23

are different, but the essence of all is one. Therefore, in most respects, we are the same as one another; but we differ from one another only in the properties observed in each individual. Hence the names are not indicative of the essences, but of the properties, which characterize each one. Therefore, when we hear Peter, we do not understand his essence from the name (and by essence I now mean the material substrate, which the name in no way signifies), but we form a concept of the properties that are observed in him. For immediately from this utterance we understand the son of Jonah, the one from Bethsaida, the brother 29.580 of Andrew, the one called from being a fisherman to the ministry of the apostolate, the one who through the preeminence of his faith received upon himself the building of the Church; none of which is essence, as the hypostasis is understood. So the name defines for us the character of Peter, but nowhere does it represent the essence itself. Again, hearing Paul, we understood a confluence of other properties: the one from Tarsus, the Hebrew, the Pharisee according to the law, the disciple of Gamaliel, the persecutor of the Churches of God according to zeal, the one led to full knowledge by the fearsome vision, the apostle to the Gentiles. For all these things are encompassed by the single utterance Paul. And yet, if it were true that those whose names differ have contrary essences, then surely Paul and Peter and simply all human beings would have to be of a different essence from one another. But since no one is so ignorant and unobservant of our common nature as to be led to say this; for "from clay," he says, "you were formed, as was I;" the saying meaning nothing other than that all human beings are of the same essence; false is the one who sophistically argues that a difference in essence follows from a difference in names. For the nature of things does not follow their names, but the names were invented after the things. For if this were true, it would be necessary that those who have the same names also have one and the same essence. Therefore, since those who are perfect in virtue have been deemed worthy of the name of God, human beings would be of the same essence as the God of all. But just as saying this is clear madness, so also that other argument partakes of equal folly. It is clear, then, from what has been said, that in the case of the Father and the Son, the names do not represent essence, but are indicative of their properties; so that there is no room for the argument that introduces a contrariety of essences from the variation of names. Thus, he would overthrow himself before all else. For if "creature" and "offspring" differ, the essences of the Only-begotten will be different, following the difference of the names. But if it is for the deranged to say this, neither is that other thing for the sane. But he even pretends to have countless proofs that the Son was called a "creature" by the saints; but as if hurrying on to some other preceding matters, he supposedly postpones mentioning them for the present. And this too is a skillful piece of villainy, in cases where he is at a loss for arguments, to prefer silence. For if he had the shadow of a testimony that calls the 29.581 Only-begotten a "creature," our ears would not have already been deafened by it being noised about. Then he says that, because of those who conceive of the Lord’s begetting in a bodily sense, and who trifle with homonyms, it is necessary for him also to speak briefly about these things. And yet what prevented him, after substantiating his argument with testimonies from the Scriptures, from then turning to the correction of the weaker ones, and consoling them for the harm from homonymy, if any has ever happened or will happen to anyone? For who is so completely carnal in mind, and inexperienced in divine words, as, upon hearing of a divine begetting, to be carried away to bodily imaginings, in which there is the union of male with female, and conception in a womb, and formation, and fashioning, and in due time, a coming forth into the outside? Who is so beast-like, as, hearing of God the Word coming forth from God, and hearing of wisdom begotten from God, to the

23

διάφοροι, οὐσία δὲ πάντων μία. ∆ιόπερ ἐν τοῖς πλείστοις οἱ αὐτοὶ ἀλλήλοις ἐσμέν· τοῖς δὲ ἰδιώ μασι μόνοις τοῖς περὶ ἕκαστον θεωρουμένοις ἕτερος ἑτέρου διενηνόχαμεν. Ὅθεν καὶ αἱ προσηγορίαι οὐχὶ τῶν οὐσιῶν εἰσι σημαντικαὶ, ἀλλὰ τῶν ἰδιοτήτων, αἳ τὸν καθ' ἕνα χαρακτηρίζουσιν. Ὅταν οὖν ἀκούωμεν Πέτρον, οὐ τὴν οὐσίαν αὐτοῦ νοοῦμεν ἐκ τοῦ ὀνόματος (οὐσίαν δὲ λέγω νῦν τὸ ὑλικὸν ὑποκείμενον, ὅπερ οὐδαμῶς σημαίνει τοὔνομα), ἀλλὰ τῶν ἰδιωμά των ἃ περὶ αὐτὸν θεωρεῖται τὴν ἔννοιαν ἐντυπού μεθα. Εὐθὺς γὰρ ἐκ τῆς φωνῆς ταύτης νοοῦμεν τὸν τοῦ Ἰωνᾶ, τὸν ἐκ τῆς Βηθσαϊδᾶ, τὸν ἀδελφὸν 29.580 Ἀνδρέου, τὸν ἀπὸ ἁλιέων εἰς τὴν διακονίαν τῆς ἀπο στολῆς προσκληθέντα, τὸν διὰ πίστεως ὑπεροχὴν ἐφ' ἑαυτὸν τὴν οἰκοδομὴν τῆς Ἐκκλησίας δεξάμε νον· ὧν οὐδέν ἐστιν οὐσία, ὡς ἡ ὑπόστασις νοου μένη. Ὥστε τὸ ὄνομα τὸν χαρακτῆρα μὲν ἡμῖν ἀφ ορίζει τὸν Πέτρου· αὐτὴν δὲ οὐδαμοῦ παρίστησι τὴν οὐσίαν. Πάλιν ἀκούσαντες Παῦλον, ἑτέρων ἰδιωμά των συνδρομὴν ἐνοήσαμεν· τὸν Ταρσέα, τὸν Ἑβραῖον, τὸν κατὰ νόμον Φαρισαῖον, τὸν μαθητὴν Γαμαλιὴλ, τὸν κατὰ ζῆλον διώκτην τῶν Ἐκκλησιῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ, τὸν ἐκ τῆς φοβερᾶς ὀπτασίας εἰς τὴν ἐπίγνωσιν ἐναχθέντα, τὸν ἀπόστολον τῶν ἐθνῶν. Ταῦτα γὰρ πάντα ἐκ μιᾶς φωνῆς τῆς Παῦλος περιορίζεται. Καίτοιγε, εἴπερ ἀληθὲς ἦν, ὅτι ὧν τὰ ὀνόματα δι ενήνοχεν, ἐναντίως ἔχουσιν αἱ οὐσίαι, ἐχρῆν δήπου καὶ Παῦλον καὶ Πέτρον καὶ ἁπαξαπλῶς ἀνθρώπους ἅπαντας ἑτερουσίους ἀλλήλοις εἶναι. Ἐπεὶ δὲ τοῦτο οὐδεὶς οὕτως ἀμαθὴς καὶ τῆς κοινῆς φύσεως ἀνεπί σκεπτος, ὥστ' ἂν εἰπεῖν προαχθῆναι· Ἐκ πηλοῦ γὰρ, φησὶ, διήρτισαι σὺ, ὡς κἀγώ· οὐδὲν ἕτερον τοῦ λόγου ἢ τὸ ὁμοούσιον πάντων ἀνθρώπων ἀποσημαί νοντος· ψευδὴς ὁ τῇ διαφορᾷ τῶν ὀνομάτων τὸ τῆς οὐσίας διάφορον ἕπεσθαι σοφιζόμενος. Οὐ γὰρ τοῖς ὀνό μασιν ἡ τῶν πραγμάτων φύσις ἀκολουθεῖ, ἀλλ' ὕστερα τῶν πραγμάτων εὕρηται τὰ ὀνόματα. Εἰ γὰρ τοῦτο ἦν ἀληθὲς, ἔδει καὶ ὧν προσηγορίαι εἰσὶν αἱ αὐ ταὶ, μίαν καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν οὐσίαν εἶναι. Οὐκοῦν ἐπειδὴ οἱ κατ' ἀρετὴν τέλειοι τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ προσηγορίας ἠξίωνται, ὁμοούσιοι ἂν εἶεν τῷ Θεῷ τῶν ὅλων οἱ ἄν θρωποι. Ἀλλ' ὥσπερ τοῦτο λέγειν μανία σαφὴς, οὕτω κἀκεῖνος ὁ λόγος τῆς ἴσης ἔχεται παρανοίας. Φανερὸν τοίνυν ἐκ τῶν εἰρημένων, ὅτι καὶ ἐπὶ Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ οὐχὶ οὐσίαν παρίστησι τὰ ὀνόματα, ἀλλὰ τῶν ἰδιωμάτων ἐστὶ δηλωτικά· ὥστε μηδεμίαν εἶναι χώραν τῷ λόγῳ, ἐκ τῆς τῶν ὀνομάτων παραλ λαγῆς τὴν τῶν οὐσιῶν ἐναντίωσιν παρεισάγοντι. Οὕτω δ' ἂν πρὸ πάντων ἑαυτὸν καταβάλοι. Εἰ γὰρ διαφέρει ποίημά τε καὶ γέννημα, διάφοροι ἔσον ται τοῦ Μονογενοῦς αἱ οὐσίαι, τῇ διαφορᾷ τῶν ὀνομά των ἑπόμεναι. Εἰ δὲ τοῦτο παραφρονούντων εἰπεῖν, οὐδὲ ἐκεῖνο καθεστηκότων. Ὁ δὲ καὶ προσποιεῖται μὲν μυρίας ἔχειν τὰς ἀποδείξεις τοῦ παρὰ τῶν ἁγίων ποίημα τὸν Υἱὸν προσειρῆσθαι· ὡς δὲ ἐφ' ἕτερά τινα προηγούμενα σπεύδων, ὑπερτίθεται δῆθεν ἐν τῷ παρόντι τὴν μνήμην. Ἔστι δὲ καὶ τοῦτο τεχνικὸν τὸ κακούργημα, ἐν οἷς ἀπορεῖ λόγων, τὴν σιωπὴν προτιμᾷν. Εἰ γὰρ σκιὰν μαρτυρίας εἶχε τῆς τὸν 29.581 Μονογενῆ λεγούσης ποίημα, οὐκ ἂν ἐκεκώφωτο ἡμῶν ἤδη τὰ ὦτα περιθρυλλούμενα. Εἶτά φησι, διὰ τοὺς σωματικὴν τὴν γέννησιν ὑπολαμβάνοντας τοῦ Κυρίου, καὶ ταῖς ὁμωνυμίαις προσπαίοντας, ἀναγ καῖον αὐτῷ καὶ περὶ τούτων εἶναι διὰ βραχέων εἰ πεῖν. Καίτοι τί ἐκώλυε, ταῖς ἐκ τῶν Γραφῶν μαρ τυρίαις τὸν λόγον ἑαυτοῦ πιστωσάμενον, οὕτως ἐπὶ τὴν διόρθωσιν τῶν ἀσθενεστέρων ἐλθεῖν, καὶ τὴν ἐκ τῆς ὁμωνυμίας βλάβην παραμυθήσασθαι, εἴ τις ἄρα γέγονέ ποτέ τισιν ἢ γενήσεται; Τίς γὰρ οὕτω παν τελῶς σάρκινος τὴν διάνοιαν, καὶ θείων λόγων ἄπειρος, ὥστε, ἀκούων θείας γεννήσεως, πρὸς τὰς σωματικὰς καταφέρεσθαι φαντασίας, ἐν αἷς συμ πλοκὴ μὲν ἄῤῥενος πρὸς τὸ θῆλυ, κύησις δὲ ἐν μή τρᾳ, καὶ διάπλασις, καὶ μόρφωσις, καὶ τοῖς καθ ήκουσι χρόνοις πρόοδος εἰς τὸ ἔξω; Τίς οὕτω κτηνώδης, ὥστε, ἀκούων Θεὸν Λόγον ἐκ Θεοῦ προελ θόντα, ἀκούων δὲ σοφίαν ἐκ Θεοῦ γεννηθεῖσαν, πρὸς τὰ