333

the substratum in them is alienated from bodily corruption? so that the argument is clear even to infants, that bodies are not corrupted and dissolved because they are consubstantial with one another, but because they have received a composite nature. The principle of the composite is one thing, and the principle of the community of substance is another; so that to say corruptible bodies are consubstantial is true, but the converse is not true: if something is consubstantial, it is also necessarily corruptible, as is shown in the case of souls, which have one substance, and yet corruption is not attached to the community 3.5.63 of their substance. The argument given concerning souls would also be fitting for every intellectual hypostasis observed in creation. For, contrary to what Eunomius wants, the terms listed by Paul for the super-celestial powers do not signify natures that are different from one another, but the meaning of the titles clearly indicates that not differences of natures, but the various properties of the activities of the heavenly host are presented in the text. For, he says, principalities, and thrones, and authorities, and powers, and dominions. And these names are such that it is immediately obvious to everyone that what is signified is defined according to some 3.5.64 activity. For to rule, and to have authority, and to have dominion, and to be a throne for someone, all these things a rational person would not trace back to differences of substances, since the activity is clearly signified by each of the names. So whoever says that differences of natures are signified in the names listed by Paul deceives himself, as the apostle says, understanding neither what he says nor about what he makes confident assertions, since the meaning of the names clearly shows that the apostle knows of differences of ranks among the intelligible powers, not indicating heterogeneities of substances through the names. 3.6.1 Such, then, are the 20strong20 points of Eunomius. But since those things that promised strength have been shown by my argument to be so unsound and without substance, I think I should be silent on the remaining points, since with the refutations against the strong points the others have also been virtually refuted; just as happens in wars, when the strongest of the others has fallen, the remainder of the army is no longer of any account to those who have conquered the strong one. But the chief point of his blasphemy, which is set forth in the following parts of his argument, does not permit silence; for the coming-into-being of the Only-begotten from non-being—this dreadful and godless dogma of Eunomius, more to be shunned than any impiety—he now constructs in the 3.6.2 sequence of his argument. And since for all who have been bewitched by this deceit, the argument is ready on the tongue for the construction of his coming-into-being from non-being, to say: if he was, he was not begotten, and if he was begotten, he was not, and through these words the deceit finds much support, with the more faint-hearted being distressed by this superficial plausibility and being led to consent to the blasphemy, it is necessary not to pass by the root of the bitterness of this dogma, lest, as the apostle says, springing up it cause trouble. But first I say it is necessary to understand the argument itself on its own, apart from the battle against our opponents, and then to come to the examination and refutation of what has been set forth. 3.6.3 The word of Holy Scripture indicates one mark of the true Godhead, which Moses was taught through the voice from above, when he heard the one who said, "I am who I am." Therefore, we think we ought to believe that only this is truly divine, which is comprehended in being according to what is both eternal and undefined, and everything observed concerning it is always in the same state, neither coming to be nor ceasing to be. So if anyone should say concerning God that he was before but is not now, or that he is now but was not before, we judge each of these statements to be equally godless; for through both of them the principle of eternity is equally curtailed, being encompassed by non-existence in either part equally, whether one should contemplate non-being before being, or should declare that being ceases into non-being,

333

ὑποκείμενον ἐν αὐταῖς τῆς σωματικῆς διαφθορᾶς ἠλλοτρίωται; ὥστε νη πίοις φανερὸν εἶναι τὸν λόγον, ὅτι τὰ σώματα οὐ διὰ τὸ ὁμοούσια εἶναι ἀλλήλοις διὰ τοῦτο φθείρεταί τε καὶ δια λύεται, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸ σύνθετον εἰληφέναι τὴν φύσιν. ἄλλος δὲ τοῦ συνθέτου καὶ ἕτερος τοῦ κοινοῦ τῆς οὐσίας λόγος· ὥστε τὸ μὲν ὁμοούσια τὰ φθαρτὰ σώματα λέγειν ἀληθές ἐστιν, ἡ δὲ ἀναστροφὴ τὸ ἀληθὲς οὐκ ἔχει· εἴ τι ὁμοούσιον, τοῦτο καὶ φθαρτόν ἐστι πάντως, ὡς ἐπὶ τῶν ψυχῶν ἀπο δείκνυται, ὧν καὶ οὐσία μία καὶ φθορὰ τῇ κοινότητι 3.5.63 τῆς οὐσίας οὐ πρόσεστιν. ὁ δὲ περὶ τῶν ψυχῶν ἀποδοθεὶς λόγος καὶ περὶ πάσης νοερᾶς ὑποστάσεως τῆς ἐν τῇ κτίσει θεωρουμένης οἰκείως ἂν ἔχοι. οὐ γάρ, καθὼς Εὐνόμιος βούλεται, αἱ παρὰ τοῦ Παύλου κατειλεγμέναι φωναὶ τῶν ὑπερκοσμίων δυνάμεων φύσεις τινὰς ἀλλήλων παρηλλαγ μένας σημαίνουσιν, ἀλλ' ἡ τῶν προσηγοριῶν σημασία σαφῶς ἐνδείκνυται τὸ μὴ φύσεων διαφοράς, ἀλλὰ τῆς ἐπουρανίου στρατιᾶς τὰς ποικίλας τῶν ἐνεργειῶν ἰδιότητας τῷ λόγῳ παρίστασθαι. ἀρχαὶ γάρ, φησί, καὶ θρόνοι καὶ ἐξουσίαι καὶ δυνάμεις καὶ κυριότητες. ταῦτα δὲ τὰ ὀνόματα τοιαῦτά ἐστιν ὡς αὐτόθεν παντὶ πρόδηλον εἶναι τὸ κατ' ἐνεργείας 3.5.64 τινὸς τετάχθαι τὰ σημαινόμενα. τὸ γὰρ ἄρχειν καὶ τὸ ἐξουσιάζειν καὶ τὸ κυριεύειν καὶ τὸ θρόνον εἶναί τινος, ταῦτα πάντα οὐκ ἂν ὁ λελογισμένος εἰς οὐσιῶν διαφορὰς ἀπαγάγοι, προδήλως τῆς ἐνεργείας ὑφ' ἑκάστου τῶν ὀνο μάτων σημαινομένης. ὥστε ὁ λέγων φύσεων διαφορὰς ἐν τοῖς κατειλεγμένοις ὀνόμασι παρὰ τοῦ Παύλου σημαίνεσθαι φρεναπατᾷ ἑαυτόν, καθώς φησιν ὁ ἀπόστολος, μὴ εἰδὼς μήτε ἃ λέγει μήτε περὶ τίνων διαβεβαιοῦται, σαφῶς ἐνδει κνυμένης τῆς τῶν ὀνομάτων σημασίας ὅτι ἀξιωμάτων τινῶν διαφορὰς ὁ ἀπόστολος ἐν ταῖς νοηταῖς δυνάμεσιν οἶδεν, οὐκ οὐσιῶν ἑτερότητας διὰ τῶν ὀνομάτων ἐνδείκνυται. 3.6.1 Τὰ μὲν οὖν 20ἰσχυρὰ20 τῶν Εὐνομίου τοιαῦτα. ἐγὼ δὲ τῶν ἐν ἐπαγγελίᾳ δυνάμεως οὕτω σαθρῶν τε καὶ ἀνυποστά των ἐπιδειχθέντων τῷ λόγῳ, σιωπᾶν οἶμαι δεῖν ἐπὶ τῶν ὑπολοίπων, τοῖς κατὰ τῶν ἰσχυρῶν ἐλέγχοις καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῇ δυνάμει συναπελεγχθέντων· καθάπερ ἐπὶ τῶν πολέμων συμβαίνει, τοῦ δυνατωτέρου τῶν ἄλλων καταπεσόντος μη κέτι τὸ λειπόμενον τῆς στρατιᾶς ἐν λόγῳ τινὶ τοῖς κεκρα τηκόσι τοῦ ἰσχύοντος γίνεσθαι. ἀλλ' οὐκ ἐᾷ σιωπᾶν τὸ κεφάλαιον τῆς βλασφημίας ἐν τοῖς ἐφεξῆς τοῦ λόγου προ κείμενον· τὴν γὰρ ἐκ μὴ ὄντων εἰς τὸ εἶναι τοῦ μονο γενοῦς πάροδον, τοῦτο δὴ τὸ φρικτόν τε καὶ ἄθεον καὶ πάσης ἀσεβείας φευκτότερον δόγμα τοῦ Εὐνομίου, νῦν τῇ 3.6.2 ἀκολουθίᾳ τοῦ λόγου κατασκευάζει. καὶ ἐπειδὴ πᾶσι τοῖς διὰ τῆς ἀπάτης ταύτης γεγοητευμένοις ἕτοιμον ἐπὶ γλώσσης ἐστὶν εἰς κατασκευὴν τοῦ ἐκ μὴ ὄντος εἶναι τὸν ἡμᾶς καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν κτίσιν ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ποιήσαντα τὸ λέγειν εἰ ἦν, οὐ γεγέννηται, καὶ εἰ γεγέννηται, οὐκ ἦν, καὶ πολλὴν ἔχει διὰ τούτων ἡ ἀπάτη τὴν συμμαχίαν, τῶν μικροψυχοτέρων ἐν τῇ ἐπιπολαίῳ ταύτῃ πιθανότητι στενοχωρουμένων καὶ πρὸς συγκατάθεσιν τῆς βλασφημίας ὑπαγομένων, ἀνάγκη μὴ παρελθεῖν τὴν ῥίζαν τῆς πικρίας τοῦ δόγματος, ἵνα μή, καθώς φησιν ὁ ἀπόστολος, ἄνω φύουσα διοχλῇ. πρῶ τον δέ φημι δεῖν αὐτὸν ἐφ' ἑαυτοῦ τὸν λόγον κατανοῆσαι δίχα τῆς πρὸς τοὺς ἐναντίους μάχης, εἶθ' οὕτως ἐπὶ τὴν ἐξέτασίν τε καὶ τὸν ἔλεγχον τῶν ἐκτεθέντων ἐλθεῖν. 3.6.3 Ἓν γνώρισμα τῆς ἀληθινῆς θεότητος ὁ τῆς ἁγίας γραφῆς ὑποδείκνυσι λόγος, ὃ διὰ τῆς ἄνωθεν φωνῆς ἐδι δάχθη ὁ Μωϋσῆς ἀκούσας τοῦ εἰπόντος ὅτι Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν. οὐκοῦν τοῦτο μόνον θεῖον εἶναι ὡς ἀληθῶς πιστεύειν οἰόμεθα δεῖν, ὃ κατὰ τὸ ἀΐδιόν τε καὶ ἀόριστον ἐν τῷ εἶναι καταλαμβάνεται, καὶ πᾶν τὸ περὶ αὐτὸ θεωρούμενον ἀεὶ ὡσαύτως ἔχει, οὔτε προσγινόμενον οὔτε ἀπογινόμενον. ὥστε εἴ τις λέγοι περὶ θεοῦ ὅτι πρότερον μὲν ἦν νῦν δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν ἢ ὅτι νῦν μὲν ἔστι πρότερον δὲ οὐκ ἦν, ἐπίσης ἄθεον κρίνομεν τῶν εἰρημένων ἑκάτερον· κολοβοῦται γὰρ ὁμοίως δι' ἀμφοτέρων ὁ τῆς ἀϊδιότητος λόγος καθ' ἑκάτερον μέρος ὁμοίως τῷ ἀνυπάρκτῳ περισκεπόμενος, εἴτε προθεωροίη τις τὸ μὴ ὂν τοῦ ὄντος εἴτε καταλήγειν τὸ ὂν εἰς τὸ μὴ ὂν ἀποφαίνοιτο,