161

the substitution of equivalents is unhindered, he who says that God is from nothing says that God is from that which in every way is not20. To which of the things previously said should we look first, that he thinks the Son is by participation in God and upon those who do not accept this he scatters the stench of his mouth, or should we examine the cold and dreamlike construction of his sophism? But that attributing [being] by participation to the divine nature is for sons of poets alone and myth-makers, no one who has any share of sense 2.1.619 would be ignorant. For so do those who weave myths in meter fashion certain Dionysi and Heracleses and Minoses and other such beings from a demonic union with human bodies, and in their account they exalt such ones above other men as having the advantage by participation in a superior nature. Therefore it is fitting to pass over this argument in silence, as having in itself the proof of its folly and impiety, and rather to set forth that irrefutable syllogism, so that the simple folk among us might learn of what and how many things those not instructed in the technical methods have been deprived 2.1.620. 20For if "1nothing,"220 he says, 20is the same in meaning as that which in every way is not, and the substitution of equivalents is unhindered, he who says that God is from nothing says that God is from that which in every way is not20. Who granted to him who brandishes the Aristotelian spear-point at us, that to say someone has no father is the same as saying he has come to be from that which in every way is not? For he who enumerates in order those being genealogized from the account clearly always conceives of a father above the one 2.1.621 mentioned. For what was Eli to Joseph? And what was Matthat to Eli? And what was Adam to Seth? Is it not perfectly clear even to mere infants that the list of these names that have been mentioned is an enumeration of fathers? For if Seth is the son of Adam, Adam is surely the father of the one begotten from him. So tell me, who is the father of the God over all? Tell the questioner, break your silence, answer, move all your logical art to this question; will you find any argument 2.1.622 that escapes the grip of your sophism? Who is the father of the unbegotten? Can you say who? Then is he not 20unbegotten20? But being hard-pressed you will certainly say, what is indeed necessary to say, that "1no one"2. What then, dearest friend, has not this soft entanglement of the sophism been resolved for you yet? Have you understood that you are entangled in your own coils? What does the great Basil say? That the unbegotten is from no father. For from the fathers previously genealogized, the sequence allows the addition of "father" to be agreed upon through what is unspoken. 2.1.623 You took "from no father" and made it 20nothing20, and again, substituting 20that which in every way is not for nothing20, you concluded that refuted syllogism. Therefore these wise products of your technical shrewdness will be turned back against you. Who is the father 20of the unbegotten20, I ask? "No one," you will say, by all necessity. For the unbegotten certainly has no 2.1.624 father. If, then, no one is the father of the 20unbegotten20, and "no one" has been substituted by you for 20nothing20, and 20nothing20, according to your argument, is the same in meaning as 20that which in every way is not20, and 20the substitution20 of 20equivalents is unhindered20, as you say, he who says that no one is the father of the unbegotten says that the God over all is 20from that which in every way is not20. 2.1.625 20Such20, it seems, 20is20 the 20evil20, O Eunomius (for I shall use your words), not 20to have honored seeming to be wise before being so20 (for such a thing is perhaps a small matter for misfortune), but to be ignorant of oneself and not to know how great is the difference between the high-flying Basil 2.1.626 and the land-dwelling beast. For if that sharp and divine eye looked upon our life, if it surveyed human life on the wing of wisdom, it would have shown you, swooping down upon you with the rush of its words, fused with what a shell of folly, against whom you have deceitfully set yourself up, with insults against him and revilings to seem to be someone

161

ἰσοδυναμούντων ἀκώ λυτος ἡ μετάληψις, ὁ λέγων ἐξ οὐδενὸς εἶναι τὸν θεὸν ἐκ τοῦ πάντη μὴ ὄντος εἶναι λέγει τὸν θεόν20. 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 διεξ ετάσωμεν; ἀλλ' ὅτι μὲν τὸ ἐκ μετουσίας τῇ θείᾳ φύσει προσάπτειν υἱοὺς ποιητῶν μόνων καὶ μυθοπλαστῶν ἐστιν, οὐκ ἂν ἀγνοοίη τις τῶν καὶ ὁπωσοῦν μετεχόντων φρονή 2.1.619 σεως. οὕτω γὰρ οἱ τοῖς μέτροις τοὺς μύθους ἐνείροντες ∆ιονύσους 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 συλ λογισμόν, ὡς ἂν μάθοιεν οἱ καθ' ἡμᾶς ἰδιῶται οἵων καὶ ὅσων οἱ τὰς τεχνικὰς ἐφόδους μὴ παιδευθέντες ἐζημιώ 2.1.620 θησαν. 20εἰ γὰρ τὸ "1μηδέν,"220 φησί, 20τῷ πάντη μὴ ὄντι ταὐτὸν κατὰ τὴν ἔννοιαν, τῶν δὲ ἰσοδυναμούν των ἀκώλυτος ἡ μετάληψις, ὁ λέγων ἐξ οὐδενὸς εἶναι τὸν θεὸν ἐκ τοῦ πάντη μὴ ὄντος εἶναι λέ γει τὸν θεόν20. τίς ἔδωκε τῷ τὴν Ἀριστοτελικὴν ἡμῖν αἰχμὴν ἐπισείοντι, ὅτι τὸ λέγειν τινὰ πατέρα μὴ ἔχειν ταὐ τόν ἐστι τῷ ἐκ τοῦ πάντη μὴ ὄντος αὐτὸν γεγενῆσθαι λέγειν; ὁ γὰρ τοὺς γενεαλογουμένους παρὰ τοῦ λόγου καθεξῆς ἀριθμήσας ἀεὶ τοῦ μνημονευθέντος ὑπερκείμενον 2.1.621 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 κατά λογος; 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 φω νήν, ἀπόκριναι, πᾶσαν τὴν λογικήν σου τέχνην πρὸς τὴν πεῦσιν ταύτην συγκίνησον· ἆρ' εὑρήσεις τινὰ λόγον τὴν 2.1.622 τοῦ σοφίσματός σου λαβὴν διαφεύγοντα; τίς ὁ τοῦ ἀγεν νήτου πατήρ; ἔχεις εἰπεῖν ὅστις; οὐκοῦν οὐκ 20ἀγέν νητος20; ἀλλὰ συνθλιβόμενος ἐρεῖς πάντως, ὃ δὴ καὶ εἰπεῖν ἐστιν ἐπάναγκες ὅτι "1οὐδείς"2. τί οὖν, ὦ φίλ τατε, ἆρά σοι οὔπω λέλυται ἡ μαλθακὴ τοῦ σοφίσματος αὕτη διαπλοκή; ἆρα συνῆκας τοῖς ἰδίοις κόλποις ἐνσι ελίσας; τί φησιν ὁ μέγας Βασίλειος; ὅτι ὁ ἀγέννητος ἐξ οὐδενός ἐστι πατρός. ἐκ γὰρ τῶν προγενεαλογηθέντων πατέρων ἡ ἀκολουθία κατὰ τὸ σιωπώμενον συνομολο 2.1.623 γεῖσθαι δίδωσι τοῦ πατρὸς τὴν προσθήκην. σὺ τὸ ἐξ οὐδενὸς πατρὸς τὸ 20μηδὲν20 ἐποίησας, καὶ πάλιν τὸ 20μη δὲν εἰς τὸ πάντη μὴ ὂν20 μεταλαβὼν τὸν λελυμένον ἐκεῖνον συλλογισμὸν συνεπέρανας. οὐκοῦν τὰ σοφά σου ταῦτα τῆς τεχνικῆς ἀγχινοίας πρὸς σὲ μεταχθήσεται. τίς 20τοῦ ἀγεννήτου20 πατήρ, ἐρωτῶ; οὐδείς, ἐρεῖς κατὰ πᾶσαν ἀνάγκην. ὁ γὰρ ἀγέννητος πατέρα πάντως οὐκ 2.1.624 ἔχει. εἰ τοίνυν οὐδεὶς τοῦ 20ἀγεννήτου20 πατήρ, τὸ δὲ οὐ δεὶς παρὰ σοῦ πρὸς τὸ 20μηδὲν20 μετελήφθη, τὸ δὲ 20μηδὲν20 κατὰ τὸν σὸν λόγον 20τῷ πάντη μὴ ὄντι20 ταὐτόν ἐστι κατὰ τὴν ἔννοιαν, 20ἀκώλυτος δὲ τῶν ἰσοδυναμούν των20, καθὼς φῄς, 20ἡ μετάληψις20, ὁ εἰπὼν ὅτι οὐδείς ἐστι τοῦ ἀγεννήτου πατὴρ 20ἐκ τοῦ πάντη μὴ ὄντος20 εἶναι λέγει τὸν ἐπὶ πάντων θεόν. 2.1.625 20Τοιοῦτον20, ὡς ἔοικεν, 20ἐστίν20, ὦ Εὐνόμιε, 20κακόν20 (τοῖς σοῖς γὰρ χρήσομαι λόγοις) οὐ 20τὸ δοκεῖν εἶναι σοφὸν πρὸ τοῦ εἶναι τετιμηκέναι20 (μικρὸν γὰρ ἴσως τὸ τοιοῦτον εἰς δυστυχίαν), ἀλλὰ τὸ ἑαυτὸν ἀγνοεῖν καὶ μὴ γινώσκειν, ὅσον ἐστὶ τὸ διάφορον τοῦ ὑψιπετοῦς Βασιλείου 2.1.626 καὶ τοῦ χερσαίου θηρίου. εἰ γὰρ ἐφεώρα τὸν βίον ἡμῶν τὸ ὀξὺ καὶ θεῖον ὄμμα ἐκεῖνο, εἰ περιεπόλει τὴν ἀνθρω πίνην ζωὴν τῷ τῆς σοφίας πτερῷ, ἔδειξεν ἂν καταπτὰς ἐπὶ σὲ τῷ ῥοίζῳ τῶν λόγων, οἵῳ τῷ ὀστράκῳ τῆς ἀνοίας συμ πεφυκὼς πρὸς τίνα δι' ἀπάτης σεαυτὸν ἀντεπήγειρας, ὕβρεσι ταῖς κατ' αὐτοῦ καὶ λοιδορίαις τὸ δοκεῖν τις εἶναι