294

the deities might fall under the category of number according to their substances, which is nothing other than to introduce polytheism into life again, since the church teaches this in its own particular way, that from the substance of the true God the only-begotten is essentially true God, God by substance, how should the one who opposes what is known overthrow the preconceived notion? Is it not by constructing the opposing argument, which, through some agreed-upon principle, demonstrates along with it the doubtful point? I do not think that anyone who has sense 3.2.95 would seek anything else besides these things. But this one begins from disputed points and gives the point in question to the subsequent argument as a starting-point, as if it were proven. For if it had first been demonstrated that the Son came into being through some operation, what conflict would there have been with what follows, namely, to say that the substance which came into being through some operation accepts for itself the designation of 'thing made'? But as long as the preceding point is unproven, how does what follows have force, let the advocates of this deception 3.2.96 say. For indeed, if one were to grant, by hypothesis, that man becomes winged, he will no longer dispute about what follows. For having become winged he will somehow fly and will lift himself above the earth, carried aloft through the air on wings. But one must consider how he could become winged, who has not been allotted an aerial nature; and since this is not the case, it is futile 3.2.97 to discuss what comes after this. And so let him first demonstrate this, that the Church has believed in vain that the only-begotten is truly Son, not adopted by decree to a falsely named father, but being by nature, through generation, from the one who is, not alienated from the nature of the one who begot him. Let him first refute these things as false, and then when he discusses the consequences he will be persuasive. But as long as the first point is unproven, 3.2.98 it is nonsense to linger on the secondary points. And let no one object that what is confessed by us should be confirmed by proof; for it is sufficient for proof of our argument that the tradition has come to us from the fathers, passed down like some inheritance in succession from the apostles 3.2.99 through the saints who followed. But those who change the doctrines to this novelty would need much support from arguments, if they intend to win over not the dusty and fickle sort of men, but also those who are weighty and firm in their thoughts; but as long as their argument is brought forward unconstructed and unproven, who is so foolish and brutish as to consider the teaching of the evangelists and apostles and of those who shone forth in succession in the churches weaker than this unproven nonsense? 3.2.100 But let us also see the most hard-to-detect part of the author's cleverness, how with the abundance of his dialectical experience he artfully draws the more simple-minded to the opposite conclusion. He has thrown in with the designation of 20thing made20 and 20creature20 also the word 20offspring20, saying that the substance of the Son receives these names to itself, and as if speaking publicly in an assembly of drunkards he thinks that his own malice concerning the doctrine will become evident to no one. For by joining 'offspring' with 'creature' and 'thing made' he thinks to obscure the difference in the meaning of the names through the arrangement of these incompatible terms. 3.2.101 These are the clever contrivances of dialectic. But we who are unlearned in speech do not deny that we are this according to voice and tongue, which the argument shows concerning us, but we confess that ears, as the prophet says, have been prepared for us too for intelligent hearing. Therefore we are not at all led into the confusion of the meanings through the connection of the incompatible names; but even if the great apostle should name in the same context wood and hay and straw and gold and silver and precious stones, we both sum up the number of the things mentioned, and we will not be ignorant of the particular nature of each of the things 3.2.102 named. So also now of 20offspring

294

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 καὶ τοὺς ἐμβριθεῖς τε καὶ βεβηκότας ταῖς διανοίαις προσάγεσθαι· ἕως δ' ἂν ἀκατάσκευος αὐτοῖς καὶ ἀναπόδεικτος ὁ λόγος προφέρηται, τίς οὕτως ἠλίθιος καὶ κτηνώδης, ὡς τῶν εὐαγγελιστῶν τε καὶ ἀποστόλων καὶ τῶν καθεξῆς ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις διαλαμψάντων ἀσθενεστέραν τὴν διδασκαλίαν τῆς ἀναποδείκτου φλυαρίας ποιήσασθαι; 3.2.100 Ἴδωμεν δὲ καὶ τὸ δυσφωρατότατον τῆς ἀγχινοίας τοῦ λογογράφου, ὅπως τῇ περιουσίᾳ τῆς διαλεκτικῆς ἐμπειρίας πρὸς τοὐναντίον εὐμηχάνως τοὺς ἀκεραιοτέρους ἐφέλκεται. προσέρριψε τῇ τοῦ 20ποιήματος20 καὶ 20κτίσματος20 προσ ηγορίᾳ καὶ τὴν φωνὴν τοῦ 20γεννήματος20, εἰπὼν εἰς ἑαυτὴν δέχεσθαι τὰ ὀνόματα ταῦτα τοῦ υἱοῦ τὴν οὐσίαν, καὶ ὥσπερ ἐν μεθυόντων συνεδρίῳ δημηγορῶν οἴεται μηδενὶ κατά φωρον ἑαυτοῦ τὴν περὶ τὸ δόγμα κακουργίαν γενήσεσθαι. τῷ γὰρ συνάψαι τὸ γέννημα τῷ κτίσματί τε καὶ τῷ ποιή ματι ἐκκλέπτειν ἡγεῖται τὴν κατὰ τὸ σημαινόμενον τῶν ὀνομάτων διαφορὰν διὰ τῆς τῶν ἀκοινωνήτων συντάξεως. 3.2.101 ταῦτα τὰ σοφὰ τῆς διαλεκτικῆς μηχανήματα. ἀλλ' ἡμεῖς οἱ ἰδιῶται τῷ λόγῳ τὸ μὲν εἶναι τοῦτο κατὰ τὴν φωνὴν καὶ τὴν γλῶσσαν, ὅπερ ὁ λόγος περὶ ἡμῶν δείκνυσιν, οὐκ ἀρνούμεθα, ὠτία δέ, καθώς φησιν ὁ προφήτης, κατηρ τίσθαι καὶ ἡμῖν πρὸς ἀκοὴν εὐσύνετον ὁμολογοῦμεν. διόπερ οὐδὲν διὰ τῆς συναφείας τῶν ἀκοινωνήτων ὀνομάτων εἰς τὴν τῶν σημαινομένων σύγχυσιν ὑπαγόμεθα· ἀλλὰ κἂν ὁ μέγας ἀπόστολος κατὰ ταὐτὸν ὀνομάσῃ ξύλα καὶ χόρτον καὶ καλάμην χρυσόν τε καὶ ἄργυρον καὶ λίθους τιμίους, καὶ τὸν ἀριθμὸν τῶν μνημονευθέντων ἐπὶ κεφαλαίου συλ λογιζόμεθα, καὶ τὴν φύσιν ἑκάστου τῶν κατωνομασμένων 3.2.102 ἰδιαζόντως οὐκ ἀγνοήσομεν. οὕτω καὶ νῦν 20γεννήματος