He declares that God surpasses mortal beings as immortal, destructible beings as indestructible, generated beings as ungenerate, just in the same degree. Is it not, then, plain to all what this blasphemy of a fighter against God would prove? or must we by verbal demonstration unveil the profanity? Well, who does not know the axiom, that things which are distanced to the same amount (by something else) are level with one another? If, then, the destructible and the generated are surpassed in the same degree by the Deity, and if our Lord is generated, it will be for Eunomius to draw the blasphemous conclusion resulting from these data. For it is clear that he regards generation as the same thing as destruction and death, just as in his previous discussions he declares the ungenerate to be the same thing as the indestructible. If, then, he looks upon destruction and generation as upon the same level, and asserts that the Deity is equally removed from both of them, and if our Lord is generated, let no one demand from ourselves that we should apply the logical conclusion, but let him draw it for himself; if indeed it is true, as he says, that from the generated and from the destructible God is equally removed. “But,” he proceeds, “it is not allowable for us to call Him indestructible and immortal by virtue of any absence of death and destruction.” Let those who are led by the nose, and turn in any direction that each successive teacher pleases, believe this, and let them declare that destruction and death do belong to God, to make it possible for Him to be called immortal and indestructible! For if these terms of privation, as Eunomius says, “do not indicate the absence of death and destruction,” then the presence in Him of the things opposite to, and estranged from, these is most certainly proved by this treatment of terms. Each one amongst conceivable things is either absent from something else, or it is not absent: for instance, light, darkness; life, death; health, disease, and so on. In all these cases, if one asserts that the one conception is absent, he will necessarily demonstrate that the other is present. If, then, Eunomius denies that God can be called immortal by reason of the absence of death, he will plainly prove the presence of death in Him, and so deny any immortality in the case of the universal Deity. But perhaps some one will say that we fix unfairly on his words; for that no one is so mad as to affirm that God is not immortal. But then, when none of mankind possess any knowledge of that which certain people secretly imagine, it is by their words that we have to make our guess about those secret things.

« ὁμοίως » φησὶν « αὐτὸν ὑπερέχειν τῶν μὲν θνητῶν ὡς ἀθάνατον, τῶν δὲ φθαρτῶν ὡς ἄφθαρτον, τῶν δὲ γεννητῶν ὡς ἀγέννητον ». ἆρα πᾶσίν ἐστι πρόδηλος ἡ τοῦ θεομάχου τῆς ἀσεβείας κατασκευή, ἢ λόγῳ προσήκει διανακαλύψαι τὴν πονηρίαν; τίς οὐκ οἶδεν ὅτι τὰ τῷ αὐτῷ μέτρῳ ὑπερεχόμενα ἴσα πάντως ἀλλήλοις ἐστίν; εἰ οὖν ὁμοίως ὑπερέχεται παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ τὸ φθαρτὸν καὶ γεννητόν, γεννητὸς δὲ καὶ ὁ κύριος, Εὐνόμιος συμπερανάτω τὸ ἐκ τῶν τεθέντων ἀνακύπτον ἀσέβημα. δῆλον γὰρ ὅτι ταὐτὸν ἡγεῖται τῇ φθορᾷ καὶ τῷ θανάτῳ τὴν γέννησιν, ὡς ταὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς πρὸ τούτου λόγοις [ἐν] τῷ ἀφθάρτῳ τὸ ἀγέννητον ἀπεφήνατο. εἰ οὖν ἐν ἴσῳ βλέπει τὴν φθορὰν καὶ τὴν γέννησιν καὶ ὁμοίως λέγει τὸν θεὸν ἀφεστάναι τῶν δύο, γεννητὸς δὲ ὁ κύριος, μηδεὶς παρ' ἡμῶν ἀπαιτείτω προστεθῆναι τὸ ἐκ τοῦ λόγου ἀκόλουθον, ἀλλ' ἀφ' ἑαυτοῦ συλλογισάσθω τὸ πέρας, εἴπερ ἐπίσης καὶ κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν λόγον τοῦ γεννητοῦ καὶ τοῦ φθαρτοῦ ἡ τοῦ θεοῦ φύσις ἀφέστηκεν. ἀλλ' « οὐκ ἔστι », φησίν, « ἀπουσίᾳ θανάτου καὶ φθορᾶς λέγειν ἄφθαρτον αὐτὸν καὶ ἀθάνατον ». πειθέσθωσαν τοῖς εἰρημένοις οἱ τῶν ῥινῶν ἑλκόμενοι καὶ πρὸς τὸ δοκοῦν ἑκάστῳ περιαγόμενοι καὶ λεγέτωσαν παρεῖναι τῷ θεῷ τὴν φθορὰν καὶ τὸν θάνατον, ἵνα ἀθάνατός τε καὶ ἄφθαρτος λέγηται. εἰ γὰρ οὐχὶ τὴν ἀπουσίαν τοῦ θανάτου καὶ τῆς φθορᾶς, καθώς φησιν ὁ Εὐνόμιος, αἱ ἀφαιρετικαὶ τούτων προσηγορίαι σημαίνουσι, πάντως τὸ παρεῖναι αὐτῷ τὰ ἐναντία τε καὶ ἀλλότρια διὰ τῆς τεχνολογίας ταύτης κατασκευάζεται. ἕκαστον γὰρ τῶν νοουμένων ἢ ἄπεστι πάντως τινὸς ἢ οὐκ ἄπεστιν, οἷον φῶς σκότος ζωὴ θάνατος ὑγεία νόσος καὶ ὅσα τοιαῦτα: ἐφ' ὧν εἰ τὸ ἕτερόν τις τῶν νοουμένων ἀπεῖναι λέγοι, τὴν τοῦ ἑτέρου πάντως παρουσίαν κατασκευάσει. εἰ οὖν φησὶ « μὴ τοῦ θανάτου ἀπουσίᾳ τὸν θεὸν ἀθάνατον λέγεσθαι », δῆλος ἂν εἴη παρουσίαν αὐτῷ θανάτου κατασκευάζων καὶ διὰ τούτου τὴν ἀθανασίαν ἐπὶ τοῦ θεοῦ τῶν ὅλων ἀρνούμενος. πῶς γὰρ ἂν ἔτι ἀθάνατος ἀληθῶς εἴη καὶ ἄφθαρτος, οὗ μὴ ἀπεῖναι λέγει τὴν φθορὰν καὶ τὸν θάνατον; ἀλλ' ἴσως ἐρεῖ τις ἡμᾶς ἐπηρεαστικώτερον τῷ λόγῳ προσφύεσθαι: μὴ γὰρ ἂν οὕτω μανῆναί τινα ὡς κατασκευάσαι τὸν θεὸν μὴ εἶναι ἀθάνατον. ἀλλὰ τῶν μὲν ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ τισι νοουμένων οὐδεὶς ἀνθρώπων τὴν γνῶσιν ἔχει, διὰ δὲ τῶν λεγομένων ὁ στοχασμὸς ἡμῖν τῶν κεκρυμμένων ἐγγίνεται.