The first part of my contentions against Eunomius has with God’s help been sufficiently established in the preceding work, as all who will may see fro
And let no one suppose that it is through pride or desire of human reputation that I go down to this truceless and implacable warfare to engage with t
First of all, however, I think it advisable to run briefly over our own doctrinal views and our opponent’s disagreement with them, so that our review
But to the best of my ability I will raise my voice to rebut our enemies’ argument. They say that God is declared to be without generation, that the G
Now if the term ungenerate did not signify the being without origin, but the idea of simplicity entered into the meaning of such a term, and He were c
But, saith he, He is without both quantity and magnitude. Granted: for the Son also is unlimited by quantity and magnitude, and yet is He the Son. But
But this thing he leaves untold, and only says that ungeneracy should not be predicated of God as a mere conception. For what is so spoken, saith he,
But before we examine what he has written, it may be better to enquire with what purpose it is that he refuses to admit that ungenerate can be predica
For after saying that the Only-begotten God is not the same in essence with the true Father, and after sophistically inferring this from the oppositio
Accordingly, enveloping his former special-pleading in the mazy evolutions of his sophistries, and dealing subtly with the term ungenerate, he steals
Seeing, then, the mischief resulting to the dupes of this fallacious reasoning—that to assent to His not being very God is a departure from our confes
It will presently be time to bring to their own recollection the method of this argument. Suffice it first to say this. There is no faculty in human n
If, then, the lower creation which comes under our organs of sense transcends human knowledge, how can He, Who by His mere will made the worlds, be wi
How pitiable are they for their cleverness! how wretched, how fatal is their over-wise philosophy! Who is there who goes of his own accord to the pit
This, then, was the meaning of his safe guidance on the way to what he sought—that he was not blindly led by any of the means ready to hand for his in
He shows, I think, by the relation of these elements to each other, or rather by their distance, how far the divine nature is above the speculations o
Knowing, then, how widely the Divine nature differs from our own, let us quietly remain within our proper limits. For it is both safer and more revere
And on other accounts also it may be called safe to let alone the Divine essence, as unspeakable, and beyond the scope of human reasoning. For the des
Wherefore Holy Scripture omits all idle inquiry into substance as superfluous and unnecessary. And methinks it was for this that John, the Son of Thun
But, nevertheless, with only such a nature for their base of operations, they open their mouths wide against the unspeakable Power, and encompass by o
I have said, then (for I make my master’s words my own), that reason supplies us with but a dim and imperfect comprehension of the Divine nature neve
But although our great master has thus cleared away all unworthy notions respecting the Divine nature, and has urged and taught all that may be revere
And yet it is plain to every one who has given any attention to the uses of words, that the word incorruption denotes by the privative particle that n
While, however, we strenuously avoid all concurrence with absurd notions in our thoughts of God, we allow ourselves in the use of many diverse appella
And if any one would distinguish such notions by words, he would find it absolutely necessary to call that which admits of no changing to the worse un
I say, then, that men have a right to such word-building, adapting their appellations to their subject, each man according to his judgment and that t
For God is not an expression, neither hath He His essence in voice or utterance. But God is of Himself what also He is believed to be, but He is named
But in applying such appellations to the Divine essence, “which passeth all understanding,” we do not seek to glory in it by the names we employ, but
But let us hear how, “in the way most needed, and the form that preceded” (for with such rhymes he again gives us a taste of the flowers of style), le
If, then, the creation is of later date than its Creator, and man is the latest in the scale of creation, and if speech is a distinctive characteristi
He says that God was what He is, before the creation of man. Nor do we deny it. For whatsoever we conceive of God existed before the creation of the w
But that we might gain some sort of comprehension of what with reverence may be thought respecting Him, we have stamped our different ideas with certa
They say that God is ungenerate, and in this we agree. But that ungeneracy itself constitutes the Divine essence, here we take exception. For we maint
With such gibes at the term “conception,” he shows, to the best of his ability, that it is useless and unprofitable for the life of man. What, then, w
But why enumerate the greater and more splendid results of this faculty? For every one who is not unfriendly to truth can see for himself that all els
Now that He did not teach us such things by some visible operation, Himself presiding over the work, as we may see in matters of bodily teaching, no o
For that one who proposes to himself to terrify or charm an audience should have plenty of conception to effect such a purpose, and should display to
For it is not the case that, while the intelligence implanted in us by the Giver is fully competent to conjure up non-realities, it is endowed with no
But as far as possible to elucidate the idea, I will endeavour to illustrate it by a still plainer example. Let us suppose the inquiry to be about som
This example being understood, it is time to go on to the thing which it illustrates. This much we comprehend, that the First Cause has His existence
Such are his charges against us not indeed his notions as expressed in his own phraseology, for we have made such alterations as were required to cor
If, then, God gives things their names as our new expositor of the Divine record assures us, naming germ, and grass, and tree, and fruit, He must of n
Such is the nature of this new-fangled Deity, as deducible from the words of our new God-maker. But he takes his stand on the Scriptures, and maintain
But it may be said that the voice of the Father was addressed to the Holy Spirit. But neither does the Holy Spirit require instruction by speech, for
But, says he, the record of Moses does not lie, and from it we learn that God spake. No! nor is great David of the number of those who lie, and he exp
What, then, do we think of this passage? For it may be that, if we understand it, we shall also understand the meaning of Moses. It often happens that
But to return to the matter in question. We assert that the words “He said” do not imply voice and words on the part of God but the writer, in showin
For the case is different from that of men endowed by nature with practical ability, where you may look at capability and execution apart from each ot
But if any one would give a more sensuous interpretation to the words “God said,” as proving that articulate speech was His creation, by a parity of r
And the futility of such assertions may be seen also by this. For as the natures of the elements, which are the work of the Creator, appear alike to a
And if any one cites the confusion of tongues that took place at the building of the tower, as contradicting what I have said, not even there is God s
But some who have carefully studied the Scriptures tell us that the Hebrew tongue is not even ancient like the others, but that along with other mirac
For to suppose that God used the Hebrew tongue, when there was no one to hear and understand such a language, methinks no reasonable being will consen
But this is denied by Eunomius, the author of all this contumely with which we are assailed, and the companion and adviser of this impious band. For,
On these passages it is probable that our opponents will take their stand. And I will agree for them with what is said, and will myself take advantage
But since the nature of most things that are seen in Creation is not simple, so as to allow of all that they connote being comprehended in one word, a
In like manner before him Jacob, having taken hold of his brother’s heel, was called a supplanter , from the attitude in which he came to the birth. F
But I will pass over his other babblings against the truth, possessing as they do no force against our doctrines, for I deem it superfluous to linger
To pass on, then, to what remains. He brings forward once more some of the Master’s words, to this effect: “And it is in precisely the same manner tha
But to return. Such names are used of our Lord, and no one familiar with the inspired Scriptures can deny the fact. What then? Does Eunomius affirm th
But, like a mighty wrestler, he will not relinquish his irresistible hold on us, and affirms in so many words, that “these names are the work of human
“But God,” he says, “gave the weakest of terrestrial things a share in the most honourable names, though not giving them an equal share of dignity, an
This it is that our strong-minded opponent, who accuses us of dishonesty, and charges us with being irrational in judgment,—this it is that he pretend
But what is our author’s meaning, and what is the object of this argument of his? For no one need imagine that, for lack of something to say, in order
He does not, in fact, partake of that dignity which the meaning of those names indicates and whereas wise Daniel, in setting right the Babylonians’ e
But in dwelling on such nonsense I fear that I am secretly gratifying our adversaries. For in setting the truth against their vain and empty words, I
But I fear that all we shall find in the discourse of Eunomius will turn out to be mere tumours and sea lungs, so that what has been said must necessa
Basil, he says, asserts that after we have obtained our first idea of a thing, the more minute and accurate investigation of the thing under considera
And Moses, seeing God in the light, and John calling Him the true Light , and in the same way Paul, when our Lord first appeared to him, and a Light s
I have deluged my discourse with much nonsense of his, but I trust my hearers will pardon me for not leaving unnoticed even the most glaring of his in
Then going farther, as if his object were thus far attained, he takes up other charges against us, more difficult, as he thinks, to deal with than the
But all this is beside our purpose. Would that our charges against him were limited to this, and that he could be thought to err only in his delivery,
But it is time to examine the argument that leads to this profanity, and see how, as regards itself, it is logically connected with his whole discours
But in His very essence, he says, God is indestructible. Well, what other conceivable attribute of God does not attach to the very essence of the Son,
Now that the idea of ungeneracy and the belief in the Divine essence are quite different things may be seen by what he himself has put forward. God, h
But it will be well, I think, to pass over his nauseating observations (for such we must term his senseless attacks on the method of conception), and
But if it were in any way possible by some other means to lay bare the movements of thought, abandoning the formal instrumentality of words, we should
All his argument, then, in opposition to the doctrine of conception I think it best to pass over, though he charge with madness those who think that t
But, like some viscous and sticky clay, the nonsense he has concocted in contravention of our teaching of conception seems to hold us back, and preven
But I will pass over both this and their reading of Epicurus’ nature-system, which he says is equivalent to our conception, maintaining that the doctr
But, says he, since God condescends to commune with His servants, we may consequently suppose that from the very beginning He enacted words appropriat
But our pious opponent will not allow of God’s using our language, because of our proneness to evil, shutting his eyes (good man!) to the fact that fo
But most people, perhaps, will think this too far removed from the scope of our present inquiry. This, however, no one will regard as out of keeping w
Since, then, it is improper to regard God as the inventor of such names, lest the names even of these idol gods should seem to have had their origin f
And if we set forth the opinion of most commentators on these words of the Psalmist, that of Eunomius regarding them will be still more convicted of f
But the names which the Lord gives to such stars we may plainly learn from the prophecy of Esaias, which says, “I have called thee by thy name thou a
I will pass over, then, the abuse with which he has prefaced his discussion of these matters, as when he uses such terms as “alteration of seed,” and
I pass in silence his blasphemy in reducing God the Only-begotten to a level with all created things, and, in a word, allowing to the Son of God no hi
For, proceeding with his discourse, he asks us what we mean by the ages. And yet we ourselves might more reasonably put such questions to him. For it
But I think we must pass over this and all that follows. For it is the mere trifling of children who amuse themselves with beginning to build houses i
Such is our position our adversary’s, with regard to the precise meaning of this term , is such as can derive no help from any reasonings he only sp
He says, “The Life that is the same, and thoroughly single, must have one and the same outward expression for it, even though in mere names, and manne
But why do we linger over these follies, when we ought rather to put Eunomius’ book itself into the hands of the studious, and so, apart from any exam
But if he should still answer with regard to this opposition (of the Divine names), that it is only the term Father, and the term Creator, that are ap
But let us examine a still more vehement charge of his against us it is this: “If one must proceed to say something harsher still, he does not even k
What, then, does Eunomius say to this? “If He is imperishable only by reason of the unending in His Life, and ungenerate only by reason of the unbegin
What, then, out of all that we have said, has stirred him up to this piece of childish folly, in which he returns to the charge and repeats himself in
Such are the clever discoveries of Eunomius against the truth. For what need is there to go through all his argument with trifling prolixity? For in e
Either, he says, that which is endless is distinct in meaning from that which is imperishable, or else the two must make one. But if he call both one,
But that he himself also may be brought to the knowledge of his own trifling, we will convict him from his own statements. For in the course of his ar
Thus far our argument goes with him. But the riddle with which he accompanies his words we must leave to those trained in the wisdom of Prunicus to in
But let us leave this, and along with it the usual foul deluge of calumny in his words and let us go on to his subsequent quotations (of Basil). But
But who, pray, is so simple as to be harmed by such arguments, and to imagine that if names are once believed to be an outcome of the reasoning facult
But I do not think that we need linger on this, nor minutely examine that which follows. To the more attentive reader, the argument elaborated by our
But now I do not know which it is best to do to pursue step by step this subject, or to put an end here to our contest with such folly. Well, as in t
When, then, he is on the point of introducing this treatment of terms of “privation,” he takes upon himself to show “the incurable absurdity,” as he c
Every term—every term, that is, which is really such—is an utterance expressing some movement of thought. But every operation and movement of sound th
Well, then, if God did not exist formerly, or if there be a time when He will not exist, He cannot be called either unending or without beginning and
Thus much, then, is known to us about the names uttered in any form whatever in reference to the Deity. We have given a simple explanation of them, un
How it is possible, then, to assign one’s gratuities to the non-subsistent, let this man, who claims to be using words and phrases in their natural fo
Well, if the term imperishable or indestructible is not considered by this maker of an empty system to be privative of destruction, then by a stern ne
“But I do not see,” he rejoins, “how God can be above His own works simply by virtue of such things as do not belong to Him .” And on the strength of
He declares that God surpasses mortal beings as immortal, destructible beings as indestructible, generated beings as ungenerate, just in the same degr
Therefore let us again handle this dictum of his: “God is not called immortal by virtue of the absence of death.” How are we to accept this statement,
Still I cannot see what profit there is in deigning to examine such nonsense. For a man like myself, who has lived to gray hairs , and whose eyes are
But it is time now to expose that angry accusation which he brings against us at the close of his treatise, saying that we affirm the Father to be fro
“The evangelist Luke, when giving the genealogy according to the flesh of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ, and stepping up from the last to the first
With what eyes will you now dare to gaze upon your guide? I speak to you, O flock of perishing souls! How can you still turn to listen to this man who
Such, to use your own words, is the “evil,” as one might expect, not indeed “of valuing the character for being clever before one is really such” (for
First of all, however, I think it advisable to run briefly over our own doctrinal views and our opponent’s disagreement with them, so that our review of the propositions in question may proceed methodically. Now the main point of Christian orthodoxy6 εὐσεβείας. That this is the predominant idea in the word will be seen from the following definitions: “Piety is a devout life joined with a right faith” (Œcumenius on 1 Tim. iv. p. 754). “Piety is the looking up to the one only God, Who is believed to be and is the true God, and the life in accordance with this” (Eusebius, P. E. i. p. 3). “Piety is the science of adoration” (Suidas). is to believe that the Only-begotten God, Who is the truth and the true light, and the power of God and the life, is truly all that He is said to be, both in other respects and especially in this, that He is God and the truth, that is to say, God in truth, ever being what He is conceived to be and what He is called, Who never at any time was not, nor ever will cease to be, Whose being, such as it is essentially, is beyond the reach of the curiosity that would try to comprehend it. But to us, as saith the word of Wisdom,7 Wisdom of Solomon xiii. 5. “For by the greatness and beauty of the creatures proportionately (ἀναλόγως) the maker of them is seen.” Compare Romans i. 20. He makes Himself known that He is “by the greatness and beauty of His creatures proportionately” to the things that are known, vouchsafing to us the gift of faith by the operations of His hands, but not the comprehension of what He is. Whereas, then, such is the opinion prevailing among all Christians, (such at least as are truly worthy of the appellation, those, I mean, who have been taught by the law to worship nothing that is not very God, and by that very act of worship confess that the Only-begotten is God in truth, and not a God falsely so called,) there arose this deadly blight of the Church, bringing barrenness on the holy seeds of the faith, advocating as it does the errors of Judaism, and partaking to a certain extent in the impiety of the Greeks. For in its figment of a created God it advocates the error of the Greeks, and in not accepting the Son it supports that of the Jews. This school, then, which would do away with the very Godhead of the Lord and teach men to conceive of Him as a created being, and not that which the Father is in essence and power and dignity, since these misty ideas find no support when exposed on all sides to the light of truth, have overlooked all those names supplied by Scripture for the glorification of God, and predicated in like manner of the Father and of the Son, and have betaken themselves to the word “ungenerate,” a term fabricated by themselves to throw contempt on the greatness of the Only-begotten God. For whereas an orthodox confession teaches us to believe in the Only-begotten God so that all men should honour the Son even as they honour the Father, these men, rejecting the orthodox terms whereby the greatness of the Son is signified as on a par with the dignity of the Father, draw from thence the beginnings and foundations of their heresy in regard to His Divinity. For as the Only-begotten God, as the voice of the Gospel teaches, came forth from the Father and is of Him, misrepresenting this doctrine by a change of terms, they make use of them to rend the true faith in pieces. For whereas the truth teaches that the Father is from no pre-existing cause, these men have given to such a view the name of “ungeneracy,” and signify the substance of the Only-begotten from the Father by the term “generation,”—then comparing the two terms “ungenerate” and “generate” as contradictories to each other, they make use of the opposition to mislead their senseless followers. For, to make the matter clearer by an illustration, the expressions, He was generated and He was not generated, are much the same as, He is seated and He is not seated, and all such-like expressions. But they, forcing these expressions away from the natural significance of the terms, are eager to put another meaning upon them with a view to the subversion of orthodoxy. For whereas, as has been said, the words “is seated” and “is not seated” are not equivalent in meaning (the one expression being contradictory of the other), they pretend that this formal contradiction in expression indicates an essential difference, ascribing generation to the Son and non-generation to the Father as their essential attributes. Yet, as it is impossible to regard a man’s sitting down or not as the essence of the man (for one would not use the same definition for a man’s sitting as for the man himself), so, by the analogy of the above example, the non-generated essence is in its inherent idea something wholly different from the thing expressed by “not having been generated.” But our opponents, with an eye to their evil object, that of establishing their denial of the Godhead of the Only-begotten, do not say that the essence of the Father is ungenerate, but, conversely, they declare ungeneracy to be His essence, in order that by this distinction in regard to generation they may establish, by the verbal opposition, a diversity of natures. In the direction of impiety they look with ten thousand eyes, but with regard to the impracticability of their own contention they are as incapable of vision as men who deliberately close their eyes. For who but one whose mental optics are utterly purblind can fail to discern the loose and unsubstantial character of the principle of their doctrine, and that their argument in support of ungeneracy as an essence has nothing to stand upon? For this is the way in which their error would establish itself.
πρῶτον δέ φημι χρῆναι πᾶσαν ἐπὶ κεφαλαίῳ τὴν ἡμετέραν περὶ τῶν δογμάτων ὑπόληψιν καὶ τὴν τῶν ἐχθρῶν πρὸς ἡμᾶς διαφωνίαν ἐπιδραμεῖν, ὡς ἂν γένοιτο καθ' ὁδὸν ἡμῖν ἡ τῶν προκειμένων ἐξέτασις. ἔστι τοίνυν τὸ κεφάλαιον τῆς τῶν Χριστιανῶν εὐσεβείας τὸ πιστεύειν τὸν μονογενῆ θεόν, ὅς ἐστιν ἀλήθεια καὶ φῶς ἀληθινὸν καὶ δύναμις θεοῦ καὶ ζωή, ἀληθῶς πάντα εἶναι ἃ λέγεται, τά τε ἄλλα καὶ πρὸ τῶν ἄλλων ταῦτα: θεὸν καὶ ἀλήθειαν, τουτέστι θεὸν κατὰ ἀλήθειαν ἀεὶ ὄντα ὅπερ νοεῖται καὶ ὀνομάζεται καὶ οὔτε ποτὲ μὴ ὄντα οὔτε ποτὲ μὴ ἐσόμενον, οὗ τὸ εἶναι ὅ τι ποτὲ κατ' οὐσίαν ἐστὶ πᾶσαν ἐκφεύγει καταληπτικὴν ἔφοδον καὶ πολυπραγμοσύνην: ἡμῖν δέ, καθώς πού φησι τῆς σοφίας ὁ λόγος, ἐκ μεγέθους καὶ καλλονῆς κτισμάτων κατά τινα τῶν γινωσκομένων ἀναλογίαν εἰς γνῶσιν ἔρχεται τοῦ εἶναι, μόνον τὴν πίστιν διὰ τῶν ἐνεργειῶν, οὐ τὴν γνῶσιν τοῦ τί ἐστι χαριζόμενος. ταύτης τοίνυν τῆς διανοίας παρὰ πᾶσι τοῖς Χριστιανοῖς κεκρατηκυίας τοῖς γε τῆς ἐπωνυμίας ταύτης ἀληθῶς ἀξίοις, ἐκείνοις φημὶ οἳ προσκυνεῖν παρὰ τοῦ νόμου μεμαθηκότες μηδέν, ὃ μὴ ἔστιν ἀληθινὸς θεός, αὐτῷ τῷ προσκυνεῖν τὸν μονογενῆ θεὸν ὁμολογοῦσιν ἐν ἀληθείᾳ καὶ οὐ ψευδώνυμον εἶναι θεόν, ἦλθεν ἡ φθοροποιὸς ἐρυσίβη τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἡ ἀχρειοῦσα τὰ εὐσεβῆ τῆς πίστεως σπέρματα, ἡ τῆς Ἰουδαϊκῆς ἀπάτης συνήγορος, ἔχουσά τι καὶ τῆς Ἑλληνικῆς ἀθεΐας. τῷ μὲν γὰρ κτιστὸν ἀναπλάσσειν θεὸν τῆς τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἀπάτης συνήγορος γίνεται, τῷ δὲ μὴ παραδέχεσθαι τὸν υἱὸν τὴν Ἰουδαϊκὴν συνίστησι πλάνην. αὕτη τοίνυν ἡ αἵρεσις ἡ παραγραφομένη τὴν ἀληθινὴν τοῦ κυρίου θεότητα καὶ κατασκευάζουσα κτιστὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι δεῖν ὑπολαμβάνειν, καὶ μὴ ἐκεῖνο ὅπερ κατ' οὐσίαν καὶ δύναμιν καὶ ἀξίαν ἐστὶν ὁ πατήρ, ἐπειδὴ πανταχόθεν τῆς ἀληθείας περιλαμπούσης οὐδεμίαν ἔχει κατασκευὴν τὰ ζοφώδη ταῦτα νοήματα, πάντων τῶν ὀνομάτων ὑπεριδόντες τῶν εἰς θεοπρεπῆ τινα δοξολογίαν παρὰ τῆς γραφῆς εὑρεθέντων, ὁμοίως ἐπὶ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ λεγομένων, ἦλθον ἐπὶ τὸ τῆς « ἀγεννησίας » ὄνομα τὸ παρ' αὐτῶν τούτων ἐπὶ ἀθετήσει τῆς μεγαλειότητος τοῦ μονογενοῦς θεοῦ συμπεπλασμένον. τῆς γὰρ εὐσεβοῦς ὁμολογίας τὴν εἰς τὸν μονογενῆ θεὸν πίστιν δογματιζούσης, Ἵνα πάντες τιμῶσι τὸν υἱὸν καθὼς τιμῶσι τὸν πατέρα, πάσας οὗτοι τὰς εὐσεβεῖς φωνὰς αἷς ἡ τοῦ υἱοῦ μεγαλειότης ὁμοτίμως πρὸς τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς ἀξίαν διασημαίνεται παρωσάμενοι ἐντεῦθεν ἑαυτοῖς τῆς ἀθέου περὶ τὸ δόγμα παρανομίας τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ τὰς ὑποθέσεις ἐπινοοῦσιν. ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ὁ μονογενὴς θεός, ὡς ἡ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου διδάσκει φωνή, ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐξῆλθε καὶ παρ' αὐτοῦ ἐστιν, ἄλλοις ὀνόμασι τὴν διάνοιαν ταύτην μεταλαβόντες δι' ἐκείνων τὴν ἀληθῆ πίστιν κατασπαράσσουσι. τὸ γὰρ μὴ ἔκ τινος ὑπερκειμένης αἰτίας εἶναι τὸν πατέρα τῆς ἀληθείας διδασκούσης, οὗτοι ἀγεννησίαν ὠνόμασαν τὸ τοιοῦτον νόημα, καὶ τὴν ἐκ πατρὸς τοῦ μονογενοῦς ὑπόστασιν τῷ τῆς « γεννήσεως » διασημαίνουσι ῥήματι, εἶτα συνθέντες τὰς δύο φωνὰς τὴν « ἀγεννησίαν » τε καὶ τὴν « γέννησιν » ἀντιφατικῶς ἐναντιουμένας ἀλλήλαις ἐντεῦθεν τοὺς ἀνοήτους τῶν ἑπομένων αὐτοῖς παρακρούονται: τὸ γὰρ „ἐγεννήθη” καὶ ”οὐκ ἐγεννήθη„ ὡς ἄν τις ὑποδείγματι σαφηνίσειε, τοιοῦτόν ἐστιν οἷον καὶ τὸ „κάθηται” καὶ ”οὐ κάθηται„ καὶ ὅσα τῷ τοιούτῳ λέγεται τρόπῳ. οἱ δὲ τῆς κατὰ φύσιν τῶν ῥημάτων ἐμφάσεως τὰς φωνὰς ταύτας παρακινήσαντες ἄλλην αὐτοῖς ἐφαρμόζειν διάνοιαν ἐπὶ καθαιρέσει τῆς εὐσεβείας φιλονεικοῦσιν. οὐκ ἰσοδυναμούσης γάρ, καθὼς εἴρηται, τῆς τῶν ῥημάτων σημασίας τοῦ κάθηται καὶ οὐ κάθηται (ἀναιρεῖται γάρ πως ἐν θατέρῳ τῶν σημαινομένων τὸ ἕτερον) ταύτην τὴν περὶ τὸ σχῆμα τῆς προφορᾶς ἐναντίωσιν τῆς κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν παραλλαγῆς ἐνδεικτικὴν εἶναι σοφίζονται, τῷ μὲν τὴν γέννησιν τῷ δὲ τὴν μὴ γέννησιν οὐσίαν εἶναι διοριζόμενοι. καίτοι ὥσπερ οὐκ ἔστιν οὐσίαν ἀνθρώπου νομίσαι τὸ καθῆσθαι ἢ μὴ καθῆσθαι τὸν ἄνθρωπον (οὐ γὰρ τὸν αὐτὸν ἄν τις ἀποδοίη λόγον καθέδραν τε ἀνθρώπου καὶ ἄνθρωπον αὐτὸν ὁριζόμενος), οὕτως ἡ μὴ γεννηθεῖσα οὐσία κατὰ τὴν ἀναλογίαν τοῦ ῥηθέντος ἡμῖν ὑποδείγματος ἄλλο τι πάντως ἐστὶ τῷ ἰδίῳ λόγῳ πρὸς τὸ ἐκ τοῦ μὴ γεννηθῆναι δηλούμενον. ἀλλ' οὗτοι πρὸς τὸν πονηρὸν ἐκεῖνον σκοπὸν ἀφορῶντες, ὡς ἂν μάλιστα τῆς τοῦ μονογενοῦς θεότητος ἡ ἄρνησις αὐτοῖς κυρωθείη, οὐχὶ τὴν οὐσίαν τοῦ πατρὸς ἀγεννήτως εἶναί φασιν, ἀλλ' ἀναστρέψαντες τὸν λόγον οὐσίαν τὴν ἀγεννησίαν ὁρίζονται, ἵνα τῇ πρὸς τὸ γεννητὸν ἀντιδιαστολῇ τὸ τῆς φύσεως παρηλλαγμένον διὰ τῆς ἐναντιώσεως τῶν ὀνομάτων κατασκευάσωσι. καὶ πρὸς μὲν τὴν ἀσέβειαν μυρίοις ὀφθαλμοῖς βλέπουσι, πρὸς δὲ τὸ ἀμήχανον τῆς περὶ τοῦτο σπουδῆς ὡς μεμυκότες τὰ ὄμματα τῆς ψυχῆς ἀμβλυώττουσι. τίς γὰρ μὴ παντάπασι λημῶν τὰ τῆς ψυχῆς αἰσθητήρια οὐ διορᾷ τῆς τοῦ δόγματος αὐτῶν ἀρχῆς τὸ ἀπαγὲς καὶ ἀσύστατον καὶ ὡς ἐπ' οὐδενὸς βέβηκεν αὐτοῖς ὁ λόγος ὁ τὴν ἀγεννησίαν οὐσίαν ποιῶν; οὑτωσὶ γὰρ αὐτοῖς ἡ ἀπάτη κατασκευάζεται.
