329

is not God, and that the only-begotten God, because He is begotten, is as far removed from being God as the unbegotten is from being or being called begotten. For it is not through ignorance of logical sequence that he makes the reversal of his premises inconsistent and incongruous, but maliciously perverting the argument of piety, he contrasts divinity with what is begotten, establishing this by what he says, that 3.5.37 what is not unbegotten is not God. For what would have been the true sequence of the argument? After saying that nothing of begotten things is unbegotten, to add that neither can anything that is by nature unbegotten be begotten. For such an argument both possesses the truth and is separate from blasphemy. But as it is, by positing that nothing of begotten things is unbegotten, but adding that God is not begotten, he clearly excludes the only-begotten God from being God, constructing the argument that because He is not unbegotten, He is not God. Do we then still need other refutations for the proof of this absurd blasphemy, and is this not sufficient alone to stand as a monument to the Christ-fighter who argues through what he has said that the Word who was in the beginning, God, is not God? 3.5.38 What need is there, then, to engage further with such men? For we do not contend with those who are occupied with idols and altar-gore, not because we concur with the perdition of the idol-mad, but because their disease is too severe for our therapy. Therefore, just as the deed itself denounces idolatry, and the evil dared in public anticipates the refutation of its accusers, so also here I think the advocate of piety ought to be silent in the face of one who openly proclaims his own impiety, just as in the case of those overcome by a cancerous disease the medical art remains ineffective because the illness overpowers the skill. 3.5.39 However, since after what has been said he promises to say something even stronger, so that we might not seem to abandon our refutation out of fear of more powerful arguments, let us examine that as well in addition to what has been said. 20If it were necessary20, he says, 20to leave everything and proceed to the stronger argument, I would say this: that even if the names brought forward by him for refutation are accepted, our argument will be revealed to be no less true. If the variation of names signifying properties indicates a variation of things, it is surely necessary to concede that the variation of substances is also co-indicated by the variation of the names signifying substances. And one would find this to be so in all cases, I mean of substances, energies, colors, shapes, and other qualities. 3.5.40 For we signify fire and water, different substances, by varied appellations, and air and earth, and again cold and hot, white and black, or triangular and circular; for what need is there to speak of the intelligible substances, which the Apostle, in enumerating them, showed by the difference of names the variation of their substances?20 Who would not be astounded at this irresistible power of the argument? The argument exceeds the promise; the experience is more fearful than the threat. I will come, he says, to the stronger of the arguments. 3.5.41 What is this? That since the difference of properties is known through the names signifying the properties, it is surely necessary to concede, he says, that the differences of substances are also interpreted in the variations of the names. What then are the appellations of the substances by which the variation of nature in the Father and the Son was taught? He says fire and water and air and earth, cold and hot, white and black, triangular and circular. He has conquered with his examples, he has prevailed mightily with his argument; for not even I myself dispute that names which are in every way unshared co-indicate a difference of natures. 3.5.42 But this alone the one sharp and perceptive in mind did not see, that in this case both the Father is God and the Son is God, just and incorruptible, and all the names of divinity are equally applied to both <the> Father and

329

θεὸς οὐκ ἔστι καὶ ὅτι τοσοῦτον ἀπέχει ὁ μονογενὴς θεὸς διὰ τὸ γεννητὸς εἶναι τοῦ εἶναι θεός, ὅσον καὶ ὁ ἀγέννητος τοῦ γεννητὸς εἶναι ἢ λέγεσθαι. οὐ γὰρ ἀγνοίᾳ τῆς κατὰ τὸν λόγον ἀκολουθίας ἀσύμφωνόν τε καὶ ἀνάρμοστον ποιεῖται τῶν τεθέντων τὴν ἀναστροφήν, ἀλλὰ κακουργῶν τῆς εὐσεβείας τὸν λόγον ἀντιδιαστέλλει τῷ γεν νητῷ τὴν θεότητα, τοῦτο δι' ὧν λέγει κατασκευάζων, ὅτι 3.5.37 τὸ μὴ ἀγέννητον θεὸς οὐκ ἔστιν. ἡ γὰρ ἀληθὴς ἀκο λουθία τοῦ λόγου τίς ἦν; εἰπόντα μηδὲν τῶν γεννητῶν εἶναι ἀγέννητον, ἐπαγαγεῖν ὅτι οὐδὲ εἴ τι κατὰ φύσιν ἐστὶν ἀγέννητον, γεννητὸν εἶναι δύναται. ὁ γὰρ τοιοῦτος λόγος καὶ τὸ ἀληθὲς ἔχει καὶ τῆς βλασφημίας κεχώρισται. νῦν δὲ τῷ προθεῖναι μὲν ὅτι τῶν γεννητῶν οὐδέν ἐστιν ἀγέν νητον, ἐπαγαγεῖν δὲ ὅτι οὐδὲ γεννητὸς ὁ θεός, σαφῶς τοῦ εἶναι θεὸν τὸν μονογενῆ θεὸν ἀφορίζει, διὰ τοῦ μὴ ἀγέν νητον αὐτὸν εἶναι τὸ μηδὲ θεὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι κατασκευάζων. ἆρ' οὖν ἑτέρων ἔτι πρὸς ἀπόδειξιν τῆς ἐκτόπου ταύτης βλασφημίας τῶν ἐλέγχων δεόμεθα καὶ οὐκ ἀρκεῖ τοῦτο μόνον ἀντὶ στήλης γενέσθαι τῷ χριστομάχῳ τῷ κατα σκευάζοντι διὰ τῶν εἰρημένων μὴ εἶναι θεὸν τὸν ἐν ἀρχῇ 3.5.38 ὄντα λόγον θεόν; τί οὖν ἔτι χρὴ πρὸς τοὺς τοιούτους συμπλέκεσθαι; οὐδὲ γὰρ τοῖς περὶ τὰ εἴδωλα καὶ τὸν ἐπιβώμιον λύθρον ἀσχολουμένοις διαπλεκόμεθα, οὐχὶ τῷ συντίθεσθαι τῇ ἀπωλείᾳ τῶν εἰδωλομανούντων, ἀλλὰ τῷ βαρυτέραν εἶναι τὴν νόσον αὐτῶν τῆς παρ' ἡμῶν θεραπείας. ὥσπερ τοίνυν τὴν εἰδωλολατρείαν αὐτὸ καταμηνύει τὸ ἔργον καὶ προλαμβάνει τῶν κατηγόρων τὸν ἔλεγχον τὸ κακὸν ἐν παρρησίᾳ τολμώμενον, οὕτω καὶ ἐνταῦθα σιγᾶν οἶμαι δεῖν τὸν τῆς εὐσεβείας συνήγορον πρὸς τὸν βοῶντα καθ' ἑαυτοῦ περιφανῶς τὴν ἀσέβειαν, καθάπερ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν τῷ καρκι νώδει πάθει κεκρατημένων ἄπρακτος ἡ ἰατρικὴ μένει διὰ τὸ ὑπερισχύειν τῆς τέχνης τὴν νόσον. 3.5.39 Πλὴν ἐπειδή τι μετὰ τὰ εἰρημένα καὶ ἰσχυρότερον ἐπαγγέλλεται λέγειν, ὡς ἂν μὴ φόβῳ τῶν δυνατωτέρων καθ υφιέναι δοκοίημεν τὴν ἀντίρρησιν, κἀκεῖνο τοῖς εἰρημένοις προσεξετάσωμεν. 20εἰ δὲ ἔδει20, φησί, 20πάντων ἀφέμενον ἐπὶ τὸν ἰσχυρότερον χωρῆσαι λόγον, ἐκεῖνα φήσαιμι ἄν, ὅτι καὶ τῶν ὑπ' αὐτοῦ πρὸς ἔλεγχον προβληθέντων ὀνομάτων παραδεχθέντων οὐδὲν ἧττον ἀληθὴς ὁ παρ' ἡμῶν φανερωθήσεται λόγος. εἴπερ ἡ παραλλαγὴ τῶν τὰς ἰδιότητας σημαινόν των ὀνομάτων τὴν παραλλαγὴν ἐμφαίνει τῶν πραγ μάτων, ἀνάγκη δήπου συγχωρεῖν καὶ τῇ παραλλαγῇ τῶν τὰς οὐσίας σημαινόντων συνεμφαίνεσθαι τὴν παραλλαγὴν τῶν οὐσιῶν. καὶ τοῦτο ἐπὶ πάντων οὕτως ἔχον εὕροι τις ἄν, λέγω δὲ οὐσιῶν ἐνερ γειῶν χρωμάτων σχημάτων τῶν ἄλλων ποιοτήτων. 3.5.40 πῦρ τε γὰρ καὶ ὕδωρ, διαφόρους οὐσίας, παρηλ λαγμέναις σημαίνομεν προσηγορίαις, ἀέρα τε καὶ γῆν, ψυχρόν τε αὖ καὶ θερμόν, λευκόν τε καὶ μέλαν ἢ τρίγωνον καὶ περιφερές· τί γὰρ δεῖ περὶ τῶν νοητῶν λέγειν οὐσιῶν, ἃς καταλέγων ὁ ἀπόστολος τῇ διαφορᾷ τῶν ὀνομάτων τὴν παραλλαγὴν ἐνέφηνε τῶν οὐσιῶν20; τίς οὐκ ἂν καταπλαγείη πρὸς τὴν ἀνανταγώνιστον ταύτην τοῦ ἐπι χειρήματος δύναμιν; ὑπὲρ τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν ὁ λόγος, φοβε ρωτέρα τῆς ἀπειλῆς ἡ πεῖρα. ἐπὶ τὸν ἰσχυρότερον, φησίν, 3.5.41 ἥξω τῶν λόγων. τίς οὗτός ἐστιν; ὅτι τῆς τῶν ἰδιω μάτων διαφορᾶς διὰ τῶν ὀνομάτων γινωσκομένης τῶν ση μαινόντων τὰς ἰδιότητας ἀνάγκη δήπου συγχωρεῖν, φησί, καὶ τὰς τῶν οὐσιῶν διαφορὰς ἐν ταῖς τῶν ὀνομάτων παρ αλλαγαῖς ἑρμηνεύεσθαι. τίνες οὖν αἱ τῶν οὐσιῶν προσ ηγορίαι δι' ὧν ἐπὶ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ τὸ παρηλλαγμένον ἐδι δάχθη τῆς φύσεως; πῦρ λέγει καὶ ὕδωρ καὶ ἀέρα καὶ γῆν, ψυχρόν τε καὶ θερμόν, λευκόν τε καὶ μέλαν, τρίγωνον καὶ περιφερές. νενίκηκε τοῖς ὑποδείγμασιν, ὑπερέσχε κατὰ κράτος τῷ λόγῳ· οὐδὲ γὰρ αὐτὸς ἀντιλέγω τὰ διὰ πάντων ἀκοινώνητα τῶν ὀνομάτων τὴν τῶν φύσεων διαφορὰν συν 3.5.42 ενδείκνυσθαι. ἀλλὰ τουτὶ μόνον οὐκ εἶδεν ὁ ὀξὺς καὶ διορατικὸς τὴν διάνοιαν, ὅτι ἐνταῦθα ὅ τε πατὴρ θεὸς καὶ ὁ υἱὸς θεὸς δίκαιός τε καὶ ἄφθαρτος καὶ πάντα τὰ τῆς θεολογίας ὀνόματα κατὰ τὸ ἴσον ἐπί τε <τοῦ> πατρὸς καὶ