159

a conjecture of hidden things arises in us. Therefore, let us take up again what was said. 20not by absence of death20, he says, 20is God called immortal20. How shall we accept the statement, that death is not absent from God, even though he is called immortal? Therefore, if he bids us to think this, the god of Eunomius will be entirely mortal and subject to corruption. For where death is not absent, it does not have the nature to be immortal. But if the appellations signify neither the absence of death nor of corruption, either they are spoken in vain of the God over all 2.1.604 or they contain some other meaning in themselves. What then is this? Let the master of art explain. But we who, as Eunomius says, are 20unskilled both in the judgment of things and in the use of names20, learned to say "un-sick" not of that where strength is, but of that from which sickness is separated, and "un-maimed" not of one who is outside the drinking-parties, but of one who has no maiming in himself; and we name all other things similarly either from what is present or from what is not present: courageous, uncourageous; sleepy, sleepless, and as many things as pertain to this custom. 2.1.605 But I do not know what profit it brings to deem this nonsense worthy of examination. For to a man living in gray hair and looking to the truth, it is no small cause for condemnation to carry in his mouth the ridiculous and worthless things of his opponent's contentiousness. Therefore I will pass over both those things and what is added next to them; and they are these: 20no20, he says, 20of truth testifying to neither connaturality with 2.1.606 God20; for if this had not been said, who was it that said God has a double nature, except you, who make every concept of a name connatural with the Father's substance and say that nothing is added from without, but who grafts each of the divine names onto the substance of God? Then he says, 20nor indeed with piety inscribing in its laws such a concept, fashioned from without and by us20. But I shall again plead concerning what has been said, that I have not set forth these ridiculous statements to make a laughingstock for the readers, but that I might persuade the hearer, from what sort of preparation of arguments this man, having rinsed our lack of skill, then makes bold against the truth. 2.1.607 Who is he in his speech and what sort of things does he utter, who luxuriates and parades before the thick-skinned of his audience, who proclaim him, as he badly composes these bombastic dry-mouthed utterances, to have conquered all things by the power of his words? But he says that the substance itself is immortality. But what do you say the substance of the only-begotten is, I might say to him, immortality or not? since on this too the simplicity 20no20, as you say, 20connaturality 2.1.608 admits20. If, then, he denies that the substance of the Son is immortality, it is clear at what he is aiming. For what is contradistinguished from the immortal is not a matter for a very subtle mind to comprehend. For just as the consequence of contradistinction shows that what is not incorruptible is corruptible, and what is not unchangeable is changeable, so also what is not immortal is entirely mortal. What then will the expounder of new doctrines, what will he say to us precisely about the substance of the 2.1.609 only-begotten? For again I will bring the same question to the speech-writer. Will he grant that this too is immortality, or will he not agree? If then he should not accept that the substance of the Son is immortality, he will necessarily agree with the opposite, through the removal of the better term making it out to be 2.1.610 death. But if, fleeing the absurdity, he should call the substance of the only-begotten immortality as well, he will necessarily agree that on this account there is no difference in substance. For if the nature of the Father and of the Son is equally immortality, and immortality is in no way divided from itself by any reason of difference, then it is confessed even by the enemies themselves that no reason of difference is found in the Father and the Son with respect to substance. 2.1.611 But it would be time to set forth his grave accusation against us, which he made at the end of his argument, saying that we 20say the Father is from that which is in no way existent20. having stolen a certain word from the context and

159

στοχασμὸς ἡμῖν τῶν κεκρυμμένων ἐγγίνεται. οὐκοῦν πάλιν τὸ ῥηθὲν ἀναλάβωμεν. 20οὐκ ἀπουσίᾳ θανάτου20, φησίν, 20ὁ θεὸς ἀθάνατος λέγεται20. πῶς δεξόμεθα τὸ λεγόμενον, ὅτι οὐκ ἄπεστι τοῦ θεοῦ ὁ θάνατος, κἂν ἀθά νατος λέγηται; οὐκοῦν εἰ τοῦτο κελεύει νοεῖν, θνητὸς ἔσται πάντως ὁ τοῦ Εὐνομίου θεὸς καὶ φθορᾷ ὑποκείμενος. οὗ γὰρ οὐκ ἄπεστι θάνατος, ἀθάνατος εἶναι φύσιν οὐκ ἔχει. ἀλλὰ μὴν εἰ μήτε θανάτου μήτε φθορᾶς ἀπουσίαν αἱ προσ ηγορίαι σημαίνουσιν, ἢ μάτην ἐπιλέγονται τῷ ἐπὶ πάντων 2.1.604 θεῷ ἢ ἕτερόν τινα νοῦν ἐν αὑταῖς περιέχουσι. τίς οὖν οὗτος, ἑρμηνευσάτω ὁ τεχνολόγος. ἀλλ' ἡμεῖς οἱ, καθώς φησιν ὁ Εὐνόμιος, 20ἀνεπιστήμονες καὶ τῆς τῶν πραγμάτων κρίσεως καὶ τῆς τῶν ὀνομάτων χρήσεως20, ἄνοσον λέγειν ἐμάθομεν οὐχ οὗ τὸ κράτος, ἀλλ' οὗ ἡ νόσος κεχώρισται, καὶ ἄπηρον οὐ τὸν ἔξω τῶν συμποσίων ὄντα, ἀλλὰ τὸν μηδεμίαν ἐν ἑαυτῷ πήρωσιν ἔχοντα· καὶ τὰ ἄλλα πάντα ὡσαύτως ἢ ἐκ τοῦ παρόντος ἢ ἐκ τοῦ μὴ παρόντος κατονομάζομεν ἀνδρεῖον ἄνανδρον, ὑπνώδη ἄϋπνον καὶ ὅσα τῆς συνηθείας ἔχεται ταύτης. 2.1.605 Ἀλλ' οὐκ οἶδα τί φέρει κέρδος τὸ τὰς φλυαρίας ταύτας ἀξιοῦν ἐξετάσεως. ἀνδρὶ γὰρ ἐν πολιᾷ ζῶντι καὶ πρὸς ἀλήθειαν βλέποντι οὐ μικρὰ πρὸς κατάκρισιν αἰτία τὸ τὰ γελοῖά τε καὶ ἄσπουδα τῆς τοῦ ἀντιπάλου φιλονεικίας διὰ στόματος φέρειν. διὸ παρήσω κἀκεῖνα καὶ τὰ ἐφεξῆς ἐκείνοις προσκείμενα· ἔστι δὲ ταῦτα· 20μηδεμίαν20, φησί, 20τῆς ἀληθείας μήτε τῷ θεῷ συμφυΐαν προσμαρ 2.1.606 τυρούσης20· εἰ γὰρ μὴ εἴρητο τοῦτο, τίς ἦν ὁ διφυᾶ τὸν θεὸν εἶναι λέγων πλὴν σοῦ τοῦ πᾶσαν ὀνόματος ἔννοιαν τῇ τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίᾳ συμφύοντος καὶ μηδὲν ἔξωθεν προσ εῖναι λέγοντος, ἀλλ' ἕκαστον τῶν περὶ τὸ θεῖον ὀνο μάτων τῇ οὐσίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐγκεντρίζοντος; εἶτά φησι 20μήτε μὴν ἔξωθεν καὶ παρ' ἡμῶν πλαττομένην τοι αύτην ἔννοιαν εὐσεβείας νόμοις ἐγγραφούσης20. ἀλλὰ παραιτήσομαι πάλιν περὶ τῶν εἰρημένων, ὡς οὐχὶ γελωτοποιῶν τοῖς ἐντυγχάνουσι τὰς ἐπιγελάστους ταύτας ἐξεθέμην φωνάς, ἀλλ' ὡς ἂν πείσαιμι τὸν ἀκροατήν, ἀφ' οἵας οὗτος παρασκευῆς τῶν λόγων ὁρμώμενος ὁ τὸν ἡμέ τερον ἰδιωτισμὸν διαπλύνων ἔπειτα τῆς ἀληθείας καταθρα 2.1.607 σύνεται. τίς ὢν κατὰ τὸν λόγον καὶ οἷα φθεγγόμενος ὁ τοῖς παχυδέρμοις τῶν ἀκροατῶν ἐντρυφῶν τε καὶ ἐμπομ πεύων, οἳ τὰς στομφώδεις αὐτὸν ταύτας ξηροστομίας κακο συνθέτως διαπεραίνοντα ὡς κεκρατηκότα τῶν πάντων τῇ δυνάμει τῶν λόγων ἀνακηρύσσουσιν; ἀλλ' αὐτὴν εἶναί φησι τὴν οὐσίαν ἀθανασίαν. τὴν δὲ τοῦ μονογενοῦς οὐσίαν τί φῄς, πρὸς αὐτὸν εἴποιμι ἄν, ἀθανασίαν ἢ οὐχί; ἐπειδὴ καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτης ἡ ἁπλότης 20οὐδεμίαν20, καθὼς φῄς, 20συμ 2.1.608 φυΐαν προσίεται20. εἰ μὲν οὖν ἀρνεῖται τὸ ἀθανασίαν εἶναι τοῦ υἱοῦ τὴν οὐσίαν, δῆλον εἰς ὅ τι βλέπει. τὸ γὰρ ἀντιδιαστελλόμενον τῷ ἀθανάτῳ οὐ λίαν ἐστὶ λεπτῆς κατα νοῆσαι φρενός. ὡς γὰρ τὸ μὴ ἄφθαρτον φθαρτὸν ἡ ἀκο λουθία τῆς ἀντιδιαιρέσεως δείκνυσι καὶ τρεπτὸν τὸ μὴ ἄτρεπτον, οὕτω καὶ θνητὸν πάντως τὸ μὴ ἀθάνατον. τί οὖν ὁ τῶν καινῶν δογμάτων ἐξηγητής, τί περὶ τῆς τοῦ 2.1.609 μονογενοῦς ἡμῖν οὐσίας κυριολογήσει; πάλιν γὰρ τὴν αὐτὴν προσοίσω τῷ λογογράφῳ ἐρώτησιν. δώσει καὶ ταύτην ἀθα νασίαν εἶναι ἢ οὐ συνθήσεται; εἰ μὲν οὖν μὴ δέχοιτο τοῦ υἱοῦ τὴν οὐσίαν ἀθανασίαν εἶναι, ἀναγκαίως τῷ ἐναντίῳ συνθήσεται, διὰ τῆς τοῦ κρείττονος ἀφαιρέσεως θάνατον 2.1.610 αὐτὴν εἶναι κατασκευάζων. εἰ δὲ φεύγων τὸ ἄτοπον ἀθα νασίαν καὶ τοῦ μονογενοῦς τὴν οὐσίαν κατονομάζοι, οὐδε μίαν ἐξ ἀνάγκης διὰ τοῦτο κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν διαφορὰν εἶναι συνθήσεται. εἰ γὰρ ἐπίσης ἥ τε τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ φύσις ἀθανασία ἐστὶν, ἀθανασία δὲ πρὸς ἑαυτὴν οὐδενὶ λόγῳ διαφορᾶς διασχίζεται, ἄρα καὶ παρ' αὐτῶν τῶν ἐχ θρῶν ὁμολογεῖται τὸ μηδένα διαφορᾶς λόγον ἐπὶ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν εὑρίσκεσθαι. 2.1.611 Ἀλλὰ καιρὸς ἂν εἴη τὴν χαλεπὴν αὐτοῦ καθ' ἡμῶν προθεῖναι κατηγορίαν, ἣν ἐπὶ τέλει τοῦ λόγου πεποίη, λέγων ἡμᾶς 20ἐκ τοῦ πάντη μὴ ὄντος τὸν πατέρα λέγειν20. κλέψας τινὰ λέξιν ἐκ τῆς συμφράσεως καὶ