§7. Eunomius himself proves that the confession of faith which He made was not impeached.

Let us see for a moment now what kind of truth is dealt with by this man, who in his Introduction complains that it is because of his telling the truth that he is hated by the unbelievers; we may well make the way he handles truth outside doctrine teach us a test to apply to his doctrine itself. “He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much, and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.” Now, when he is beginning to write this “apology for the apology” (that is the new and startling title, as well as subject, of his book) he says that we must look for the cause of this very startling announcement nowhere else but in him who answered that first treatise of his. That book was entitled an Apology; but being given to understand by our master-theologian that an apology can only come from those who have been accused of something, and that if a man writes merely from his own inclination his production is something else than an apology, he does not deny—it would be too manifestly absurd—22    The μὴ is redundant and owing to οὐκ.that an apology requires a preceding accusation; but he declares that his ‘apology’ has cleared him from very serious accusations in the trial which has been instituted against him. How false this is, is manifest from his own words. He complained that “many heavy sufferings were inflicted on him by those who had condemned him”; we may read that in his book.

But how could he have suffered so, if his ‘apology’ cleared him of these charges? If he successfully adopted an apology to escape from these, that pathetic complaint of his is a hypocritical pretence; if on the other hand he really suffered as he says, then, plainly, he suffered because he did not clear himself by an apology; for every apology, to be such, has to secure this end, namely, to prevent the voting power from being misled by any false statements. Surely he will not now attempt to say that at the time of the trial he produced his apology, but not being able to win over the jury lost the case to the prosecution. For he said nothing at the time of the trial ‘about producing his apology;’ nor was it likely that he would, considering that he distinctly states in his book that he refused to have anything to do with those ill-affected and hostile dicasts. “We own,” he says, “that we were condemned by default: there was a packed23    Εἰςφρησάντων. A word used in Aristophanes of ‘letting into court,’ probably a technical word: it is a manifest derivation from εἰσφορεῖν. What the solecism is, is not clear; Gretser thinks that Eunomius meant it for εἰσπηδᾶν panel of evil-disposed persons where a jury ought to have sat.” He is very labored here, and has his attention diverted by his argument, I think, or he would have noticed that he has tacked on a fine solecism to his sentence. He affects to be imposingly Attic with his phrase ‘packed panel;’ but the correct in language use these words, as those familiar with the forensic vocabulary know, quite differently to our new Atticist.

A little further on he adds this; “If he thinks that, because I would have nothing to do with a jury who were really my prosecutors he can argue away my apology, he must be blind to his own simplicity.” When, then, and before whom did our caustic friend make his apology? He had demurred to the jury because they were ‘foes,’ and he did not utter one word about any trial, as he himself insists. See how this strenuous champion of the true, little by little, passes over to the side of the false, and, while honouring truth in phrase, combats it in deed. But it is amusing to see how weak he is even in seconding his own lie. How can one and the same man have ‘cleared himself by an apology in the trial which was instituted against him,’ and then have ‘prudently kept silence because the court was in the hands of the foe?’ Nay, the very language he uses in the preface to his Apology clearly shows that no court at all was opened against him. For he does not address his preface to any definite jury, but to certain unspecified persons who were living then, or who were afterwards to come into the world; and I grant that to such an audience there was need of a very vigorous apology, not indeed in the manner of the one he has actually written, which requires another still to bolster it up, but a broadly intelligible one24    γενικῆς., able to prove this special point, viz., that he was not in the possession of his usual reason when he wrote this, wherein he rings25    συνεκρότει. The word has this meaning in Origen. In Philo (de Vitâ Mosis, p. 476, l. 48, quoted by Viger.), it has another meaning, συνεκρότουν ἄλλος ἄλλον, μὴ ἀποκάμνειν, i.e. ‘cheered.’ the assembly-bell for men who never came, perhaps never existed, and speaks an apology before an imaginary court, and begs an imperceptible jury not to let numbers decide between truth and falsehood, nor to assign the victory to mere quantity. Verily it is becoming that he should make an apology of that sort to jurymen who are yet in the loins of their fathers, and to explain to them how he came to think it right to adopt opinions which contradict universal belief, and to put more faith in his own mistaken fancies than in those who throughout the world glorify Christ’s name.

Let him write, please, another apology in addition to this second; for this one is not a correction of mistakes made about him, but rather a proof of the truth of those charges. Every one knows that a proper apology aims at disproving a charge; thus a man who is accused of theft or murder or any other crime either denies the fact altogether, or transfers the blame to another party, or else, if neither of these is possible, he appeals to the charity or to the compassion of those who are to vote upon his sentence. But in his book he neither denies the charge, nor shifts it on some one else, nor has recourse to an appeal for mercy, nor promises amendment for the future; but he establishes the charge against him by an unusually labored demonstration. This charge, as he himself confesses, really amounted to an indictment for profanity, nor did it leave the nature of this undefined, but proclaimed the particular kind; whereas his apology proves this species of profanity to be a positive duty, and instead of removing the charge strengthens it. Now, if the tenets of our Faith had been left in any obscurity, it might have been less hazardous to attempt novelties; but the teaching of our master-theologian is now firmly fixed in the souls of the faithful; and so it is a question whether the man who shouts out contradictions of that about which all equally have made up their minds is defending himself against the charges made, or is not rather drawing down upon him the anger of his hearers, and making his accusers still more bitter. I incline to think the latter. So that if there are, as our writer tells us, both hearers of his apology and accusers of his attempts upon the Faith, let him tell us, how those accusers can possibly compromise26    καθυφήσουσιν. This is the reading of the Venetian ms. The word bears the same forensic sense as the Latin prævaricari. The common reading is καθυβρίσουσιν the matter now, or what sort of verdict that jury must return, now that his offence has been already proved by his own ‘apology.’

τέως δὲ νῦν ὁ διὰ τὸ ἀληθεύειν μισεῖσθαι παρὰ τῶν ἀπίστων ἐν προοιμίοις αἰτιασάμενος οἵᾳ κέχρηται τῇ ἀληθείᾳ σκοπήσωμεν: οὐδὲ γὰρ ἴσως ἀπὸ καιροῦ καὶ διὰ τῶν ἔξω τοῦ δόγματος λόγων ὅπως ἔχει περὶ τὴν ἀλήθειαν μαθόντας τεκμηρίῳ τούτῳ καὶ πρὸς τὰ δόγματα χρήσασθαι. Ὁ γὰρ πιστός, φησίν, ἐν ἐλαχίστῳ καὶ ἐν πολλῷ πιστός ἐστι, καὶ ὁ ἐν ἐλαχίστῳ ἄδικος καὶ ἐν πολλῷ ἄδικός ἐστι. μέλλων γὰρ τὴν « Ὑπὲρ τῆς ἀπολογίας ἀπολογίαν » συγγράφειν, τὴν καινὴν καὶ παράλογον ταύτην τοῦ λόγου καὶ ἐπιγραφὴν καὶ ὑπόθεσιν, τὴν αἰτίαν λέγει τῆς τοιαύτης παραδοξολογίας οὐχ ἑτέρωθεν ἀλλ' ἐκ τοῦ ἀντειπόντος αὐτῷ πρὸς τὸν πρότερον γεγενῆσθαι λόγον. ἐκείνῳ μὲν γὰρ ἦν τῷ λόγῳ « Ἀπολογία τὸ » ὄνομα: λαβομένου δὲ τοῦ διδασκάλου ἡμῶν, ὡς μόνοις τοῖς κατηγορουμένοις τῆς ἀπολογίας πρεπούσης, εἰ δέ τις ἐφ' ἑαυτοῦ κατ' ἐξουσίαν γεγράφοι, ἄλλο τι καὶ οὐκ ἀπολογίαν εἶναι τὸ συγγραφόμενον, τὸ μὲν μὴ δεῖν ἐπὶ προλαβούσῃ κατηγορίᾳ τὴν ἀπολογίαν ποιεῖσθαι διὰ τὸ περιφανὲς τῆς ἀτοπίας οὐκ ἀντιλέγει, ὡς δὲ κατηγορηθεὶς ἐπὶ τοῖς μεγίστοις πρὸς τὴν ἐπενεχθεῖσαν κρίσιν ἀπολογήσασθαί φησιν. ὅσον δὲ τὸ ψεῦδός ἐστιν ἐν τούτοις, πρόδηλον ἐξ αὐτῶν οἶμαι τῶν εἰρημένων γενήσεσθαι.
« Πολλὰ καὶ δυσβάστακτα πάθη » παρὰ τῶν κατακρινάντων αὐτοῦ γεγενῆσθαι κατῃτιάσατο: καὶ ταῦτα ἔξεστιν ἐξ αὐτῶν τῶν παρ' αὐτοῦ γεγραμμένων μαθεῖν. πῶς οὖν ταῦτα πέπονθεν, εἴπερ ἐπὶ ταῖς αἰτίαις ἀπολελόγηται; εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἐχρήσατο πρὸς ἀποφυγὴν τῶν ἐγκλημάτων τῇ ἀπολογίᾳ, ψευδὴς ἡ τραγῳδία πάντως ἐκείνη καὶ μάτην συμπέπλασται: εἰ δὲ πέπονθεν ἅπερ εἴρηκε, δηλονότι μὴ ἀπολογησάμενος πέπονθε. πάσης γὰρ ἀπολογίας οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ σκοπός, τὸ μὴ ἐᾶσαι παρακρουσθῆναι διὰ συκοφαντίας τοὺς κυρίους τῆς ψήφου: εἰ μὴ ἄρα τοῦτο λέγειν ἐπιχειρήσει, ὅτι τὴν μὲν ἀπολογίαν ἐπὶ τῆς κρίσεως προεβάλετο, προσαγαγέσθαι δὲ τοὺς δικάζειν λαχόντας οὐ δυνηθεὶς τῶν ἀντιδικούντων ἠλαττώθη. ἀλλ' οὐδὲ εἶπεν ἐπὶ τῆς κρίσεως τοιοῦτον οὐδὲν οὐδ' ἐμέλλησε. πῶς γάρ; ὅς γε ὁμολογεῖ διὰ τοῦ συγγράμματός που τοῖς ἐχθροῖς τε καὶ πολεμίοις δικασταῖς χρήσασθαι μὴ ἐθελῆσαι: « ἡμεῖς γάρ », φησίν, « ὅτι σιωπῶντες ἑάλωμεν, ὁμολογοῦμεν, κακούργων καὶ πονηρῶν εἰς τὴν τῶν δικαζόντων χώραν εἰσφρησάντων ». ἔνθα καὶ σφόδρα σφαδάζων, ὡς οἶμαι, καὶ τῷ λογισμῷ πρὸς ἑτέροις ὤν, ἐμπλακέντα τῷ λόγῳ τὸν σολοικισμὸν εὐπαρύφως οὐ κατενόησε, πάνυ σοβαρῶς τῇ λέξει τῶν « εἰσφρησάντων » ὑπαττικίσας: ὡς ἡ χρῆσις ἄλλη μὲν παρὰ τοῖς κατωρθωκόσι τὸν λόγον, ἣν ἴσασιν οἱ τοῖς τοῦ ῥήτορος λόγοις καθομιλήσαντες, ἄλλη δὲ παρὰ τῷ νέῳ ἀττικιστῇ ἐνομίσθη. ἀλλ' οὐδὲν τοῦτο πρὸς τὸν σκοπὸν τὸν ἡμέτερον.
Μικρὸν δὲ προελθὼν καὶ τοῦτο προστίθησιν: « εἰ γὰρ ὅτι μὴ τοῖς κατηγόροις δικασταῖς ἐχρησάμην, διὰ τοῦτο ἀναιρεῖν οἴεται τὴν ἀπολογίαν, λέληθεν αὑτὸν λίαν ὢν ἀκέραιος ». πότε οὖν ὁ δριμὺς καὶ ἐπὶ τίνων ἀπολελόγηται ὁ τοὺς μὲν δικαστὰς διὰ τὴν ἔχθραν παραγραψάμενος, παρὰ δὲ τὴν κρίσιν, ὡς αὐτὸς διαβεβαιοῦται, σιγήσας; ὁρᾶτε τὸν σφοδρὸν τῆς ἀληθείας ἀγωνιστήν, ὡς δι' ὀλίγου μεταβαλλόμενος αὐτομολεῖ πρὸς τὸ ψεῦδος καὶ τῷ ῥήματι τιμῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἐπὶ τῶν ἔργων ἀντικαθίσταται. ἀλλ' ἐκεῖνο χαρίεν, ὅτι καὶ πρὸς αὐτὴν ἀτονεῖ τὴν συνηγορίαν τοῦ ψεύδους. πῶς γὰρ ὁ αὐτὸς καὶ δικαίως πρὸς τὴν ἐπενεχθεῖσαν κρίσιν ἀπολελόγηται καὶ φρονίμως πάλιν διὰ τὸ ἐν ἐχθροῖς εἶναι τὴν κρίσιν ἀπεσιώπησε; καίτοι καὶ δι' αὐτοῦ τοῦ λόγου, ᾧ τὴν « Ἀπολογίαν » ἐπέγραψε, φανερῶς δείκνυται τὸ μηδαμῶς συστῆναι αὐτῷ δικαστήριον. οὐ γὰρ πρὸς δικαστὰς ὡρισμένους τὸ προοίμιον τοῦ λόγου προτείνεται, ἀλλὰ πρός τινας ἀορίστους ἀνθρώπους, τούς τε κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν ἐκεῖνον ὄντας καὶ τοὺς ὕστερον γενησομένους: ἐφ' οἷς ἔγωγε καὶ αὐτὸς συντίθεμαι μεγάλης αὐτῷ δεῖν τῆς ἀπολογίας, οὐ κατὰ τὴν νῦν συγγραφεῖσαν ἑτέρας πάλιν ἀπολογίας εἰς συνηγορίαν προσδεομένην, ἀλλά τινος γεννικῆς τε καὶ ἔμφρονος πεῖσαι τοὺς ἀκούοντας δυναμένης, ὅτι μὴ ἐν τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ λογισμοῖς ἦν ὅτε ταῦτα συνέγραφεν, ὃς δικαστήριον ἑαυτῷ συνεκρότει τῶν μήτε παρόντων, τάχα δὲ μηδὲ γενηθέντων ἀνθρώπων, καὶ τοῖς οὐκ οὖσιν ἀπελογεῖτο καὶ παρῃτεῖτο τοὺς μὴ γεγονότας « μήπω τῷ πλήθει διακρίνειν τῆς ἀληθείας τὸ ψεῦδος, τῇ πλείονι μοίρᾳ τὸ κρεῖττον συνάπτοντας ». πρέπει γὰρ ὄντως πρὸς τοὺς τοιούτους δικαστὰς τοὺς ἔτι ἐν τῇ ὀσφύϊ τῶν πατέρων ὄντας τὴν τοιαύτην ἀπολογίαν προτείνεσθαι καὶ οἴεσθαι δίκαια λέγειν, ὅτι ταῖς πάντων δόξαις μόνος ἀντιβαίνειν ἔγνωκε καὶ τῶν κατὰ πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Χριστοῦ δοξαζόντων ἀξιοπιστοτέραν οἴεται τὴν πεπλανημένην ἑαυτοῦ τῆς ψυχῆς φαντασίαν.
Γραφέτω, εἰ δοκεῖ, καὶ τῆς δευτέρας ἀπολογίας ἀπολογίαν ἄλλην: ἡ γὰρ νῦν οὐ διόρθωσις τῶν ἡμαρτημένων, κατασκευὴ δὲ μᾶλλον τῶν ἐγκλημάτων ἐστί. τίς γὰρ οὐκ οἶδεν ὅτι πᾶσα νόμιμος ἀπολογία πρὸς τὴν τοῦ ἐπενεχθέντος ἐγκλήματος ἀναίρεσιν βλέπει; οἷον ὁ κλοπῆς ἢ φόνου ἤ τινος ἑτέρου πλημμελήματος αἰτίαν ἔχων ἢ ἀρνεῖται καθόλου τὴν πρᾶξιν ἢ εἰς ἕτερον μετατίθησι τοῦ κακοῦ τὴν αἰτίαν ἢ εἰ μηδὲν δύναιτο τούτων, συγγνώμην καὶ ἔλεον αἰτήσει παρὰ τῶν κυρίων τῆς ψήφου. ἐνταῦθα δὲ οὔτε ἄρνησιν ὁ λόγος τῶν ἐπενεχθέντων ἔχει οὔτε τὴν εἰς ἑτέρους μετάστασιν οὔτε καταφεύγει πρὸς ἔλεον οὔτε τὴν πρὸς τὸ μέλλον εὐγνωμοσύνην κατεπαγγέλλεται, ἀλλ' αὐτὸ τὸ κατηγορούμενον ἔγκλημα διὰ φιλοπονωτέρας κατασκευῆς ἰσχυροποιεῖται. τὸ μὲν γὰρ προφερόμενον, καθὼς αὐτὸς οὗτός φησιν, « ἀσεβείας » ἐστὶ « γραφή », οὐκ ἀόριστον αὐτῷ τὴν αἰτίαν ἐπάγουσα, ἀλλ' αὐτὸ προφέρουσα τῆς ἀσεβείας τὸ εἶδος: ἡ δὲ ἀπολογία τὸ δεῖν ἀσεβεῖν κατασκευάζει, οὐκ ἀναιροῦσα τὴν αἰτίαν, ἀλλὰ βεβαιοῦσα τὸ ἔγκλημα. ἀδήλων μὲν γὰρ ὄντων τῶν τῆς εὐσεβείας δογμάτων ἧττον ἴσως ἦν ἐπικίνδυνον τὸ κατατολμᾶν τῆς καινότητος: πάσαις δὲ τῶν εὐσεβούντων ψυχαῖς παγίας τῆς τοῦ ὀρθοῦ λόγου διδασκαλίας ἐνυπαρχούσης ὁ τὰ ἐναντία τοῖς κοινῇ παρὰ πάντων ἐγνωσμένοις βοῶν ἆρα ἀπολογεῖται ὑπὲρ ὧν ἐγκαλεῖται, ἢ μᾶλλον ἐφέλκεται καθ' ἑαυτοῦ τὴν τῶν ἀκουόντων ὀργὴν καὶ πικρότερος ἑαυτοῦ κατήγορος ἵσταται; ἐγὼ μὲν τοῦτό φημι. ὥστε εἴπερ εἰσὶ κατὰ τὸν λόγον τοῦ συγγραφέως ἢ ἀκροαταὶ τῶν ἀπολογηθέντων ἢ κατήγοροι τῶν κατὰ τῆς εὐσεβείας αὐτῷ τολμηθέντων, αὐτὸς εἰπάτω ἢ πῶς οἱ κατήγοροι καθυφήσουσιν ἢ τίνα οἱ δικασταὶ περὶ αὐτοῦ τὴν ψῆφον ἐξοίσουσι, προκατασκευαζομένου διὰ τῆς ἀπολογίας τοῦ πλημμελήματος.