82

honored by his students for his wisdom and sagacity. Eunomius said somewhere in his own treatises, 'unbegottenness follows God'. Our teacher fastened on this saying, that what 'follows' is something observed from without, whereas substance is not something external, but indicates the significance of being itself, insofar as it is. For this reason this mild and invincible man is indignant and flows with abundant reproaches, because on hearing what was said, he also perceived the meaning. What fault did he commit, then, if he attended carefully to the meaning of what was written? For if he did not grasp the argument of what was said, your words are fine, and we <οὐκ> will not be indignant; but if you blush at the refutation, why do you not erase it from your writings, but instead revile the one who brings it forward? 'Yes,' he says, 'but he did not understand the intention of the argument'. What wrong do we do, then, if being human we conjectured the meaning from what was said, having no apprehension of the things hidden in the heart? For it belongs to God to see even the unseen, and to examine the characteristics of things apprehended in no way, and to recognize the dissimilarity of invisible things. But we judge only by what we hear. It has been said, therefore, 'unbegottenness accompanies God'. From this statement, we supposed that he was saying that unbegottenness is one of those external things that attend upon God. Again, it is said, 'or rather, unbegottenness is itself substance'. We were no longer able to understand the sequence of this, perceiving much that was contradictory and strange in what was signified. For if unbegottenness accompanies God, and unbegottenness is substance, the argument by all means constructs in the same place the notion of two substances; so that God exists in the same way ** as He is believed to have existed once and to exist <εἰσαεὶ>, but has another substance accompanying Him, which they call 'unbegottenness', this being something different from that which it follows, as the teacher says; and if he commands us to understand these things in this way, let him pardon us simple people, who are unable to grasp such subtlety of speculation. But if he rejects this argument and says he does not speak of a double substance concerning God, one known from the Godhead, the other from unbegottenness, let this man who is neither rash nor wicked advise himself not to indulge much in insults in the struggles for the truth, but to explain clearly to us uneducated people how that which follows and that which precedes are not one thing and another thing, but both become one; for even in the arguments he now champions, the absurdity remains in a similar way, and in no way, as he himself says, does 'the addition of those few words' correct the discordance of what has been said. For what teaching can be found in these things, I have not yet been able to perceive. But the very things written by him will be quoted verbatim. 'We said,' he says; 'or rather it is itself unbegotten, not reducing what was shown to follow into its being, but fitting 'Follows' to the appellation, and 'Is' to the substance. When these are put together, the whole statement would be like this, that the name 'unbegotten' follows, since He is Himself unbegotten'. What interpreter, then, shall we provide for these sayings? 'Not reducing', he says, 'what was shown to follow into its being'. But as for 'reducing', perhaps some of the riddle-makers might say it should be understood by him as 'connecting', but as for the rest, how could one discern what is intelligible and consistent? What appeared from the sequence, he says, is not proper to the substance, but to the appellation. But the appellation, O wisest one, what is it? Is it dissonant with the substance, or does it run together with it in meaning? For if the name is alien to the substance, how is the substance characterized by the appellation 'unbegotten'? But if, as you yourself name it, the substance is 'fittingly' encompassed by unbegottenness, how is it divided here? And the name of the substance follows one thing, while the substance itself again follows another. What then is the composition of the whole argument?

82

μαθηταῖς ἐπὶ σοφίᾳ καὶ ἀγχινοίᾳ 1.1.655 τιμώμενον. εἶπέ που τῶν ἑαυτοῦ λόγων ὁ Εὐνόμιος 20ἕπε σθαι τῷ θεῷ τὸ ἀγέννητον20. ἐπέστη τῷ ῥήματι ὁ δι δάσκαλος ἡμῶν, ὅτι τὸ ἑπόμενον τῶν ἔξωθεν ἐπιθεωρου μένων 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 δια νοίας ἐπῄσθετο. τί οὖν ἥμαρτεν, εἰ ἐπιστατικῶς τῇ 1.1.656 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 1.1.657 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. 1.1.658 Εἴρηται τοίνυν 20παρέπεσθαι τῷ θεῷ τὸ ἀγέν νητον20. ἐκ τοῦ λόγου τούτου τῶν ἔξωθέν τι τῷ θεῷ παρακολουθούντων τὴν ἀγεννησίαν αὐτὸν λέγειν ὑπενοή σαμεν. πάλιν εἴρηται 20μᾶλλον δὲ αὐτό ἐστιν οὐσία τὸ ἀγέννητον20. οὐκέτι τούτου συνεῖναι τὴν ἀκολουθίαν ἰσχύσαμεν, πολὺ τὸ ἀπεμφαινόμενον καὶ τὸ ἀλλόκοτον ἐν 1.1.659 τοῖς σημαινομένοις κατανοήσαντες. εἰ γὰρ παρέπεται τῷ θεῷ τὸ ἀγέννητον, τὸ δὲ ἀγέννητον οὐσία ἐστί, δύο τινῶν πάντως οὐσιῶν ἔννοιαν ἐν ταὐτῷ κατασκευάζει ὁ λόγος· ὡς εἶναι μὲν τὸν θεὸν κατὰ ταὐτὸν ** ὡς εἶναί ποτε καὶ εἶναι <εἰσαεὶ> πεπίστευται, ἔχειν δὲ παρεπομένην αὐτῷ οὐσίαν ἄλλην, ἣν 20ἀγεννησίαν20 προσαγορεύουσιν, ἕτερόν τι οὖσαν παρὰ τὸν οὗ ἐστιν ἐπακολούθημα, καθώς φησιν ὁ διδάσκαλος· καὶ εἰ οὕτω ταῦτα κελεύει νοεῖν, συγγνώτω τοῖς ἰδιώταις ἡμῖν, μὴ δυναμένοις τῇ λεπτότητι ταύτῃ τῶν θεωρημάτων ἐφίστασθαι. 1.1.660 Εἰ δὲ ἀποβάλλει τοῦτον τὸν λόγον καὶ οὔ φησι διπλῆν οὐσίαν περὶ τὸν θεὸν λέγειν, τὴν μὲν ἐκ τῆς θεότητος, τὴν δὲ ἐκ τῆς ἀγεννησίας γνωριζομένην, ἑαυτῷ συμβουλευ σάτω ὁ μήτε προπετὴς καὶ ἀπόνηρος μὴ πολὺ νέμειν ταῖς λοιδορίαις ἐν τοῖς ὑπὲρ τῆς ἀληθείας ἀγῶσιν, ἀλλὰ διασα φεῖν τοῖς ἀπαιδεύτοις ἡμῖν, πῶς τὸ ἐπακολουθοῦν καὶ τὸ προηγούμενον οὐκ ἄλλο τι καὶ ἄλλο ἐστίν, ἀλλ' ἓν ἀμφό τερα γίνεται· καὶ γὰρ ἐν οἷς ὑπερμάχεται νῦν τοῦ λόγου, μένει παραπλησίως τὸ ἄτοπον, καὶ οὐδέν, καθὼς αὐτός φησιν, 20ἡ τῶν εὐαριθμήτων ἐκείνων ῥημάτων 1.1.661 προσθήκη20 διορθοῦται τὸ τῶν εἰρημένων ἀσύμφωνον. τίνα γὰρ ἐν τούτοις ἔστιν εὑρεῖν διδασκαλίαν, οὔπω κατιδεῖν ἠδυνήθην. εἰρήσεται δὲ αὐτὰ τὰ γεγραμμένα παρ' αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ λέξεως. 20εἴπομεν20, φησί· 20μᾶλλον δὲ αὐτό ἐστιν ἀγέννητον, οὐκ εἰς τὸ εἶναι συναιροῦντες τὸ δειχθὲν ἀκολουθεῖν, ἀλλὰ τὸ μὲν Ἀκολουθεῖ τῇ προσηγορίᾳ, τὸ δὲ Ἐστὶ τῇ οὐσίᾳ συναρμό ζοντες. ὧν συντεθέντων γένοιτο ἂν πᾶς ὁ λόγος τοιοῦτος, ὅτι ἀκολουθεῖ τὸ ἀγέννητον ὄνομα, ἐπείπερ αὐτό ἐστιν ἀγέννητος20. τίνα τοίνυν ἑρμηνέα τῶν εἰρημένων παραστησόμεθα; 20οὐκ εἰς τὸ εἶναι20, φησί, 1.1.662 20συναιροῦντες τὸ δειχθὲν ἀκολουθεῖν20. ἀλλὰ τὸ μὲν "120συναιροῦντες20"2 ἴσως ἄν τινες τῶν αἰνιγματιστῶν εἴποιεν ἀντὶ τοῦ "1συνάπτοντες"2 αὐτῷ νενοῆσθαι, τῶν δὲ λοιπῶν πῶς ἄν τις ἐπιγνοίη τὸ συνετὸν καὶ ἀκόλουθον; τὸ φανέν, φησίν, ἐκ τῆς ἀκολουθίας οὐ πρὸς τὴν οὐσίαν, ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὴν προσηγορίαν οἰκείως ἔχει. ἡ δὲ προσηγορία, ὦ σοφώτατε, τί; πότερον ἀπᾴδει τῆς οὐσίας ἢ σύνδρομός ἐστι 1.1.663 κατὰ τὴν ἔννοιαν; εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἀνοικείως ἔχει πρὸς τὴν οὐσίαν τὸ ὄνομα, πῶς ὑπὸ τῆς τοῦ ἀγεννήτου προσηγορίας ἡ οὐσία χαρακτηρίζεται; εἰ δὲ 20προσφυῶς20, καθὼς αὐτὸς ὀνομάζεις, ὑπὸ τῆς ἀγεννησίας ἡ οὐσία περιλαμβάνεται, πῶς ἐνταῦθα καταμερίζεται; καὶ τὸ μὲν ὄνομα τῆς οὐσίας ἑτέρῳ ἀκολουθεῖ, αὐτὴ δὲ πάλιν ἡ οὐσία ἑτέρῳ. τίς δὲ ἡ σύνθεσις τοῦ παντὸς λόγου;