§40. His unsuccessful attempt to be consistent with his own statements after Basil has confuted him.

For notice how bitter he is against one who did detect the rottenness and weakness of his work of mischief; how he revenges himself all he can, and that is only by abuse and vilification: in these, however, he possesses abundant ability. Those who would give elegance of style to a discourse have a way of filling out the places that want rhythm with certain conjunctive particles165    conjunctive particles, σύνδεσμοι. In Aristotle’s Poetics (xx. 6), these are reckoned as one of the 8 ‘parts of speech.’ The term σύνδεσμος is illustrated by the examples μὲν, ἤτοι, δὴ, which leaves no doubt that it includes at all events conjunctions and particles. Its general character is defined in his Rhetoric iii. 12, 4: “It makes many (sentences) one.” Harris (Hermes ii. c. 2), thus defines a conjunction, “A part of speech devoid of signification itself, but so formed as to help signification by making two or more significant sentences to be one significant sentence,” a definition which manifestly comes from Aristotle.   The comparison here seems to be between these constantly recurring particles, themselves ‘devoid of signification,’ in an ‘elegant’ discourse, and the perpetually used epithets, “fools,” &c., which, though utterly meaningless, serve to connect his dislocated paragraphs. The ‘assembly’ (σύναξις, always of the synagogue or the Communion. See Suicer) of his words is brought, it is ironically implied, into some sort of harmony by these means., whereby they introduce more euphony and connexion into the assembly of their phrases; so does Eunomius garnish his work with abusive epithets in most of his passages, as though he wished to make a display of this overflowing power of invective. Again we are ‘fools,’ again we ‘fail in correct reasoning,’ and ‘meddle in the controversy without the preparation which its importance requires,’ and ‘miss the speaker’s meaning.’ Such, and still more than these, are the phrases used of our Master by this decorous orator. But perhaps after all there is good reason in his anger; and this pamphleteer is justly indignant. For why should Basil have stung him by thus exposing the weakness of this teaching of his? Why should he have uncovered to the sight of the simpler brethren the blasphemy veiled beneath his plausible sophistries? Why should he not have let silence cover the unsoundness of this view? Why gibbet the wretched man, when he ought to have pitied him, and kept the veil over the indecency of his argument? He actually finds out and makes a spectacle of one who has somehow got to be admired amongst his private pupils for cleverness and shrewdness! Eunomius had said somewhere in his works that the attribute of being ungenerate “follows” the deity. Our Master remarked upon this phrase of his that a thing which “follows” must be amongst the externals, whereas the actual Being is not one of these, but indicates the very existence of anything, so far as it does exist. Then this gentle yet unconquerable opponent is furious, and pours along a copious stream of invective, because our Master, on hearing that phrase, apprehended the sense of it as well. But what did he do wrong, if he firmly insisted only upon the meaning of your own writings. If indeed he had seized illogically on what was said, all that you say would be true, and we should have to ignore what he did; but seeing that you are blushing at his reproof, why do you not erase the word from your pamphlet, instead of abusing the reprover? ‘Yes, but he did not understand the drift of the argument. Well, how do we do wrong, if being human, we guessed at the meaning from your actual words, having no comprehension of that which was buried in your heart? It is for God to see the inscrutable, and to inspect the characters of that which we have no means of comprehending, and to be cognizant of unlikeness166    A hit at the Anomœans. ‘Your subtle distinctions, in the invisible world of your own mind, between the meanings of “following” are like the unlikenesses which you see between the Three Persons.’ in the invisible world. We can only judge by what we hear.

Ἰδοὺ γὰρ πῶς μνησικακεῖ τῷ τὸ σαθρὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀσθενὲς τῆς κακουργίας φωράσαντι, καὶ ὡς ἀμύνεται αὐτὸν δι' ὧν δύναται: δύναται δὲ διὰ λοιδορίας μόνης καὶ ὕβρεως, καὶ σφόδρα γε αὐτῷ περιττεύει τὸ κτῆμα τῆς τοιαύτης δυνάμεως. καθάπερ γὰρ ἐπὶ τῶν καλλιγραφούντων τὸν λόγον σύνδεσμοί τινες τοῦ ῥυθμοῦ τὸ ἐνδέον παραπληροῦσι, τὸ εὔηχόν τε καὶ ἐναρμόνιον δι' ἑαυτῶν ἐντιθέντες τῇ συντάξει τῆς λέξεως, οὕτω καὶ ἐν τοῖς πλείστοις ὧν λέγει [ἐν] ταῖς λοιδορίαις καταποικίλλει τὴν συγγραφήν, ὥσπερ καλλωπιζόμενος τῇ περιουσίᾳ τῆς τοῦ ὑβρίζειν δυνάμεως. πάλιν γὰρ ἡμεῖς « μάταιοι », πάλιν « τῶν ὀρθῶν λογισμῶν ἁμαρτάνοντες » καὶ « οὐ μετὰ τῆς ἀρκούσης τῇ χρείᾳ παρασκευῆς τοῖς λόγοις ἐπιχειροῦντες » καὶ « τῆς τοῦ λέγοντος διανοίας ἀπολειπόμενοι ». ταῦτα γὰρ πάντα καὶ ἔτι πλείω τούτων παρὰ τοῦ εὐσταθοῦντος στόματος ὁ διδάσκαλος ἡμῶν ὀνομάζεται. καὶ ἴσως οὐκ ἄλογος τῆς ὀργῆς ἡ αἰτία, ἀλλὰ δικαίως ὁ λογογράφος παρώξυνται. τί γὰρ αὐτὸν ἔδει λυπεῖν ἐξελέγχοντα τὴν ἀρρωστίαν τοῦ λόγου, τί δὲ παραγυμνοῦν τε καὶ φανερὸν ποιεῖν τοῖς ἀκεραιοτέροις τὸ βλάσφημον τῇ πιθανότητι τῶν σοφισμάτων συγκαλυπτόμενον; διὰ τί δὲ οὐκ ἐπικαλύπτει τῇ σιωπῇ τὰ σαθρὰ τοῦ δόγματος, ἀλλὰ στηλιτεύει τὸν δείλαιον, δέον ἐλεεῖν καὶ ἐπικαλύπτειν διὰ ἡσυχίας τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην τοῦ λόγου; ὁ δὲ ἐλέγχει καὶ θεατρίζει τὸν ὁπωσοῦν παρὰ τοῖς ἰδίοις μαθηταῖς ἐπὶ σοφίᾳ καὶ ἀγχινοίᾳ τιμώμενον. εἶπέ που τῶν ἑαυτοῦ λόγων ὁ Εὐνόμιος « ἕπεσθαι τῷ θεῷ τὸ ἀγέννητον ». ἐπέστη τῷ ῥήματι ὁ διδάσκαλος ἡμῶν, ὅτι τὸ ἑπόμενον τῶν ἔξωθεν ἐπιθεωρουμένων ἐστίν, ἡ δὲ οὐσία οὐ τῶν ἔξωθέν τινος, ἀλλ' αὐτοῦ τοῦ εἶναι καθὸ ἔστι τὴν σημασίαν ἐνδείκνυται. διὰ τοῦτο ἀγανακτεῖ ὁ ἐπιεικής τε καὶ ἄμαχος καὶ πολύς ἐστιν εὐροῶν τοῖς ὀνείδεσι, διότι ἀκούσας τοῦ ῥηθέντος καὶ τῆς διανοίας ἐπῄσθετο. τί οὖν ἥμαρτεν, εἰ ἐπιστατικῶς τῇ διανοίᾳ τῶν γεγραμμένων ἐπηκολούθησεν; εἰ μὲν γὰρ οὐ κατὰ λόγον τῶν εἰρημένων ἐλάβετο, καλῶς ἔχει σοι τὰ εἰρημένα, καὶ ἡμεῖς « οὐκ » ἀγανακτήσομεν: εἰ δὲ ἐρυθριᾷς πρὸς τὸν ἔλεγχον, τί οὐκ ἐξαλείφεις ἐκ τῶν γεγραμμένων, ἀλλὰ λοιδορεῖς τὸν προφέροντα; ναί, φησίν, ἀλλ' οὐ συνῆκε τοῦ λόγου τὸ βούλημα. τί οὖν ἀδικοῦμεν, εἰ ἄνθρωποι ὄντες ἐκ τῶν εἰρημένων τῆς διανοίας ἐστοχασάμεθα, τῶν ἐν κρυπτῷ τῆς καρδίας οὐδεμίαν κατάληψιν ἔχοντες; θεῷ μὲν γὰρ ὑπάρχει καὶ τὰ ἀθέατα βλέπειν καὶ τῶν μηδενὶ τρόπῳ καταλαμβανομένων τοὺς χαρακτῆρας ἐπισκοπεῖν καὶ τὴν ἀνομοιότητα τῶν ἀοράτων ἐπιγινώσκειν. ἡμεῖς δὲ μόνον δι' ὧν ἀκούομεν κρίνομεν.