24

to fall into corporeal passions in one's reasonings? But this also, along with the others, has been devised by him as a plausible form of argument, so that he might seem to undertake the labor of teaching for the sake of compassion toward the less intelligent of the brethren. And he pretends to correct the corporeal suspicions that arise from this appellation; but the harms that come from calling the Lord a "creature" he does not reject. And yet, the one who imagines the generation to be corporeal would likewise be carried away to the material modes of creation. For surely the weak person will not conceive from the word "begets" a certain division and transfer and flow of the substance of the one begetting; but will he not be led to suppose that matter was introduced from without, from non-existence, into the hypostasis of the creature, as you say? For what reason, then, does he heal the sicknesses of the brethren's reasonings by halves, and while taking care of those who suppose the generation is corporeal, he overlooks those who stumble at the appellation of "creature"? Because he knows that "to have been begotten" is hostile to his own doctrines, since the one begotten must in every way and without any difference be akin to the one who begot; but "to have been made" is friendly and allied to his own hypotheses, because it presents the idea of something 29.584 other and foreign and in every way unlike the maker. Then he adds to these things, saying: {EUN.} We say, therefore, that the Son is an "offspring," according to the teaching of the Scriptures; not understanding the substance to be one thing, and the thing signified by it to be another, but that the hypostasis is the very thing which the name signifies, the appellation corresponding truly to the substance. {BAS.} And in these things, therefore, he openly fights against the truth, but nevertheless says things consistent with himself. For just as in the arguments above, the "unbegotten" was defined as signifying the substance of the God of all, so also here he says that "offspring" signifies the substance of the Son; in order that, in the opposition of the "begotten" to the "unbegotten," he might show the Only-begotten to be contrary to the Father in His very substance. For this reason he legislates words that are outside the usage of the divine Spirit, calling the Son an "offspring." Where did he get this? From what teaching? What prophet? Which of the apostles bestowed this name upon Him? For I, at least, have nowhere found this word so used in Scripture. And yet this man boasts that he has received these appellations from nowhere else than from the teaching of the Spirit. For it is a small thing for him to offer a contest to men, unless he also dares to oppose the Spirit himself. For we have been taught in many places that the Father has "begotten"; but that the Son is an "offspring" we have not yet heard even to this day; For, it says, "A child is born to us; a son is also given to us"; and His name is called not "Offspring," but "Angel of Great Counsel." And yet, if "offspring" were significant of substance, we would not have been taught another name by the Spirit than that which was clearly going to represent His substance. And again Peter, who was deemed worthy of those blessings because of his knowledge of the truth, did not say, "You are the Offspring," but, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Paul, having filled all his writing with the appellation of the Son, will nowhere be found to have mentioned "offspring"; which this man, with much confidence, as if he had received it from the divine school of teaching, brings forward. For not even here must we concede to him, who transforms and remodels the word "begot," which is used of the Father, to call the Son of God an "offspring." For it is not fitting for one who has been instructed in the fear of God to leap readily upon 29.585 whatever might be suggested by the sequence of words, but to be content, abiding by the names found in Scripture, through these to render the doxology in a manner worthy of God. For if those from the beginning who translated the Hebrew dialect into the Greek tongue did not dare the interpretation of certain names, but them

24

σώματος πάθη τοῖς λογισμοῖς καταπίπτειν; Ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦτο μετὰ τῶν ἄλλων εὐπρόσωπον αὐτῷ σχῆμα τῶν λόγων ἐπινενόηται, ὡς τῆς πρὸς τοὺς ἀσυνέτους τῶν ἀδελφῶν εὐσπλαγχνίας ἕνεκεν τὸν κόπον τῆς διδασκαλίας δοκεῖν καταδέχεσθαι. Καὶ τὰς μὲν σωματικὰς ὑπονοίας, τὰς ἐπὶ τῇ προσηγορίᾳ ταύτῃ ἐγγινομένας, ἐπανορθοῦται δῆθεν· τὰς δὲ ἐκ τοῦ ποίημα τὸν Κύριον ὀνομάζεσθαι βλά βας οὐ παραιτεῖται. Καίτοι ὅ γε σωματικὴν εἶ ναι τὴν γέννησιν φανταζόμενος, ὁ αὐτὸς ἂν καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς ὑλικοὺς τῆς ποιήσεως τρόπους ὑπενεχθείη. Οὐ γὰρ δήπου μερισμὸν μέν τινα καὶ μετάστασιν καὶ ῥύ σιν τῆς τοῦ γεννῶντος οὐσίας ἐκ τῆς φωνῆς τοῦ γεννᾷν ὁ ἀσθενὴς ἐννοήσει· ὕλην δὲ ἔξωθεν ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος εἰσενεχθεῖσαν εἰς τὴν, ὡς ὑμεῖς φατε, τοῦ ποιήματος ὑπόστασιν, ὑπολαμβάνειν οὐκ ἐναχθήσε ται. Τίνος οὖν ἕνεκεν τὰ ἀῤῥωστήματα τῶν λογι σμῶν τῶν ἀδελφῶν ἐξ ἡμισείας ἰᾶται, καὶ τῶν σω ματικὴν τὴν γέννησιν ὑπολαμβανόντων ἐπιμε λούμενος, τοὺς τῇ προσηγορίᾳ τοῦ ποιήματος περι πταίοντας παρορᾷ; Ὅτι τὸ μὲν γεγεννῆσθαι πολέ μιον οἶδε τοῖς δόγμασιν ἑαυτοῦ, τοῦ γεννηθέντος οἰ κείως ἔχειν ὀφείλοντος πάντως καὶ ἀπαραλλάκτως πρὸς τὸν γεννήσαντα· τὸ δὲ πεποιῆσθαι φίλον καὶ σύμμαχον ταῖς ἑαυτοῦ ὑποθέσεσι, διὰ τὸ ἀλλοτρίου 29.584 καὶ ξένου, καὶ πάντη ἀνοικείου πρὸς τὸν ποιήσαντα τὴν ἔννοιαν παριστᾷν. Εἶτα τούτοις ἐπισυνάπτει λέγων· {ΕΥΝ.} Γέννημα τοίνυν τὸν Υἱόν φαμεν, κατὰ τὴν τῶν Γραφῶν διδασκαλίαν· οὐχ ἕτερον μέν τι τὴν οὐσίαν νοοῦντες, ἕτερον δέ τι παρ' αὐτὴν τὸ σημαι νόμενον, ἀλλ' αὐτὴν εἶναι τὴν ὑπόστασιν, ἣν σημαί νει τοὔνομα ἐπαληθευούσης τῇ οὐσίᾳ τῆς προσ ηγορίας. {ΒΑΣ.} Καὶ ἐν τούτοις τοίνυν τῇ μὲν ἀληθείᾳ φα νερῶς διαμάχεται, ἑαυτῷ δὲ ὅμως ἀκόλουθα λέγει. Ὡς γὰρ ἐν τοῖς ἄνω λόγοις τὸ ἀγέννητον ἐπὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ τῶν ὅλων τῆς οὐσίας αὐτοῦ διωρίζετο εἶναι ση μαντικὸν, οὕτω καὶ ἐνταῦθα τὸ γέννημα τὴν οὐσίαν τοῦ Υἱοῦ σημαίνειν λέγει· ἵν' ἐν τῇ τοῦ γεννη τοῦ πρὸς τὸ ἀγέννητον ἀντιθέσει ἐναντίως ἔχοντα τῷ Πατρὶ τὸν Μονογενῆ κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν αὐτὴν ἐπιδείξῃ. ∆ιὰ ταῦτα νομοθετεῖ ῥήματα ἔξω τῆς χρήσεως ὄντα τοῦ θείου Πνεύματος, γέννημα τὸν Υἱὸν ὀνομάζων. Πόθεν λαβών; ἐκ ποίας διδασκαλίας; τίνος προφήτου; τίνος τῶν ἀποστόλων ταύτην αὐτῷ τὴν προσωνυμίαν ἐπιφημίσαντος; Ἐγὼ μὲν γὰρ οὐδαμοῦ τῆς Γραφῆς κειμένην οὕτω τὴν φωνὴν ταύτην εὗρον. Καίτοι οὐδαμόθεν οὗτος ἢ ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Πνεύματος διδασκαλίας εἰληφέναι τὰς προσηγορίας ταύτας ἀλα ζονεύεται. Μικρὸν γὰρ αὐτῷ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἀγῶνα παρέχειν, εἰ μὴ καὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦ Πνεύματος κατα τολμήσειε. Γεγεννηκέναι μὲν γὰρ τὸν Πατέρα πολ λαχοῦ δεδιδάγμεθα· γέννημα δὲ εἶναι τὸν Υἱὸν οὐδέπω καὶ τήμερον ἀκηκόαμεν· Παιδίον γὰρ, φησὶν, ἐγεν νήθη ἡμῖν· υἱὸς καὶ ἐδόθη ἡμῖν· καὶ καλεῖται τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ οὐχὶ γέννημα, ἀλλὰ Μεγάλης βου λῆς ἄγγελος. Καίτοι εἴπερ τὸ γέννημα οὐσίας ὑπῆρχε σημαντικὸν, οὐκ ἂν ἕτερον ὄνομα παρὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος ἐδιδάχθημεν, ἢ ὅπερ ἐμφανῶς τὴν οὐσίαν αὐτοῦ παριστᾷν ἔμελλε. Καὶ πάλιν ὁ Πέτρος, ὁ διὰ τὴν τῆς ἀληθείας ἐπίγνωσιν τῶν μακαρισμῶν ἐκείνων ἀξιω θεὶς, οὐκ εἶπε, Σὺ εἶ τὸ γέννημα· ἀλλὰ, Σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος. Καὶ ὁ Παῦλος, πᾶσαν αὑτοῦ τὴν γραφὴν τῆς τοῦ Υἱοῦ προσηγορίας καταπληρώσας, οὐδαμοῦ φανήσεται γεννήματος μνη μονεύσας· ὅπερ οὗτος ἐκ πολλῆς τῆς πεποιθή σεως, ὡς ἐκ τοῦ θείου λαβὼν διδασκαλίου, προ φέρει. Οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐνταῦθα συγχωρητέον αὐτῷ, τὴν, ἐγέννησε, φωνὴν ἐπὶ τοῦ Πατρὸς κειμένην μετα σχηματίζοντι καὶ μεταπλάσσοντι, γέννημα προσαγο ρεύειν τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ. Οὐ γὰρ ὅπερ ἂν ἐκ τῆς τῶν ῥημάτων ἀκολουθίας ὑποφαίνηται εὐκόλως ἐπιπηδᾷν 29.585 τούτῳ τόν γε τῷ θείῳ φόβῳ πεπαιδευμένον προσήκει, ἀλλ' ἀγαπᾷν, τοῖς ἐν τῇ Γραφῇ κειμένοις ὀνόμασιν ἐπιμένοντα, διὰ τούτων θεοπρεπῶς τὴν δοξολογίαν ἀποπληροῦν. Εἰ γὰρ οἱ ἐξ ἀρχῆς τὴν Ἑβραίων διά λεκτον εἰς τὴν Ἑλλάδα γλῶσσαν μεταβαλόντες τινῶν ὀνομάτων τῆς ἑρμηνείας οὐ κατετόλμησαν, ἀλλ' αὐ