Ἑνταῦθα σὸς ὁ λόγος ’ αἱ σφενδόναι πεμπέσθωσαν, οἱ συλλογισμοὶ πλεκέσθωσαν. ἢ ἀγέννητον πάντως, ἢ γεννητόν. καὶ εἰ μὲν ἀγέννητον, δύο τὰ ἄναρχα. εἰ δὲ γεννητόν, ὑποδιαίρει πάλιν· ἢ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς τοῦτο, ἢ ἐκ τοῦ υἱοῦ. καὶ εἰ μὲν ἐκ τοῦ πατρός, υἱοὶ δύο καὶ ἀδελφοί. σὺ δέ μοι πλάττε καὶ διδύμους, εἰ βούλει, ἢ τὸν μὲν πρεσβύτερον, τὸν δὲ νεώτερον ’ ἐπειδὴ λίαν εἶ φιλοσώματος. εἰ δὲ ἐκ τοῦ υἱοῦ, πέφηνέ, φησι, καὶ υἱωνὸς ἡμῖν θεός· οὗ τί ἂν γένοιτο παραδοξότερον ; ταῦτα μὲν οὖν οἱ σοφοὶ τοῦ κακοποιῆσαι, τὰ δὲ ἂγ ἀθ’ ἁ γράφειν οὐ θέλοντες. ἐγὼ δὲ εἰ μὲν ἑώρων ἀναγκαίαν τὴν διαίρεσιν, ἐδεξάμην ἂν τὰ πράγματα, οὐ φοβηθεὶς τὰ ὀνόματα. οὐ γάρ, ἐπειδὴ κατά τινα σχέσιν ὑψηλοτέραν υἱὸς ὁ υἱός, οὐ δυνηθέντων ἡμῶν ἄλλως ἢ οὕτως ἐνδείξασθαι τὸ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ὁμοούσιον, ἤδη καὶ πάσας οἰητέον ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι τὰς κάτω κλήσεις, καὶ τῆς ἡμετέρας συγγενείας, μεταφέρειν ἐπὶ τὸ θεῖον. ἢ τάχα ἃν σύ γε καὶ ἄρρενα τὸν θεὸν ἡμῖν ὑπολάβοις, κατὰ τὸν λόγον τοῦτον, ὅτι θεὸς ὀνομάζεται, καὶ πατήρ ; καὶ θῆλύ τι τὴν θεότητα, ὅσον ἐπὶ ταῖς κλήσεσι ; καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα οὐδέτερον, ὅτι μὴ γεννητικόν ; εἰ δέ σοι καὶ τοῦτο παιχθείη, τῇ ἑαυτοῦ 7, 4 υποδιαιρησει ’Reg. Copr.' || 15 τῆς] τὰς b ΙΙ 18 omn ’Reg. a’ 1. ἐνταῦθα σὸς 6 λ.] ‘now for your say’ It begins at ἢ ἀγέννητον. 3. δύο τὰ ἄναρχα] viz. the Father and the Spirit. 6. σὺ δέ μοι πλ.] This is Gr.'s interpolation into his adversary's argument. 7. φιλοσώματος] i.e. determined to refer everything to material standards. 9. σοφοὶ τοῦ κακ’.] Jer. iv 22. It is hard to see why Gr. balances this clause by ‘ and will not write what is good.' It is not a reference to anything in Scripture. No doubt the Eunomian literature was as extensive as its oral polemic. 11. τὰ πράγματα] much as at the end of § 5. The ’names’ which he says would not scare him ὅσ’ are such as that of υἱωνός. Not that he admits that such a name would necessarily be applicable, even if the ‘ facts ’ were as suggested. is shewn in the next sentence. 12. κατά τινα σχ. ὑψ.] ‘according to sonic relationship too lofty for us to understand' the Son is Son. No other language would express at once His derivation from the Father and His being of one substance with Him. It does not follow, however, that all the nomenclature of our earthly relationships is to be trans- ferred straightway to the Godhead. 20. εἰ δέ σοι κ· τοῦτο π·] ’and if you like to carry the gamt farther i cp. iii 7 προσπαιξω τὸν π. θελήσει τὸν θεὸν συγγενόμενον, κατὰ τοὺς παλαιοὺς λήρους καὶ μύθους, γεννήσασθαι τὸν υἱόν, εἰσήχθη τις ἡμῖν καὶ Μαρκίωνος καὶ Οὐαλεντίνου θεὸς ἀρρενόθηλυς, τοῦ τοὺς καινοὺς αἰῶνας ἀνατυπώσαντος.

Ἐπεὶ δέ σου τὴν πρώτην διαίρεσιν οὐ δεχόμεθα, τὴν μηδὲν ἀγεννήτου καὶ γεννητοῦ μέσον ὑπολαμβάνουσαν, αὐτίκα οἰχήσονταί σοι μετὰ τῆς σεμνῆς διαιρέσεως οἱ ἀδελφοὶ καὶ οἱ υἱωνοί, ὥσπερ τινὸς δεσμοῦ πολυπλόκου τῆς πρώτης ἀρχῆς λυθείσης συνδιαλυθέντες, καὶ τῆς θεολογίας ὑποχωρήσαντες. ποῦ γὰρ θήσεις τὸ ἐκπορευτόν. εἰπέ μοι, μέσον ἀναφανὲν τῆς σῆς διαιρέσεως, καὶ παρὰ κρείσσονος ἢ κατὰ σὲ θεολόγου, τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν, εἰσαγόμενον; εἰ μὴ τὴν φωνὴν ἐκείνην τῶν σῶν ἐξεῖλες εὐαγγελίων, διὰ τὴν τρίτην σου διαθήκην, Τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, ὃ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται· ὃ καθ’ ὅσον μὲν ἐκεῖθεν ἐκπορεύεται, οὐ κτίσμα· καθ’ ὅσον δὲ οὐ γεννητόν, οὐχ 3 om καὶ Οὐαλεντίνου aceg 8, 8 οἱ υἱωνοὶ] om οι df || 9 λυθεισης] διαλυθείσης bdf || 16 om ἐκπορεύεται f 1. συγγενόμενον] ‘ by intercourse with His own ’; cp. iii 6. The ’ancient ’ are prob. those of heathen mythology, not of Gnosticism. 3. Μαρκίωνος] Marcion's system has really nothing to do with Gnosticism and its fantastic inventions, although he is usually reckoned among the Gnostics. Perh. therefore Gr. uses his name with that of Valentinus to denote in contemptuous indifference Gnosticism in general ; or perh. he confuses Marcion with Marcus, the disciple of Val., from whom the Marcosians take their name. ib. θεὸς ἀρρενόθηλυς] Gr. does not mean that Val. taught that God was ἀρρ., but only compares the God who has just been imagined with the bisexual beings of the Valentinian system. See Iren. I i 1 εἶναι γὰρ αὐτῶν ἕκαστον ἀρρενόθηλυν, οὔτως· τως· πρῶτον rbv Προπάτορα ἡνῶσθαι κατὰ συζυγίαν τῆ ἑαυτοῦ Ἐννοίᾳ κτλ. 4. αἰῶνας] ’who devised those strange Acons.’ 8. I do not admit thai He must be either begotten or unbegotten. Christ says that He ’proceeds? You ask what that means. Our powers are insufficient to explain. 9. ἀρχῆς] as in ii 25, an ‘ end? Δεσμός seems to be used in the sense of a hnot. ib. τῆς θ. ὑποχωρήσαντες] ‘retiring ing from your account of the God- head.’ 14. διὰ τὴν τρίτην σ. δ.] ‘ to suit your Third Testament? or, as we might say, ’your Newest Testament.’ ib. τὸ πν.... ἐκπορεύεται] John xv 26. 15. ἐκεῖθεν] from such a source as the Father. υἱός· καθ’ ὅσον δὲ ἀγεννήτου καὶ γεννητοῦ μέσον, θεός. καὶ οὕτω σου τὰς τῶν συλλογισμῶν ἄρκυς διαφυγὸν θεὸς ἀναπέφηνε, τῶν σῶν διαιρέσεων ἰσχυρότερος. τίς οὖν ἡ ἐκπόρευσις; εἰπὲ σὺ τὴν ἀγεννησίαν τοῦ πατρός, κἀγὼ τὴν γέννησιν τοῦ υἱοῦ φυσιολογήσω, καὶ τὴν ἐκπόρευσιν τοῦ πνεύματος, καὶ παραπληκτίσωμεν ἄμφω εἰς θεοῦ μυστήρια παρακύπτοντες· καὶ ταῦτα τίνες; οἱ μηδὲ τὰ ἐν ποσὶν εἰδέναι δυνάμενοι, μηδὲ ψάμμον θαλασσῶν, καὶ σταγόνας ὑετοῦ, καὶ ἡμέρας αἰῶνος ἐξαριθμεῖσθαι, μὴ ὅτι γε θεοῦ βάθεσιν ἐμβατεύειν, καὶ λόγον ὑπέχειν τῆς οὕτως ἀρρήτου καὶ ὑπὲρ λόγον φύσεως.

Τί οὖν ἐστί, φησιν, ὃ λείπει τῷ πνεύματι, πρὸς τὸ εἶναι υἱόν; εἰ γὰρ μὴ λεῖπόν τι ἦν, υἱὸς ἃν ἦν. οὐ λείπειν φαμέν· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐλλειπὴς θεός· τὸ δὲ τῆς ἐκφάνσεως, ἵν οὕτως εἴπω, ἢ τῆς πρὸς ἄλληλα σχέσεως διάφορον διάφορον αὐτῶν καὶ τὴν κλῆσιν πεποίηκεν. οὐδὲ γὰρ τῷ υἱῷ λείπει τι πρὸς τὸ εἶναι πατέρα, οὐδὲ γὰρ ἔλλειψις ἡ υἱότης, ἀλλ’ οὐ παρὰ τοῦτο πατήρ. ἢ οὕτω γε καὶ τῷ πατρὶ λείψει τι πρὸς τὸ εἶναι υἱόν· οὐ γὰρ υἱὸς ὁ πατήρ. ἀλλ’ οὐκ 2 διαφυγὼν d || 3 ισχυροτεροσ] υφηλοτερος ’tres Colb.' || 6 παραπληκτισομεν bedf 9, 13 υιον] υιω b || 14 ἐλλιπὴς cd2f2 || 15 om διάφορον sec. loco e || 17 om τι b || ουδε] οὐ c || 18 λειψει] λείπει c || 19 υἱὸν] υἱὼ b 1. ἀγενν. κ. γενν. μέσον] Theterm ἐκπορεύεσθαι denotes a relationship to the Unbegotten Father which is at least not more distant than that of Generation, and therefore implies the essential Deity of Him who so proceeds. 5. φυσιολογήσω] ‘ will tell you the natural history of.’ 6. παραπληκriσωμεν] ‘ and let us both go mad for prying into the secrets of God' ; a well-known superstition. 7. καἰ ταῦτα τίνες] ‘ and who are we that we should pry into them ?' 8. ψάμμον θαλασσῶν κτλ.] Ecclus. i 2. 10. θεοῦ βάθεσιν] ι Cor. ii 10. ib. λόγον πἐχειν] ‘ to submit’ ’present an account.’ 9. ‘Where does He come short of being a Son ? yon ask. . It is no defect, any more than it is a defect in the Son not to ἠ’ Father, or in the Father not to be Son. The names ’denote unalterable relationships within a single nature. 14. ἐκφάνσεως] The difference of designation corresponds to B real difference in the mode of Their coming forth into existence, and of Their mutual relation. Ἔκφανσις does not mean Their manifestation to us, but Their eternal issuing forth from the First Source. 19. ἀλλ’ οὐκ ἐλλ. τ. ποθεν] ’but this language does not indicate a in any direction, nor the inferiority of essence.' The ταῦτα not refer only to what has immediately preceded, viz. that the Father is not Son ; this would not suggest any thought of ὕφεσις. It refers also to the ’s not being Father, nor the Spirit Son. ἐλλείψεως ταῦτά ποθεν, οὐδὲ τῆς κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν ὑφέσεως · αὐτὸ δὲ τὸ μὴ γεγεννῆσθαι, καὶ τὸ γεγεννῆσθαι, καὶ τὸ ἐκπορεύεσθαι, τὸν μὲν πατέρα, τὸν δὲ υἱόν, τὸ δὲ τοῦθ’ ὅπερ λέγεται πνεῦμα ἅγιον προσηγόρευσεν, ἵνα τὸ ἀσύγχυτον σώζηται τῶν τριῶν ὑποστάσεων ἐν τῇ μιᾷ φύσει τε καὶ ἀξίᾳ τῆς θεότητος. οὔτε γὰρ ὁ υἱὸς πατήρ, εἷς γὰρ πατήρ, ἀλλ’ ὅπερ ὁ πατήρ· οὔτε τὸ πνεῦμα υἱὸς ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ, εἷς γὰρ ὁ μονογενής, ἀλλ’ ὅπερ ὁ υἱός· ἓν τὰ τρία τῇ θεότητι, καὶ τὸ ἓν τρία ταῖς ἰδιότησιν· ἵνα μήτε τὸ ἓν Σαβέλλιον ᾖ, μήτε τὰ τρία τῆς πονηρᾶς νῦν διαιρέσεως.