Τί γάρ ποτε ὑπολήψῃ τὸ θεῖον, εἴπερ ὅλαις ταῖς λογικαῖς πιστεύεις ἐφόδοις; ἢ πρὸς τί σε ὁ λόγος ἀνάξει βασανιζόμενος, ὦ φιλοσοφώτατε σὺ καὶ θεολογικώτατε καὶ καυχώμενε εἰς τὰ ἄμετρα; πότερον σῶμα; καὶ πῶς τὸ ἄπειρον, καὶ ἀόριστον, καὶ ἀσχημάτιστον, καὶ ἀναφές, καὶ ἀόρατον; ἢ καὶ ταῦτα σώματα; τῆς ἐξουσίας· οὐ γὰρ αὕτη φύσις σωμάτων. ἢ σῶμα μέν, οὐχὶ ταῦτα δέ; τῆς παχύτητος· ἵνα μηδὲν πλέον ἡμῶν ἔχη τὸ θεῖον. πῶς γὰρ σεπτόν, εἰ περιγραπτόν; ἢ πῶς φεύξεται τὸ ἐκ στοιχείων συγκεῖσθαι καὶ εἰς αὐτὰ πάλιν ἀναλύεσθαι, ἢ 4 ορεκτον] -των e 7. 6 ὀλαῖς] ὅλως abde ‘Coisl. 3 Or. ’ ǁ 7 εφοδιες] ’Coisl. 1 ορμαις’ (perperam) || 11 σωματα]+ ω f || 12 αυτη] αὐτή ut vid cef ΙΙ ταύτα δε] + ω f ΙΙ 15 om η cdef 1 τῷ τ. π. ἐρευνῶντι κτλ.] 1 Cor. ii 10., 3. τοῦ πρόσω] ‘no longer needs to advance.’ ib. τὸ ἔσχ. ὀρεκτόν] ‘ the ultimate object of ’ The phrase comes originally from Arist. Metaph. xii 7. 4. πολιτεία τ. ὑψηλοῦ] ‘all a high-minded man's life.’ 7. to begin with, God cannot be corporeal; which would involve being dissoluble. 6. ὅλαις τ. λου....ἐφόδοις] The reading ὅλως (‘if you rely at all’) would not make so strong an argu- ment against Eunomian self-confidence. Ἔφοδος ‘method.’ 8. βασανιζόμενος] a logical pa- rallel to ὅλαις;š—‘however much you rack it.’ 9. καυχ. εἰς τὰ ἄμετρα] ‘boasting of your command of the infinite.’ ib. σῶμα] of course, a very un- likely alternative for the Eunomians to choose; and it must be admitted that Gr. somewhat begs the question as against them, in the next clause. ib. καἰ πῶς] sc. σῶμά ἐστιν (or ἄν εἴη). 11. ἢ καἰ ταῦτα σ.] ‘Are bodies to be so described?’ ib. τ. ἐξουσίας] ‘a stretch of power,’ to confer such properties upon a body! 12. σῶμα μέν, οὐχὶ τ. δέ] ‘Will you make Him a body and drop these attributes?’ This Gr. terizes as ‘gross.’ For παχύτητος cp. § 4 τὸ παχὺ τοῦτο σαρκίον. 13. ἵνα...ἔχῃ] B good example that not ‘final’ use of ἴνα which is familiar in the N.T. 14. σεπτόν] from σέβεσθαι, ‘an object of devotion.’ Gr. mean that the fact of being περιγραπτόν would by itself preclude being σεπτόν, but that all that is connoted by περιγράπτῳ would. καὶ ὅλως λύεσθαι; σύνθεσις γὰρ ἀρχὴ μάχης· μάχη δὲ διαστάσεως· ἡ δὲ λύσεως· λύσις δὲ ἀλλότριον πάντῃ θεοῦ καὶ τῆς πρώτης φύσεως. οὐκ οὖν διάστασις, ἵνα μὴ λύσις· οὐδὲ μάχη, ἵνα μὴ διάστασις· οὐδὲ σύνθεσις, ἵνα μὴ μάχη· διὰ τοῦτο οὐδὲ σῶμα, ἵνα μὴ σύνθεσις. ἐκ τῶν τελευταίων ἐπὶ τὰ πρῶτα ὁ λόγος ἀνιὼν οὕτως ἵσταται.

Ἠὼς δὲ καὶ σωθήσεται τὸ διὰ πάντων διήκειν καὶ πληροῦν τὰ πάντα θεόν, κατὰ τό· Οὐχὶ τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν ἐγὼ πληρῶ; λέγει κύριος, καί· Ηνεῦμα κυρίου πεπλήρωκε τὴν οἰκουμένην, εἰ τὸ μὲν περιγράφοι, τὸ δὲ περιγράφοιτο; ἢ γὰρ διὰ κενοῦ χωρήσει τοῦ παντός, καὶ τὰ πάντα οἰχήσεται ἡμῖν, ἵν ὑβρισθῇ θεός, καὶ σῶμα γενόμενος, καὶ οὐκ ἔχων ὅσα πεποίηκεν· ἢ σῶμα ἐν σώμασιν ἔσται, ὅπερ ἀδύνατον· ἢ πλακήσεται καὶ ἀντι- 8. 10 περιγραφοι] φει ‘Reg. a’:μη περιγράφοιτο e || 13 om ἔχων e ǁ 14 και] η e 1. λύεσθαι] treated as something further than ἀναλ. The component elements might conceivably be separated and yet something remain; but λ. would be the complete break up of the whole thing. ib. σύνθεσις] The blending of different elements introduces a possibility of conflict, and so of division, and so of destruction; which is unthinkable in connexion with Him who, if He exists at all, must be the πρώτη φύσις, or primary existence, into which no earlierexistence enters. Elias observes that the ‘Platonic’ form of the argument is particularly applicable to the heretical dialecticians whom Gr. has in view. 5. ἐκ τῶν τελ.] In other words, the contention that God is not ‘a body’ is proved by a reductio absurdum. 8. Besides, if God were corporeal, His corporeity must involve either the denial of all other corporeities, or His interpenetration with them. Even on the supposition of a ‘fifth element’ which might be identified with His corporeity, He would be made subject to motion and to space. 8. τὸ Οὐχί] Jer. xxiii 24. 9. πνεῦμα κ.] Wisd. i. 7. The book is treated as authoritative. 10. τὸ μὲν...τὸ δέ] It seems logically best, if grammatically less obvious, to take τὸ μὲν as the direct ace. after περιγράφοι and τὸ δὲ as the indirect ace. after περιγράφοιτο; ‘if God should circumscribeonething and be circumscribed with another.’ This, it is assumed, must be the case if God were ‘a body.’ 11. ἢ γάρ] as often, ‘for otherwise either’etc. ib. διὰ κενοῦ...τ. παντός] ‘the universe which He pervades must be empty.’ 12. ἵν’ ὑβρισθῇ] an answer to the implied rhetorical question, ‘And why must everything perish?’ order that God may be doubly outraged, by being made a body, and by being deprived of all that He has created.’ 14. ἀδύνατον] because ‘bodies’ are mutually exclusive. παρατεθήσεται, ὥσπερ ὅσα τῶν ὑγρῶν μίγνυται, καὶ τὸ μὲν τέμνει, ὑπὸ δὲ τοῦ τμηθήσεται, ὃ καὶ τῶν Ἐπικουρείων ἀτόμων ἀτοπώτερόν τε καὶ γραωδέστερον· καὶ οὕτω διαπεσεῖται ἡμῖν, καὶ σῶμα οὐχ ἕξει, οὐδὲ πῆξίν τινα, ὁ περὶ τοῦ σώματος λόγος. εἰ δὲ ἄυλον φήσομεν, εἰ μὲν τὸ πέμπτον, ὥς τισιν ἔδοξε, καὶ τὴν κύκλῳ φορὰν φερόμενον, ἔστω μὲν ἄυλόν τι καὶ πέμπτον σῶμα, εἰ βούλονται δέ, καὶ ἀσώματον, κατὰ τὴν αὐτόνομον αὐτῶν τοῦ λόγου φορὰν καὶ ἀνάπλασιν· οὐδὲν γὰρ νῦν περὶ τούτου διοίσομαι. 2 τέμνει] τέμει c || 3 γραωδέστερον] + ὡς οἱ πέρι ταύτα ἐσχολακότες εληρησαν bde El ǁ 9 διοίσομαι] μεν ‘Reg. a’ ib. πλακήσεται κτλ.] πλακ. from πλέκω ‘to weave,’ so ‘entangle,’ It is a somewhat strange use of the simple verb; but Gr. has elsewhere θεῷ πλακῆναι καἰ θεὸν γενέσθαι ἐκ τῆς μίξεως. Ἀντιπ. ‘bring into juxtaposition.’ Gr. understands by the two words is explained by the comparison with mixing liquids. 1. τὸ μὲν τέμνει] sc. ὁ θεός; the fut. τμηθ. shews that Gr. is no longer thinking of the liquids, though no doubt it was the comparison with them which caused the pres. τέμνει. The supposed interpenetration of the σῶμα of God with other σώματα necessitates constant breaches of continuity in both. 2. Ἐπικ. ἀτόμων] Cp. p. 19 above. 3. γραωδέστερον] Cp. 1 Tim. iv 7. The words which follow in some authorities must be an ancient gloss. If they belonged to the text at all, they must needs come in after τμηθήσεται, where (apparently) no MS. places them. ib. διαπεσεῖται] ‘fall through,’ ‘come to ’; Plat. Phaed. 80 c. The subject of διαπ. is ὁ π. τ σ. λόγος. 4. σῶμα οὐχ νεῖ] It is difficult in English to keep up the play on the word σῶμα. Gr. means of course that the argument for a corporeal existence of God proves unsubstantail: it has no πῆξιν, ‘solidity’ (cp. πάγιος λόγος in § 5). 5. εἰ δὲ ἄυλον] ἁ priv. and ὕλη. The protasis is broken up into εἰ μὲν τὸ πέμπτον and εἰ δὲ ἄλλο τι παρὰ τὸ πέμπτον. Then the first apodosis is broken up likewise into ἒστω μέν and κατὰ τί δέ. ib τὸ πέμπτον] The reference is to the Aristotelian conception of a “quintessence,” or fifth “element,” besides earth, air, fire and water. Cp. Bas. Hex. 11. 7. ἔστω μέν] Gr. is willing to assume for the moment that there is such a thing as the imagined quintessence: οὐδὲν νῦν διοίσομαι, ‘I will not now differ.’ 8. κατὰ τὴν αὐτόνομον κτλ.] Almost each word here requires annotation. Λόγος is ‘the σῶμα,’ or perhaps ἀσώματον σῶμα Φορὰν at first sight seems to refer to τὴν κύκλῳ φ. just above; but there is prob. no such play upon the word intended. Gr. seems to employ it in the sense of ‘usage.’ Although no other example of the subst. in that sense is at hand, the verb is not infrequently so used. Gr. has διὰ γλώσσης φέρειν ‘to speak of. Ἀναπλάττειν and its derivatives are frequent in Gr. Sometimes the prep. has its full force, ‘re-construction,’ ‘fashioning afresh,’ as for ex. baptism; sometimes it is simply ‘to fashion,’ ‘imagine.’ Thus he of matter ὕλην) as ὑποστᾶσαν ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων, κἄν τινες ἀγέννητον ἀναπλάττωσιν. So here he seems to mean the ‘shaping’ which the Aristotelians put upon the word, with a slight suggestion of its being a factitious and not the legitimate construction. This is further expressed by calling it αὐτόνομον, ‘their inderpendent,’ arbitrary, ‘use and construction of the word.’ κατὰ τί δὲ τῶν κινουμένων ἔσται καὶ φερομένων, ἵνα μὴ λέγω τὴν ὕβριν, εἰ τὰ αὐτὰ τοῖς πεποιημένοις ὁ πεποιηκὼς κινηθήσεται, καὶ τοῖς φερομένοις ὁ φέρων, εἴ γε καὶ τοῦτο δώσουσι; τί δὲ τὸ τοῦτο πάλιν κινοῦν; τί δὲ τὸ τὸ πᾶν κινοῦν; κἀκεῖνο τί; καὶ τί πάλιν ἐκεῖνο; καὶ τοῦτο εἰς ἄπειρον. πῶς δὲ οὐκ ἐν τόπῳ πάντως, εἴ γε φερόμενον; εἰ δὲ ἄλλο τι παρὰ τὸ πέμπτον φήσουσιν, εἰ μὲν ἀγγελικόν, πόθεν ὅτι ἄγγελοι σώματα, καὶ τίνα ταῦτα; καὶ πόσον ὑπὲρ ἄγγελον εἴη θεός, οὗ λειτουργὸς ἄγγελος; εἰ δὲ ὑπὲρ ταῦτα, πάλιν εἰσήχθη σωμάτων ἐσμὸς ἀλόγιστος, καὶ φλυαρίας βυθός, οὐδαμοῦ στῆναι δυνάμενος.

Οὕτω μὲν οὖν οὐ σῶμα ἡμῖν ὁ θεός. οὐδὲ γὰρ ἤδη τις τοῦτο τῶν θεοπνεύστων ἢ εἶπεν ἢ παρεδέξατο, οὐδὲ τῆς ἡμετέρας αὐλῆς ὁ λόγος. λείπεται δὴ ἀσώματον ὑπολαμβάνειν. ἀλλ’ εἰ ἀσώματον, οὔπω μὲν οὐδὲ τοῦτο τῆς οὐσίας παραστατικόν τε καὶ περιεκτικόν, ὥσπερ οὐδὲ τὸ ἀγέννητον, καὶ τὸ ἄναρχον, καὶ τὸ ἀναλλοίωτον, καὶ τὸ ἄφθαρτον, καὶ ὅσα περὶ θεοῦ ἢ περὶ θεὸν εἶναι λέγεται. τί γὰρ ὄντι αὐτῷ κατὰ τὴν φύσιν καὶ τὴν ὑπόστασιν ὑπάρχει τὸ μὴ ἀρχὴν ἔχειν, μηδὲ ἐξίστασθαι, μηδὲ περα- τοῦσθαι ἀλλ᾿ ἀλλ’ ὅλον τὸ εἶναι περιλαμβάνειν λείπεται προσφιλοσοφεῖν τε καὶ προσεξετάζειν τῷ γε νοῦν θεοῦ ἀληθῶς ἔχοντι καὶ τελεωτέρῳ τὴν θεωρίαν. ὡς γὰρ οὐκ ἀρκεῖ τὸ σῶμα εἰπεῖν, ἢ τὸ γεγεννῆσθαι, πρὸς τὸ καὶ τό, περὶ ὃ ταῦτα, παραστῆσαί τε καὶ δηλῶσαι, ἀλλὰ δεῖ καὶ 9. 1 om ουν ac ΙΙ 3 δὴ] δε e ǁ 5 περιεκτικὸν] ’deest in nonnullis codd.’ || 6 ἀγέννητον] ἀγένητον c1 || 8 ὄντι] ὂν e || 11 om θεοῦ f ‘Or. I’ 9. We thus reach a negative truth about God, but a negative truth gives us no positive information. 2. τ. θεοπνεύστων] i.e. it is nowhere taught in the Bible. It is, as Elias says, a heathen and esp. a Stoic speculation. 3. τῆς ἤμ’. αὐλῆς] ‘ does not belong to θίς fold.’ 5. παραστ. τε κ. περιεκτ.] The confession that He is incorporeal does not amount to a positive statement or description of His being. 7. περὶ θεοῦ ἢ περὶ θεόν] The construction with the ace. is the less direct, and therefore suits better the scrupulous εὐλάβεια of Gr.'s language: ‘of God or in connexion with God.’ 8. τί γὰρ ὄντι αὐτῶ The κατὰ τὴν φ. is to be taken with ὑπάρχει, not with ὄντι. The sense is, ‘What substantive element is it in God's being, what light does it throw upon His nature and underlying essence, to say that He has no beginning,’ etc.? Ὑπόστασις is used in its older, untechnical sense, ‘person,’ but ’substance,’ as in Heb. i 3. 9. ἐξίστασθαι...περατοῦσθαι] Ἐξίστ. ‘to be moved out of oneself, so to change: Plat. Rep. 380 D ἐκστῆναι τῆς φύσεως. Περατ. (from πέρας) ‘to be limited’: Arist. de Mund. ii 2. 10. ἀλλ’ δὸν τὸ εἶναι] ‘Nay, the whole of the divine essence is left (untouched by these negative statements) to be conceived of and philosophically treated ated and examined.’ 13. πρὸς τὸ καἰ τό] ‘with regard to this or that object’: περὶ ὃ ‘to which the description applies.’ ib. τὸ ... παραστῆσαί τε κ. δ.] coupled by ἢ to εἰπεῖν. τὸ ὑποκείμενον τούτοις εἰπεῖν, εἰ μέλλοι τελείως καὶ ἀποχρώντως τὸ νοούμενον παραστήσεσθαι· ἢ γὰρ ἄνθρωπος ἢ βοῦς ἢ ἵππος τοῦτο τὸ ἐνσώματον καὶ γεννώμενον καὶ φθειρόμενον· οὕτως οὐδὲ ἐκεῖ στήσεται μέχρι τοῦ εἰπεῖν ἃ μή ἐστιν ὁ τὴν τοῦ ὄντος πολυπραγμονῶν φύσιν, ἀλλὰ δεῖ, πρὸς τῷ εἰπεῖν ἃ μή ἐστι, καὶ ὅ ἐστιν εἰπεῖν, ὅσῳ καὶ ῥᾷον ἕν τι περιλαβεῖν, ἢ τὰ πάντα καθ᾿ ἕκαστον ἀπειπεῖν,—ἵνα ἔκ τε τῆς ἀναιρέσεως ὧν οὔκ ἐστι, καὶ τῆς οὗ ἐστὶ θέσεως, περιληφθῇ τὸ νοούμενον. ὁ δὲ ἃ μὲν οὔκ ἐστι λέγων, σιωπῶν δὲ ὅ ἐστι, ποιεῖ παραπλήσιον, ὥσπερ ἂν εἰ τὰ πέντε δὶς ὅσα ἐστὶν ἐρωτώμενος ὅτι μὲν οὐ δύο λέγοι, οὐδὲ τρεῖς, οὐδὲ τέσσαρες, οὐδὲ πέντε, οὐδὲ εἴκοσιν, οὐδὲ τριάκοντα, οὐδέ τινα, ἵνα συνελὼν εἴπω, τῶν ἐντὸς δεκάδος ἢ δεκαδικῶν ἀριθμῶν· ὅτι δὲ εἴη δέκα μὴ λέγοι, μηδὲ ἐρείδοι τὸν νοῦν τοῦ ἐρωτῶντος εἰς τὸ ζητούμενον. πολλῷ γὰρ ῥᾷον καὶ συντομώτερον ἐκ τοῦ ὅ ἐστιν ὅσα οὔκ ἐστι δηλῶσαι, ἢ ἐκ τοῦ ἀνελεῖν ἃ μή ἐστιν ὅ ἐστιν ἐνδείξασθαι.

Ἢ τοῦτο μὲν παντὶ δῆλον.