Against Eunomius.

 Contents of Book I.

 Contents of Book II.

 Contents of Book III.

 Contents of Book IV.

 Contents of Book V.

 Contents of Book VI.

 Contents of Book VII.

 Contents of Book VIII.

 Contents of Book IX.

 Contents of Book X.

 Contents of Book XI.

 Contents of Book XII.

 §1. Preface.—It is useless to attempt to benefit those who will not accept help.

 §2. We have been justly provoked to make this Answer, being stung by Eunomius’ accusations of our brother.

 §3. We see nothing remarkable in logical force in the treatise of Eunomius, and so embark on our Answer with a just confidence.

 §4. Eunomius displays much folly and fine writing, but very little seriousness about vital points.

 §5. His peculiar caricature of the bishops, Eustathius of Armenia and Basil of Galatia, is not well drawn.

 §6. A notice of Aetius, Eunomius’ master in heresy, and of Eunomius himself, describing the origin and avocations of each.

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

 §8. Facts show that the terms of abuse which he has employed against Basil are more suitable for himself.

 §9. In charging Basil with not defending his faith at the time of the ‘Trials,’ he lays himself open to the same charge.

 §10. All his insulting epithets are shewn by facts to be false.

 §11. The sophistry which he employs to prove our acknowledgment that he had been tried, and that the confession of his faith had not been unimpeached,

 §12. His charge of cowardice is baseless: for Basil displayed the highest courage before the Emperor and his Lord-Lieutenants.

 §13. Résumé of his dogmatic teaching. Objections to it in detail.

 §14. He did wrong, when mentioning the Doctrines of Salvation, in adopting terms of his own choosing instead of the traditional terms Father, Son, and

 §15. He does wrong in making the being of the Father alone proper and supreme, implying by his omission of the Son and the Spirit that theirs is impro

 §16. Examination of the meaning of ‘subjection:’ in that he says that the nature of the Holy Spirit is subject to that of the Father and the Son. It i

 §17. Discussion as to the exact nature of the ‘energies’ which, this man declares, ‘follow’ the being of the Father and of the Son.

 §18. He has no reason for distinguishing a plurality of beings in the Trinity. He offers no demonstration that it is so.

 §19. His acknowledgment that the Divine Being is ‘single’ is only verbal.

 §20. He does wrong in assuming, to account for the existence of the Only-Begotten, an ‘energy’ that produced Christ’s Person.

 §21. The blasphemy of these heretics is worse than the Jewish unbelief.

 §22. He has no right to assert a greater and less in the Divine being. A systematic statement of the teaching of the Church.

 §23. These doctrines of our Faith witnessed to and confirmed by Scripture passages .

 §24. His elaborate account of degrees and differences in ‘works’ and ‘energies’ within the Trinity is absurd .

 §25. He who asserts that the Father is ‘prior’ to the Son with any thought of an interval must perforce allow that even the Father is not without begi

 §26. It will not do to apply this conception, as drawn out above, of the Father and Son to the Creation, as they insist on doing: but we must contempl

 §27. He falsely imagines that the same energies produce the same works, and that variation in the works indicates variation in the energies.

 §28. He falsely imagines that we can have an unalterable series of harmonious natures existing side by side.

 §29. He vainly thinks that the doubt about the energies is to be solved by the beings, and reversely.

 §30. There is no Word of God that commands such investigations: the uselessness of the philosophy which makes them is thereby proved.

 §31. The observations made by watching Providence are sufficient to give us the knowledge of sameness of Being.

 §32. His dictum that ‘the manner of the likeness must follow the manner of the generation’ is unintelligible.

 §33. He declares falsely that ‘the manner of the generation is to be known from the intrinsic worth of the generator’.

 §34. The Passage where he attacks the ‘ Ομοούσιον , and the contention in answer to it.

 §35. Proof that the Anomœan teaching tends to Manichæism.

 §36. A passing repetition of the teaching of the Church.

 §37. Defence of S. Basil’s statement, attacked by Eunomius, that the terms ‘Father’ and ‘The Ungenerate’ can have the same meaning .

 §38. Several ways of controverting his quibbling syllogisms .

 §39. Answer to the question he is always asking, “Can He who is be begotten?”

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

 §41. The thing that follows is not the same as the thing that it follows.

 §42. Explanation of ‘Ungenerate,’ and a ‘study’ of Eternity.

 Book II

 Book II.

 §2. Gregory then makes an explanation at length touching the eternal Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

 §3. Gregory proceeds to discuss the relative force of the unnameable name of the Holy Trinity and the mutual relation of the Persons, and moreover the

 §4. He next skilfully confutes the partial, empty and blasphemous statement of Eunomius on the subject of the absolutely existent.

 §5. He next marvellously overthrows the unintelligible statements of Eunomius which assert that the essence of the Father is not separated or divided,

 §6. He then shows the unity of the Son with the Father and Eunomius’ lack of understanding and knowledge in the Scriptures.

 §7. Gregory further shows that the Only-Begotten being begotten not only of the Father, but also impassibly of the Virgin by the Holy Ghost, does not

 §8. He further very appositely expounds the meaning of the term “Only-Begotten,” and of the term “First born,” four times used by the Apostle.

 §9. Gregory again discusses the generation of the Only-Begotten, and other different modes of generation, material and immaterial, and nobly demonstra

 §10. He explains the phrase “The Lord created Me,” and the argument about the origination of the Son, the deceptive character of Eunomius’ reasoning,

 §11. After expounding the high estate of the Almighty, the Eternity of the Son, and the phrase “being made obedient,” he shows the folly of Eunomius i

 §12. He thus proceeds to a magnificent discourse of the interpretation of “Mediator,” “Like,” “Ungenerate,” and “generate,” and of “The likeness and s

 §13. He expounds the passage of the Gospel, “The Father judgeth no man,” and further speaks of the assumption of man with body and soul wrought by the

 §14. He proceeds to discuss the views held by Eunomius, and by the Church, touching the Holy Spirit and to show that the Father, the Son, and the Hol

 §15. Lastly he displays at length the folly of Eunomius, who at times speaks of the Holy Spirit as created, and as the fairest work of the Son, and at

 Book III

 Book III.

 §2. He then once more excellently, appropriately, and clearly examines and expounds the passage, “The Lord Created Me.”

 §3. He then shows, from the instance of Adam and Abel, and other examples, the absence of alienation of essence in the case of the “generate” and “ung

 §4. He thus shows the oneness of the Eternal Son with the Father the identity of essence and the community of nature (wherein is a natural inquiry int

 §5. He discusses the incomprehensibility of the Divine essence, and the saying to the woman of Samaria, “Ye worship ye know not what.”

 §6. Thereafter he expounds the appellation of “Son,” and of “product of generation,” and very many varieties of “sons,” of God, of men, of rams, of pe

 §7. Then he ends the book with an exposition of the Divine and Human names of the Only-Begotten, and a discussion of the terms “generate” and “ungener

 Book IV

 Book IV.

 §2. He convicts Eunomius of having used of the Only-begotten terms applicable to the existence of the earth, and thus shows that his intention is to p

 §3. He then again admirably discusses the term πρωτότοκος as it is four times employed by the Apostle.

 §4. He proceeds again to discuss the impassibility of the Lord’s generation and the folly of Eunomius, who says that the generated essence involves t

 §5. He again shows Eunomius, constrained by truth, in the character of an advocate of the orthodox doctrine, confessing as most proper and primary, no

 §6. He then exposes argument about the “Generate,” and the “product of making,” and “product of creation,” and shows the impious nature of the languag

 §7. He then clearly and skilfully criticises the doctrine of the impossibility of comparison with the things made after the Son, and exposes the idola

 §8. He proceeds to show that there is no “variance” in the essence of the Father and the Son: wherein he expounds many forms of variation and harmony,

 §9. Then, distinguishing between essence and generation, he declares the empty and frivolous language of Eunomius to be like a rattle. He proceeds to

 Book V

 Book V.

 §2. He then explains the phrase of S. Peter, “Him God made Lord and Christ.” And herein he sets forth the opposing statement of Eunomius, which he mad

 §3. A remarkable and original reply to these utterances, and a demonstration of the power of the Crucified, and of the fact that this subjection was o

 §4. He shows the falsehood of Eunomius’ calumnious charge that the great Basil had said that “man was emptied to become man,” and demonstrates that th

 §5. Thereafter he shows that there are not two Christs or two Lords, but one Christ and one Lord, and that the Divine nature, after mingling with the

 Book VI

 Book VI.

 §2. Then he again mentions S. Peter’s word, “made,” and the passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews, which says that Jesus was made by God “an Apostle a

 §3. He then gives a notable explanation of the saying of the Lord to Philip, “He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father ” and herein he excellently di

 §4. Then returning to the words of Peter, “God made Him Lord and Christ,” he skilfully explains it by many arguments, and herein shows Eunomius as an

 Book VII

 Book VII.

 §2. He then declares that the close relation between names and things is immutable, and thereafter proceeds accordingly, in the most excellent manner,

 §3. Thereafter he discusses the divergence of names and of things, speaking, of that which is ungenerate as without a cause, and of that which is non-

 §4. He says that all things that are in creation have been named by man, if, as is the case, they are called differently by every nation, as also the

 §5. After much discourse concerning the actually existent, and ungenerate and good, and upon the consubstantiality of the heavenly powers, showing the

 Book VIII

 Book VIII.

 §2. He then discusses the “willing” of the Father concerning the generation of the Son, and shows that the object of that good will is from eternity,

 §3. Then, thus passing over what relates to the essence of the Son as having been already discussed, he treats of the sense involved in “generation,”

 §4. He further shows the operations of God to be expressed by human illustrations for what hands and feet and the other parts of the body with which

 §5. Then, after showing that the Person of the Only-begotten and Maker of things has no beginning, as have the things that were made by Him, as Eunomi

 Book IX

 Book IX.

 §2. He then ingeniously shows that the generation of the Son is not according to the phrase of Eunomius, “The Father begat Him at that time when He ch

 §3. He further shows that the pretemporal generation of the Son is not the subject of influences drawn from ordinary and carnal generation, but is wit

 §4. Then, having shown that Eunomius’ calumny against the great Basil, that he called the Only-begotten “Ungenerate,” is false, and having again with

 Book X

 Book X.

 §2. He then wonderfully displays the Eternal Life, which is Christ, to those who confess Him not, and applies to them the mournful lamentation of Jere

 §3. He then shows the eternity of the Son’s generation, and the inseparable identity of His essence with Him that begat Him, and likens the folly of E

 §4. After this he shows that the Son, who truly is, and is in the bosom of the Father, is simple and uncompounded, and that, He Who redeemed us from b

 Book XI

 Book XI.

 §2. He also ingeniously shows from the passage of the Gospel which speaks of “Good Master,” from the parable of the Vineyard, from Isaiah and from Pau

 §3. He then exposes the ignorance of Eunomius, and the incoherence and absurdity of his arguments, in speaking of the Son as “the Angel of the Existen

 §4. After this, fearing to extend his reply to great length, he passes by most of his adversary’s statements as already refuted. But the remainder, fo

 §5. Eunomius again speaks of the Son as Lord and God, and Maker of all creation intelligible and sensible, having received from the Father the power a

 Book XII

 Book XII.

 §2. Then referring to the blasphemy of Eunomius, which had been refuted by the great Basil, where he banished the Only-begotten God to the realm of da

 §3. He further proceeds notably to interpret the language of the Gospel, “In the beginning was the Word,” and “Life” and “Light,” and “The Word was ma

 §4. He then again charges Eunomius with having learnt his term ἀγεννησία from the hieroglyphic writings, and from the Egyptian mythology and idolatry,

 §5. Then, again discussing the true Light and unapproachable Light of the Father and of the Son, special attributes, community and essence, and showin

§5. He discusses the incomprehensibility of the Divine essence, and the saying to the woman of Samaria, “Ye worship ye know not what.”

Now if any one should ask for some interpretation, and description, and explanation of the Divine essence, we are not going to deny that in this kind of wisdom we are unlearned, acknowledging only so much as this, that it is not possible that that which is by nature infinite should be comprehended in any conception expressed by words. The fact that the Divine greatness has no limit is proclaimed by prophecy, which declares expressly that of His splendour, His glory, His holiness, “there is no end533    Cf. Ps. cxlv. 3:” and if His surroundings have no limit, much more is He Himself in His essence, whatever it may be, comprehended by no limitation in any way. If then interpretation by way of words and names implies by its meaning some sort of comprehension of the subject, and if, on the other hand, that which is unlimited cannot be comprehended, no one could reasonably blame us for ignorance, if we are not bold in respect of what none should venture upon. For by what name can I describe the incomprehensible? by what speech can I declare the unspeakable? Accordingly, since the Deity is too excellent and lofty to be expressed in words, we have learnt to honour in silence what transcends speech and thought: and if he who “thinketh more highly than he ought to think534    Rom. xii. 3.,” tramples upon this cautious speech of ours making a jest of our ignorance of things incomprehensible, and recognizes a difference of unlikeness in that which is without figure, or limit, or size, or quantity (I mean in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit), and brings forward to reproach our ignorance that phrase which is continually alleged by the disciples of deceit, “‘Ye worship ye know not what535    S. John iv. 22,’ if ye know not the essence of that which ye worship,” we shall follow the advice of the prophet, and not fear the reproach of fools536    Cf. Is. li. 7, nor be led by their reviling to talk boldly of things unspeakable, making that unpractised speaker Paul our teacher in the mysteries that transcend knowledge, who is so far from thinking that the Divine nature is within the reach of human perception, that he calls even the judgments of God “unsearchable,” and His ways “past finding out537    Rom. xi. 33.,” and affirms that the things promised to them that love Him, for their good deeds done in this life, are above comprehension so that it is not possible to behold them with the eye, nor to receive them by hearing, nor to contain them in the heart538    Cf. 1 Cor. ii. 9. Learning this, therefore, from Paul, we boldly declare that, not only are the judgments of God too high for those who try to search them out, but that the ways also that lead to the knowledge of Him are even until now untrodden and impassable. For this is what we understand that the Apostle wishes to signify, when he calls the ways that lead to the incomprehensible “past finding out,” showing by the phrase that that knowledge is unattainable by human calculations, and that no one ever yet set his understanding on such a path of reasoning, or showed any trace or sign of an approach, by way of perception, to the things incomprehensible.

Learning these things, then, from the lofty words of the Apostle, we argue, by the passage quoted, in this way:—If His judgments cannot be searched out, and His ways are not traced, and the promise of His good things transcends every representation that our conjectures can frame, by how much more is His actual Godhead higher and loftier, in respect of being unspeakable and unapproachable, than those attributes which are conceived as accompanying it, whereof the divinely instructed Paul declares that there is no knowledge:—and by this means we confirm in ourselves the doctrine they deride, confessing ourselves inferior to them in the knowledge of those things which are beyond the range of knowledge, and declare that we really worship what we know. Now we know the loftiness of the glory of Him Whom we worship, by the very fact that we are not able by reasoning to comprehend in our thoughts the incomparable character of His greatness; and that saying of our Lord to the Samaritan woman, which is brought forward against us by our enemies, might more properly be addressed to them. For the words, “Ye worship ye know not what,” the Lord speaks to the Samaritan woman, prejudiced as she was by corporeal ideas in her opinions concerning God: and to her the phrase well applies, because the Samaritans, thinking that they worship God, and at the same time supposing the Deity to be corporeally settled in place, adore Him in name only, worshipping something else, and not God. For nothing is Divine that is conceived as being circumscribed, but it belongs to the Godhead to be in all places, and to pervade all things, and not to be limited by anything: so that those who fight against Christ find the phrase they adduce against us turned into an accusation of themselves. For, as the Samaritans, supposing the Deity to be compassed round by some circumscription of place, were rebuked by the words they heard, “‘Ye worship ye know not what,’ and your service is profitless to you, for a God that is deemed to be settled in any place is no God,”—so one might well say to the new Samaritans, “In supposing the Deity to be limited by the absence of generation, as it were by some local limit, ‘ye worship ye know not what,’ doing service to Him indeed as God, but not knowing that the infinity of God exceeds all the significance and comprehension that names can furnish.”

Εἰ δέ τις ἀπαιτοίη τῆς θείας οὐσίας ἑρμηνείαν τινὰ καὶ ὑπογραφὴν καὶ ἐξήγησιν, ἀμαθεῖς εἶναι τῆς τοιαύτης σοφίας οὐκ ἀρνησόμεθα, τοσοῦτον ὁμολογοῦντες μόνον, ὅτι οὐκ ἔστι τὸ ἀόριστον κατὰ τὴν φύσιν ἐπινοίᾳ τινὶ ῥημάτων διαληφθῆναι. τὸ γὰρ μὴ ἔχειν ὅρον τὴν θείαν μεγαλωσύνην ἡ προφητεία βοᾷ, διαρρήδην κηρύσσουσα ὅτι τῆς μεγαλοπρεπείας τῆς δόξης τῆς ἁγιωσύνης αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔστι πέρας. εἰ δὲ τὰ περὶ αὐτὸν ἀπεράτωτα, πολὺ μᾶλλον αὐτὸς ἐκεῖνος κατ' οὐσίαν ὅ τι ποτὲ καὶ ἐστὶν οὐδενὶ ὅρῳ κατ' οὐδὲν μέρος διαλαμβάνεται. εἰ οὖν ἡ διὰ τῶν ὀνομάτων τε καὶ ῥημάτων ἑρμηνεία διαλαμβάνει πως τῇ σημασίᾳ τὸ ὑποκείμενον, τὸ δὲ ἀόριστον περιληφθῆναι οὐ δύναται, οὐκ ἄν τις εἰκότως τὴν ἀμαθίαν ἡμῶν αἰτιάσαιτο, μὴ θρασυνομένων κατὰ τῶν ἀτολμήτων. τίνι γὰρ ὀνόματι διαλάβω τὸ ἀπερίληπτον; διὰ ποίας φωνῆς ἐξαγγείλω τὸ ἀνεκφώνητον; ἐπεὶ οὖν κρεῖττόν ἐστι καὶ ὑψηλότερον τῆς ὀνομαστικῆς σημασίας τὸ θεῖον, σιωπῇ τιμᾶν τὰ ὑπὲρ λόγον τε καὶ διάνοιαν μεμαθήκαμεν: κἂν ἐπεμβαίνῃ τῇ εὐλαβείᾳ ταύτῃ τοῦ λόγου ὁ ὑπερφρονῶν παρ' ὃ δεῖ φρονεῖν, ἐν γέλωτι τὴν ἀμαθίαν ἡμῶν τὴν περὶ τῶν ἀκαταλήπτων ποιούμενος, καὶ τοῦ ἀσχηματίστου καὶ ἀορίστου καὶ ἀμεγέθους καὶ ἀπόσου, πατρός τε λέγω καὶ υἱοῦ καὶ πνεύματος ἁγίου, τὴν κατὰ τὸ ἀνόμοιον ἐπιγινώσκῃ παραλλαγὴν καὶ προφέρῃ τοῦτο πρὸς ἔλεγχον τῆς ἀμαθίας ἡμῶν, ὃ συνεχῶς παρὰ τῶν μαθητῶν τῆς ἀπάτης προτείνεται, τὸ Ὑμεῖς προσκυνεῖτε ὃ οὐκ οἴδατε, εἰ τὴν οὐσίαν τοῦ προσκυνουμένου οὐκ οἴδαμεν, οὐ φοβηθησόμεθα κατὰ τὴν συμβουλὴν τοῦ προφήτου τὸν ὀνειδισμὸν τῶν ἀφρόνων οὐδὲ διὰ τὸν φαυλισμὸν αὐτῶν κατὰ τῶν ἀνεκφωνήτων θρασυστομήσομεν, τὸν ἰδιώτην τῷ λόγῳ Παῦλον διδάσκαλον τῶν ὑπὲρ γνῶσιν μυστηρίων ποιούμενοι, ὃς τοσοῦτον ἀπέχει τοῦ τὴν θείαν φύσιν ἐντὸς τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης περινοίας οἴεσθαι, ὡς καὶ τὰ κρίματα τοῦ θεοῦ ἀνεξερεύνητα λέγειν καὶ τὰς ὁδοὺς ἀνεξιχνιάστους καὶ τὰ τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτὸν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐν τῷ βίῳ τῷδε κατορθωθέντων ἐπηγγελμένα ὑπὲρ κατάληψιν εἶναι διϊσχυρίζεσθαι, ὡς μήτε ὀφθαλμῷ λαβεῖν μήτε ἀκοῇ δέξασθαι μήτε καρδίᾳ χωρῆσαι δυνατὸν εἶναι. ταῦτα τοίνυν μαθόντες ἀπὸ τοῦ Παύλου θαρροῦντες ἀποφαινόμεθα, ὅτι οὐ μόνον τὰ κρίματα τοῦ θεοῦ τῆς τῶν ἐρευνᾶν ἐπιχειρούντων δυνάμεώς ἐστιν ὑψηλότερα, ἀλλὰ καὶ αἱ τῆς γνώσεως ὁδοὶ μέχρι τοῦ νῦν ἀτριβεῖς τε καὶ ἀνεπίβατοι μένουσι. τοῦτο γὰρ ἡγούμεθα τὸν ἀπόστολον σημᾶναι βουλόμενον ἀνεξιχνιάστους εἰπεῖν τὰς ὁδοὺς αἳ πρὸς τὸ ἀκατάληπτον φέρουσι, δεικνύντα διὰ τῆς λέξεως ὅτι ἀνεπίβατός ἐστι λογισμοῖς ἀνθρωπίνοις ἡ γνῶσις ἐκείνη, καὶ οὔπω τις ἐπέστησεν ἑαυτοῦ τὴν διάνοιαν τῇ τοιαύτῃ τοῦ λόγου πορείᾳ, οὔτε τι ἴχνος οὔτε σημεῖον καταληπτικῆς ἐφόδου τοῖς ἀλήπτοις ἐνεσημάνατο.
Ταῦτα τοίνυν ἐκ τῆς ἀποστολικῆς μεγαλοφωνίας μαθόντες ἀναλογιζόμεθα διὰ τῶν εἰρημένων ὅτι, εἰ τὰ κρίματα ἐξερευνηθῆναι οὐ δύναται καὶ αἱ ὁδοὶ οὐκ ἐξιχνιάζονται καὶ ἡ τῶν ἀγαθῶν ἐπαγγελία πάσης ὑπέρκειται τῆς ἀπὸ στοχασμῶν εἰκασίας, πόσῳ μᾶλλον τῷ μέτρῳ κατὰ τὸ ἄφραστόν τε καὶ ἀπροσπέλαστον ἀνώτερόν ἐστι καὶ ὑψηλότερον αὐτὸ τὸ θεῖον τῶν περὶ αὐτὸ νοουμένων, ὧν οὐδεμίαν εἶναι γνῶσιν ὁ θεοδίδακτος ἀποφαίνεται Παῦλος: καὶ διὰ τοῦτο βεβαιοῦμεν ἐν ἡμῖν αὐτοῖς τὸ καταχλευαζόμενον δόγμα, ὁμολογοῦντες ἐλάττους εἶναι κατὰ τὴν γνῶσιν τῶν ὑπερβαινόντων τὴν γνῶσιν, καὶ προσκυνεῖν φαμεν ἀληθῶς ὅπερ οἴδαμεν. οἴδαμεν δὲ τὸ ὕψος τῆς δόξης τοῦ προσκυνουμένου, αὐτῷ τῷ μὴ δύνασθαι τοῖς λογισμοῖς καταλαβεῖν ἀναλογιζόμενοι τὸ τοῦ μεγέθους ἀνείκαστον: καὶ τὸ πρὸς τὴν Σαμαρεῖτιν παρὰ τοῦ κυρίου ῥηθέν, καθ' ἡμῶν δὲ παρὰ τῶν ἐχθρῶν προφερόμενον, πρὸς ἐκείνους ἂν μᾶλλον κυρίως λέγοιτο. τὸ γὰρ Ὑμεῖς προσκυνεῖτε ὃ οὐκ οἴδατε φησὶ πρὸς τὴν Σαμαρεῖτιν ὁ κύριος, σωματικαῖς ἐννοίαις ἐν ταῖς περὶ θεοῦ δόξαις προειλημμένην, ἧς καλῶς ὁ λόγος καθάπτεται, ὅτι θεὸν προσκυνεῖν οἱ Σαμαρεῖται νομίζοντες εἶτα σωματικῶς ἐγκαθιδρῦσθαι τόπῳ τὸ θεῖον οἰόμενοι μέχρι τῆς φωνῆς εὐσεβοῦσιν, ἄλλο τι προσκυνοῦντες καὶ οὐ θεόν. οὐδὲν γὰρ ἐν περιγραφῇ νοούμενον θεῖόν ἐστιν: ἀλλ' ἴδιον τῆς θεότητος τὸ πανταχοῦ εἶναι καὶ διὰ πάντων ἥκειν καὶ μηδενὶ περιείργεσθαι, ὥστε περιστρέφεται τοῖς χριστομάχοις εἰς κατηγορίαν αὐτῶν ὁ καθ' ἡμῶν προφερόμενος λόγος. ὡς γὰρ τοπικῇ τινι περιγραφῇ τὸ θεῖον περιέχεσθαι Σαμαρεῖται νομίζοντες ἐπετιμήθησαν δι' ὧν ἤκουσαν ὅτι Προσκυνεῖτε ὃ οὐκ οἴδατε, καὶ ἀνόνητος γίνεται ὑμῖν ἡ λατρεία ἡ πρὸς θεὸν βλέπουσα, θεὸς γὰρ τόπῳ τινὶ καθιδρῦσθαι νομιζόμενος θεὸς οὐκ ἔστιν, _ οὕτως ἂν εἴη κυρίως καὶ πρὸς τοὺς νέους Σαμαρείτας εἰπεῖν ὅτι τῷ ὀνόματι τῆς ἀγεννησίας οἷόν τινι τόπῳ περιειλῆφθαι τὴν θείαν οὐσίαν ὑπονοοῦντες Προσκυνεῖτε ὃ οὐκ οἴδατε, ὡς θεῷ μὲν λατρεύοντες, ἀγνοοῦντες δέ, ὅτι πάσης τῆς ἐξ ὀνομάτων σημασίας καὶ περιλήψεως ὑπερπίπτει τοῦ θεοῦ τὸ ἀόριστον.