I will pass over, then, the abuse with which he has prefaced his discussion of these matters, as when he uses such terms as “alteration of seed,” and “teacher of sowing,” and “illogical censure,” and whatever other aspersions he ventures on with his foul tongue. Let us rather turn to the point which he tries to establish by his calumnious accusation. He promises to convict us of saying that God is not by His nature indestructible. But we hold only such things foreign to His nature as may be added to or subtracted from it. But, in the case of things without which the subject is incapable of being conceived by the mind, how can any one be open to the charge of separating His nature from itself? If, then, the indestructibility which we ascribe to God were adventitious, and did not always belong to Him, or might cease to belong to Him, he might be justified in his calumnious attack. But if it is always the same, and our contention is, that God is always what He is, and that He receives nothing by way of increase or addition of properties, but continues always in whatsoever is conceived and called good, why should we be slanderously accused of not ascribing indestructibility to Him as of His essential nature? But he pretends that he grounds his accusation on the words of Basil which I have already quoted, as though we bestowed indestructibility on God by reference to the ages. Now if our statement were put forward by ourselves, our defence might perhaps seem open to suspicion, as if we now wanted to amend or justify any questionable expressions of ours. But since our statements are taken from the lips of an adversary, what stronger demonstration could we have of their truth than the evidence of our opponents themselves? How is it, then, with the statement which Eunomius lays hold of with a view to our prejudice? When, he says, we turn our thoughts to the ages that are yet to be, we speak of the infinite, and illimitable, and unending, as indestructible. Does Eunomius count such ascription as identical with bestowing? Yet who is such a stranger to existing usage as to be ignorant of the proper meaning of these expressions? For that man bestows who possesses something which another has not, while that man ascribes who designates with a name what another has. How is it, then, that our instructor in truth is not ashamed of his plainly calumnious impeachment? But as those who, from some disease, are bereft of sight, are unseemly in their behaviour before the eyes of the seeing, supposing that what is not seen by themselves is a thing unobserved also by those whose sight is unimpaired, just such is the case of our sharp-sighted and quick-witted opponent, who supposes his hearers to be afflicted with the same blindness to the truth as himself. And who is so foolish as not to compare the words which he calumniously assails with his charge itself, and by reading them side by side to detect the malice of the writer? Our statement ascribes indestructibility; he charges it with bestowing indestructibility. What has this to do with our statement? Every man has a right to be judged by his own deeds, not to be blamed for those of others; and in this present case, while he accuses us, and points his bitterness at us, in truth he is condemning no one but himself. For if it is reprehensible to bestow indestructibility on God, and this is done by no one but himself, is not our slanderer his own accuser, assailing his own statements and not ours? And with regard to the term indestructibility, we assert that as the life which is endless is rightly called indestructible, so that which is without beginning is rightly called ungenerate. And yet Eunomius says that we lend Him the primacy over all created things simply by reference to the ages.

τὴν μὲν οὖν λοιδορίαν, ἣν προοίμιον τῆς τῶν εἰρημένων θεωρίας πεποίηται, πάλιν παρήσομεν, « σπέρματός τινος ὑπαλλαγὴν » καὶ « σπορᾶς καθηγητὴν » καὶ « τὸ τῆς μέμψεως ἀσυλλόγιστον » καὶ ὅσα ἄλλα τῇ ἀκορήτῳ γλώσσῃ κενεμβατῶν διεξέρχεται: ἐφ' ᾧ δὲ διαβάλλειν ἐπιχειρεῖ συκοφαντῶν τὸν λόγον, πρὸς τοῦτο καὶ ἡμεῖς τραπησόμεθα. ἐλέγχειν ἡμᾶς ἐπαγγέλλεται ὡς μὴ φύσει λέγοντας ἄφθαρτον εἶναι τὸ θεῖον. ἡμεῖς δὲ μόνα τῆς φύσεως ἀλλοτριοῦμεν ἐκεῖνα ὅσα ἐπίκτητα γίνεταί τισι καὶ ἀπόκτητα: ὧν δὲ ἄνευ τὸ ὑποκείμενον νοηθῆναι φύσιν οὐκ ἔχει, πῶς ἄν τις ἐν αἰτίᾳ γένοιτο ὡς αὐτὴν ἑαυτῆς διαχωρίζων τὴν φύσιν; εἰ μὲν οὖν ἐπιγεννηματικὴν τῷ θεῷ τὴν ἀφθαρσίαν ὁ ἡμέτερος λόγος ἐπρέσβευεν ὥς ποτε περὶ αὐτὸν μὴ οὖσαν ἢ ὡς οὐκ ἐσομένην ποτέ, καιρὸν ἂν εἶχε ταῦτα ἐπὶ διαβολῇ καθ' ἡμῶν λέγειν. εἰ δὲ ἀεὶ ὡσαύτως ἔχειν καὶ ὃ νῦν ἐστι πάντοτε εἶναι τὸ θεῖον ὁ ἡμέτερος διορίζεται λόγος καὶ οὐδὲν ἐκ παραυξήσεως αὐτῷ τινος καὶ προσθήκης τῶν μὴ προσόντων προσγίνεσθαι, ἀλλ' ἐν παντὶ τῷ κατὰ τὸ ἀγαθὸν νοουμένῳ καὶ λεγομένῳ πάντοτε εἶναι, πῶς μὴ κατὰ φύσιν αὐτῷ προσμαρτυρεῖν τὴν ἀφθαρσίαν διαβαλλόμεθα;
Ἀλλ' ἐκ τῆς ὑπαναγνωσθείσης τῷ διδασκάλῳ ῥήσεως τῆς τοιαύτης τοῦ λόγου διαβολῆς εἰληφέναι τὰς ἀφορμὰς σχηματίζεται, ὡς ἐκ τῆς παραθέσεως τῶν αἰώνων τῷ θεῷ τὴν ἀφθαρσίαν ἡμῶν ποριζόντων. εἰ μὲν οὖν παρ' ἡμῶν τὸ ἡμέτερον ῥητὸν προεφέρετο, ὕποπτος ἂν ἦν ἴσως εἰς ἀπολογίαν ὁ λόγος, ὡς νῦν ἡμῶν ἐπιδιορθουμένων καὶ πρὸς τὸ ἀνεύθυνον μετατιθέντων τὰς ὑπαιτίους φωνάς: ἐπεὶ δὲ παρὰ τοῦ ἐχθροῦ τὰ ἡμέτερα λέγεται, τίς ἂν ἰσχυροτέρα γένοιτο τῆς ἀληθείας ἀπόδειξις αὐτῆς τῆς τῶν ἀντιδικούντων ἡμῖν μαρτυρίας; πῶς τοίνυν ὁ παρ' ἡμῶν ἔχει λόγος ὃν ἐπὶ διαβολῇ προχειρίζεται καθ' ἡμῶν ὁ Εὐνόμιος; ”ὅταν, φησί, τοῖς ἐπερχομένοις αἰῶσι τὸν νοῦν ἐπιβάλωμεν, τὸ ἀόριστον καὶ ἄπειρον καὶ οὐδενὶ τέλει καταληπτὸν προσηγορεύσαμεν ἄφθαρτον.„ ἆρα τῷ πορίσαι τὸ προσαγορεῦσαι ταὐτὸν ὁ Εὐνόμιος οἴεται; καὶ τίς οὕτως ἔξω τοῦ καθεστηκότος ἐστίν, ὡς τὰς ἰδιαζούσας τῶν ῥημάτων τούτων ἀγνοεῖν ἐμφάσεις; πορίζει μὲν γὰρ ὁ τὸ μὴ προσὸν αὐτῷ κτησάμενος, προσαγορεύει δὲ ὁ τὸ ὂν σημαντικῶς ὀνομάζων. πῶς οὖν ἐπὶ τούτοις ὁ τῆς ἀληθείας φροντιστὴς οὐκ αἰσχύνεται ἐν προδήλῳ τῇ συκοφαντίᾳ τὴν διαβολὴν συμπεραίνων; καὶ καθάπερ οἱ ἔκ τινος πάθους μὴ βλέποντες ἐν ὄψεσι τῶν βλεπόντων ἀσχημονοῦσι τὸ παρ' αὐτῶν μὴ ὁρώμενον καὶ παρὰ τῶν ὑγιαινόντων ἀγνοεῖσθαι νομίζοντες, τοιοῦτόν τι πέπονθεν ὁ ὀξυδερκὴς οὗτος καὶ ταχὺς τὴν διάνοιαν τὴν ἰδίαν πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν πήρωσιν καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἀκούουσιν οἴεται. καὶ τίς οὕτως ἠλίθιος ὡς μὴ παραθεῖναι τῇ διαβολῇ τὰ συκοφαντούμενα ῥήματα καὶ ἐκ τῆς ἑκατέρων ἀναγνώσεως τὴν κακουργίαν τοῦ λογογράφου φωρᾶσαι; ὁ ἡμέτερος λόγος προσαγορεύει τὸ ἄφθαρτον, ἐκεῖνος κατηγορεῖ τοῦ τὴν ἀφθαρσίαν πορίζοντος. τί κοινὸν ἔχει τὸ πορίζειν τῷ λέγειν; ἀπὸ τῶν ἰδίων ἕκαστος εὐθύνεσθαι δίκαιος, οὐκ ἐκ τῶν ἀλλοτρίων ὑπέχειν τὰς μέμψεις. νυνὶ δὲ κατηγορεῖ μὲν ἡμῶν καὶ ἡ πικρία πρὸς ἡμᾶς βλέπει, κατακρίνει δὲ οὐδένα κατά γε τὸν ἀληθῆ λόγον ἢ ἑαυτόν. εἰ γὰρ τὸ πορίζειν τῷ θεῷ τὴν ἀφθαρσίαν ὑπαίτιον, τοῦτο δὲ παρ' οὐδενὸς ἄλλου πλὴν παρ' αὐτοῦ λέγεται μόνου, ἄρα αὐτὸς ἑαυτοῦ γίνεται ὁ συκοφάντης κατήγορος, τὸ ἑαυτοῦ διαβάλλων, οὐ τὸ ἡμέτερον. καὶ περὶ τοῦ κατὰ τὴν ἀγεννησίαν ὀνόματος ἡμεῖς μέν φαμεν, ὅτι ὥσπερ τὸ ἀτελεύτητον τῆς ζωῆς ἄφθαρτον, οὕτως τὸ ἄναρχον αὐτῆς ἀγέννητον ὠνομάσθη: οὑτοσὶ δὲ παρὰ τῶν αἰώνων ἡμᾶς λέγει κατὰ πάντων τῶν γεννητῶν προξενεῖν αὐτῷ τὰ πρεσβεῖα.