193

all, who have a share of intelligence, will demand this from their opponents: that having first established the beginning of their argument on some irrefutable basis, they should then contend about the consequences. 3.2.91 This man, then, having abandoned the construction of his argument that one must think him a creature, goes through the subsequent points, fitting the sequence of his reasonings to an unsubstantiated premise, just as those suffer who delve deep in their soul into vain desires, or are distracted in their thoughts towards a kingdom or some other desired object; they do not consider how any of their desired objects might come to be, but as if it were present they arrange and manage for themselves the supposed success, wandering with a certain pleasure amidst non-existent things. 3.2.92 So also our wise prose-writer, having laid his much-vaunted dialectic to rest I know not where, before proving the matter in question, tells fables as if to little children, this deceptive and unconstructed nonsense of his own dogma, setting it forth like some drunken tale. 3.2.93 For he says 20that the substance that subsisted by the energy of the Father accepts the title of offspring and product and creature20. What argument proved that the Son subsisted by some constructive energy, while the nature of the Father remained inactive with respect to the subsistence of the Son? For this was the disputed and questioned point, whether the substance of the Father begot the Son, or whether something external accompanying his nature produced him. 3.2.94 Since, then, the church according to the divine teaching believes the Only-begotten to be truly God, and abominates the superstition <τῆς> of polytheism, and for this reason does not accept a difference of natures, so that the divinities might not fall under number by the variation of substances, which is nothing other than to reintroduce polytheism into life, since, then, the church simply teaches these things, that from the substance of the true God the only-begotten God is true God according to substance, how was it necessary for the one who contradicts what is known to overturn the preconceived opinion? Was it not by constructing the opposing argument, proving the doubtful point by means of some acknowledged principle? I think no one of sense would seek anything else besides this. 3.2.95 But this man begins from disputed points and gives the doubtful matter as a starting point to his subsequent argument, as if it were proven. For if it had first been proved that the Son subsisted through some energy, what battle would there be with the next point, saying that the substance that subsisted through some energy accepts for itself the title of a product? But as long as the antecedent is unconstructed, how does the consequent have force, let the advocates of this deceit say. 3.2.96 For if someone should grant hypothetically that man has become winged, he will no longer fight about what follows. For the one who has become winged will somehow fly and lift himself above the earth, borne aloft through the air on wings. But one must consider how he who has not by nature an aerial nature could become winged; and if this is not the case, it is futile to go through what comes after this. 3.2.97 Let him then first demonstrate this, that the church has believed in vain that the only-begotten Son is truly Son, not adopted by position to a falsely-named father, but by nature begotten from the one who is, being from him, not alienated from the nature of the one who begot. Let him first refute these things as false, and then when he goes through the consequences he will be persuasive. But as long as the first point is unproven, it is nonsense to dwell on the second points. 3.2.98 And let no one object to me that what is acknowledged by us must also be confirmed through construction; for it is sufficient for the proof of our argument that the tradition has come to us from the fathers, like some inheritance passed down in succession from the apostles through the succeeding saints. 3.2.99 But those who are changing their doctrines to this novelty would need much alliance from reasoning, if they intended not the dusty and fickle sort of men, but

193

πάντες, οἷς μέτεστι διανοίας, τοῦτο παρὰ τῶν ἀντιλεγόντων ἐπιζητήσουσι, τὸ τὴν ἀρχὴν τοῦ λόγου πρῶτον ἐπί τινος ἀναντιρρήτου βάσεως στήσαντας οὕτω τοῖς ἀκολούθοις ἐνα 3.2.91 γωνίζεσθαι. οὑτοσὶ τοίνυν ἀφεὶς τὴν περὶ τοῦ χρῆναι κτι στὸν αὐτὸν οἴεσθαι κατασκευὴν τὰ ἐφεξῆς διεξέρχεται, τῷ ἀνυποστάτῳ λήμματι τὴν τῶν λογισμῶν ἀκολουθίαν ἁρμό ζων, οἷόν τι πάσχουσιν οἱ ταῖς ματαίαις ἐπιθυμίαις κατὰ ψυχὴν ἐμβαθύνοντες, ἢ πρὸς βασιλείαν ἢ πρὸς ἄλλο τι τῶν σπουδαζομένων ταῖς ἐννοίαις διαχεόμενοι· οὐχ ὅπως ἂν γένοιτό τι τῶν σπουδαζομένων αὐτοῖς ἐπινοοῦσιν, ἀλλ' ὡς τούτου παρόντος διατιθέασιν ἑαυτοῖς καὶ οἰκονομοῦσι πρὸς τὸ δοκοῦν τὸ εὐτύχημα, διά τινος ἡδονῆς τοῖς ἀνυπ 3.2.92 άρκτοις ἐπιπλανώμενοι. οὕτως ἡμῖν καὶ ὁ σοφὸς λογο γράφος τὴν πολυθρύλητον ἑαυτοῦ διαλεκτικὴν οὐκ οἶδα ὅπου κατακοιμίσας, πρὶν ἀποδεῖξαι περὶ τοῦ ζητουμένου, καθάπερ τισὶ παιδίοις διαμυθολογεῖται τὴν ἀπατηλὴν ταύ την καὶ ἀκατάσκευον τοῦ καθ' ἑαυτὸν δόγματος φλυαρίαν οἷον διήγημά τι παροίνιον ἐκτιθέμενος. 3.2.93 Λέγει γὰρ 20τὴν ἐνεργείᾳ τοῦ πατρὸς ὑπο στᾶσαν οὐσίαν δέχεσθαι τὴν τοῦ γεννήματος καὶ ποιήματος καὶ κτίσματος προσηγορίαν20. τίς ἀπέδειξε λόγος ἐνεργείᾳ τινὶ κατασκευαστικῇ τὸν υἱὸν ὑποστῆναι, τὴν δὲ φύσιν τοῦ πατρὸς ἀνενέργητον ὡς πρὸς τὴν ὑπόστασιν τοῦ υἱοῦ μεῖναι; τὸ γὰρ ἀμφιβαλλόμενόν τε καὶ ζητούμενον τοῦτο ἦν, εἴτε ἡ οὐσία τοῦ πατρὸς ἐγέν νησε τὸν υἱὸν εἴτε τι τῶν ἔξωθεν παρεπομένων τῇ φύσει 3.2.94 τοῦτον εἰργάσατο. τῆς τοίνυν ἐκκλησίας κατὰ τὴν θείαν διδασκαλίαν ἀληθῶς θεὸν εἶναι τὸν μονογενῆ πιστευούσης, τὴν δὲ <τῆς> πολυθεΐας δεισιδαιμονίαν βδελυσσομένης καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τὴν τῶν φύσεων διαφορὰν οὐ προσδεχομένης, ὡς ἂν μὴ τῇ παραλλαγῇ τῶν οὐσιῶν ὑπὸ ἀριθμὸν αἱ θεό τητες πίπτοιεν, ὅπερ οὐδέν ἐστιν ἕτερον ἢ τὴν πολυθεΐαν πάλιν ἐπεισάγειν τῷ βίῳ, ταῦτα τοίνυν τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἰδιω τικῶς διδασκούσης, ὅτι ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ ἀληθινοῦ θεοῦ ἀληθινὸς θεὸς κατ' οὐσίαν ὁ μονογενής ἐστι θεός, τὸν ἀντιβαίνοντα τοῖς ἐγνωσμένοις πῶς ἀνατρέπειν ἔδει τὴν προειλημμένην ὑπόληψιν; οὐχὶ τῷ κατασκευάζειν τὸν ἀντι κείμενον λόγον, διά τινος ὁμολογουμένης ἀρχῆς συναποδει κνύοντα τὸ ἀμφίβολον; οὐκ ἂν οἶμαί τινα τῶν νοῦν ἐχόν 3.2.95 των ἕτερόν τι παρὰ ταῦτα ζητῆσαι. ἀλλ' οὗτος ἀπὸ τῶν ἀμφισβητουμένων ἄρχεται καὶ ὡς ἀποδεδειγμένον τὸ ἀμφι βαλλόμενον ἀρχὴν τῷ ἐφεξῆς δίδωσι λόγῳ. ἀποδειχθέντος γὰρ πρότερον ὅτι διά τινος ἐνεργείας ὁ υἱὸς ὑπέστη, τίς ἂν ἦν μάχη πρὸς τὸ ἑπόμενον, τὸ εἰς ἑαυτὴν δέχεσθαι τὴν τοῦ ποιήματος προσηγορίαν λέγειν τὴν δι' ἐνεργείας τινὸς ὑποστᾶσαν οὐσίαν; ἕως δ' ἂν ἀκατάσκευον ᾖ τὸ προηγού μενον, πῶς ἰσχὺν ἔχει τὸ ἐφεπόμενον, εἰπάτωσαν οἱ τῆς 3.2.96 ἀπάτης συνήγοροι. καὶ γὰρ εἴ τις πτηνὸν γενέσθαι καθ' ὑπόθεσιν δοίη τὸν ἄνθρωπον, περὶ τῶν ἐφεξῆς οὐκέτι μα χήσεται. καὶ πτήσεται γάρ πως ὁ πτηνὸς γενόμενος καὶ ἄνω τῆς γῆς ἑαυτὸν ἀνάξει, μετάρσιος ἐπὶ πτερύγων δι' ἀέρος φερόμενος. ἀλλὰ σκεπτέον πῶς ἂν γένοιτο πτηνὸς ὁ τὴν φύσιν οὐ λαχὼν ἐναέριον, τούτου δὲ μὴ ὄντος, μάταιον 3.2.97 τὸ μετὰ τοῦτο διεξιέναι. κἀκεῖνος τοίνυν τουτὶ πρῶτον ἐπι δειξάτω, τὸ μάτην πεπιστευκέναι τὴν ἐκκλησίαν ἀληθῶς εἶναι τὸν μονογενῆ υἱόν, οὐ κατὰ θέσιν εἰσποιηθέντα ψευδ ωνύμῳ πατρί, ἀλλὰ κατὰ φύσιν γεννητῶς ἐκ τοῦ ὄντος ὄντα, μὴ ἀπεξενωμένον τῆς τοῦ γεννήσαντος φύσεως. ταῦτα πρῶτον ὡς ψευδῆ διελεγξάτω, καὶ τότε περὶ τῶν ἀκολού θων διεξιὼν πιθανὸς ἔσται. ἕως δ' ἂν τὸ πρῶτον ἀναπό 3.2.98 δεικτον ᾖ, φλυαρίας ἐστὶν ἐμφιλοχωρεῖν τοῖς δευτέροις. καί μοι μηδεὶς ὑποκρουέτω καὶ τὸ παρ' ἡμῶν διομολογούμενον διὰ κατασκευῆς κυρωθῆναι· ἀρκεῖ γὰρ εἰς ἀπόδειξιν τοῦ ἡμετέρου λόγου τὸ πατρόθεν ἥκειν πρὸς ἡμᾶς τὴν παρά δοσιν, οἷόν τινα κλῆρον δι' ἀκολουθίας ἐκ τῶν ἀποστόλων 3.2.99 διὰ τῶν ἐφεξῆς ἁγίων παραπεμφθέντα. οἱ δὲ πρὸς τὴν καινότητα ταύτην μετατιθέντες τὰ δόγματα πολλῆς ἂν δέ οιντο τῆς ἐκ τῶν λογισμῶν συμμαχίας, εἰ μέλλοιεν μὴ τοὺς κονιορτώδεις τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ εὐριπίστους, ἀλλὰ