104

is wanting; but so that we might have some comprehension of the things piously conceived concerning him, we have fashioned the differences of our thoughts with certain words and syllables, inscribing, as it were, certain signs and characters through the impressions of speech upon the movements of our mind, so that the declaration of the movements arising in the soul might be made clear and unconfused through sounds fitted to the thoughts. 2.1.169 What, then, refutes our argument, according to which we say that the name of 20unbegottenness20 was conceived to indicate that God subsists without beginning, by saying that God, both of those who speak and of those who are silent and of those who think and before the conception of things that have come to be, was and is unbegotten? For if someone were arguing that He was not unbegotten before the name was discovered by us, he would be pardonable for writing those things in the face of such an absurdity. 2.1.170 But if it is agreed by all that He pre-existed both speech and thought, and the giving of the name, by which the mind is declared, is said to have been discovered by us through conception, and the purpose of his battle against us is to show that the name was not conceived by men, but existed even before our own existence, I do not know what his saying that God subsists unbegottenly before all beings, and his striving to affirm that the conception is subsequent to God, has in common with his proposed endeavor. 2.1.171 For does anyone declare God to be a conception, that he should contend against him with such arguments and say what he has said, that 20it is the mark of madmen to consider the conception to be older than those who conceive it20, and in addition to these things all that he goes on to relate; 20Just as, then, it is not the mark of sane men to place human beings, although they are the last of God’s creations, before their own conception.20 For the argument would <ἂν> truly have great force, if anyone out of madness or insanity had declared God to be a conception. 2.1.172 But if this argument neither exists nor has ever been made (for who would be driven to such a point of derangement as to say that He who truly is and who brought all other existing things into being, does not exist in his own hypostasis, but to declare him a conception of a name?), why does he shadow-box in vain, fighting against positions that have not been put forward? 2.1.173 Or is the cause of this unintelligible contentiousness perfectly clear, that being ashamed of those who were deceived by the sophism concerning unbegottenness, since the name was proved to be completely separate from the signification of essence, he willingly creates confusion in what is being said, shifting the battle from the name to the realities, so that the uninformed might easily be misled by such confusion, thinking either that God was said by us to be a conception, or subsequent to the invention of human names, and for this reason, having left our argument unrefuted, he shifts the battle to other matters? 2.1.174 For our position was, as has been said, that the name of 20unbegottenness20 does not indicate the nature, but is applied to the nature by conception, through which it is signified that He subsists without a cause. But what was argued by them was that the term is indicative of the essence itself. Where, then, has it been established that the name has such a power? 2.1.175 But these things have surely been stored up somewhere for other discussions, while his entire effort has been occupied with God subsisting unbegottenly; just as if someone were to ask him clearly about these things, what thought he had concerning the name of unbegottenness, whether it is conceived for the purpose of indicating that the first cause exists without beginning or as being declarative of the essence itself, and he replied very solemnly and authoritatively that he does not doubt that God is the creator of heaven and earth. 2.1.176 As, therefore, this argument is discordant with what was proposed and is not connected to it, in the same way you might find in the beautifully written attack by him against us its irrelevance to the purpose. Let us examine it in this way. 2.1.177 They say God is unbegotten

104

ἐπιδέεται· ἀλλ' ὅπως ἡμεῖς τινα τῶν εὐσε βῶς περὶ αὐτὸν νοουμένων κατάληψιν σχοίημεν, ῥήμασί τισι καὶ συλλαβαῖς τὰς τῶν νοημάτων διαφορὰς ἐτυπώσαμεν, οἷόν τινα σήμαντρα καὶ χαρακτῆρας τὰς διὰ τοῦ λόγου τυπώσεις τοῖς τῆς διανοίας κινήμασιν ἐπιγράψαντες, ὥστε τῶν ἐγγινομένων τῇ ψυχῇ κινημάτων τρανὴν καὶ ἀσύγχυτον ποιεῖσθαι τὴν δήλωσιν διὰ τῶν ἐφηρμοσμένων τοῖς νοήμασι 2.1.169 φθόγγων. τί τοίνυν ἐλέγχει τὸν ἡμέτερον λόγον, καθ' ὅν φαμεν ἐπινενοῆσθαι τὸ τῆς 20ἀγεννησίας20 ὄνομα πρὸς ἔν δειξιν τοῦ ἀνάρχως τὸν θεὸν ὑφεστάναι, τῷ λέγειν ὅτι ὁ θεὸς καὶ λαλούντων καὶ σιωπώντων καὶ διανοουμένων καὶ πρὸ τῆς τῶν γενομένων ἐπινοίας ἦν τε καὶ ἔστιν ἀγέν νητος; εἰ μὲν γάρ τις ἦν ὁ κατασκευάζων μὴ πρότερον αὐτὸν ἀγέννητον εἶναι πρὶν ἢ παρ' ἡμῶν ἐξευρεθῆναι τὸ ὄνομα, συγγνωστὸς ἂν ἦν πρὸς τὴν τοιαύτην ἀτοπίαν ἐκεῖνα 2.1.170 γράφων. εἰ δὲ τὸ προϋφεστάναι καὶ λόγου καὶ διανοίας αὐτὸν παρὰ πάντων ὁμολογεῖται, ἡ δὲ τοῦ ὀνόματος θέσις, καθ' ἣν ὁ νοῦς ἐξαγγέλλεται, δι' ἐπινοίας παρ' ἡμῶν ἐξευ ρῆσθαι λέγεται, ὁ δὲ σκοπὸς αὐτῷ τῆς πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἐστι μάχης τὸ δεῖξαι μὴ παρὰ ἀνθρώπων ἐπινενοῆσθαι τὸ ὄνομα, ἀλλ' εἶναι τοῦτο καὶ πρὸ τῆς ἡμετέρας συστάσεως, οὐκ οἶδα περὶ τίνος λεγόμενον τί κοινὸν ἔχει πρὸς τὴν προκει μένην αὐτῷ σπουδὴν τὸ πρὸ τῶν ὄντων ὑφεστάναι τὸν θεὸν ἀγεννήτως λέγειν καὶ τὸ διαβεβαιοῦσθαι μεταγενεστέραν 2.1.171 εἶναι διαγωνίζεσθαι τοῦ θεοῦ τὴν ἐπίνοιαν. μὴ γὰρ ἐπί νοιάν τις εἶναι τὸν θεὸν ἀποφαίνεται, ὥστε τοῖς τοιούτοις πρὸς αὐτὸν τῶν λόγων διαγωνίζεσθαι καὶ λέγειν ἃ εἴρηκεν, ὅτι 20μαινομένων ἐστὶ τὸ πρεσβυτέραν τῶν ἐπι νοούντων ἡγεῖσθαι τὴν ἐπίνοιαν20, καὶ ἔτι πρὸς τούτοις ὅσα ὑποβὰς διεξέρχεται· 20ὥσπερ οὖν οὐδὲ ἐκεῖνο φρονούντων, τὸ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, καί περ ὅντας ὑστάτους τῶν τοῦ θεοῦ δημιουργη μάτων, προτάττειν τῆς σφῶν αὐτῶν ἐπινοίας.20 μεγάλην γὰρ <ἂν> τῷ ὄντι τὴν ἰσχὺν ὁ λόγος εἶχεν, εἴπερ τις ἐκ μανίας ἢ παραφροσύνης ἐπίνοιαν εἶναι τὸν θεὸν ἀπε 2.1.172 φαίνετο. εἰ δὲ οὗτος μὲν ὁ λόγος οὔτε ἔστιν οὔτε μὴν γεγένηται (τίς γὰρ ἂν εἰς τοῦτο παραπληξίας ἐλάσειεν, ὥστε τὸν ὄντως ὄντα καὶ τὰ ἄλλα πάντα ὅσα ἔστιν εἰς γένεσιν ἀγαγόντα, τοῦτον μὴ καθ' ὑπόστασιν ἰδίαν εἶναι λέγειν, ἀλλ' ἐπίνοιαν ὀνόματος αὐτὸν ἀποφαίνεσθαι;) τί μάτην σκια 2.1.173 μαχεῖ τοῖς οὐ τεθεῖσι μαχόμενος; ἢ πρόδηλος ἡ αἰτία τῆς ἀδιανοήτου ταύτης φιλονεικίας, ὅτι τοὺς ἐξαπατηθέντας διὰ τοῦ κατὰ τὴν ἀγεννησίαν σοφίσματος αἰσχυνόμενος, ἐπειδὴ διηλέγχθη πάμπολυ τῆς κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν σημασίας κεχω ρισμένον τὸ ὄνομα, ἑκὼν ποιεῖται τῶν λεγομένων τὴν σύγχυσιν, ἀπὸ τοῦ ὀνόματος ἐπὶ τὰ πράγματα μεταβιβάζων τὴν μάχην, ὡς τοὺς ἀνεπιστάτους εὐκόλως διὰ τῆς τοιαύτης παρα κρουσθῆναι συγχύσεως, νομίζοντας ἢ ἐπίνοιαν τὸν θεὸν παρ' ἡμῶν εἰρῆσθαι ἢ τῆς τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων ὀνομάτων εὑρέσεως δεύτερον, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο καταλιπὼν ἀνέλεγκτον τὸ ἡμέτερον 2.1.174 πρὸς ἕτερα μεταφέρει τὴν μάχην; τὸ γὰρ παρ' ἡμῶν ἦν, 2.1.174 καθὼς εἴρηται, τὸ τῆς 20ἀγεννησίας20 ὄνομα μὴ τὴν φύσιν ἐνδείκνυσθαι, ἀλλ' ἐξ ἐπινοίας ἐφαρμόζειν τῇ φύσει, δι' ἧς τὸ ἄνευ αἰτίας αὐτὸν ὑφεστάναι σημαίνεται. τὸ δὲ παρ' αὐτῶν κατασκευαζόμενον ἦν αὐτῆς εἶναι τῆς οὐσίας ἐν δεικτικὴν τὴν φωνήν. ποῦ τοίνυν κατεσκευάσθη τὸ οὕτως 2.1.175 ἔχειν τὴν τοῦ ὀνόματος δύναμιν; ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν ἑτέροις που πάντως τεταμίευται λόγοις, ὁ δὲ πᾶς αὐτῷ πόνος εἰς τὸ ὑφεστάναι τὸν θεὸν ἀγεννήτως ἠσχόληται· ὅμοιον ὥσπερ ἂν εἴ τις σαφῶς αὐτὸν περὶ τούτων ἤρετο, τίνα περὶ τοῦ ὀνόματος τῆς ἀγεννησίας ἔχοι διάνοιαν, εἴτε ὡς ἐπινοου μένου πρὸς ἔνδειξιν τοῦ ἀνάρχως εἶναι τὸ πρῶτον αἴτιον εἴτε καὶ ὡς αὐτῆς δηλωτικοῦ τῆς οὐσίας, ὁ δὲ μάλα σεμνῶς καὶ ἐπιστατικῶς ἀπεκρίνατο τὸ οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς 2.1.176 τὸν θεὸν ποιητὴν εἶναι μὴ ἀμφιβάλλειν. ὡς τοίνυν οὗτος ὁ λόγος ἀπᾴδει τοῦ προταθέντος καὶ οὐ συνήρτηται, κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον εὕροις ἂν καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς καλλιγραφηθείσης αὐτῷ καθ' ἡμῶν μάχης τὸ πρὸς τὸν σκοπὸν ἀσυνάρτητον. οὑτωσὶ δὲ σκοπήσωμεν. 2.1.177 Ἀγέννητόν φασι τὸν θεὸν