καί, Ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ φῶς τοῦ κόσμου. σοφία, δύναμις· Χριστὸς θεοῦ δύναμις, καὶ θεοῦ σοφία. ἀπαύγασμα, χαρακτήρ, εἰκών, σφραγίς· Ὅς ὣν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ· καί, Εἰκὼν τῆς ἀγαθότητος· καί, τοῦτον γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ ἐσφράγισεν ὁ θεός. κύριος, βασιλεύς, ὁ ὤν, ὁ παντοκράτωρ· Ἔβρεξε κύριος πῦρ παρὰ κυρίου· καί, 17. 4 καὶ κατειλ.] om καὶ e ΙΙ 16 om ο πατὴρ ce 2. δέξη κἀντ’. πείθειν] ‘if from that quarter you can find means to persuade tis? 17. The titles given to the Son in Scripture clearly shew His Godhead. 5. τῆς θεός] sc. φωνῆς. 6. ἐν ἀρχῇ ἢν] John i 1. 7. μετὰ σοῦ ἡ ἁ.] Ps. cix (ex) 3 where Swete reads μ. σοῦ ἀρχή. As the Ps. addresses Christ, the statement agrees with Gr.'s allusion to the passage just above; for if the ἀρχή (sc. the Father) is with Him, He is with the ἀρχή. In the Ps. the word ἀρχή was prob. intended to mean ‘rule.’ ‘authority,’ not (as Gr. seems to think) ‘beginning.’ 8. ὁ καλῶν αὐτήν] Is. xli 4 where the true text is ἀπὸ γενεῶν ἀρχῆς, the αὐτήν prob. being repeated from the δικαιοσύνην of the previous vs. I cannot find that any other father uses the text in the same manner as Gr. ib. ἐπειδὴ υἱὸς μ.] gives a justification for the text just used, — or perhaps for the orig. statement τὴν θεότητα...κηρύσσομεν. The verb ἐστίν, or καλεῖται, must be supplied: ’for He is the only begotten Son.’ 9. ὁ μονογ. υἱός] John i 18. Hort Two Dissertations p. 20 mentions that the phrase μονογενὴς θεός is once used by Gr. (Ep. 202 p. 168 C). It seems, however, from our present passage that Gr. considered υἱός to be the right reading in St John. 10. ἐγώ εἰμι ἢ ὁδ.] John xiv 6. 11. τὸ φῶς τ. κόσμου] John viii 12. 12. X. θεοῦ δύν.] 1 Cor. i 24. 14. ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα] Hob. i 3. 15. εἰκὼν τῆς ἂγ.] Wisd. vii 26. ib. τοῦτον γὰρ b π. ἐσφρ.] John vi 27. 17. ἔβρεξε κύριος] Gen. xix 24. Ῥάβδος εὐθύτητος ἡ ῥάβδος τῆς βασιλείας σου· καί, ‘O ὤν, καὶ ὁ ἢν, καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, καὶ ὁ παντοκράτωρ. σαφῶς περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ λεγόμενα, καὶ ὅσα τῆς αὐτῆς τούτοις ἐστὶ δυνάμεως ὧν οὐδὲν ἐπίκτητον, οὐδὲ ὕστερον τῷ υἱῷ προσ- γενόμενον, ἢ τῷ πνεύματι, ὥσπερ οὐδὲ αὐτῷ τῷ πατρί. οὐ γὰρ ἐκ προσθήκης τὸ τέλειον. οὐ γὰρ ἦν ὅτε ἄλογος ἦν, οὐδὲ ἦν ὅτε οὐ πατήρ, οὐδὲ ἦν ὅτε οὐκ ἀληθής, ἢ ἄσοφος, ἢ ἀδύνατος, ἢ ζωῆς ἐνδεής, ἢ λαμπρότητος, ἢ ἀγαθότητος.

Σὺ δέ μοι καταρίθμει πρὸς ταῦτα τὰ τῆς ἀγνωμοσύνης ῥήματα, τὸ θεός μου καὶ θεὸς ὑμῶν, τὸ μείζων, τὸ ἔκτισε, τὸ ἐποίησε, τὸ ἡγίασεν. εἰ βούλει δέ, καὶ τὸ δοῦλον, καὶ τὸ ὑπήκοον· τὸ δέδωκε, τὸ ἔμαθε, τὸ ἐντέταλται, τὸ ἀπέσταλται, τὸ μὴ δύνασθαι ἀφ’ ἑαυτοῦ τι ποιεῖν, ἢ λέγειν, ἢ κρίνειν, ἢ δωρεῖσθαι, ἢ βούλεσθαι. ἔτι δὲ καὶ ταῦτα, τὴν ἄγνοιαν, τὴν ὑποταγήν, τὴν εὐχήν, τὴν ἐρώτησιν, τὴν 18. 13 ἐντέταλται] ἐντέταλκεν b 1. ῥάβδος εὖθ’.] Ps. xliv 7 (xlv 6); Heb. i 8. ib. ὁ ὢν κ. ὁ ἦν] Rev. i 4, 8; iv 8; xi 17; xvi 5. In all these places St J. seems to use the expression to mean the Father. 6. οὐ γὰρ ἐκ προσθήκης] The Father's perfection would be the consequence of an addition, if He had at one time been without the Son. The words which follow, ἄλογος κτλ., are all chosen with ref. to one or other of the titles of the Son above cited. 18. The htimbler language used concerning Him belongs to the human nature zvhich He assumed. 10. τὰ τῆς ἅγν’. ῥήματα] The shade of meaning which Gr. intended ἅγν’. here to bear may be gathered from ὁ νῦν σοι καταφρονούμενος in § 19; ’the words which you scornfully misunderstand.’ 11. θεός μου] John xx 17. ib. μείζων] John xiv 28. 12. ἔκτισε] Prov. viii 22. 12. ἐποίησε] Acts ii 36, Heb. iii 2. ib. ἡγίασεν] John x 36. ib. δοῦλον] Phil, ii 7. 13. ὑπήκοον] Phil, ii 8. ib. δέδωκε] The passage in Ath. Or. iii c. Ar. ἑ 35 suggests John iii 35, but the context here may point to John xviii 11. ib. ἔμαθε] Heb. v 8. ib. ἐντέταλται] There seems to be no passage where the actual word occurs in relation to Christ, nor ἐντέταλκεν either. The ref. is prob. to John xv 10 and similar passages. 14. ἀπέσταλται] John v 36, xx 21. ib. μὴ δύνασθαι...ποιεῖν] Johnv 19. ib. λέγειν] John viii 28, xii 49. 15. κρίνειν] John viii 15, xii 47. ib. δωρεῖσθαι] Matt, xx 23. ib. βούλεσθαι] John v 30. 16. ἄγνοιαν] Mark xiii 32. ib. ὑπ’ ὁτ’ ἂγ ἤν] Luke ii 51, 1 Cor. xv 28. ib. εὐχήν] Luke iii 21 etc. ib. ἐρώτησιν] From the example given in § 20, it seems that Gr. refers to occasions like John xi not to John xiv 16, which would be little more than a repetition of εὺχήν. προκοπήν, τὴν τελείωσιν. πρόσθες, εἰ βούλει, καὶ ὅσα τούτων ταπεινότερα, τὸ ὕπνουν, τὸ πείνην, τὸ κοπιᾷν, τὸ δακρύειν, τὸ ἀγωνιᾷν, τὸ ὑποδύεσθαι. τάχα δ’ ἂν ὀνειδίσαις καὶ τὸν σταυρόν, καὶ τὸν θάνατον. τὴν γὰρ ἔγερσιν καὶ τὴν ἀνάληψιν παρήσειν μοι δοκεῖς, ἐπειδή τι καὶ πρὸς ἡμῶν ἐν τούτοις εὑρίσκεται. πολλὰ δ’ ἂν ἔτι πρὸς τούτοις σπερμολογήσαις, εἰ βούλοιο συντιθέναι τὸν ὁμώνυμόν σου θεὸν καὶ παρέγγραπτον, ἡμῖν δὲ ἀληθινὸν καὶ ὁμότιμον. τούτων γὰρ ἕκαστον οὐ χαλεπὸν μὲν καὶ κατὰ μέρος ἐπεξιόντα ἐξηγεῖσθαί σοι πρὸς τὸ εὐσεβέστατον, καὶ ἀνακαθαίρειν τὸ ἐν τοῖς γράμμασι πρόσκομμα, εἴ γε προσπταίεις ὄντως, ἀλλὰ μὴ ἑκὼν κακουργεῖς. ἑνὶ δὲ κεφαλαίῳ, τὰ μὲν ὑψηλότερα πρόσαγε τῇ θεότητι καὶ τῇ κρείττονι φύσει παθῶν καὶ σώματος· τὰ δὲ ταπεινότερα τῷ συνθέτῳ, καὶ τῷ διὰ σὲ κενωθέντι καὶ σαρκωθέντι, 7 σου] σοι cdf || 8 ὁμότιμον] + τὼ πατρὶ bdf || 9 om οὐ e || 15 τὼ δια σε] om τὼ c 1. προκοπήν] Luke ii 52. ib. τελείωσιν] Luke xiii 32, Heb. ii 10 etc. 2. ὑπνοῦν] Matt, viii 24. ib. πεινῆν] Matt, xxi 18 etc. ib. κοπιᾷν] John iv 6. 3. δακρύειν] John xi 35. ib. ἀγωνιᾷν] Luke xxii 44. ib. ὑποδύεσθαι] ‘to slip away,’ ‘withdraw’; — a quite classical sense of the word. The ref. is prob. to John x 39. 7. σπερμολογήσαις] ‘pick up,’ like a bird gathering up seed: cp. Acts xvii 18. ib. συντιθέναι] ’to put together vour equivocal God’; with ref. to argument of § 14. 8. παρἐηραπτον] one whose name has been fraudulently put on the list. ib. ὁμότιμον] The words τῷ πατρί are prob. only a gloss, though a correct one. 9. κατὰ μόρος ἐπεξ. ἐξηγ.] ’to go through them in detail and give you a very religious interpretation of each, and to clear away the offence whicli you find in the letter of Scripture.’ 14. παθῶν κ. σῶμ’.] governed by κρείττονι. The Benedictine editors compare with this whole passage Leo Serm. 45 de Quadr. p. 228. See also his letter to Flavian § 4. 15. τῷ συνθέτω The words which follow — τῷ κενωθέντι κτλ.— as well as ἀσύνθετος in ξ 19, shew that Gr. does not mean ‘to the composite nature,’ sc. the human nature composed of body and soul, but ‘to Him who is composite, made up of two ’ Or possibly, as die τῷ is repealed, Gr. may have intended τῷ συνθέτῳ to be the dat. of τὸ σύνθετον, in the sense of ’the composite whole,’ consisting of Godhead and manhood. It would, of course, have been more exact to have said τῆ διὰ σὲ κενώσει, or something of that kind; but it would have been less vivid; and there was no fear of any one supposing that Gr. meant by τῷ κενωθέντι a different person from Him who had the κρείττω φύσιν. οὐδὲν δὲ χεῖρον εἰπεῖν, καὶ ἀνθρωπισθέντι, εἶτα καὶ ὑψω- θέντι, ἵνα σὺ τὸ τῶν δογμάτων σου σαρκικὸν καὶ χαμαιπετὲς καταλύσας μάθης ὑψηλότερος εἶναι, καὶ συνανιέναι θεότητι, καὶ μὴ τοῖς ὁρωμένοις ἐναπομένοις, ἀλλὰ συν- ἐπαίρῃ τοῖς νοουμένοις, καὶ γινώσκῃς, τίς μὲν φύσεως λόγος, τίς δὲ λόγος οἰκονομίας.

Οὗτος γὰρ ὁ νῦν σοι καταφρονούμενος, ἦν ὅτε καὶ ὑπὲρ σὲ ἦν· ὁ νῦν ἄνθρωπος καὶ ἀσύνθετος ἦν. ὃ μὲν ἦν, διέμεινεν· ὃ δὲ οὐκ ἦν, προσέλαβεν. ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ἀναιτίως· τίς γὰρ αἰτία θεοῦ; ἀλλὰ καὶ ὕστερον γέγονε δι’ αἰτίαν ἡ δὲ ἦν τὸ σὲ σωθῆναι τὸν ὑβριστήν, ὃς διὰ τοῦτο περιφρονεῖς θεότητα, ὅτι τὴν σὴν παχύτητα κατεδέξατο) διὰ 2 χαμαιπετὲς] χαμερπὲς bef || 4 εναπομενης c 3. συνανιέναι θ.] ’to move upwards — or perh. to grow up — with ’ The words do not necessarily imply that θεότης ἄνεισι, and there is no ref. to the Ascension. 4. ἐναπομένοις] Ἐναπομένειν is ‘to remain on, to remain to the end, in.’ 5. φύσεως λόγος] ’what is the law of His (true, Divine) Nature.’ 6. οἰκονομίας] of accommodation to our circumstances. The word is very freq. used by the fathers in ref. to the Incarnation: see Suicer s.υ., and Sophocles' Lexicon. 19. He was not always, what He became for our sakes; and He ever retained the nature which was originally His. The words which indicate His self-emptying are always balanced by others which indicate His divine glory. 7. καὶ ὑπὲρ σε] ‘even abpve you.’ 8. ὃ μὲν ἢν, διέμεινεν] Cp. Zeno Ver. Serm. ii de Nat. saluo quod erat, meditatur esse quod non erat. St Austin plays upon the same formula in many of his Christmas sermons. See also Leo Serm. xxi de Nat. Dei § 2. 9. ἀναιτίως] It appears like a contradiction of what Gr. has said in ξξ 3. 15. But the sentences which follow shew that Gr. is thinking here of αἰτία in the sense of a final cause. 10. γέγονε] as in the N.T. = ἐγένετο. 12. διὰ μέ σου νοός] Cp. Or. ii 23 θεὸς σαρκὶ διὰ μέσης ψυχῆς ἀνεκράθη, καὶ συνεδέθη τὰ διεστῶτα τῆ πρὸς ἄμφω τοῦ μεσιτεύοντος οἰκειότητι. In Or. xxxviii, after shewing in § 10 how creatures endowed with mind have an affinity with God which other creatm-es have not, Gr. says in § 13 that the Eternal Word was incarnate διὰ μέσης ψυχῆς νοερᾶς μεσιτευούσης θεότητι καὶ σαρκὸς παχύτητι. We cannot imagine an ’incarnation ’ of the Word in an irrational thing. μέσου νοὸς ὁμιλήσας σαρκί, καὶ γενόμενος ἄνθρωπος, ὁ κάτω θεός· ἐπειδὴ συνανεκράθη θεῷ, καὶ γέγονεν εἷς, τοῦ κρείττονος ἐκνικήσαντος, ἵνα γένωμαι τοσοῦτον θεός, ὅσον ἐκεῖνος ἄνθρωπος. ἐγεννήθη μέν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐγεγέννητο· ἐκ γυναικὸς μέν, ἀλλὰ καὶ παρθένου. τοῦτο ἀνθρώπινον, ἐκεῖνο θεῖον. ἀπάτωρ ἐντεῦθεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀμήτωρ ἐκεῖθεν. ὅλον τοῦτο θεότητος. ἐκυοφορήθη μέν, ἀλλ’ ἐγνώσθη προφήτῃ καὶ αὐτῷ κυοφορουμένῳ, καὶ προσκιρτῶντι τοῦ λόγου, ὃν ἐγένετο. ἐγένετο. ἐσπαργανώθη μέν, ἀλλ’ ἀποσπαρ- γανοῦται τὰ τῆς ταφῆς ἀνιστάμενος. ἐν φάτνῃ μὲν ἀνεκλίθη, ἀλλ’ ὑπ’ ἀγγέλων ἐδοξάσθη, καὶ ὑπ’ ἀστέρος ἐμηνύθη, καὶ ὑπὸ μάγων προσεκυνήθη. πῶς σὺ προσπταίεις τῷ βλεπομένῳ, μὴ σκοπῶν τὸ νοούμενον; ἐφυγαδεύθη μὲν εἰς 19. 2 συνανεκράθη] συνεκράθη b || 4 γεγέννητο c || 9 ἐγίνετο e || 10 ανεκλιθη] ἀνεκλήθη a: ἐτέθη b 1. γενόμενος Ἴ’., ὁ κάτω θεός] ‘was made man, the earthly God.’ Gr. is fond of dwelling upon the intrinsic divinity of man. Cp. Or. xxxviii 7 ἵνα...ὡς οἰκείοις ἤδη προσομιλῇ . . . θεὸς ἑνούμενός τε καὶ γνωριζόμενος. Here, the description of man as ὁ κάτω θεός is prepared for by the words διὰ μέσου νοός. 2. συνανεκράθη θεῶ Cp. iv 2 ἐχρίσθη θεότητι; iv 3 θεῷ πλακῆναι καἰ γεμέσθαι θεὸν ἐκ τῆς μίξεως. The language, if pressed, would imply that Christ was a human person, taken into union with a divine one. This would, of course, be erroneous, and Gr. 's own words immediately before shew that he perfectly understood the Person of our Lord to be divine first, and then by condescension human. Prob. the nom. to συνανεκράθη is strictly supplied from ἄνθρωπος, ὁ κ. θεός, not from ὁ νῦν σοι καταφρονούμενος. The humanity of Christ undoubtedly συνανεκρ. θεῷ. Put the humanity of Christ, impersonal except by virtue of His assumption of it, is not exactly described by the term ἄνθρωπος. The rise of Nestorianism, which was after Gr.'s time, would have suggesed more careful phraseology; and it may be added that a fear of the still later Eutychianism might have made Gr. modify the words συνανεκράθη and τοῦ κρείττονος ἐκνικησαντος. 3. ἵνα γένωμαι] It is perh. somewhat νεανικόν to speak of our becoming Gods ‘to the same extent’ as Christ is man; but doubtless Gr. would explain that he spoke of men in proportion to heir capacity; or perh., in view of what follows, τοσοῦτον means ’as truly.’ He uses the same phrase in Or. xl 45. 4. ἐγεψννητο] ‘He had been begotten before,’ i.e. eternally. 7. ὅλον τοῦτο] both the ἀπάτωρ ἐντ’. and the ἀμήτωρ ἐκ. ib. ἐγνώσθη προφ.] Luke i 41. 9. ἀποσπαργανοῦται τὰ τῆς τ.] Luke xxiv 12, John xx 6 f. 11. ὐπ’ ἀγγ. ἐδοξάσθη] Luke ii 9 f. Αἴγυπτον, ἀλλὰ φυγαδεύει τὰ Αἰγυπτίων. οὐκ εἶχεν εἶδος οὐδὲ κάλλος παρὰ Ἰουδαίοις, ἁλλὰ τῷ Δαβὶδ ὡραῖος ἦν κάλλει παρὰ τοὺς υἱοὺς τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ τοῦ ὄρους ἀστράπτει, καὶ ἡλίου φωτοειδέστερος γίνεται, τὸ μέλλον μυσταγωγῶν.

Ἐβαπτίσθη μὲν ὡς ἄνθρωπος, ἀλλ’ ἁμαρτίας ἔλυσεν ὡς θεός· οὐ καθαρσίων αὐτὸς δεόμενος, ἀλλ’ ἵνα ἁγιάσῃ τὰ ὕδατα. ἐπειράσθη ὡς ἄνθρωπος, ἀλλ’ ἐνίκησεν ὡς θεός· ἀλλὰ θαρρεῖν διακελεύεται, ὡς κόσμον νενικηκώς. ἐπείνησεν, ἀλλ’ ἔθρεψε χιλιάδας, ἀλλ’ ἄρτος ἐστὶ ζωτικὸς καὶ οὐράνιος. ἐδίψησεν, ἀλλ’ ἐβόησεν· Ἐάν τις δίψᾳ, ἐρχέσθω πρός με, καὶ πινέτω• ἀλλὰ καὶ πηγάζειν ὑπέσχετο τοὺς πιστεύοντας. ἐκοπίασεν, ἀλλὰ τῶν κοπιώντων καὶ πεφορτισμένων ἐστὶν ἀνάπαυσις. ἐβαρήθη μὲν ὕπνῳ, ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ πελάγους κουφίζεται, ἁλλ’ ἐπιτιμᾷ πνεύμασιν, ἀλλὰ Πέτρον κουφίζει βαπτιζόμενον. δίδωσι τέλος, ἀλλ’ ἐξ ἰχθύος, ἀλλὰ βασιλεύει τῶν ἀπαιτούντων. Σαμαρείτης ἀκούει καὶ δαιμονῶν, πλὴν σώζει τὸν ἀπὸ Ἰερουσαλὴμ καταβαίνοντα καὶ λῃσταῖς περιπεσόντα, πλὴν ὑπὸ δαι- 1 ἐφυγάδευσε be: φυγαδευσε g 20. 7 om οὐ καθαρσίων αὐτὸς δεομενος ce || 14 ἐβαρήθη] ἐβαρύνθη cef 1. φυγαδεύει τὰ Αἶγ’.] The ref. is to the legend that the idols of Egypt were broken at His entrance into the land; which legend connected itself with such passages as Is. xix 16 f., Jer. xlvi 25. ib. οὐκ εἶχεν εἶδ’.] Is. liii 2. 2. ὡραῖος] Ps. xliv 3 (xlv 2). 3. ἐπὶ τοῦ ὄρους] Matt, xvii 2, Luke ix 29. 4. τὸ μέλλον μυστ] ‘revealing the secret of the future.’ Prob. to the three Apostles, — the future being His own future. 6. ἁμαρτίας ἔλυσεν] Matt, ix 2 etc. It is, of course, not ὡς θεός that our Lord there claims to forgive sins. 7. ἵνα ἁγιάσῃ τὰ ὔ.] Cp. the i first prayer in the Baptismal Office. 9. κόσμον νενικ.] John xvi 33. 10. ἄρτος ἐστι] John vi 51. 11. ἐάν τις διψῶ John vii 37. 12. πηγάζειν] ‘give forth water like a fountain,’ John vii 38. 14. ἀνάπαυσις] Matt, xi 28. 15. ἐπὶ π. κουφίζεται] Matt, xiv 25 f. ib. ἔπιτ’. πνεύμασιν] Matt, viii 26. 16. βαπτιζόμενον] a classical sense of the word. 17. ἐξ ἰχθύος] Matt, xvii 27. id. Σαμαρείτης] John viii 48. 18. τὸν ἀπὸ ‘Ι. καταβ.] Luke χ 30; ‘the Good Samaritan.’ 19. ὑπὸ δαιμ. ἐπιγινώσκεται] Mark i 24, 34 etc. μόνων ἐπιγινώσκεται, καὶ ἀπελαύνει δαίμονας, καὶ λεγεῶνα πνευμάτων βυθίζει, καὶ ὡς ἀστραπὴν ὁρᾷ πίπτοντα τὸν ἀρχηγὸν τῶν δαιμόνων. λιθάζεται, ἀλλ’ οὐχ ἁλίσκεται. προσεύχεται, ἀλλ’ ἐπακούει. δακρύει ἀλλὰ παύει δάκρυον. ἐρωτᾷ ποῦ Λάζαρος, ἄνθρωπος γὰρ ἦν· ἀλλ’ ἐγείρει Θεὸς θεὸς γὰρ ἦν. πωλεῖται, καὶ λίαν εὐώνως, τριάκοντα γὰρ ἀργυρίων, ἁλλ’ ἐξαγοράζει κόσμον, καὶ μεγάλης τιμῆς, τοῦ ἰδίου γὰρ αἵματος. ὡς πρόβατον ἐπὶ σφαγὴν ἄγεται, ἀλλὰ ποιμαίνει τὸν Ἰσραήλ, νῦν δὲ καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην. ὡς ἀμνὸς ἄφωνος, ἁλλὰ λόγος ἐστί, φωνῇ βοῶντος ἐν τῆ ἐρήμῳ καταγγελλόμενος. μεμαλάκισται, τετραυμάτισται, ἀλλὰ θεραπεύει πᾶσαν νόσον, καὶ πᾶσαν μαλακίαν. ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον ἀνάγεται, προσπήγνυται, ἀλλὰ τῷ ξύλῳ τῆς ζωῆς ἀποκαθίστησιν, ἀλλὰ σώζει καὶ λῃστὴν συσταυρούμενον, ἀλλὰ σκοτίζει πᾶν τὸ ὁρώμενον. ὄξος ποτίζεται, χολὴν βρωματίζεται· τίς; ὁ τὸ ὕδωρ εἰς οἶνον μεταβαλών, ὁ τῆς πικρᾶς γεύσεως καταλύτης, ὁ γλυκασμὸς καὶ ὅλος ἐπιθυμία. παραδίδωσι τὴν ψυχήν, ἀλλ’ ἐξουσίαν ἔχει πάλιν λαβεῖν αὐτήν, ἁλλὰ 1 λεγεῶνας df || 5 που] + τέθειται bdfg Ἴ’ 7 κοσμον] ’τον κ. eg ΙΙ 12 μεμαλακισταδ] + καὶ bdefg 1. λεγεῶνα] Mark v 9 etc. 2. ὡς ἀστραπήν] Luke χ 18. 3. λιθάζεται, ἀλλ’ οὐχ ἁ.] John viii 59. 4. ἐπακούει] Matt, viii 3 etc. ib. παύει δάκρυον] Luke vii 13. 5. ἐρωτιᾷ που] John xi 34. Cp. the discussion in Ath. Or. iii c. Ar. ἑ37, 38- See also μ’ Deer. Nic. §14. Ath. decides in favour of supposing that our Lord knew the answer before asking the question; but he admits the possibility of the view adopted by Gr. Ἃν δὲ φιλονεικῶσιν ἔτι διὰ τὸ ἐπερωτᾶν, ἀκουέτωσαν, ἐν μὲν τῆ θεότητι οὐκ ἐστιν ἄγνοια, τῆς δὲ σαρκὸς ἴδιόν ἐστι τὸ ἂγ νοεῖν. 7. ἐξαγοράζει] 1 Cor. vi 20, vii 23; cp. 1 Pet. i 19. 8. πρόβατον] Is. liii 7. 9. ποιμαίνει τ. ’I.] Ps. lxxix 2 (lxxx Ι). ib. νῦν δέ] Ps. ii 9, Rev. xii 5. 10. ἀμνὸς ἄφ’.] Is. liii 7. ib. λόγος κτλ.] John i 1, 23. 12. μεμαλάκισται] Is liii 5. ib. θεραπεύει] Matt, ix 35. 14. τῷ ξύλω τῆς ζ] Rev. xxii 2 Gen. ii 9. 15. λῃστήν] Luke xxiii 43. ib. σκοτίζει] Matt, xxvii 45. 17. τὸ ὕδωρ] John ii 9. ib. τῆς πικρᾶς γ. κατ.] Εx. xv 25. 18. γλυκασμός] Cant. V 16. 19. ἐξουσίαν ἐχ.] John x 18. καταπέτασμα ῥήγνυται, τὰ γὰρ ἄνω παραδείκνυται, ἀλλὰ πέτραι σχίζονται, ἀλλὰ νεκροὶ προεγείρονται. ἀποθνήσκει, ζωοποιεῖ δέ, καὶ καταλύει τῷ θανάτῳ τὸν θάνατον. θά- πτεται, ἀλλ’ ἀνίσταται. εἰς ᾅδου κάτεισιν, ἀλλ’ ἀνάγει ψυχάς, ἀλλ’ εἰς οὐρανοὺς ἄνεισιν, ἀλλ’ ἥξει κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς, καὶ τοὺς τοιούτους βασανίσαι λόγους. εἰ ταῦτα ἐμποιεῖ σοι τῆς πλάνης τὴν ἀφορμήν, ἐκεῖνά σου λύει τὴν πλάνην.