ταῦτα μὲν οὔ φασι, κοινὰ γὰρ καὶ ἄλλων. ὃ δὲ μόνου θεοῦ καὶ ἴδιον, τοῦτο οὐσία. οὐκ ἂν μὲν συγχωρήσαιεν εἶναι μόνου θεοῦ τὸ ἀγέννητον οἱ καὶ τὴν ὕλην καὶ 1 γεγεννημένον] + οὐ ταὐτὸν λέγεις dg || 1 φύσις] + γεννήτορος καὶ be || 3 φύσιν] + τὸ γέννημα b || 4 εἰ μὲν] + γὰρ e || 5 τὴν ἄγεν.] om τὴν e 5. τὴν ἀγενν. αὐτήν] ’ unbegottenness itself? the very character of not being begotten. 7. περὶ ταὐτὸν δέ] not, of course, περὶ τὸν αὐτόν. They are opposite characteristics, but both are found in man without any difference of nature being involved. The wise man and the foolish man are alike man. 8. οὐκ οὐσίας τ.] ‘they do not divide the essences; they are divisions (lit. divided) within (in connexion with) the same essence.’ 9. ἢ καὶ τὸ ἀθ’.] Α fresh argument. If τὸ ἀγέννητον constitutes the divine nature, so that it and τὸ θεῖον are convertible terms, a similar case can be made out for these other predicates. Then, since the divine nature is absolutely identified with τὸ ἀγέννητον, and yet at the same time with τὸ ἀθάνατον, we are driven to suppose that these are separate natures, or essences, or that they compose the divine nature by their aggregation. 11. Assume for the sake of argument that to be unbegotten belongs to God alone, though the assertion would by some be denied. It does not follow that unbegottenness is a necessary part of the divine essence. Adam alone was directly fashioned by God; yet Seth is as truly man as Adam. The divine essence is a positive, not α negative thing. If you ask me what it is, I can answer that I hope we may know some day, but not here. Meanwhile, whatever glory there is in the underived existence belongs to the Son who is begotten of the Underived. 13. κοινὰ γάρ] Angels e.g. are ἀθάνατοι; doves and lambs are called ἄκακα. 15. οἱ καὶ τὴν ὔ.] The Platonists. Gr. does not adopt their opinion. He only uses it to embarrass the Eunomian. He might have cited in like manner the ’darkness,’ which the Manichees made to be coeternal with light ; but he disdains to do so. τὴν ἰδέαν συνεισάγοντες ὡς ἀγέννητα. τὸ γὰρ Μανιχαίων πορρωτέρω ῥίψωμεν σκότος. πλὴν ἔστω μόνου θεοῦ. τί δὲ ὁ Ἀδάμ; οὐ μόνος πλάσμα θεοῦ; καὶ πάνυ, φήσεις. ἆρ’ οὖν καὶ μόνος ἄνθρωπος; οὐδαμῶς. τί δή ποτε; ὅτι μὴ ἀνθρωπότης ἡ πλάσις· καὶ γὰρ τὸ γεννηθὲν ἄνθρωπος. οὕτως οὐδὲ τὸ ἀγέννητον μόνον θεός, εἰ καὶ μόνου πατρός, ἁλλὰ δέξαι καὶ τὸ γεννητὸν εἶναι θεόν. ἐκ θεοῦ γάρ, εἰ καὶ λίαν εἰ φιλαγέννητος. ἔπειτα πῶς οὐσίαν θεοῦ λέγεις, οὐ τὴν τοῦ ὄντος θέσιν, ἁλλὰ τὴν τοῦ μὴ ὄντος ἀναίρεσιν; τὸ γὰρ μὴ ὑπάρχειν αὐτῷ γέννησιν ὁ λόγος δηλοῖ, οὐχ ὃ τὴν φύσιν ἐστὶ παρίστησιν, οὐδ’ ὃ ὑπάρχει τὸ μὴ ἔχον γέννησιν. τίς οὖν οὐσία θεοῦ; τῆς σῆς ἀπονοίας τοῦτο λέγειν, ὃς πολυπραγμονεῖς καὶ τὴν γέννησιν. ἡμῖν δὲ μέγα, κἂν εἴποτε καὶ εἰς ὕστερον τοῦτο μάθοιμεν, λυθέντος ἡμῖν τοῦ ζόφου καὶ τῆς παχύτητος, ὡς ἡ τοῦ ἀψευδοῦς ὑπόσχεσις. τοῦτο μὲν οὖν καὶ νοείσθω καὶ ἐλπιζέσθω τοῖς ἐπὶ τούτῳ καθαιρομένοις. ἡμεῖς δὲ τοσοῦτον εἰπεῖν θαρρήσομεν, ὅτι εἰ καὶ μέγα τῷ πατρὶ τὸ μηδαμόθεν 11. 1 ἀγένητα de || 2 ριψωμεν] -ομεν b ΙΙ 5 γὰρ] + καὶ d || 6 fiovov] μόνος c || 11 om ἐστι df || o] ω e2 || 14 om εἰς ’Reg. a’ 15 ws] + φησιν b || 17 τούτω] τοῦτο g || 18 θαρρήσομεν] -ωμεν adef 2. ἔστω] for argument's sake, he will assume that none but God is unbegotten. That does not preclude the possibility of One who is begotten being God likewise, any more than the fact that Adam alone was directly formed by God precludes others who are not so formed from having the same nature as Adam. 6. ovbt τὸ ἂγ. μόνον θεός] It would not be true to say that only what is unbegotten can be God — though nothing can be God which is not begotten of the Father; you must admit that what is begotten of Him is God likewise. 8. πῶς οὐσίαν θ. λ] How can a merely negative attribute be spoken of as constituting the essence of God? Cp. ii 9. 11. ὂ τὴν φύσιν ἐστι] ‘what He is by nature; nor what it is that has no generation.’ 12. τοῦτο λέγειν] ’to ash the question.’ Πολυπρ., cp. ii. 9. 15. ὡς ἡ τοῦ ἂψ. vir.] Prob. Gr. refers to 1 Gor. xiii 12; cp. ii Ὁ ἀψευδής, Tit. i 17. τοῖς ἐπὶ τ. καθαιρ] Gp. ii 12 τοῖς ἐνταῦθα κεκ. . . .πρὸς τὸ ποθούμένον. 18. εἰ καἰ μέγα κτλ.] If it is a great thing to be altogether underived, as the Father is, it is no less a thing to be derived from Him in the way the Son is. He shares the nature and glory of the Selfexistent, and has the additional glory of being begotten of Him. Cp. iv 7. ὡρμῆσθαι, οὐκ ἔλαττον τῷ υἱῷ τὸ ἐκ τοιούτου πατρός. τῆς τε γὰρ τοῦ ἀναιτίου δόξης μετέχοι ἄν, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ ἀναιτίου, καὶ πρόσεστι τὸ τῆς γεννήσεως, πρᾶγμα τοσοῦτον καὶ οὕτω σεβάσμιον τοῖς μὴ πάντῃ χαμαιπετέσι καὶ ὑλικοῖς τὴν διάνοιαν.

Ἀλλ’ εἰ ταὐτὸν τῷ πατρί, φασιν, ὁ υἱὸς κατ’ οὐσίαν, ἀγέννητον δὲ ὁ πατήρ, ἔσται τοῦτο καὶ ὁ υἱός. καλῶς, εἴπερ οὐσία θεοῦ τὸ ἀγέννητον, ἵν ᾖ τις καινὴ μίξις, γεννητοαγέννητον. εἰ δὲ περὶ οὐσίαν ἡ διαφορά, τί τοῦτο ὡς ἰσχυρὸν λέγεις; ἢ καὶ σὺ πατὴρ τοῦ πατρός, ἵνα μηδενὶ λείπῃ τοῦ σοῦ πατρός, ἐπειδὴ ταὐτὸν εἶ κατ’ οὐσίαν; ἢ δῆλον ὅτι, τῆς ἰδιότητος ἀκινήτου μενούσης, ζητήσομεν οὐσίαν θεοῦ, ἥ τις ποτέ ἐστιν, εἴπερ ζητήσομεν; ὅτι δὲ οὐ ταὐτὸν ἀγέννητον καὶ θεός, ὧδε ἂν μάθοις. εἰ 4 σεβασμιον] σεμνὸν ‘Reg, a’ II χαμαιπετέσι] χαμερπέσι b 12. 6 ταῦτον φασι τὼ πατρὶ ο ὑίος b: ταὐτὸν φ. ο ὑίος τὼ πατρὶ df || 7 ἀγέννητος bde || 9 om ’δε c || 10 om η c 12.‘If ’the Father is unbegotten,’ they urge, ‘and the Son is what the Father is, then the Son too is unbegotten.’ That would be true if unbegottenness zuere the actual essence of God; but it is ἴοι. If ‘unbegotten’ and ‘God’ were equivalent terms, then we should be able to put the one for the other, and say not only ’ the God of Israel’ but ‘the Unbegotten of Israel? On this theory, the nature of the begotten Son is not only different from that of the unbegotten Father, but is its exact opposite; and indeed it might be argued that since the positive is prior to the negative, the begotten Son is prior to the unbegotten Father. 7. ἔσται τοῦτο] sc. ἀγέννητον Quite true, Gr. replies, on the assumption that unbegottenness is the essence of God; the Son in that case will be begotten-unbegotten! 9. περὶ οὐσίαν] The prep, is emphatic. It is used as in § 10 sub fin. ‘If the difference between begotten and unbegotten is (not one of nature but only) one affecting the modes of that nature.’ 10. πατὴρ τοῦ π.] ‘Are you your father's father?’ If not, ace. to your argument, you cannot have the same essence as your father. 12. ἰδιότητος] not ’’personality’ but the special distinguishing peculiarities which differentiate one person from another; the ‘property,’ as Hooker calls it (E. P. v 51). If we enquire at all what the nature of God is, we will do so without touching these individual properties. ταὐτὸν ἦν, ἔδει πάντως, ἐπειδὴ τινῶν θεὸς ὁ θεός, τινῶν εἶναι καὶ τὸ ἀγέννητον· ἢ ἐπεὶ μηδενὸς τὸ ἀγέννητον, μηδὲ τὸν θεὸν εἶναι τινῶν. τὰ γὰρ πάντῃ ταὐτὰ καὶ ὁμοίως ἐκφέρεται. ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐ τινῶν τὸ ἀγέννητον, τίνων γάρ; καὶ τινῶν θεὸς ὁ θεός, πάντων γάρ. πῶς οὖν ἂν εἴη ταὐτὸν θεὸς καὶ ἀγέννητον; καὶ πάλιν, ἐπειδὴ τὸ ἀγέννητον καἲ τὸ γεννητὸν ἀντίκειται ἀλλήλοις, ὡς ἕξις καὶ στέρησις, ἀνάγκη καὶ οὐσίας εἰσαχθῆναι ἀντικειμένας ἀλλήλαις, ὅπερ οὐ δέδοται· ἢ ἐπειδὴ πάλιν αἱ ἕξεις τῶν στερήσεων πρότεραι, καὶ ἀναιρετικαὶ τῶν ἕξεων αἱ στερήσεις, μὴ μόνον πρεσβυτέραν εἶναι τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίας τὴν τοῦ υἱοῦ, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀναιρουμένην ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρός, ὅσον ἐπὶ ταῖς σαῖς ὑποθέσεσι.

τίς ἔτι λόγος αὐτοῖς τῶν ἀφύκτων; τάχα ἂν ἐπ’ ἐκεῖνο καταφύγοιεν τελευταῖον· ὡς εἰ μὲν οὐ πέπαυται τοῦ γεννᾷν ὁ θεός, ἀτελὴς ἡ γέννησις, καί ποτε παύσεται. εἰ πέπαυται δέ, πάντως καὶ ἤρξατο. πάλιν οἱ σωματικοὶ τὰ σωματικά. ἐγὼ δὲ εἰ μὲν ἀίδιον αὐτῷ τὸ γεννᾶσθαι, ἢ μή, οὔπω λέγω, ἕως ἂν τὸ Πρὸ πάντων βουνῶν γεννᾶ με ἀκριβῶς ἐπισκέψωμαι. οὐχ ὁρῶ δὲ τίς ἡ ἀνάγκη τοῦ λόγου. εἰ γὰρ ἦρκται κατ’ αὐτοὺς τὸ παυσόμενον, οὐκ ἦρκται πάντως τὸ μὴ παυσόμενον. τί τοίνυν ἀποφανοῦνται περὶ ψυχῆς, ἢ τῆς ἀγγελικῆς φύσεως; εἰ μὲν ἦρκται, καὶ παύσεται· εἰ δὲ οὐ παύσεται, δῆλον ὅτι κατ’ αὐτοὺς οὐδὲ ἦρκται. ἀλλὰ μὴν καὶ ἦρκται, καὶ οὐ παύσεται. οὐκ ἄρα ἦρκται κατ’ αὐτοὺς τὸ παυσόμενον. ὁ μὲν οὖν ἡμέτερος λόγος· ὥσπερ ἵππου, καὶ βοός, καὶ ἀνθρώπου, καὶ ἑκάστου τῶν ὑπὸ τὸ αὐτὸ εἶδος, εἷς λόγος ἐστί, καὶ ὂ μὲν ἂν μετέχῃ τοῦ λόγου, τοῦτο καὶ κυρίως λέγεσθαι, ὃ δ’ ἂν μὴ μετέχῃ, τοῦτο ἢ μὴ λέγεσθαι, ἢ μὴ κυρίως λέγεσθαι, οὕτω δὲ καὶ θεοῦ μίαν οὐσίαν εἶναι, καὶ φύσιν, καὶ κλῆσιν, κἂν 13. 4 εἰ ’δε πέπαυται df || 15 λογος] ὄρος ’tres Colb.’ II 16 om καὶ c 17 μὴ λέγεσθαι] μηδὲ λ. df 1. τῶν ἀφύκτων] i.e. which they consider to be so. 3. καί ποτε παύσεται] ‘and some day He will stop,’ viz. when τελεία ἡ γέννησις. This is more pointed than to make πότε interrogative. 6. π,ρὸ πάντων β.] Prov. viii 25. 9. ἀποφανοῦνται] ’will they shew to be the case.’ 12. οὐκἄραἢρκται κ.αὐτοὐςτὸπ.] Therefore the thing which zuill one day stop can never according to them have had a beginning.’ So Gr. turns their logic against them. 13. ὁ μὲν οὖν ἠμ’. λ.] sc. λέγει. 15. εἷς λόγος ἐστί] ’one ’ or ‘principle of existence’; and so, from the observer’s point of view, ‘definition.’ What is implied may be seen by the corresponding words in the apodosis, οὐσίαν κ. φύσιν κ. κλῆσιν. The meaning is not the same as in ὁ ἡμέτερος λ. just before, nor has it any relation to λέγεσθαι directly after. ib. ὃ μὲν ἂν μετέχῃ τ. λ.] ‘what. ever shares that characteristic principle, is rightly called by that name.’ Tοῦτο, however, is grammatically the subject of λῆ., not the predicate. 17. οὕτω δέ] The ‘apodotic’ force of δέ is well known. It recurs again in the next section. ἐπινοίαις τισὶ διαιρουμέναις συνδιαιρῆται καὶ τὰ ὀνόματα. καὶ ὃ μὲν ἂν κυρίως λέγηται, τοῦτο καὶ εἶναι θεόν· ὃ δ’ ἂν ἦ κατὰ φύσιν, τοῦτο καὶ ἀληθῶς ὀνομάζεσθαι· εἴπερ μὴ ἐν ὀνόμασιν, ἀλλ’ ἐν πράγμασίν ἐστιν ἡμῖν ἢ ἀλήθεια. οἱ δέ, ὥσπερ δεδοικότες μὴ πάντα κινεῖν κατὰ τῆς ἀληθείας, θεὸν μὲν εἶναι τὸν υἱὸν ὁμολογοῦσιν, ὅταν βιασθῶσι τῶ λόγῳ καὶ ταῖς μαρτυρίαις, ὁμώνυμον δὲ καὶ μόνης κοινω- νοῦντα τῆς κλήσεως.

Ὅταν δὲ ἀνθυποφέρωμεν αὐτοῖς· τί οὖν; οὐ κυρίως θεὸς ὁ υἱός, ὥσπερ οὐδὲ ζῷον τὸ γεγραμμένον; πῶς οὖν θεός, εἰ μὴ κυρίως θεός; τί γὰρ κωλύει, φασί, καὶ ὁμώνυμα ταῦτα εἶναι, καὶ κυρίως ἀμφότερα λέγεσθαι; καὶ προοίσουσιν ἡμῖν τὸν κύνα, τὸν χερσαῖον, καὶ τὸν θαλάτ- τιον, ὁμώνυμά τε ὄντα, καὶ κυρίως λεγόμενα, — ἔστι γάρ τι καὶ τοιοῦτον εἶδος ἐν τοῖς ὁμωνύμοις, — καὶ εἴτε τι ἄλλο τῇ 4 ἥμιν ἐστιν f 14. 3 προσοίσουσιν bedef 1. κἂν ἐπινοίαις τισι] The distinctive ’notions’ which Gr. has in view are, of course, those of giving and of receiving life, of ‘proceeding ’ and its correlative. They are not, however, to be considered as merely subjective distinctions drawn by us, any more than the distinctions which we draw between one man and another. Td ὀνόματα, sc. πατήρ, υἱός, πνεῦμα. 2. ὃ μὲν ἂν κ. λέγηται] sc. θεός. This seems hardly necessary to say; but it lends a kind of fulness to the following statement, ὃ δ’ ἃν ἢ κατὰ φύσιν θεός), τοῦτο κ. ἅλ’. ὀνομάζεσθαι θεόν). The ὀνομάζεσθαι = λέγεσθαι, and has nothing to do with the ὀνόματα above. 4. οἱ δέ] While names are not of much importance, so long as we get the facts right, they, the Eunomians, when pressed, will use the name of θεός to describe the Son, but explain it to have no foundation in fact. 7. ταῖς μαρτυρίαις] ’’testimonies of Scripture.’ Cp v 2 29. ib. ὁμώνυμον] ‘in an equivocal sense.’ Ὁμώνυμα are in logic which bear the same name but in different senses. 14. ’ The word God,’ they ’is an aequivocum; it is used to denote two things which are essehtially different, as dig, for example, denotes both α beast and α ’ Ah, but in the one case there is no difference in dignity between the two things which bear the same name; in the other, if your theory were true, two beings would bear the same name which cotild not be even distantly compared. 12. ὁμ. ταῦτα εἶναι] The neut. used, as in the preceding section, to avoid the irreverence of a direct reference to the Divine Persons. 13. τὸν κύνα] the name of a fish, as well as of the beast. Both fish and beast are quite properly called ’dog,’ but not in the same sense. 15. τοιοῦτον εἶδος] ’such a class’; namely, ὁμώνυμα both of which ’properly’ bear the common name. αὐτῇ προσχρῆται προσηγορίᾳ, καὶ μετέχει ταύτης ἐπ’ ἴσης, τῇ φύσει διεστηκός. ἀλλ’ ἐκεῖ μέν, ὦ βέλτιστε, δύο φύσεις τιθεὶς ὑπὸ τὴν αὐτὴν προσηγορίαν, οὐδὲν ἀμείνω τὴν ἑτέραν τῆς ἑτέρας εἰσάγεις, οὐδὲ τὴν μὲν πρότερον, τὴν δὲ ὕστερον, οὐδὲ τὴν μὲν μᾶλλον, τὴν δὲ ἧττον οὖσαν τοῦθ’ ὅπερ λέγεται. οὐδὲ γάρ τι συνέζευκται τὸ ταύτην παρέχον αὐταῖς τὴν ἀνάγκην. οὐ γὰρ ὁ μὲν μᾶλλον κύων, ὁ δὲ ἧττον τοῦ ἑτέρου κυνός, οἷον ὁ θαλάττιος τοῦ χερσαίου, ἢ ὁ χερσαῖος ἔμπαλιν τοῦ θαλαττίου· διὰ τί γάρ, ἢ κατὰ τίνα λόγον; ἀλλ’ ἐν ὁμοτίμοις πράγμασι καὶ διαφόροις ἡ κοινωνία τῆς κλήσεως. ἐνταῦθα δὲ τῷ θεῷ παραζευγνὺς τὸ σεβάσμιον, καὶ τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν οὐσίαν εἶναι καὶ φύσιν, ὂ μόνου θεοῦ καὶ οἱονεὶ φύσις θεότητος, εἶτα τῷ πατρὶ μὲν τοῦτο διδούς, τὸν υἱὸν δὲ ἀποστερῶν καὶ ὑποτιθείς, καὶ τὰ δεύτερα νέμων αὐτῷ τῆς τιμῆς καὶ τῆς προσκυνήσεως, κἂν ταῖς συλλαβαῖς χαρίζῃ τὸ ὅμοιον, τῷ πράγματι τὴν θεότητα περικόπτεις, καὶ μεταβαίνεις κακούργως ἀπὸ τῆς τὸ ἴσον ἐχούσης ὁμωνυμίας ἐπὶ τὴν τὰ μὴ ἴσα συνδέουσαν· ὥστε ὁ γραπτός σοι καὶ ὁ ζῶν ἄνθρωπος μᾶλλον ἢ οἱ τοῦ 13 οιονει] οἶον a ΙΙ 17 μεταβαίνεις] ης (non ῃς) a: ει d1 2. δύο φύσεις] perh. ‘two kinds of animals.’ 4. πρότερον...ὕστερον] as well as μᾶλλον and ἦττον, qualify οὖσαν τοῦθ’ ὄπ. λέγ’. 6. οὐδὲ γάρ τι σ.] ’for there is nothing attached to the name which forces such distinctions upon ’ There is nothing in the name ’dog’ to make you care to enquire whether the beast or the fish was the first to bear it, or whether the beast is more of a dog than the fish: the one of ’dog’ is for all practical purposes as good as the other. The common name is borne by creatures which, though different from each other, are equals. 11. ἐνταῦθα δέ] ’ But when come to the case in point, you attach to God an awful solemnity, and say that He is too high to be described as having any essence or nature, — athing which belongs to none but God and constitutes as it were the nature of the Godhead; and you give this to the Father, but take it away from the Son, and make a subject of Him.’ 17. περικόπτεις] ‘mutitate.’ ib. τῆς τὸ 1. ἐχ’. ὁμων.] such as that of the different ’dogs.’ 19. ὁ γραπτός σ. κ. ὁ ζῶν ἆ] The real man and the picture of a man (either of which is spoken of as ’a man’) illustrate more nearly such a Godhead as the Eunomians speak of than the two kinds of ’dogs.’ The picture is not further from being a real man than the Son is from being really God, if the Eunomian account is correct; and at the same time it bears externally a greater resemblance to its original. ὑποδείγματος κύνες τῇ θεότητι πλησιάζουσιν. ἢ δὸς ἀμ- φοτέροις, ὥσπερ τὴν κοινωνίαν τῆς κλήσεως, οὕτω δὲ καὶ τὴν ὁμοτιμίαν τῶν φύσεων, εἰ καὶ διαφόρους ταύτας εἰσάγεις· καὶ καταλέλυκάς σου τοὺς κύνας, οὓς ἐξηῦρες κατὰ τῆς ἀνισότητος. τί γὰρ ὄφελος τῆς ὁμωνυμίας, εἰ τὸ ἰσότιμον ἔχοιεν οἱ παρά σου διαιρούμενοι; οὐ γὰρ ἵνα ἰσότιμα δείξῃς, ἁλλ’ ἵνα ἀνισότιμα, πρὸς τὴν ὁμωνυμίαν καὶ τοὺς κύνας κατέφυγες. πῶς ἄν τις ἐλεγχθείη μᾶλλον καὶ ἑαυτῷ μαχόμενος καὶ θεότητι;

Ἐὰν δὲ λεγόντων ἡμῶν, ὅτι τῷ αἰτίῳ μείζων ὁ πατὴρ τοῦ υἱοῦ, προσλαβόντες τὴν Τὰ δὲ αἴτιον φύσει 3 τῶν φύσεων] τῆς φύσεως ’nonnul.’ || 6 ἰσότιμον] + μὴ bedef 15. 11 om ’δε b ’nonnul.’ 1. ἢ δός] Otherwise, — if the chasm between the two Persons bearing the name of God is not, on your theory, as vast as I have indicated, suppose you admit that the equivocal name is in this instance applied to two natures of equal splendour. You shall call them different natures, if you like; but admit that they are equal. What is the result? You are no longer satisfied with your illustration of the dogs. You invented it to justify an insinuation of inequality. The κατὰ in κατὰ τῆς ἀνισ. appears to be used as in the phrase τοξεύειν κατὰ σκοποῦ, of the point aimed at. 5. εἰ τὸ ἴσ’. ἔχοιεν] It requires great ingenuity to extract any meaning from the sentence, in relation to the context, if the reading μὴ ἔχ. is adopted. The μὴ was evidently introduced by copyists who thought that Gr. was making a statement of his own belief, which was that the name θεός is applied in precisely the same sense to Father and Son. But this ignores Gr.'s argument, — and, it may he added, the meaning of ὁμωνυμία. Gr.'s immediate purpose is to shew that the Eunomian illustration is, from their own point of view, ill-chosen. To be of any service to them, their instance of ’equivocation’ should have been one where the same name is applied to two objects of very different value. 15.‘You admit,’ they say, ‘that the Father is greater than the Son, inasmuch ἃς He is the author of the Son's being; but since He ἲς by nature author of the ’s being, it follows that He is by nature greater than the ’ The fallacy of the argument, Gr. annoers, lies in this, —that they attribute to the underlying essence what is predicated of the particular possessor of that essence. It is like arguing that because so and so is a dead man, therefore man is dead. 10. τῷ αἰτίῳ μ.] lby virtue of being the cause of His existence. 11. προσλαβόντες τὴν . . . πρότασιν] ‘taking ὂν their minor premiss. Πρότασις is the tehnical word for a ‘premiss’; the πρός in προσλ. denotes that this is a second (or minor) premiss. πρότασιν, ἔπειτα τὸ Μεῖζον τῆ φύσει συνάγωσιν· οὐκ οἶδα πότερον ἑαυτοὺς παραλογίζονται, ἢ τοὺς πρὸς οὓς ὁ λόγος. οὐ γὰρ ἁπλῶς ὅσα κατά τινος λέγεται, ταῦτα καὶ κατὰ τοῦ ὑποκειμένου τούτῳ ῥηθήσεται· ἀλλὰ δῆλον κατὰ τίνος, καὶ τίνα. ἐπεὶ τί κωλύει κἀμὲ ταύτην πρότασιν ποιησάμενον τήν, ὅτι ὁ πατὴρ μείζων τῇ φύσει, ἔπειτα προσλαβόντα τὸ Φύσει δὲ οὐ πάντως μείζων οὐδὲ πατήρ, ἐντεῦθεν συναγαγεῖν τὸ Μεῖζον οὐ πάντως μεῖζον· ἤ, Ὁ 1. συνάγωσιν] ‘conclude.’ The Eunomian syllogism is this: ’The Father is greater than the Son inasmuch as the Son owes His existence to Him. But the giving of existence to the Son belongs to the Father by nature. Therefore the Father is greater than the Son by nature.’ 3. οὐ γὰρ ἁπλῶς κτλ.] The reply is that not everything which is predicated of a particular thing (e.g. of Socrates) is predicated of the nature which underlies that thing (in the example chosen, human nature). Everyone recognises what the statements are intended to apply to, and how they apply. So, what we say of the Father does not necessarily apply to the Divine Essence which belongs to Him; some things apply to Him as Father, not as God. 4. κατὰ τίνος, καὶ τίνα] The words are interrogative; if Gr. had intended the indef. pron., he must have said δ. ὅτι κ. τ. It seems necessary to understand κατὰ again before τίνα, ’in regard to what ’ — i.e. in regard to nature, or to individuality, or what. To take the example given by Gr. at the end of the section, if I say that Socrates is a dead man, it is plain that I am speaking of Socrates in particular and of no one else, and that I am speaking of Socrates in relation to the bodily life, not about his soul, nor about his influence. 5. τί κωλύει κἀμέ] Two can play at that game, Gr. says. He too can draw that kind of conclusion, and they shall see whether it will hold. He makes a major premiss of that conclusion of theirs, ’The father is by nature greater than the ’ (We need not suppose that Gr. is for the moment speaking of God: the words would suit any father and son.) The minor premiss is, ’But he is not by nature necessarily greater, or necessarily ’ So far there is no absurdity. He need never have had a son; there might have been nothing else to compare him with. (Gr., 1 repeat, is not speaking of God.) The right conclusion would be that the ’s ’natural’ superiority over his son consists solely in his fatherhood, and not in his nature, —in his relationship, and not in that which he is when considered apart by himself. But the false conclusion which Gr. draws, to illustrate the false conclusions of the Eunomians, is this: ’Therefore the greater is not necessarily greater, ’ or ‘The father is not necessarily father.’ It will be observed that Gr. says μεῖζον, not 6 μείζων, which makes it clearer that the proposition is intended to be quite general: Ἁ thing which is greater than another need not be greater, but might be at the same time equal or less; a father need not be his ’s father, but might be his brother or his son.’ The second paralogism ὁ θεὸς οὐ πάντως θεός) helps to shew that this is Gr.'s meaning. πατὴρ οὐ πάντως πατήρ. εἰ βούλει δὲ οὕτως· ὁ θεός οὐσία· ἡ οὐσία δέ, οὐ πάντως θεός· τὸ ἑξῆς αὐτὸς συνάγαγε· ὁ θεός, οὐ πάντως θεός. ἀλλ’ οἶμαι, παρὰ τὸ πῇ καὶ ἁπλῶς ὁ παραλογισμὸς οὗτος, ὡς τοῖς περὶ ταῦτα τεχνολογεῖν σύνηθες. ἡμῶν γὰρ τὸ μεῖζον τῇ τοῦ αἰτίου φύσει διδόντων, αὐτοὶ τὸ τῇ φύσει μεῖζον ἐπάγουσιν· ὥσπερ ἂν εἰ καὶ λεγόντων ἡμῶν, ὅτι ὁ δεῖνα νεκρὸς ἄνθρωπος, ἁπλῶς ἐπῆγον αὐτοὶ τὸν ἄνθρωπον.