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.