6

but things that are not consubstantial are numbered together; so that you will not escape saying there are three gods according to this argument; but for us there is not even one danger; for we do not say they are consubstantial. You, therefore, have delivered yourself from troubles with a single word, and have won a wicked victory; having done something similar to those who hang themselves for fear of death. For in order not to weary yourself in establishing the monarchy, you have denied divinity, and have betrayed to the enemies the very thing sought. But I, even if I must labor, will not give up that which is worshiped. And here I do not even see what the labor is.

18

Things that are consubstantial, you say, are numbered together; but things not so constituted have a monadic designation. Whence do you have this, and from what dogmatists and mythologers? Or are you ignorant that every number is indicative of the quantity of the subjects, not of the nature of the things? But I am so old-fashioned, or rather unlearned, that I call three things that are so many in number, even if they differ in nature; and one, and one, and one, in other words so many units, even if they are joined in substance, looking not so much to the things, as to the quantity of the things, of which the numbering is made. But since you hold so much to the letter, although you war against the letter, take from there my proofs. There are three things in Proverbs which go well, a lion, and a he-goat, and a cock; and a king speaking publicly among a nation as the fourth; not to mention the other tetrads numbered there, but divided in nature. And for Moses I find two cherubim numbered monadically. How then are those three, according to your technical system, so far sundered from one another in their natures; or these monadic, so akin to each other and composite? For if I should speak of God and mammon as two lords counted as one, being so far from each other, I would perhaps be laughed at even more for the co-enumeration.

19

But to me, he says, those things are said to be numbered together, and of the same substance, to which the names are also suitably applied together; for example, three men, and three gods, not three of these and these. For what is the exchange? This is legislating for names, not speaking the truth. Since for me too Peter, and Paul, and John are not three, nor consubstantial, as long as three Peters, and three Pauls, and as many Johns are not said. For what you have observed for the more general names, this we too will demand for the more specific ones according to your refashioning. Or will you do wrong, not giving what you have received? But what of John, saying in the catholic epistles that there are three that bear witness, the spirit, the water, the blood? Does he seem to you to be speaking nonsense, first because he has dared to number together things not consubstantial, a property you grant to things consubstantial—for who would say these are of one substance?—and second because he did not meet the case suitably, but having put "three" in the masculine, he then brought in the "three things" in the neuter, contrary to your rules and the laws of your grammar? And yet what is the difference between putting "three" and adding "one and one and one," or saying "one and one and one" and calling them not "three" (masc.) but "three things" (neuter)? which you yourself deem unworthy in the case of the Godhead. What of the crab to you, the animal, the instrument, and the star? What of the dog, the terrestrial, the aquatic, and the celestial? Do they not seem to you to be called three crabs and three dogs? Assuredly. Are they therefore on this account also consubstantial? Who of those with sense will say so? Do you see how your argument about co-enumeration has collapsed, refuted by so many examples? For if neither are consubstantial things always numbered together, and things not consubstantial are numbered together, and the joint utterance of names applies to both, what advantage do you have from what you have decreed?

20

But I consider this also, and perhaps not without reason. Are not one and one compounded into two? And are not the two resolved into one and one? Clearly. If then things compounded are consubstantial according to your argument, but things divided are of a different substance, what follows? The same things are both consubstantial and of a different substance. I laugh at your pre-numberings, and your

6

συναριθμεῖται δὲ τὰ μὴ ὁμοούσια· ὥστε ὑμεῖς μὲν οὐ φεύξεσθε τὸ λέγειν τρεῖς θεοὺς κατὰ τὸν λόγον τοῦτον· ἡμῖν δὲ οὐδὲ εἷς κίνδυνος· οὐ γὰρ ὁμοούσια λέγομεν. σὺ μὲν οὖν ἀπήλλαξας σεαυτὸν πραγμάτων μιᾷ φωνῇ, καὶ τὴν κακὴν νίκην νενίκηκας· ὅμοιόν τι ποιήσας τοῖς διὰ θανάτου φόβον ἀπαγχομένοις. ἵνα γὰρ μὴ κάμῃς τῇ μοναρχίᾳ συνιστάμενος, ἠρνήσω θεότητα, καὶ προδέδωκας τοῖς ἐχθροῖς τὸ ζητούμενον. ἐγὼ δὲ κἄν τι δέῃ καμεῖν, οὐ προήσομαι τὸ προσκυνούμενον. ἐνταῦθα δὲ οὐδὲ ὁρῶ τίς ὁ πόνος.

18 Συναριθμεῖται, φής, τὰ ὁμοούσια· τὰ δὲ οὐχ οὕτως ἔχοντα μοναδικὴν ἔχει τὴν δήλωσιν. πόθεν σοι τοῦτο, καὶ παρὰ τίνων δογματιστῶν καὶ μυθολόγων; ἢ ἀγνοεῖς, ὅτι πᾶς ἀριθμὸς τῆς ποσότητος τῶν ὑποκειμένων ἐστὶ δηλωτικός, οὐ τῆς φύσεως τῶν πραγμάτων; ἐγὼ δὲ οὕτως ἀρχαίως ἔχω, μᾶλλον δὲ ἀμαθῶς, ὥστε τρία μὲν ὀνομάζω τὰ τοσαῦτα τῷ ἀριθμῷ, κἂν διέστηκε τὴν φύσιν· ἓν δέ, καὶ ἕν, καὶ ἕν, ἄλλως τὰς τοσαύτας μονάδας, κἂν τῇ οὐσίᾳ συνάπτωνται, οὐ πρὸς τὰ πράγματα μᾶλλον ἀφορῶν, ἢ τὸ πόσον τῶν πραγμάτων, καθ' ὧν ἡ ἀρίθμησις. ἐπεὶ δὲ λίαν περιέχῃ τοῦ γράμματος, καίτοι γε πολεμῶν τῷ γράμματι, ἐκεῖθέν μοι λάβε τὰς ἀποδείξεις. τρία ἐν ταῖς παροιμίαις ἐστίν, ἃ εὐόδως πορεύεται, λέων, καὶ τράγος, καὶ ἀλεκτρυών· καὶ βασιλεὺς δημηγορῶν ἐν ἔθνει τὸ τέταρτον· ἵνα μὴ λέγω τὰς ἄλλας ἐκεῖ τετράδας ἀριθμουμένας, τῇ δὲ φύσει διηρημένας. καὶ δύο τῷ Μωυσεῖ χερουβὶμ εὑρίσκω μοναδικῶς ἀριθμούμενα. πῶς οὖν ἢ ἐκεῖνα τρία, κατὰ τὴν σὴν τεχνολογίαν, τοσοῦτον ἀλλήλων ἀπερρηγμένα ταῖς φύσεσιν· ἢ ταῦτα μοναδικά, τοσοῦτον ἀλλήλοις ὁμοφυῆ καὶ συγκείμενα; εἰ γὰρ λέγοιμι θεὸν καὶ μαμωνᾶν δύο κυρίους εἰς ἓν ἀριθμουμένους, τοσούτῳ μακρὰν ὄντας ἀλλήλων, τάχα ἂν καὶ μᾶλλον γελασθείην τῆς συναριθμήσεως.

19 Ἀλλ' ἐμοί, φησιν, ἐκεῖνα συναριθμούμενα λέγεται, καὶ τῆς αὐτῆς οὐσίας, οἷς συνεκφωνεῖται καταλλήλως καὶ τὰ ὀνόματα· οἷον, ἄνθρωποι τρεῖς, καὶ θεοὶ τρεῖς, οὐχὶ τρία τάδε καὶ τάδε. τίς γὰρ ἡ ἀντίδοσις; τοῦτο νομοθετοῦντός ἐστι τοῖς ὀνόμασιν, οὐκ ἀληθεύοντος. ἐπεὶ κἀμοὶ Πέτρος, καὶ Παῦλος, καὶ Ἰωάννης, οὐ τρεῖς, οὐδὲ ὁμοούσιοι, ἕως ἂν μὴ τρεῖς Πέτροι, καὶ τρεῖς Παῦλοι, καὶ Ἰωάνναι τοσοῦτοι λέγονται. ὃ γὰρ σὺ τετήρηκας ἐπὶ τῶν γενι κωτέρων ὀνομάτων, τοῦτο καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀπαιτήσομεν ἐπὶ τῶν εἰδικω τέρων κατὰ τὴν σὴν ἀνάπλασιν. ἢ ἀδικήσεις, μὴ διδοὺς ὅπερ εἴληφας; τί δὲ ὁ Ἰωάννης, τρεῖς εἶναι τοὺς μαρτυροῦντας λέγων ἐν ταῖς καθολικαῖς, τὸ πνεῦμα, τὸ ὕδωρ, τὸ αἷμα; ἆρά σοι ληρεῖν φαίνεται, πρῶτον μὲν ὅτι τὰ μὴ ὁμοούσια συναριθμῆσαι τετόλ μηκεν, ὃ τοῖς ὁμοουσίοις σὺ δίδως, -τίς γὰρ ἂν εἴποι ταῦτα μιᾶς οὐσίας; -δεύτερον δὲ ὅτι μὴ καταλλήλως ἔχων ἀπήντησεν, ἀλλὰ τὸ τρεῖς ἀρρενικῶς προθείς, τὰ τρία οὐδετέρως ἐπήνεγκε, παρὰ τοὺς σοὺς καὶ τῆς σῆς γραμματικῆς ὅρους καὶ νόμους; καίτοι τί διαφέρει, ἢ τρεῖς προθέντα ἓν καὶ ἓν καὶ ἓν ἐπενεγκεῖν, ἢ ἕνα καὶ ἕνα καὶ ἕνα λέγοντα μὴ τρεῖς ἀλλὰ τρία προσαγορεύειν; ὅπερ αὐτὸς ἀπαξιοῖς ἐπὶ τῆς θεότητος. τί δέ σοι ὁ καρκίνος, τό τε ζῶον, τό τε ὄργανον, ὅ τε ἀστήρ; τί δὲ ὁ κύων, ὅ τε χερσαῖος, καὶ ὁ ἔνυδρος, καὶ ὁ οὐράνιος; οὐ τρεῖς λέγεσθαί σοι δοκοῦσι καρκίνοι καὶ κύνες; πάντως γε. ἆρα οὖν παρὰ τοῦτο καὶ ὁμοούσιοι; τίς φήσει τῶν νοῦν ἐχόντων; ὁρᾷς ὅπως σοι διαπέπτωκεν ὁ περὶ τῆς συναριθμήσεως λόγος, τοσούτοις ἐληλεγμένος; εἰ γὰρ μήτε τὰ ὁμοούσια πάντως συναριθμεῖται, καὶ συναριθμεῖται τὰ μὴ ὁμοούσια, ἥ τε τῶν ὀνο μάτων συνεκφώνησις ἐπ' ἀμφοῖν, τί σοι πλέον ὧν ἐδογμάτισας;

20 Σκοπῶ δὲ κἀκεῖνο, καὶ ἴσως οὐκ ἔξω λόγου. τὸ ἓν καὶ τὸ ἓν οὐκ εἰς δύο συντίθεται; τὰ δύο δὲ οὐκ εἰς ἓν καὶ ἓν ἀναλύεται; δῆλον ὅτι. εἰ οὖν ὁμοούσια μὲν τὰ συντιθέμενα κατὰ τὸν σὸν λόγον, ἑτεροούσια δὲ τὰ τεμνόμενα, τί συμβαίνει; τὰ αὐτὰ ὁμοούσιά τε εἶναι καὶ ἑτεροούσια. γελῶ σου καὶ τὰς προαριθμήσεις, καὶ τὰς