261

of Christ, and tracing back from the last to the first, he began from Joseph, and saying that he was the son of Heli, and he of Matthat, and so by ascent tracing the explanation back to Adam, then coming to those above and saying that Seth was from Adam, and Adam from God, he ended the ascent there. Just as, therefore, he said that Adam was from God, let us ask ourselves, 2.1.615 but from whom is God? Is it not obvious to everyone's mind that He is from nothing? But "from nothing" is clearly "without beginning," and "without beginning" is "unbegotten." Therefore, just as in the case of men "from someone" was not substance, so also in the case of the God of all it is not possible to call the "unbegotten" substance."2 With what eyes do you still look to your guide? I speak to you, the flock of the perishing. How do you still incline your ear to one who has set up such a monument of his own shamelessness through his words? Are you not ashamed now at least, if not before, to use such a guide to the 2.1.616 truth? Will you not use this as a sign of his madness concerning his doctrines, that he so shamelessly opposes the truth of what is written? Thus he interprets the divine words for you, thus he presides over the truth of the doctrines, so as to convict Basil of tracing the genealogy of the God over all 2.1.617 from that which is in every way non-existent? Shall I state his saying, shall I set forth the words of his shamelessness? I pass over the insults, I do not find fault with the revilings; for I do not blame one with a foul-smelling mouth because he smells, nor one who is maimed in body because he is maimed. For such things are misfortunes of nature, escaping the blame of those who have sense. Therefore, the eagerness to insult is a sickness of reasoning and a hardship of a soul whose sound reason is maimed. Therefore I have no argument concerning the things he has reviled, but that forceful and invincible intricacy of syllogism, through which he concluded the accusation against us for his own purpose, I will write down explicitly in his very words. 2.1.618 20For20, he says, 20lest he be prevented from saying the Son is from participation in being, he has unawares said that the God over all is from that which is in every way non-existent. For if "1nothing"2 is the same in meaning as that which is in every way non-existent, and for equivalent terms substitution is permitted, he who says that God is from nothing says that God is from that which is in every way non-existent20. To which of the things said first should we look: that he thinks the Son is from participation in God and scatters the stench of his own mouth upon those who do not accept this, or should we examine the cold and dream-like construction of his sophism? But that to attribute "from participation" to the divine nature belongs only to poets and myth-makers, no one who partakes of reason 2.1.619 in any way would be ignorant. For thus do those who weave myths into verse fashion certain Dionysi, and Heracleses, and Minoses, and other such beings from a demonic union with human bodies, and they elevate such men above the rest of humanity in their account, as having the advantage through 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 to set forth rather that invincible syllogism, so that the laypeople among us may learn what and how many things those who have not been instructed in the technical methods have been deprived of. 2.1.620 20For if "1nothing,"220 he says, 20is the same in meaning as that which is in every way non-existent, and for equivalent terms substitution is permitted, he who says that God is from nothing says that God is from that which is in every way non-existent20. Who granted to him who brandishes the Aristotelian spear-point at us that to say someone has no father is the same as to say he has been born from that which is in every way non-existent? For he who enumerated in order those genealogized by the account always conceives of a father 2.1.621 superior to the one mentioned, clearly. For what was Heli to Joseph? And what Matthat to Heli? And what Adam to Seth? Is it not manifest even to

261

Χριστοῦ ἐκ τιθέμενος καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν τελευταίων ἐπὶ τοὺς πρώτους ἀνα ποδίζων ἤρξατο μὲν ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἰωσήφ, εἰπὼν δὲ τοῦτον τοῦ Ἠλεί, τὸν δὲ τοῦ Ματτὰθ καὶ οὕτω κατὰ ἀνάβασιν πρὸς τὸν Ἀδὰμ τὴν ἐξήγησιν ἐπαναγαγών, εἶτα ἐλθὼν ἐπὶ τοὺς ἄνω καὶ εἰπὼν ὅτι ὁ Σὴθ ἐκ τοῦ Ἀδάμ, ὁ δὲ Ἀδὰμ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ, ἐνταῦθα τῆς ἀναβάσεως ἔληξεν. ὥσπερ οὖν ἐκεῖνος εἶπεν ὅτι ὁ Ἀδὰμ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ, ἡμεῖς ἑαυτοὺς 2.1.615 ἐρωτήσωμεν ὁ δὲ θεὸς ἐκ τίνος; ἆρ' οὐχὶ πρόχειρόν ἐστι τῇ ἑκάστου διανοίᾳ ὅτι ἐξ οὐδενός; τὸ δὲ ἐξ οὐδενὸς τὸ ἄναρχόν ἐστι δηλονότι, τὸ δὲ ἄναρχον τὸ ἀγέννητον. ὡς οὖν ἐπὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων οὐκ ἦν οὐσία τὸ ἔκ τινος, οὕτως οὐδὲ ἐπὶ τοῦ θεοῦ τῶν ὅλων οὐσίαν ἔστιν εἰπεῖν τὸ ἀγέν νητον."2 τίσιν ὀφθαλμοῖς ἔτι πρὸς τὸν ὁδηγὸν ὑμῶν ἀπο βλέπετε; 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 2.1.616 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 2.1.617 θεόν; εἴπω τὴν παρ' αὐτοῦ ῥῆσιν, ἔκθωμαι τῆς ἀναισχυν τίας 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. 2.1.618 20Ἵνα γάρ20, φησί, 20μὴ κωλυθῇ τὸν υἱὸν ἐκ μετ ουσίας εἰπεῖν τοῦ ὄντος, λέληθεν ἑαυτὸν τὸν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸν ἐκ τοῦ πάντη μὴ ὄντος εἰπών. εἰ γὰρ τὸ "1μηδὲν"2 τῷ πάντη μὴ ὄντι ταὐτὸν κατὰ τὴν ἔννοιαν, τῶν δὲ 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