7

From this point he proceeds to the argument that unbegottenness is the substance of the God of all, so that, once this has been shown, he may have it as an acknowledged fact that the Only-begotten is unlike the Father according to substance. But consider what he says. {EUN.} But when we say unbegotten, we do not think we ought to honor him with a name alone, according to a human conception, but to pay to him, to God, the most necessary of all debts, the confession of what He is. For things that are said according to conception, having their being in names alone and in utterance, are naturally dissolved along with the sounds. {BAS.} He does away with the unbegotten with respect to God being conceived according to conception, 29.521 thinking that from this his attempt will be easy, that unbegottenness is the substance of God; and from this he will demonstrate irrefutably that the only-begotten Son is unlike the Father according to the substance itself. For this reason he attacks the term 'conception', as signifying nothing at all, but possessing its hypostasis in utterance alone; and he pretends it is unworthy of God to dignify him with conceptions. But I, whether the unbegotten is conceivable by conception or not, do not yet assert, until we are taught by the very examination of the argument. But this very thing, what on earth is 'conception', I would gladly ask him; Does this name signify nothing at all, and is it merely a sound falling from the tongue? But such a thing is not conception, but would rather be called madness and nonsense. But if he should grant that conception signifies something, but that this is entirely false and non-existent, as in the myths the fabrications of certain centaurs and chimeras, how does the falsehood signified disappear together with the sound of the tongue, since the voice is certainly poured forth into the air, but the false thoughts remain in the mind? For not even whenever the soul, having been filled with entirely false and empty fabrications, either in fantasies during sleep, or otherwise in the vain movements of the mind, has retained them in memory, and then has chosen to declare them through the voice, did the fantasies also disappear along with the word that was uttered. For it would be worth a great deal to speak falsehoods, if the nature of falsehood were destroyed along with the things spoken; but this is not its nature. It would remain, then, to show how common usage, and in what matters, makes use of 'conception'; and how the divine oracles have admitted its use. We see, then, that in common usage things that by the immediate applications of the mind seem to be simple and single, but by subtle examinations appear complex, and these things being divided into many by the mind, are said to be divisible by conception alone. 29.524 For example, the first encounter says that the body is simple, but reason, coming upon it, shows it to be complex, by conception resolving it into the things of which it is composed, both color, and shape, and solidity, and size, and the rest. Again, things that have absolutely no hypostasis, but are fashioned according to a certain depiction of thought and by fantasy alone, such as all the monstrous things that myth-makers and painters devise for the astonishment of their audience—these too are said by common usage to be conceivable by conception. He, having mentioned none of these, either ignorantly or maliciously, has philosophized to us only about the conception of non-existent things; and not even explaining this according to its nature. For he does not say that conception signifies something, but that this is false; but that the name is entirely meaningless, and has its hypostasis only in its utterance. And yet this name 'conception' is so far from being applied only to vain and unsubstantial fantasies that, after the first thought that arises in us from sensation, the more subtle and more precise subsequent consideration of what has been thought is called 'conception'; whence common usage calls it 'after-thought', though not properly. For example, a simple thought of wheat exists in all, insofar as we recognize it when we see it; but in the precise examination concerning it, both a consideration of more things comes to mind, and different appellations significant of the things thought. The

7

κατασκευὴν ἐντεῦθεν χωρεῖ τοῦ τὴν ἀγεννησίαν οὐσίαν εἶναι τοῦ Θεοῦ τῶν ὅλων, ἵνα, τούτου δειχθέντος, ὁμολογούμενον ἔχῃ τὸ ἀνόμοιον κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν εἶναι τὸν Μονογενῆ τῷ Πατρί. Σκο πεῖτε δὲ ἅ φησιν. {ΕΥΝ.} Ἀγέννητον δὲ λέγοντες, οὐκ ὀνόματι μόνον, κατ' ἐπίνοιαν ἀνθρωπίνην, σεμνύνειν οἰόμεθα δεῖν, ἐκτιννύναι δὲ αὐτῷ τὸ πάντων ἀναγκαιότατον ὄφλημα τῷ Θεῷ τὴν τοῦ εἶναι ὅ ἐστιν ὁμολογίαν. Τὰ γάρ τοι κατ' ἐπίνοιαν λεγόμενα, ἐν ὀνόμασι μόνον καὶ προφορᾷ τὸ εἶναι ἔχοντα, ταῖς φωναῖς συνδιαλύεσθαι πέφυκεν. {ΒΑΣ.} Ἀναιρεῖ τὸ κατ' ἐπίνοιαν θεωρεῖσθαι 29.521 ἐπὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸ ἀγέννητον, ἡγούμενος ἐντεῦθεν ῥᾳ δίαν αὐτῷ τὴν ἐπιχείρησιν ἔσεσθαι τοῦ τὴν ἀγεννη σίαν οὐσίαν εἶναι τοῦ Θεοῦ· ἐκ τούτου δὲ ἀναν τιῤῥήτως δείξειν, ἀνόμοιον εἶναι κατ' αὐτὴν τὴν οὐ σίαν τὸν μονογενῆ Υἱὸν τῷ Πατρί. ∆ιὰ τοῦτο προσ πλέκεται τῷ ῥήματι τῆς ἐπινοίας, ὡς οὐδὲν σημαί νοντι τὸ παράπαν, ἀλλ' ἐν μόνῃ τῇ προφορᾷ τὴν ὑπόστασιν κεκτημένῳ· καὶ ἀνάξιον εἶναι Θεοῦ προσ ποιεῖται ταῖς ἐπινοίαις αὐτὸν ἀποσεμνύνειν. Ἐγὼ δὲ εἰ μὲν ἐπινοίᾳ θεωρητὸν ἢ μὴ τὸ ἀγέννητον, οὔπω διισχυρίζομαι πρὶν ἂν ὑπ' αὐτῆς τοῦ λόγου τῆς ἐξετάσεως διδαχθῶμεν. Αὐτὸ δὲ τοῦτο, τί ποτέ ἐστιν ἡ ἐπίνοια, ἡδέως ἂν αὐτὸν ἐρωτήσαιμι· ἆρ' οὐδὲν παντάπασι σημαίνει τὸ ὄνομα τοῦτο, καὶ ψόφος ἄλλως ἐστὶ διὰ τῆς γλώτ της ἐκπίπτων; Ἀλλὰ τὸ τοιοῦτον οὐχὶ ἐπίνοια, πα ράνοια δ' ἂν μᾶλλον καὶ φλυαρία προσαγορεύοιτο. Εἰ δὲ συγχωροίη σημαίνειν μέν τι τὴν ἐπίνοιαν, ψευ δὲς δὲ τοῦτο παντελῶς καὶ ἀνύπαρκτον, ὡς ἐν ταῖς μυθοποιίαις κενταύρων δή τινων ἀναπλασμοὺς καὶ χιμαίρας, πῶς τὸ σημαινόμενον ψεῦδος τῷ ψόφῳ τῆς γλώττης συναφανίζεται, τῆς μὲν φωνῆς πάντως εἰς ἀέρα προχεομένης, τῶν δὲ ψευδῶν νοημάτων ἐναπομενόντων τῇ διανοίᾳ; Οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐπειδάν ποτε ψευδῶν παντελῶς καὶ διακένων ἀναπλασμῶν, ἢ ἐν ταῖς καθ' ὕπνον φαντασίαις, ἢ ἄλλως ἐν τοῖς ματαίοις τοῦ νοῦ κινήμασιν ἡ ψυχὴ πληρωθεῖσα, παρακατάσχῃ τῇ μνήμῃ, εἶτα διὰ τῆς φωνῆς ἐξαγ γεῖλαι προέληται, ὁμοῦ τῷ προενεχθέντι λόγῳ συν ηφανίσθη καὶ τὰ φαντάσματα. Πολλοῦ γὰρ ἂν ἄξιον ἦν τὰ ψευδῆ λέγειν, εἴπερ ἡ φύσις τοῦ ψεύδους τοῖς λαλουμένοις συνδιεφθείρετο· ἀλλ' οὐκ ἔχον ἐστὶ φύσιν τοῦτό γε. Ὑπόλοιπον δ' ἂν εἴη δεικνύναι, πῶς μὲν ἡ συνήθεια, καὶ ἐπὶ ποίων πραγμάτων τῇ ἐπι νοίᾳ χρῆται· πῶς δὲ τὰ θεῖα λόγια τὴν χρῆσιν αὐτῆς παρεδέξατο. Ὁρῶμεν τοίνυν, ὅτι ἐν μὲν τῇ κοινῇ χρήσει τὰ ταῖς ἀθρόαις ἐπιβολαῖς τοῦ νοῦ ἁπλᾶ δο κοῦντα εἶναι καὶ μοναχὰ, ταῖς δὲ κατὰ λεπτὸν ἐξ ετάσεσι ποικίλα φαινόμενα, καὶ πολλὰ ταῦτα τῷ νῷ διαιρούμενα, ἐπινοίᾳ μόνῃ διαιρετὰ λέγεται. 29.524 Οἷον, τὸ σῶμα ἁπλοῦν μὲν εἶναί φησιν ἡ πρώτη ἔν τευξις, ποικίλον δὲ ὁ λόγος ἐπιὼν δείκνυσι, τῇ ἐπινοίᾳ αὐτὸ εἰς τὰ ἐξ ὧν σύγκειται διαλύων, καὶ χρῶμα, καὶ σχῆμα, καὶ ἀντιτυπίαν, καὶ μέγεθος, καὶ τὰ λοιπά. Πάλιν τὰ ἀνυπόστατα μὲν παντελῶς, κατὰ δὲ ἀναζωγράφησίν τινα τῆς ἐννοίας καὶ φαντασίαν μό νην ἀνατυπούμενα, ὡς ὅσα οἱ μυθοποιοὶ καὶ ζωγρά φοι πρὸς τὴν τῶν ἐντυγχανόντων ἔκπληξιν τερατεύον ται κατ' ἐπίνοιαν καὶ ταῦτα θεωρητὰ ὑπὸ τῆς συν ηθείας λέγεται. Ὧν οὐδενὸς ἐπιμνησθεὶς οὗτος, ἢ ἀμα θῶς ἢ κακούργως, περὶ τῆς τῶν ἀνυπάρκτων ἐπι νοίας μόνης ἡμῖν ἐφιλοσόφησε· καὶ οὐδὲ ταύτην ὡς ἔχει φύσεως ἐξηγούμενος. Οὐ γὰρ σημαίνειν μέν τι τὴν ἐπίνοιαν, ψευδὲς δὲ τοῦτο, φησίν· ἀλλὰ παντε λῶς ἄσημον εἶναι τὸ ὄνομα, καὶ ἐν μόνῃ τῇ ἐκφωνήσει τὴν ὑπόστασιν ἔχειν. Καίτοι τοσοῦτον ἀπέχει τοῦ κατὰ τῶν ματαίων μόνων καὶ ἀνυποστάτων φαντασιῶν τὸ ὄνομα τοῦτο τῆς ἐπινοίας κεῖσθαι, ὥστε μετὰ τὸ πρῶτον ἡμῖν ἀπὸ τῆς αἰσθήσεως ἐγγινόμενον νόημα τὴν λεπτοτέραν καὶ ἀκριβεστέραν τοῦ νοηθέντος ἐπεν θύμησιν ἐπίνοιαν ὀνομάζεσθαι· ὅθεν ἡ συνήθεια καλεῖ ἐπιλογισμὸν, εἰ καὶ μὴ οἰκείως. Οἷον τοῦ σίτου νόημα μὲν ἁπλοῦν ἐνυπάρχει πᾶσι, καθὸ φα νέντα γνωρίζομεν· ἐν δὲ τῇ ἀκριβεῖ περὶ αὐτοῦ ἐξ ετάσει, θεωρία τε πλειόνων προσέρχεται, καὶ προσηγορίαι διάφοροι τῶν νοηθέντων σημαντικαί. Τὸν