10

Those who have read might say, in his work entitled Categories, the discussions about possession and privation, as he says that privations are secondary to possessions. But it would have been enough for us, having shown that he speaks not from the teaching of the Spirit but from the wisdom of the rulers of this age, to utter against him the words of the psalm, that “Transgressors told me idle tales, but not as your law, O Lord;” and having learned that what is said is not from the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ, to be reminded of His voice, that “When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources;” and in this way to cut short for ourselves the many arguments, from this making it clear to all that we have no fellowship with them. For what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? But lest we should seem, for lack of refutations, to take refuge in silence, come, let us discuss these things briefly. Many of the things said about God, O Eunomius, we see expressed in a similar form, such as the incorruptible, the immortal, the invisible. And we posit the term, unbegotten, to be of the same form. If, then, some call such terms privative, the argument is not with us. For we neither know the technicalities of words, nor do we envy those who do. Except, indeed, that wherever the other terms we have enumerated are placed, we will say that the appellation, unbegotten, belongs to the same class. Just as, then, incorruptible signifies that corruption does not belong to God; and invisible, that He transcends 29.533 all comprehension through the eyes; and incorporeal, that His essence is not three-dimensionally extended; and immortal, that dissolution will never befall Him; so we say that unbegotten declares that generation does not belong to Him. If, then, none of these names is privative, neither is that one. But if you grant in their case that they are spoken of by way of privation, but do not concede it in the case of the appellation unbegotten, tell me, of what pre-existing possession does incorruptible indicate the privation? And how is it that unbegotten cannot have the same force? But he uses sophistry concerning this word alone, because from this the starting points of his impiety are derived. But that his artifice may become clear, do this: the arguments which he will rehearse concerning unbegotten, that it is not reasonable to speak of God either according to human conception or by way of privation, transfer these to some other of the terms said of God, and examine them. For you will find them fitting each one precisely. And, if you wish, let us say these things concerning incorruptible, transferring his very wording. And in saying incorruptible, we do not think we ought to honour Him according to a human conception; but to render to Him the most necessary of all debts, the confession of being what He is; but certainly not by way of privation; if indeed privations are privations of things according to nature, and are secondary to possessions. Why is it more fitting to philosophize these things concerning unbegotten than also concerning incorruptible, and in general concerning every term expressed in the same form? But none of the others cooperates with his impiety. Therefore he does not even mention the rest, although there are myriads of things said about God. And it is thus. There is no single name that is sufficient to encompass the whole nature of God, to declare it adequately; but many and various names, each with its own meaning, gather together for us a sufficient conception, though it be altogether dim and very small in relation to the whole. Among the names, then, spoken of God, some are indicative of what belongs to God, and others, the opposite, of what does not belong to Him. For from these two a kind of impression of God is produced in us, both from the denial of what is unsuitable and from the confession of what belongs to Him. For instance, when we name Him incorruptible, we in effect say to ourselves or to our hearers, "Do not suppose God to be subject to corruption;" and when invisible, "Do not suppose Him to be comprehended 29.536 by the sense of sight;" and when immortal, "that never

10

οἱ ἀνεγνωκότες εἴ ποιεν ἂν, ἐν ταῖς ἐπιγραφομέναις αὐτοῦ Κατηγορίαις, οἱ περὶ ἕξεως καὶ στερήσεως λόγοι, δευτέρας εἶναι λέγοντος τῶν ἕξεων τὰς στερήσεις. Ἡμῖν δὲ ἐξήρκει δείξασιν αὐτὸν οὐκ ἐκ τῆς διδασκαλίας τοῦ Πνεύμα τος, ἀλλ' ἐκ τῆς σοφίας τῶν ἀρχόντων τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου λαλοῦντα, τὸ τοῦ ψαλμοῦ πρὸς αὐτὸν ἐπι φθέγξασθαι, ὅτι ∆ιηγήσαντό μοι παράνομοι ἀδολε σχίας, ἀλλ' οὐχ ὡς ὁ νόμος σου, Κύριε· καὶ μα θόντας, ὅτι οὐκ ἐκ τῶν διδαγμάτων τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐστι τὰ λεγόμενα, τῆς αὐτοῦ φωνῆς ὑπομνησθῆναι, ὅτι Ὅταν λαλῇ τὸ ψεῦδος, ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων λαλεῖ· καὶ τούτῳ τῷ τρόπῳ τοὺς πολ λοὺς τῶν λόγων ἑαυτοῖς συντεμεῖν, ἐντεῦθεν πᾶσι καταφανὲς ποιήσαντας, ὅτι οὐδεμία ἡμῖν πρὸς αὐτοὺς κοινωνία. Τίς γὰρ συμφώνησις Χριστῷ πρὸς Βε λίαρ; ἢ τίς μερὶς πιστῷ μετὰ ἀπίστου; Ἵνα δὲ μὴ δόξωμεν δι' ἀπορίαν ἐλέγχων εἰς τὴν σιωπὴν κατα φεύγειν, φέρε, καὶ περὶ τούτων βραχέα διαλεχθῶμεν. Πολλὰ, ὦ Εὐνόμιε, τῶν περὶ Θεοῦ λεγομένων κατὰ τὸν ὅμοιον ὁρῶμεν ἐκφερόμενα τύπον, οἷον ὁ ἄφθαρ τος, ὁ ἀθάνατος, ὁ ἀόρατος. Τοῦ δὲ αὐτοῦ τύπου τι θέμεθα εἶναι καὶ τὸ, ἀγέννητος. Εἰ μὲν οὖν στερη τικά τινες ὀνομάζουσι τὰ τοιαῦτα, οὐ πρὸς ἡμᾶς ὁ λόγος. Οὔτε γὰρ ἴσμεν τεχνολογίας λέξεων, οὔτε τοὺς εἰδότας ζηλοῦμεν. Πλήν γε δὴ ὅτι οὗπερ ἂν τεθῶσιν αἱ λοιπαὶ φωναὶ ἃς ἀπηριθμησάμεθα, τοῦ αὐτοῦ εἶναι φήσομεν καὶ τὴν τοῦ, ἀγεννήτου, προσηγορίαν. Ὡς τοίνυν τὸ ἄφθαρτον τὸ μὴ προσεῖναι τῷ Θεῷ φθο ρὰν σημαίνει· καὶ τὸ ἀόρατον τὸ ὑπερβαίνειν αὐτὸν 29.533 πᾶσαν τὴν διὰ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν κατάληψιν· καὶ τὸ ἀσώ ματον τὸ μὴ ὑπάρχειν αὐτοῦ τριχῆ διαστατὴν τὴν οὐσίαν· καὶ τὸ ἀθάνατον τὸ μηδέποτε διάλυσιν αὐ τῷ προσγενήσεσθαι· οὕτω φαμὲν καὶ τὸ, ἀγέννητον, δηλοῦν τὸ γέννησιν αὐτῷ μὴ προσεῖναι. Εἰ μὲν οὖν μηδὲν τούτων στερητικὸν τῶν ὀνομάτων, οὐδὲ ἐκεῖνο. Εἰ δὲ ἐπ' ἐκείνων δίδως τὸ κατὰ στέρησιν λέγεσθαι, ἐπὶ τῆς τοῦ ἀγεννήτου προσηγορίας οὐ συγχωρεῖς, εἰπὲ, τίνος μὲν ἕξεως προλαβούσης στέ ρησιν ἐμφαίνει τὸ ἄφθαρτον; πῶς δὲ οὐχὶ τὸ ἴσον αὐτῷ δύναται τὸ ἀγέννητον; Ἀλλὰ περὶ μόνην ταύτην τὴν λέξιν κακοτεχνεῖ, διότι ἐντεῦθεν αὐτῷ αἱ ἀφορμαὶ τῆς ἀσεβείας ἤρτηνται. Ἵνα δὲ σαφὲς αὐ τοῦ τὸ τέχνασμα γένηται, οὕτω ποιήσατε· οὓς ἐπὶ τοῦ ἀγεννήτου γυμνάσει λόγους, ὅτι οὔτε κατ' ἐπί νοιαν ἀνθρωπίνην, οὔτε κατὰ στέρησιν εὔλογόν ἐστι περὶ Θεοῦ λέγεσθαι, τούτους μετενεγκόντες ἐπ' ἄλ λου τινὸς τῶν περὶ Θεοῦ λεγομένων, σκοπεῖτε. Εὑ ρήσετε γὰρ ἑκάστῳ ἀκριβῶς ἐφαρμόζοντας. Καὶ, εἰ βούλεσθε, ἐπὶ τοῦ ἀφθάρτου ταῦτα λέγωμεν, αὐτὴν αὐτοῦ τὴν λέξιν μετακομίσαντες. Ἄφθαρτον δὲ λέ γοντες, οὐ κατ' ἐπίνοιαν ἀνθρωπίνην σεμνύνειν οἰό μεθα δεῖν· ἀποτιννύναι δὲ αὐτῷ τὸ πάντων ἀναγ καιότατον ὄφλημα, τὴν τοῦ εἶναι ὅ ἐστιν ὁμολογίαν· ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδὲ κατὰ στέρησιν· εἴ γε τῶν κατὰ φύσιν αἱ στερήσεις εἰσὶ στερήσεις, καὶ τῶν ἕξεων δεύτεραι. Τί μᾶλλον ἐπὶ τοῦ ἀγεννήτου πρέπει ταῦτα φιλοσοφεῖν ἢ καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ ἀφθάρτου, καὶ ὅλως ἐφ' ἑκάστης φωνῆς τῆς κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν τύπον ἐκφερο μένης; Ἀλλ' οὐδὲν τῶν ἄλλων αὐτῷ πρὸς τὴν ἀσέ βειαν συνεργεῖ. ∆ιὸ τῶν λοιπῶν οὐδὲ μέμνηται, καί τοι μυρίων ὄντων τῶν περὶ Θεοῦ λεγομένων. Ἔχει δὲ οὕτως. Ἓν μὲν οὐδέν ἐστιν ὄνομα ὃ πᾶσαν ἐξαρκεῖ τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ φύσιν περιλαβὸν, ἱκα νῶς ἐξαγγεῖλαι· πλείω δὲ καὶ ποικίλα κατ' ἰδίαν ἕκαστον σημασίαν, ἀμυδρὰν μὲν παντελῶς καὶ μι κροτάτην, ὡς πρὸς τὸ ὅλον, ἡμῖν γε μὴν ἐξαρκοῦσαν τὴν ἔννοιαν συναθροίζει. Ἐν τοίνυν τοῖς περὶ Θεοῦ λεγομένοις ὀνόμασι, τὰ μὲν τῶν προσόντων τῷ Θεῷ δηλωτικά ἐστι, τὰ δὲ τὸ ἐναντίον, τῶν μὴ προσόντων. Ἐκ δύο γὰρ τούτων οἱονεὶ χαρακτήρ τις ἡμῖν ἐγγί νεται τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἔκ τε τῆς τῶν ἀπεμφαινόντων ἀρνή σεως καὶ ἐκ τῆς τῶν ὑπαρχόντων ὁμολογίας. Οἷον, ὅταν ἄφθαρτον ὀνομάζωμεν, δυνάμει λέγομεν ἑαυτοῖς ἢ τοῖς ἀκούουσιν, ὅτι Μὴ οἴου φθορᾷ τὸν Θεὸν ὑποκεῖσθαι· καὶ ὅταν ἀόρατον, ὅτι Μὴ ὑπολά βῃς αὐτὸν τῇ διὰ τῶν ὄψεων αἰσθήσει καταλαμβά 29.536 νεσθαι· καὶ ὅταν ἀθάνατον, ὅτι Μήποτε