377

he puts forward such things through his arguments against the truth, either testing the insensibility of those who follow his deceptions, whether they are able to perceive the childish fallacy of his sophism, or are insensitive even to such a manifest deception? For I think no one is so foolish as not to understand the deception arising from homonymy, by which Eunomius deludes both himself and his followers. The disciples, he says, were called light, and the light that came to be in creation is also called light. Then who does not know that <τὸ> name alone in these is common, but the thing signified is different in each case? For the light of the sun is for distinguishing by sight, but the word of the disciples' teaching places in souls the illumination of the 3.10.21 truth. If, then, he knows this difference in the case of that 3.10.21 light as well, so as to think one is light of the body, and the other of the soul, we will no longer have any argument against him, since his own defense condemns him even before our arguments. But if he cannot find such a difference in the case of that light according to the mode of its energy (for one is not illuminative of fleshly eyes, and the other of the mind, but the energy of this light and that light is one and the same, operating on the same things), how does he prove through the rays of the sun and the words of the apostles that the only-begotten light is different from the paternal light? But the Son, he says, is called true light, but the Father unapproachable. Therefore the additional definitions explain the difference of the paternal light in terms of being greater 3.10.22. For he thinks that 'the true' is one thing and 'the unapproachable' is another. Then who is so foolish as not to see the identity of the things signified? For both 'the true' and 'the unapproachable' are equally unapproachable by things conceived as their opposites. For just as the true does not admit a mixture of the false, so also the unapproachable does not admit the approach of its opposite. For the unapproachable is in every way unapproachable by evil. But the light of the Son is not evil; for how could anyone see the true in evil? Since, therefore, truth is not evil, no one would say that the light in the Father is unapproachable even by the truth. For if it should cast off the truth, it will certainly 3.10.23 associate with the false. For such is the nature of opposites, that in the absence of the better, that which is conceived from its opposite appears. If, then, someone should say that the light in the Father is seen far from the juxtaposition of its opposite, he will interpret the word 'unapproachable' in accordance with the Apostle's intention. But if he should say that 'unapproachable' means alienation from the good, he will suppose nothing other than that he is an enemy and alien to himself, being good and opposed to the good. But this is indeed among the impossible things; for the good is akin to the good. 3.10.24 Therefore this light is not different from that light; for the Son is true light and the Father is unapproachable light. And I would say with confidence that he who exchanges such titles for each will not err. For the true is unapproachable by the false, [and] and the unapproachable in turn is comprehended in the purest truth. Therefore 'the unapproachable' is the same as 'the true', because the meaning in each is equally unapproachable by evil. 3.10.25 What difference, then, does he who deceives both himself and his followers through the homonymy of the lights devise in these things? But let us not pass over this unexamined, that having distorted the saying of the apostle according to what seems good to him, he sets forth the saying as from him. For Paul says that He dwells in unapproachable light. But it makes a great difference to say that he is it himself and that he is in something. For he who said that He dwells in unapproachable light, by the word 'dwelling' indicated not him himself but what is around him, which is equivalent, according to our argument, to the gospel saying which states that the Father is in the Son. For the Son is true light, and truth is unapproachable by the false; therefore the Son is unapproachable light, in whom the Father dwells [that is, in whom the Father is]. 3.10.26 But he struggles

377

τοιαῦτα διὰ τῶν ἐπιχειρημάτων κατὰ τῆς ἀλη θείας προβάλλεται ἢ τῆς ἀναισθησίας τῶν ἑπομένων αὐτοῦ ταῖς ἀπάταις ἀποπειρώμενος, πότερον δύνανται συνιδεῖν τὸν παιδιώδη παραλογισμὸν τοῦ σοφίσματος ἢ καὶ πρὸς τὴν οὕτω πρόδηλον ἀπάτην ἀναισθητοῦσιν; ἐγὼ μὲν γὰρ οἶμαι μηδένα οὕτως ἀνόητον, ὡς μὴ συνιέναι τὴν ἐκ τῆς ὁμω νυμίας ἀπάτην, δι' ἧς ὁ Εὐνόμιος ἑαυτόν τε καὶ τοὺς κατ' αὐτὸν παρακρούεται. φῶς οἱ μαθηταί, φησίν, ὠνομάσθη σαν, φῶς δὲ λέγεται καὶ τὸ ἐν τῇ κτίσει γενόμενον. εἶτα τίς οὐκ οἶδεν ὅτι <τὸ> ὄνομα μόνον ἐν τούτοις ἐστὶ κοινόν, τὸ δὲ σημαινόμενον ἐφ' ἑκατέρου διάφορον; τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἡλιακὸν φῶς ὄψεώς ἐστι διακριτικόν, ὁ δὲ τῆς διδασκαλίας τῶν μαθητῶν λόγος ταῖς ψυχαῖς τὸν φωτισμὸν τῆς ἀλη 3.10.21 θείας ἐντίθησιν. εἰ μὲν οὖν ταύτην καὶ ἐπ' ἐκείνου τοῦ 3.10.21 φωτὸς τὴν διαφορὰν οἶδεν, ὡς τὸ μὲν σώματος οἴεσθαι, τὸ δὲ ψυχῆς εἶναι φῶς, οὐκέτι ἡμῖν ἔσται πρὸς αὐτὸν λόγος οὐδείς, αὐτῆς τῆς ἀπολογίας καὶ πρὸ τῶν ἡμετέρων αὐτὸν λόγων κατακρινούσης. εἰ δὲ τὴν τοιαύτην ἐπ' ἐκείνου τοῦ φωτὸς διαφορὰν κατὰ τὸν τῆς ἐνεργείας τρόπον εὑρεῖν οὐκ ἔχει (οὐ γὰρ τὸ μὲν ὀφθαλμῶν σαρκός, τὸ δὲ διανοίας ἐστὶ φωτιστικόν, ἀλλὰ μία καὶ τούτου κἀκείνου τοῦ φωτὸς ἡ ἐνέργεια ἐπὶ τῶν αὐτῶν ἐνεργουμένη), πῶς διὰ τῶν ἡλια κῶν ἀκτίνων καὶ τῶν ἀποστολικῶν λόγων τὸ παρηλλάχθαι τὸ μονογενὲς φῶς πρὸς τὸ πατρικὸν φῶς ἀποδείκνυσιν; ἀλλ' ὁ μὲν υἱὸς ἀληθινόν, φησί, λέγεται φῶς, ὁ δὲ πατὴρ ἀπρόσιτον. οὐκοῦν οἱ προσδιορισμοὶ τὴν κατὰ τὸ μεῖζον 3.10.22 διαφορὰν τοῦ πατρικοῦ φωτὸς ἑρμηνεύουσιν. ἄλλο γάρ τι τὸ ἀληθινὸν καὶ ἄλλο τὸ ἀπρόσιτον οἴεται. εἶτα τίς οὕτως ἠλίθιος, ὡς μὴ συνιδεῖν τὴν τῶν σημαινομένων ταὐτότητα; τὸ γὰρ ἀληθινόν τε καὶ τὸ ἀπρόσιτον ἐπίσης τοῖς κατὰ τὸ ἐναντίον νοουμένοις ἐστὶν ἀπροσπέλαστον. ὡς γὰρ τὸ ἀληθὲς τὴν τοῦ ψεύδους οὐ προσδέχεται μίξιν, οὕτως καὶ τὸ ἀπρόσιτον τὸν τοῦ ἐναντίου προσεγγισμὸν οὐ προσίεται. κακῷ γὰρ πάντως ἀπρόσιτόν ἐστι τὸ ἀπρόσιτον. τὸ δὲ τοῦ υἱοῦ φῶς κακὸν οὐκ ἔστιν· πῶς γὰρ ἂν ἐν κακίᾳ τις τὸ ἀληθινὸν βλέποι; ἐπεὶ οὖν οὐ κακὸν ἡ ἀλήθεια, οὐκ ἄν τις καὶ τῇ ἀληθείᾳ τὸ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ φῶς ἀπρόσιτον εἶναι λέγοι. εἰ γὰρ ἀποσείοιτο τὴν ἀλήθειαν, τῷ ψεύδει πάν 3.10.23 τως συνενεχθήσεται. τοιαύτη γὰρ τῶν ἀντικειμένων ἡ φύσις, ὡς ἐν τῇ ἀπουσίᾳ τοῦ κρείττονος τὸ ἐξ ἀντιθέτου νοούμενον ἀναφαίνεσθαι. εἰ μὲν οὖν τις λέγοι πόρρω τῆς ἐναντίας παραθέσεως τὸ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ φῶς θεωρεῖσθαι, ἐστοχασμένως τοῦ ἀποστολικοῦ βουλήματος ἑρμηνεύσει τοῦ ἀπροσίτου τὴν λέξιν. εἰ δὲ τὴν πρὸς τὸ ἀγαθὸν ἀλλοτρίωσιν σημαίνειν τὸ ἀπρόσιτον λέγοι, οὐδὲν ἕτερον ἢ αὐτὸν ἑαυτῷ ἐχθρόν τε καὶ ἀλλότριον ὑποθήσεται, ἀγαθὸν ὄντα καὶ ἀγαθῷ ἀντικείμενον. ἀλλὰ μὴν τοῦτο τῶν ἀμηχάνων ἐστί· τὸ γὰρ ἀγαθὸν οἰκείως ἔχει τῷ ἀγαθῷ. 3.10.24 οὐκ ἄρα τὸ φῶς τοῦτο πρὸς ἐκεῖνο παρήλλακται· ὅ τε γὰρ υἱὸς φῶς ἀληθινὸν ὅ τε πατὴρ φῶς ἐστιν ἀπρόσιτον. εἴποιμι δ' ἂν καταθαρσήσας ὅτι καὶ ὁ ὑπαλλάσσων ἐφ' ἑκατέρου τὰς τοιαύτας προσηγορίας οὐχ ἁμαρτήσεται. τό τε γὰρ ἀληθινὸν ἀπρόσιτόν ἐστι τῷ ψεύδει, [καὶ] τὸ ἀπρόσιτόν τε πάλιν ἐν ἀκραιφνεῖ τῇ ἀληθείᾳ καταλαμβάνεται. οὐκοῦν ταὐτὸν τῷ ἀληθινῷ τὸ ἀπρόσιτον, ὅτι κατὰ τὸ ἴσον ἐστὶ τὸ ἐν ἑκατέρῳ σημαινόμενον τῷ κακῷ ἀπροσπέλαστον. 3.10.25 τίνα οὖν ἐν τούτοις ἐπινοεῖ τὴν παραλλαγὴν ὁ διὰ τῆς τῶν φώτων ὁμωνυμίας ἑαυτόν τε καὶ τοὺς καθ' ἑαυτὸν φενακίζων; ἀλλὰ μηδὲ τοῦτο παραδράμωμεν ἀνεξέταστον, ὅτι παραποιήσας τὴν τοῦ ἀποστόλου ῥῆσιν κατὰ τὸ ἑαυτῷ δο κοῦν ὡς παρ' ἐκείνου τὸν λόγον ἐκτίθεται. φησὶ γὰρ ὁ Παῦλος ὅτι Φῶς οἰκῶν ἀπρόσιτον. διαφέρει δὲ πολὺ τὸ αὐτόν τε εἶναι καὶ τὸ ἔν τινι λέγειν εἶναι. ὁ γὰρ εἰπὼν ὅτι Φῶς οἰκῶν ἀπρόσιτον, τῇ τῆς οἰκήσεως φωνῇ οὐκ αὐτὸν ἀλλὰ τὸ περὶ αὐτὸν ἐνεδείξατο, ὅπερ ἴσον ἐστὶ κατὰ τὸν ἡμέτερον λόγον τῷ εὐαγγελικῷ ῥήματι τῷ λέγοντι ἐν τῷ υἱῷ τὸν πατέρα εἶναι. φῶς γὰρ ἀληθινὸν ὁ υἱός, ἀπρόσιτος δὲ τῷ ψεύδει ἐστὶν ἡ ἀλήθεια· φῶς ἀπρόσιτον ἄρα ὁ υἱός, ἐν ᾧ οἰκεῖ ὁ πατήρ [ἤτοι ἐν ᾧ ἐστιν ὁ πατήρ]. 3.10.26 Ἀλλ' ἐναγωνίζεται