The first part of my contentions against Eunomius has with God’s help been sufficiently established in the preceding work, as all who will may see fro
And let no one suppose that it is through pride or desire of human reputation that I go down to this truceless and implacable warfare to engage with t
First of all, however, I think it advisable to run briefly over our own doctrinal views and our opponent’s disagreement with them, so that our review
But to the best of my ability I will raise my voice to rebut our enemies’ argument. They say that God is declared to be without generation, that the G
Now if the term ungenerate did not signify the being without origin, but the idea of simplicity entered into the meaning of such a term, and He were c
But, saith he, He is without both quantity and magnitude. Granted: for the Son also is unlimited by quantity and magnitude, and yet is He the Son. But
But this thing he leaves untold, and only says that ungeneracy should not be predicated of God as a mere conception. For what is so spoken, saith he,
But before we examine what he has written, it may be better to enquire with what purpose it is that he refuses to admit that ungenerate can be predica
For after saying that the Only-begotten God is not the same in essence with the true Father, and after sophistically inferring this from the oppositio
Accordingly, enveloping his former special-pleading in the mazy evolutions of his sophistries, and dealing subtly with the term ungenerate, he steals
Seeing, then, the mischief resulting to the dupes of this fallacious reasoning—that to assent to His not being very God is a departure from our confes
It will presently be time to bring to their own recollection the method of this argument. Suffice it first to say this. There is no faculty in human n
If, then, the lower creation which comes under our organs of sense transcends human knowledge, how can He, Who by His mere will made the worlds, be wi
How pitiable are they for their cleverness! how wretched, how fatal is their over-wise philosophy! Who is there who goes of his own accord to the pit
This, then, was the meaning of his safe guidance on the way to what he sought—that he was not blindly led by any of the means ready to hand for his in
He shows, I think, by the relation of these elements to each other, or rather by their distance, how far the divine nature is above the speculations o
Knowing, then, how widely the Divine nature differs from our own, let us quietly remain within our proper limits. For it is both safer and more revere
And on other accounts also it may be called safe to let alone the Divine essence, as unspeakable, and beyond the scope of human reasoning. For the des
Wherefore Holy Scripture omits all idle inquiry into substance as superfluous and unnecessary. And methinks it was for this that John, the Son of Thun
But, nevertheless, with only such a nature for their base of operations, they open their mouths wide against the unspeakable Power, and encompass by o
I have said, then (for I make my master’s words my own), that reason supplies us with but a dim and imperfect comprehension of the Divine nature neve
But although our great master has thus cleared away all unworthy notions respecting the Divine nature, and has urged and taught all that may be revere
And yet it is plain to every one who has given any attention to the uses of words, that the word incorruption denotes by the privative particle that n
While, however, we strenuously avoid all concurrence with absurd notions in our thoughts of God, we allow ourselves in the use of many diverse appella
And if any one would distinguish such notions by words, he would find it absolutely necessary to call that which admits of no changing to the worse un
I say, then, that men have a right to such word-building, adapting their appellations to their subject, each man according to his judgment and that t
For God is not an expression, neither hath He His essence in voice or utterance. But God is of Himself what also He is believed to be, but He is named
But in applying such appellations to the Divine essence, “which passeth all understanding,” we do not seek to glory in it by the names we employ, but
But let us hear how, “in the way most needed, and the form that preceded” (for with such rhymes he again gives us a taste of the flowers of style), le
If, then, the creation is of later date than its Creator, and man is the latest in the scale of creation, and if speech is a distinctive characteristi
He says that God was what He is, before the creation of man. Nor do we deny it. For whatsoever we conceive of God existed before the creation of the w
But that we might gain some sort of comprehension of what with reverence may be thought respecting Him, we have stamped our different ideas with certa
They say that God is ungenerate, and in this we agree. But that ungeneracy itself constitutes the Divine essence, here we take exception. For we maint
With such gibes at the term “conception,” he shows, to the best of his ability, that it is useless and unprofitable for the life of man. What, then, w
But why enumerate the greater and more splendid results of this faculty? For every one who is not unfriendly to truth can see for himself that all els
Now that He did not teach us such things by some visible operation, Himself presiding over the work, as we may see in matters of bodily teaching, no o
For that one who proposes to himself to terrify or charm an audience should have plenty of conception to effect such a purpose, and should display to
For it is not the case that, while the intelligence implanted in us by the Giver is fully competent to conjure up non-realities, it is endowed with no
But as far as possible to elucidate the idea, I will endeavour to illustrate it by a still plainer example. Let us suppose the inquiry to be about som
This example being understood, it is time to go on to the thing which it illustrates. This much we comprehend, that the First Cause has His existence
Such are his charges against us not indeed his notions as expressed in his own phraseology, for we have made such alterations as were required to cor
If, then, God gives things their names as our new expositor of the Divine record assures us, naming germ, and grass, and tree, and fruit, He must of n
Such is the nature of this new-fangled Deity, as deducible from the words of our new God-maker. But he takes his stand on the Scriptures, and maintain
But it may be said that the voice of the Father was addressed to the Holy Spirit. But neither does the Holy Spirit require instruction by speech, for
But, says he, the record of Moses does not lie, and from it we learn that God spake. No! nor is great David of the number of those who lie, and he exp
What, then, do we think of this passage? For it may be that, if we understand it, we shall also understand the meaning of Moses. It often happens that
But to return to the matter in question. We assert that the words “He said” do not imply voice and words on the part of God but the writer, in showin
For the case is different from that of men endowed by nature with practical ability, where you may look at capability and execution apart from each ot
But if any one would give a more sensuous interpretation to the words “God said,” as proving that articulate speech was His creation, by a parity of r
And the futility of such assertions may be seen also by this. For as the natures of the elements, which are the work of the Creator, appear alike to a
And if any one cites the confusion of tongues that took place at the building of the tower, as contradicting what I have said, not even there is God s
But some who have carefully studied the Scriptures tell us that the Hebrew tongue is not even ancient like the others, but that along with other mirac
For to suppose that God used the Hebrew tongue, when there was no one to hear and understand such a language, methinks no reasonable being will consen
But this is denied by Eunomius, the author of all this contumely with which we are assailed, and the companion and adviser of this impious band. For,
On these passages it is probable that our opponents will take their stand. And I will agree for them with what is said, and will myself take advantage
But since the nature of most things that are seen in Creation is not simple, so as to allow of all that they connote being comprehended in one word, a
In like manner before him Jacob, having taken hold of his brother’s heel, was called a supplanter , from the attitude in which he came to the birth. F
But I will pass over his other babblings against the truth, possessing as they do no force against our doctrines, for I deem it superfluous to linger
To pass on, then, to what remains. He brings forward once more some of the Master’s words, to this effect: “And it is in precisely the same manner tha
But to return. Such names are used of our Lord, and no one familiar with the inspired Scriptures can deny the fact. What then? Does Eunomius affirm th
But, like a mighty wrestler, he will not relinquish his irresistible hold on us, and affirms in so many words, that “these names are the work of human
“But God,” he says, “gave the weakest of terrestrial things a share in the most honourable names, though not giving them an equal share of dignity, an
This it is that our strong-minded opponent, who accuses us of dishonesty, and charges us with being irrational in judgment,—this it is that he pretend
But what is our author’s meaning, and what is the object of this argument of his? For no one need imagine that, for lack of something to say, in order
He does not, in fact, partake of that dignity which the meaning of those names indicates and whereas wise Daniel, in setting right the Babylonians’ e
But in dwelling on such nonsense I fear that I am secretly gratifying our adversaries. For in setting the truth against their vain and empty words, I
But I fear that all we shall find in the discourse of Eunomius will turn out to be mere tumours and sea lungs, so that what has been said must necessa
Basil, he says, asserts that after we have obtained our first idea of a thing, the more minute and accurate investigation of the thing under considera
And Moses, seeing God in the light, and John calling Him the true Light , and in the same way Paul, when our Lord first appeared to him, and a Light s
I have deluged my discourse with much nonsense of his, but I trust my hearers will pardon me for not leaving unnoticed even the most glaring of his in
Then going farther, as if his object were thus far attained, he takes up other charges against us, more difficult, as he thinks, to deal with than the
But all this is beside our purpose. Would that our charges against him were limited to this, and that he could be thought to err only in his delivery,
But it is time to examine the argument that leads to this profanity, and see how, as regards itself, it is logically connected with his whole discours
But in His very essence, he says, God is indestructible. Well, what other conceivable attribute of God does not attach to the very essence of the Son,
Now that the idea of ungeneracy and the belief in the Divine essence are quite different things may be seen by what he himself has put forward. God, h
But it will be well, I think, to pass over his nauseating observations (for such we must term his senseless attacks on the method of conception), and
But if it were in any way possible by some other means to lay bare the movements of thought, abandoning the formal instrumentality of words, we should
All his argument, then, in opposition to the doctrine of conception I think it best to pass over, though he charge with madness those who think that t
But, like some viscous and sticky clay, the nonsense he has concocted in contravention of our teaching of conception seems to hold us back, and preven
But I will pass over both this and their reading of Epicurus’ nature-system, which he says is equivalent to our conception, maintaining that the doctr
But, says he, since God condescends to commune with His servants, we may consequently suppose that from the very beginning He enacted words appropriat
But our pious opponent will not allow of God’s using our language, because of our proneness to evil, shutting his eyes (good man!) to the fact that fo
But most people, perhaps, will think this too far removed from the scope of our present inquiry. This, however, no one will regard as out of keeping w
Since, then, it is improper to regard God as the inventor of such names, lest the names even of these idol gods should seem to have had their origin f
And if we set forth the opinion of most commentators on these words of the Psalmist, that of Eunomius regarding them will be still more convicted of f
But the names which the Lord gives to such stars we may plainly learn from the prophecy of Esaias, which says, “I have called thee by thy name thou a
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
I pass in silence his blasphemy in reducing God the Only-begotten to a level with all created things, and, in a word, allowing to the Son of God no hi
For, proceeding with his discourse, he asks us what we mean by the ages. And yet we ourselves might more reasonably put such questions to him. For it
But I think we must pass over this and all that follows. For it is the mere trifling of children who amuse themselves with beginning to build houses i
Such is our position our adversary’s, with regard to the precise meaning of this term , is such as can derive no help from any reasonings he only sp
He says, “The Life that is the same, and thoroughly single, must have one and the same outward expression for it, even though in mere names, and manne
But why do we linger over these follies, when we ought rather to put Eunomius’ book itself into the hands of the studious, and so, apart from any exam
But if he should still answer with regard to this opposition (of the Divine names), that it is only the term Father, and the term Creator, that are ap
But let us examine a still more vehement charge of his against us it is this: “If one must proceed to say something harsher still, he does not even k
What, then, does Eunomius say to this? “If He is imperishable only by reason of the unending in His Life, and ungenerate only by reason of the unbegin
What, then, out of all that we have said, has stirred him up to this piece of childish folly, in which he returns to the charge and repeats himself in
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 e
Either, he says, that which is endless is distinct in meaning from that which is imperishable, or else the two must make one. But if he call both one,
But that he himself also may be brought to the knowledge of his own trifling, we will convict him from his own statements. For in the course of his ar
Thus far our argument goes with him. But the riddle with which he accompanies his words we must leave to those trained in the wisdom of Prunicus to in
But let us leave this, and along with it the usual foul deluge of calumny in his words and let us go on to his subsequent quotations (of Basil). But
But who, pray, is so simple as to be harmed by such arguments, and to imagine that if names are once believed to be an outcome of the reasoning facult
But I do not think that we need linger on this, nor minutely examine that which follows. To the more attentive reader, the argument elaborated by our
But now I do not know which it is best to do to pursue step by step this subject, or to put an end here to our contest with such folly. Well, as in t
When, then, he is on the point of introducing this treatment of terms of “privation,” he takes upon himself to show “the incurable absurdity,” as he c
Every term—every term, that is, which is really such—is an utterance expressing some movement of thought. But every operation and movement of sound th
Well, then, if God did not exist formerly, or if there be a time when He will not exist, He cannot be called either unending or without beginning and
Thus much, then, is known to us about the names uttered in any form whatever in reference to the Deity. We have given a simple explanation of them, un
How it is possible, then, to assign one’s gratuities to the non-subsistent, let this man, who claims to be using words and phrases in their natural fo
Well, if the term imperishable or indestructible is not considered by this maker of an empty system to be privative of destruction, then by a stern ne
“But I do not see,” he rejoins, “how God can be above His own works simply by virtue of such things as do not belong to Him .” And on the strength of
He declares that God surpasses mortal beings as immortal, destructible beings as indestructible, generated beings as ungenerate, just in the same degr
Therefore let us again handle this dictum of his: “God is not called immortal by virtue of the absence of death.” How are we to accept this statement,
Still I cannot see what profit there is in deigning to examine such nonsense. For a man like myself, who has lived to gray hairs , and whose eyes are
But it is time now to expose that angry accusation which he brings against us at the close of his treatise, saying that we affirm the Father to be fro
“The evangelist Luke, when giving the genealogy according to the flesh of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ, and stepping up from the last to the first
With what eyes will you now dare to gaze upon your guide? I speak to you, O flock of perishing souls! How can you still turn to listen to this man who
Such, to use your own words, is the “evil,” as one might expect, not indeed “of valuing the character for being clever before one is really such” (for
With what eyes will you now dare to gaze upon your guide? I speak to you, O flock152 O flock. This could not have been written earlier than 384, and there is abundant testimony that Eunomius still had his “flock.” Long before this, even soon after he had left his see of Cyzicus, and had taken up his abode with Eudoxius, he separated himself from that champion of the Homœan party, and held assemblies apart because he had repeatedly entreated that his preceptor Aetius might be received into communion (Socrates iv. 13). This must have been about 366, before his banishment by Valens for favouring the rebellion of Procopius. Sozomen says (vi. 29), “The heresy of Eunomius was spread from Cilicia and the Mountains of Taurus as far as the Hellespont and Constantinople.” In 380 at Bithynia near Constantinople “multitudes resorted to him, some also gathered from other quarters, a few with the design of testing his principles, and others merely from the desire of listening to his discourses. His reputation reached the ears of the Emperor, who would gladly have had a conference with him. But the Empress Flacilla studiously prevented an interview taking place between them; for she was the most faithful guard of the Nicene doctrines” (vii. 17). At the convention, however, of all the sects at Theodosius’ palace in 382, Eunomius was present (Socrates v. 10). His ἔκθεσις τῆς πίστεως (to which he added learned notes) was laid before Theodosius in 383. It was not till 391 that the Emperor condemned him to banishment—the sole exception to Theodosius’ toleration. “This heretic,” says Sozomen again, “had fixed his residence in the suburbs of Constantinople and held frequent assemblies in private houses, where he read his own writings. He induced many to embrace his sentiments, so that the sectarians who were named after him became very numerous. He died not long after his banishment, and was interred at Dacora, his birthplace, a village of Cappadocia.”of perishing souls! How can you still turn to listen to this man who has reared such a monument as this of his shamelessness in argument? Are ye not ashamed now, at least, if not before, to take the hand of a man like this to lead you to the truth? Do ye not regard it as a sign of his madness as to doctrine, that he thus shamelessly stands out against the truth contained in Scripture? Is this the way to play the champion of the truth of doctrine—namely, to accuse Basil of deriving the God over all from that which has absolutely no existence? Am I to tell the way he phrases it? Am I to transcribe the very words of his shamelessness? I let the insolence of them pass; I do not blame their invective, for I do not censure one whose breath is of bad odour, because it is of bad odour; or one who has bodily mutilation, because he is mutilated. Things such as that are the misfortunes of nature; they escape blame from those who can reflect. This strength of vituperation, then, is infirmity in reasoning; it is an affliction of a soul whose powers of sound argument are marred. No word from me, then, about his invectives. But as to that syllogism, with its stout irrefragable folds, in whose conclusion, to effect his darling object, he arrives at this accusation against us, I will write it out in its own precise words. “We will allow him to say that the Son exists by participation in the self-existent153 τοῦ ὄντος; but (instead of this), he has unconsciously affirmed that the God over all comes from absolute nonentity. For if the idea of the absence of everything amounts to that of absolute nonentity154 τὸ μηδὲν τῷ πάντη μὴ ὄντι ταὐτὸν., and the transposition of equivalents is perfectly legitimate, then the man who says that God comes from nothing says that He comes from nonentity.” To which of these statements shall we first direct our attention? Shall we criticize his opinion about the Son “existing by participation” in the Deity, and his bespattering those who will not acquiesce in it with the foulness of his tongue; or shall we examine the sophism so frigidly constructed from the stuff of dreams? However, every one who possesses a spark of practical sagacity is not unaware that it is only poets and moulders of mythology who father sons “by participation” upon the Divine Being. Those, that is, who string together the myths in their poems, fabricate a Dionysus, or a Hercules, or a Minos, and such-like, out of the combination of the superhuman with human bodies; and they exalt such personages above the rest of mankind, representing them as of greater estimation because of their participation in a superior nature. Therefore, with regard to this opinion of his, carrying as it does within itself the evidence of its own folly and profanity, it is best to be silent; and to repeat instead that irrefragable syllogism of his, in order that every poor ignoramus on our side may understand what and how many are the advantages which those who are not trained in his technical methods are deprived of. He says, “If the idea of the absence of everything amounts to that of absolute nonentity, and the transposition of equivalents is perfectly legitimate, then the man who says that God comes from nothing, says that He comes from nonentity.” He brandishes over us this Aristotelian weapon, but who has yet conceded to him, that to say that any one has no father amounts to saying that he has been generated from absolute nonentity? He who enumerates those persons whose line is recorded in Scripture is plainly thinking of a father preceding each person mentioned. For what relation is Heli to Joseph? What relation is Matthat to Heli? And what relation is Adam to Seth? Is it not plain to a mere child that this catalogue of names is a list of fathers? For if Seth is the son of Adam, Adam must be the father of one thus born from him; and so tell me, who is the father of the Deity Who is over all? Come, answer this question, open your lips and speak, exert all your skill in expression to meet such an inquiry. Can you discover any expression that will elude the grasp of your own syllogism? Who is the father of the Ungenerate? Can you say? If you can, then He is not ungenerate. Pressed thus, you will say, what indeed necessity compels you to say,—No one is. Well, my dear sir, do you not yet find the weak seams of your sophism giving way? Do you not perceive that you have slavered upon your own lap? What says our great Basil? That the Ungenerate One is from no father. For the conclusion to be drawn from the mention of fathers in the preceding genealogy permits the word father, even in the silence of the evangelist, to be added to this confession of faith. Whereas, you have transformed “no one” into “nothing at all,” and again “nothing at all” into “absolute nonentity,” thereby concocting that fallacious syllogism of yours. Accordingly this clever result of professional shrewdness shall be turned against yourself. I ask, Who is the father of the Ungenerate One? “No one,” you will be obliged to answer; for the Ungenerate One cannot have a father. Then, if no one is the father of the Ungenerate, and you have changed “no one” into “nothing at all,” and “nothing at all” is, according to your argument, the same as “absolute nonentity,” and the transposition of equivalents is, as you say, perfectly legitimate, then the man (i.e. you) who says that no one is the father of the Ungenerate One, says that the Deity Who is over all comes from absolute nonentity!
τίσιν ὀφθαλμοῖς ἔτι πρὸς τὸν ὁδηγὸν ὑμῶν ἀποβλέπετε; πρὸς ὑμᾶς λέγω τὴν τῶν ἀπολλυμένων ἀγέλην. πῶς ἔτι τὴν ἀκοὴν ὑποκλίνετε τῷ τοιαύτην στήλην τῆς ἰδίας ἀναιδείας διὰ τῶν λόγων στήσαντι; οὐκ αἰσχύνεσθε νῦν γοῦν, εἰ καὶ μὴ πρότερον, τοιούτῳ χειραγωγῷ πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν χρώμενοι; οὐ σημείῳ χρήσεσθε τούτῳ τῆς περὶ τῶν δογμάτων αὐτοῦ μανίας, τῷ οὕτω πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν αὐτὸν τῶν γεγραμμένων ἀναισχύντως ἀντικαθίστασθαι; οὕτως ὑμῖν καὶ τὰς θείας ἑρμηνεύει φωνάς, οὕτω τῆς τῶν δογμάτων ἀληθείας προΐσταται, ὡς ἀπελέγχειν Βασίλειον ἐκ τοῦ πάντη μὴ ὄντος γενεαλογοῦντα τὸν ἐπὶ πάντων θεόν; εἴπω τὴν παρ' αὐτοῦ ῥῆσιν, ἔκθωμαι τῆς ἀναισχυντίας τὰ ῥήματα; παρίημι τὰς ὕβρεις, οὐ μέμφομαι ταῖς λοιδορίαις: οὐ γὰρ αἰτιῶμαι τὸν ὀδωδότα τῷ στόματι ὅτι ὄδωδεν, οὐδὲ τὸν τῷ σώματι λελωβημένον ὅτι λελώβηται. τὰ γὰρ τοιαῦτα φύσεώς ἐστιν ἀτυχήματα τὴν παρὰ τῶν νοῦν ἐχόντων μέμψιν ἐκφεύγοντα. οὐκοῦν ἡ τοῦ ὑβρίζειν σπουδὴ λογισμῶν ἐστιν ἀρρωστία καὶ δυσκληρία ψυχῆς τὸν ὑγιαίνοντα λογισμὸν λελωβημένης. οὐδεὶς οὖν μοι λόγος ὧν λελοιδόρηται, ἀλλὰ τὴν σφοδρὰν ἐκείνην καὶ ἄμαχον τοῦ συλλογισμοῦ πλοκήν, δι' ἧς τὴν καθ' ἡμῶν κατηγορίαν πρὸς τὸν σκοπὸν ἑαυτοῦ συνεπέρανε, διαρρήδην γράψω κατ' αὐτὰ τὰ ῥήματα.
« Ἵνα γάρ », φησί, « μὴ κωλυθῇ τὸν υἱὸν ἐκ μετουσίας εἰπεῖν τοῦ ὄντος, λέληθεν ἑαυτὸν τὸν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸν ἐκ τοῦ πάντη μὴ ὄντος εἰπών. εἰ γὰρ τὸ ”μηδὲν„ τῷ πάντη μὴ ὄντι ταὐτὸν κατὰ τὴν ἔννοιαν, τῶν δὲ ἰσοδυναμούντων ἀκώλυτος ἡ μετάληψις, ὁ λέγων ἐξ οὐδενὸς εἶναι τὸν θεὸν ἐκ τοῦ πάντη μὴ ὄντος εἶναι λέγει τὸν θεόν ». πρὸς τί τῶν εἰρημένων πρότερον ἴδωμεν, ὅτι ἐκ μετουσίας τοῦ θεοῦ τὸν υἱὸν οἴεται καὶ τοῖς μὴ τοῦτο δεχομένοις ἐπισκεδάζει τοῦ στόματος ἑαυτοῦ τὴν δυσωδίαν, ἢ τὴν ψυχρὰν καὶ ὀνειρώδη τοῦ σοφίσματος συνθήκην διεξετάσωμεν; ἀλλ' ὅτι μὲν τὸ ἐκ μετουσίας τῇ θείᾳ φύσει προσάπτειν υἱοὺς ποιητῶν μόνων καὶ μυθοπλαστῶν ἐστιν, οὐκ ἂν ἀγνοοίη τις τῶν καὶ ὁπωσοῦν μετεχόντων φρονήσεως. οὕτω γὰρ οἱ τοῖς μέτροις τοὺς μύθους ἐνείροντες Διονύσους τινὰς καὶ Ἡρακλέας καὶ Μίνωας καὶ ἄλλους τοιούτους ἐκ δαιμονίας εἰς ἀνθρώπινα σώματα συμπλοκῆς διαπλάσσουσι καὶ ὑπεραίρουσι τῶν λοιπῶν ἀνθρώπων τοὺς τοιούτους τῷ λόγῳ ὡς τῇ μετουσίᾳ τῆς κρείττονος φύσεως τὸ πλέον ἔχοντας. οὐκοῦν τοῦτον μὲν τὸν λόγον ὡς οἴκοθεν τὸν τῆς ἀνοίας ἅμα καὶ ἀσεβείας ἔλεγχον ἔχοντα σιωπῆσαι προσήκει, προθεῖναι δὲ μᾶλλον τὸν ἄμαχον ἐκεῖνον συλλογισμόν, ὡς ἂν μάθοιεν οἱ καθ' ἡμᾶς ἰδιῶται οἵων καὶ ὅσων οἱ τὰς τεχνικὰς ἐφόδους μὴ παιδευθέντες ἐζημιώθησαν. « εἰ γὰρ τὸ „μηδέν,” » φησί, « τῷ πάντη μὴ ὄντι ταὐτὸν κατὰ τὴν ἔννοιαν, τῶν δὲ ἰσοδυναμούντων ἀκώλυτος ἡ μετάληψις, ὁ λέγων ἐξ οὐδενὸς εἶναι τὸν θεὸν ἐκ τοῦ πάντη μὴ ὄντος εἶναι λέγει τὸν θεόν ». τίς ἔδωκε τῷ τὴν Ἀριστοτελικὴν ἡμῖν αἰχμὴν ἐπισείοντι, ὅτι τὸ λέγειν τινὰ πατέρα μὴ ἔχειν ταὐτόν ἐστι τῷ ἐκ τοῦ πάντη μὴ ὄντος αὐτὸν γεγενῆσθαι λέγειν; ὁ γὰρ τοὺς γενεαλογουμένους παρὰ τοῦ λόγου καθεξῆς ἀριθμήσας ἀεὶ τοῦ μνημονευθέντος ὑπερκείμενον πατέρα δηλονότι νοεῖ. τί γὰρ ἦν ὁ Ἠλεὶ τοῦ Ἰωσήφ; τί δὲ ὁ Ματτὰθ τοῦ Ἠλεί; τί δὲ ὁ Ἀδὰμ τοῦ Σήθ; ἆρ' οὐχὶ πρόδηλον καὶ τοῖς ἄγαν νηπίοις ὅτι πατέρων ἐστὶν ἀπαρίθμησις ὁ τῶν μνημονευθέντων τούτων ὀνομάτων κατάλογος; εἰ γὰρ ὁ Σὴθ τοῦ Ἀδὰμ υἱός, πατὴρ τοῦ ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεγεννημένου πάντως Ἀδάμ. οὕτως εἰπέ μοι καὶ τοῦ ἐπὶ πάντων θεοῦ πατὴρ τίς; εἰπὲ τῷ ἐρωτῶντι, ῥῆξον φωνήν, ἀπόκριναι, πᾶσαν τὴν λογικήν σου τέχνην πρὸς τὴν πεῦσιν ταύτην συγκίνησον: ἆρ' εὑρήσεις τινὰ λόγον τὴν τοῦ σοφίσματός σου λαβὴν διαφεύγοντα; τίς ὁ τοῦ ἀγεννήτου πατήρ; ἔχεις εἰπεῖν ὅστις; οὐκοῦν οὐκ « ἀγέννητος »; ἀλλὰ συνθλιβόμενος ἐρεῖς πάντως, ὃ δὴ καὶ εἰπεῖν ἐστιν ἐπάναγκες ὅτι ”οὐδείς„. τί οὖν, ὦ φίλτατε, ἆρά σοι οὔπω λέλυται ἡ μαλθακὴ τοῦ σοφίσματος αὕτη διαπλοκή; ἆρα συνῆκας τοῖς ἰδίοις κόλποις ἐνσιελίσας; τί φησιν ὁ μέγας Βασίλειος; ὅτι ὁ ἀγέννητος ἐξ οὐδενός ἐστι πατρός. ἐκ γὰρ τῶν προγενεαλογηθέντων πατέρων ἡ ἀκολουθία κατὰ τὸ σιωπώμενον συνομολογεῖσθαι δίδωσι τοῦ πατρὸς τὴν προσθήκην. σὺ τὸ ἐξ οὐδενὸς πατρὸς τὸ « μηδὲν » ἐποίησας, καὶ πάλιν τὸ « μηδὲν εἰς τὸ πάντη μὴ ὂν » μεταλαβὼν τὸν λελυμένον ἐκεῖνον συλλογισμὸν συνεπέρανας. οὐκοῦν τὰ σοφά σου ταῦτα τῆς τεχνικῆς ἀγχινοίας πρὸς σὲ μεταχθήσεται. τίς « τοῦ ἀγεννήτου » πατήρ, ἐρωτῶ; οὐδείς, ἐρεῖς κατὰ πᾶσαν ἀνάγκην. ὁ γὰρ ἀγέννητος πατέρα πάντως οὐκ ἔχει. εἰ τοίνυν οὐδεὶς τοῦ « ἀγεννήτου » πατήρ, τὸ δὲ οὐδεὶς παρὰ σοῦ πρὸς τὸ « μηδὲν » μετελήφθη, τὸ δὲ « μηδὲν » κατὰ τὸν σὸν λόγον « τῷ πάντη μὴ ὄντι » ταὐτόν ἐστι κατὰ τὴν ἔννοιαν, « ἀκώλυτος δὲ τῶν ἰσοδυναμούντων », καθὼς φῄς, « ἡ μετάληψις », ὁ εἰπὼν ὅτι οὐδείς ἐστι τοῦ ἀγεννήτου πατὴρ « ἐκ τοῦ πάντη μὴ ὄντος » εἶναι λέγει τὸν ἐπὶ πάντων θεόν.
