259

immortal, of corruptible things as incorruptible, and of begotten things as unbegotten20. Is the construction of the God-fighter's impiety plain to all, or is it necessary to uncover the wickedness by argument? Who does not know that things surpassed by the same measure are in every way equal to each other? If, therefore, the corruptible and the begotten are surpassed by God in the same way, and the Lord is also begotten, let Eunomius draw the impious conclusion that arises from 2.1.599 what has been laid down. For it is clear that he considers generation to be the same as corruption and death, just as in the arguments before this he declared the unbegotten to be the same as the incorruptible. If, then, he views corruption and generation as equal and says that God is equally distant from the two, and the Lord is begotten, let no one demand from us that the logical consequence be added, but let him deduce the conclusion for himself, if indeed the nature of God is equally and in the same way distant from the begotten and the corruptible. But, 20it is not20, he says, 20by the absence of death and corruption that we call him incorruptible and 2.1.600 immortal20. Let those who are led by the nose and turned about to whatever seems best to each one be persuaded by what has been said, and let them say that corruption and death are present to God, so that he may be called immortal and incorruptible. For if these privative appellations do not signify the absence of death and corruption, as Eunomius says, then surely the presence to him of their opposites and 2.1.601 foreign qualities is established by this artifice. For each of the things conceived is either entirely absent from something or it is not absent, such as light, darkness, life, death, health, sickness, and all such things; in these cases, if someone says that one of the things conceived is absent, he will certainly establish the presence of the other. If, therefore, he says 20that God is not called immortal by the absence of death20, he would clearly be establishing the presence of death in him and thereby 2.1.602 denying the immortality of the God of all. For how could he still be truly immortal and incorruptible, from whom he says corruption and death are not absent? But perhaps someone will say that we are attacking the argument too contentiously; for no one would be so mad as to establish that God is not immortal. But of things conceived by some in secret, no human has knowledge, but through what is said 2.1.603 our conjecture of the hidden things comes about. Let us then take up the statement again. 20Not by the absence of death20, he says, 20is God called immortal20. How shall we accept the statement, that death is not absent from God, even if he is called immortal? Therefore, if he bids us to think this, Eunomius's god will certainly be mortal and subject to corruption. For one from whom death is not absent does not have a nature to be immortal. But if the appellations signify the absence of neither death nor corruption, they are either applied in vain to the God over all 2.1.604 or they contain some other meaning in themselves. What then is this? Let the artificer of words explain. But we who, as Eunomius says, are 20unskilled both in the judgment of things and in the use of names20, learned to call someone free from sickness not of him in whom is strength, but of him from whom sickness has been separated, and unmaimed not the one who is outside the banquets, but the one who has no maiming in himself; and all other things we name in the same way, either from what is present or from what is not present: courageous, uncourageous; sleepy, sleepless, and whatever belongs 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-haired age and looking toward the truth, it is no small cause for condemnation to utter the ridiculous and trivial points of his opponent's contentiousness. Therefore I shall pass over both those things and what follows them; and they are these: 20that testifies to no20, he says, 20connaturality of the truth with God20; for if this had not been said, who was it who said God has a dual nature, except you who joins every concept of a name to the substance of the Father and says nothing is added from without, but each of the names concerning the divine to the substance of God

259

ἀθάνατον, τῶν δὲ φθαρτῶν ὡς ἄφθαρτον, τῶν δὲ γεννητῶν ὡς ἀγέννητον20. ἆρα πᾶσίν ἐστι πρόδηλος ἡ τοῦ θεομάχου τῆς ἀσεβείας κατασκευή, ἢ λόγῳ προσήκει διανακαλύψαι τὴν πονηρίαν; τίς οὐκ οἶδεν ὅτι τὰ τῷ αὐτῷ μέτρῳ ὑπερ εχόμενα ἴσα πάντως ἀλλήλοις ἐστίν; εἰ οὖν ὁμοίως ὑπερέχεται παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ τὸ φθαρτὸν καὶ γεννητόν, γεννητὸς δὲ καὶ ὁ κύριος, Εὐνόμιος συμπερανάτω τὸ ἐκ 2.1.599 τῶν τεθέντων ἀνακύπτον ἀσέβημα. δῆλον γὰρ ὅτι ταὐτὸν ἡγεῖται τῇ φθορᾷ καὶ τῷ θανάτῳ τὴν γέννησιν, ὡς ταὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς πρὸ τούτου λόγοις [ἐν] τῷ ἀφθάρτῳ τὸ ἀγέννητον ἀπεφήνατο. εἰ οὖν ἐν ἴσῳ βλέπει τὴν φθορὰν καὶ τὴν γέννησιν καὶ ὁμοίως λέγει τὸν θεὸν ἀφεστάναι τῶν δύο, γεννητὸς δὲ ὁ κύριος, μηδεὶς παρ' ἡμῶν ἀπαιτείτω προσ τεθῆναι τὸ ἐκ τοῦ λόγου ἀκόλουθον, ἀλλ' ἀφ' ἑαυτοῦ συλλογισάσθω τὸ πέρας, εἴπερ ἐπίσης καὶ κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν λόγον τοῦ γεννητοῦ καὶ τοῦ φθαρτοῦ ἡ τοῦ θεοῦ φύσις ἀφέστηκεν. ἀλλ' 20οὐκ ἔστι20, φησίν, 20ἀπουσίᾳ θανά του καὶ φθορᾶς λέγειν ἄφθαρτον αὐτὸν καὶ 2.1.600 ἀθάνατον20. πειθέσθωσαν τοῖς εἰρημένοις οἱ τῶν ῥινῶν ἑλκόμενοι καὶ πρὸς τὸ δοκοῦν ἑκάστῳ περιαγόμενοι καὶ λεγέτωσαν παρεῖναι τῷ θεῷ τὴν φθορὰν καὶ τὸν θάνατον, ἵνα ἀθάνατός τε καὶ ἄφθαρτος λέγηται. εἰ γὰρ οὐχὶ τὴν ἀπουσίαν τοῦ θανάτου καὶ τῆς φθορᾶς, καθώς φησιν ὁ Εὐνόμιος, αἱ ἀφαιρετικαὶ τούτων προσηγορίαι σημαί νουσι, πάντως τὸ παρεῖναι αὐτῷ τὰ ἐναντία τε καὶ ἀλ 2.1.601 λότρια διὰ τῆς τεχνολογίας ταύτης κατασκευάζεται. ἕκα στον γὰρ τῶν νοουμένων ἢ ἄπεστι πάντως τινὸς ἢ οὐκ ἄπεστιν, οἷον φῶς σκότος ζωὴ θάνατος ὑγεία νόσος καὶ ὅσα τοιαῦτα· ἐφ' ὧν εἰ τὸ ἕτερόν τις τῶν νοουμένων ἀπεῖναι λέγοι, τὴν τοῦ ἑτέρου πάντως παρουσίαν κατα σκευάσει. εἰ οὖν φησὶ 20μὴ τοῦ θανάτου ἀπουσίᾳ τὸν θεὸν ἀθάνατον λέγεσθαι20, δῆλος ἂν εἴη παρου σίαν αὐτῷ θανάτου κατασκευάζων καὶ διὰ τούτου τὴν 2.1.602 ἀθανασίαν ἐπὶ τοῦ θεοῦ τῶν ὅλων ἀρνούμενος. πῶς γὰρ ἂν ἔτι ἀθάνατος ἀληθῶς εἴη καὶ ἄφθαρτος, οὗ μὴ ἀπεῖναι λέγει τὴν φθορὰν καὶ τὸν θάνατον; ἀλλ' ἴσως ἐρεῖ τις ἡμᾶς ἐπηρεαστικώτερον τῷ λόγῳ προσφύεσθαι· μὴ γὰρ ἂν οὕτω μανῆναί τινα ὡς κατασκευάσαι τὸν θεὸν μὴ εἶναι ἀθάνατον. ἀλλὰ τῶν μὲν ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ τισι νοουμένων οὐδεὶς ἀνθρώπων τὴν γνῶσιν ἔχει, διὰ δὲ τῶν λεγομένων 2.1.603 ὁ 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