Such are the clever discoveries of Eunomius against the truth. For what need is there to go through all his argument with trifling prolixity? For in every instance you may see an attempt to establish the same futility. For instance, by an implication such as that above, what is true and what is just will be found opposed to each other; for there is a difference in meaning between truth and justice. So that by a parity of reasoning Eunomius will say about these also, that truth is not injustice, and that justice is absent from truth; and it will happen that, when in respect of God we think of His being alien to injustice, the Divine Being will be shown to be at once just and untrue, while if we regard His being alien to untruth, we prove Him to be at once true and unjust. So, too, of His being invisible and formless. For according to a wise reasoning similar to that which we have adduced, it will not be permissible to say either that the invisible exists in that which is formless, or to say that that which is formless exists in that which is invisible; but he will comprise form in that which is invisible, and so again, conversely, he will prove that that which is formless is visible, using the same language in respect of these as he devised in respect to that which is imperishable and unbeginning, to the effect that when we regard the incomposite nature of the Divine Life, we confess that it is formless, yet not invisible; and that when we reflect that we cannot see God with our bodily eyes, while thus admitting His invisibility, we cannot admit His being formless. Now if these instances seem ridiculous and foolish, much more will every sensible man condemn the absurdity of the statements, starting from which his argument has logically brought him to such a pitch of absurdity. Yet he carps at the Master’s words, as wrong in seeing that which is imperishable in that which is unending, and that which is unending in that which is imperishable. Well, then, let us also have our sport, in a manner something like this cleverness of Eunomius. Let us examine his opinion about these two names aforesaid, and see what it is.

ταῦτα τοῦ Εὐνομίου τὰ σοφὰ κατὰ τῆς ἀληθείας εὑρήματα. τί γὰρ δεῖ πᾶσιν ἐπεξιόντα παρατείνειν ἐν ἀδολεσχίᾳ τὸν λόγον; ἔστι γὰρ ὁμοίως ἐπὶ πάντων τὴν ἀλογίαν ταύτην κατασκευαζομένην θεάσασθαι. καὶ γὰρ καὶ τὸ ἀληθινὸν καὶ τὸ δίκαιον ὁμοίως ἀλλήλοις κατὰ τὴν προλαβοῦσαν πλοκὴν μαχεσθήσεται: ἄλλο γὰρ τῆς ἀληθείας καὶ ἕτερον τοῦ δικαίου τὸ σημαινόμενον. ὥστε εἰπεῖν ἂν ἐκ τοῦ ἀκολούθου καὶ περὶ τούτων Εὐνόμιον τῷ μὲν δικαίῳ τὸ ἀληθὲς μὴ παρεῖναι, τῇ δὲ ἀληθείᾳ λείπειν τὸ δίκαιον, καὶ συμβαίνειν ὅταν τὸ τῆς ἀδικίας ἀλλότριον ἐπὶ θεοῦ τις λογίζηται, δίκαιόν τε καὶ ψευδὲς εἶναι τὸ θεῖον κατὰ ταὐτὸν ἀποφαίνεσθαι, ἐὰν δὲ τὴν πρὸς τὸ ψεῦδος αὐτοῦ ἀλλοτρίωσιν λογιζώμεθα, ἀληθὲς ἅμα καὶ ἄδικον κατασκευάζειν τὸ θεῖον. οὕτως τὸ ἀόρατον, οὕτως τὸ ἀσχημάτιστον. ἐξέσται γὰρ διὰ τῶν * κατὰ τὴν ὁμοιότροπον τοῖς προεκτεθεῖσι σοφίαν μήτε ἐν τῷ ἀσχηματίστῳ τὸ ἀόρατον εἶναι λέγειν μήτε ἐν τῷ ἀοράτῳ τὸ ἀσχημάτιστον, ἀλλὰ τῷ μὲν ἀοράτῳ συμπλέξει τὸ σχῆμα, ὁρατὸν δὲ διὰ τῆς ἀναστροφῆς κατασκευάσει τὸ ἀσχημάτιστον, τὰ αὐτὰ ἐπὶ τούτων εἰπών, ἃ περὶ τοῦ ἀφθάρτου τε καὶ ἀνάρχου ἐτεχνολόγησεν, ὅτι ὅταν τὸ ἀσύνθετον τῆς θείας ζωῆς λογιζώμεθα, ἀσχημάτιστον μὲν αὐτὴν ὁμολογοῦμεν, οὐ μὴν καὶ ἀόρατον, καὶ ὅταν τὸ μὴ δύνασθαι σωματικοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς τὸν θεὸν ἰδεῖν ἐννοήσωμεν, τὸ ἀόρατον αὐτῷ συγχωρήσαντες τὸ ἔξω σχήματος εἶναι οὐ συνθησόμεθα. εἰ δὲ ταῦτα καταγέλαστα πᾶσιν ὁμοίως δοκεῖ καὶ ἀνόητα, πολὺ μᾶλλον ἐκείνων τὴν ἀτοπίαν ὁ νοῦν ἔχων καταψηφίσεται, ὅθεν ὁρμηθεὶς ὁ λόγος ἐπὶ ταῦτα δι' ἀκολούθου τὴν ἀτοπίαν προήγαγεν.
Ἀλλ' ἐπιλαμβάνεται τῆς τοῦ διδασκάλου φωνῆς, ὡς οὐ δεόντως ἐν τῷ ἀτελευτήτῳ θεωρούσης τὸ ἄφθαρτον καὶ ἐν τῷ ἀφθάρτῳ νοούσης τὸ ἀτελεύτητον. οὐκοῦν τι παραπλήσιον τῇ ἀγχινοίᾳ τοῦ Εὐνομίου καὶ ἡμεῖς γελοιάσωμεν. ἐξετάσωμεν γὰρ τὴν τοιαύτην αὐτοῦ γνώμην περὶ τῶν ὀνομάτων τούτων, ἥτις ἐστίν.