26

The passage is about Seth, that Adam begat Seth according to his form and according to his likeness; which if Eunomius were to say, we would not reject the statement. For in this case neither is the nature of those things likened to each other different, and the character and the form have communion. These and such things are what we 151 have understood concerning the difference of 'like'. Let us see, then, with a view to what does Eunomius attest to the Son that exceptional likeness to the Father, saying that he is like the one who begat him only by an exceptional likeness according to the particular concept, not as Father to Father; for there are not two fathers. Having promised to show the exceptional likeness of the Son to the Father, he constructs his argument to show how it is not proper to think of him as like. For having said that he is not like as father to father, he constructed the argument that he is not like; and again adding that neither is he like as unbegotten to unbegotten, through this too he forbade thinking of the likeness in the case of the Son to the Father; then adding that neither is he like as son to son, he introduced a third notion, through which he completely 152 distorts the concept of 'like'. Thus, then, he follows his own arguments, making the proof of 'like' through the construction of 'unlike'. But let us examine his wisdom and simplicity, which he displays in his distinctions. For having said that the Son is like the Father, he secures the hearing, that one must not think the Son is like the Father as a father to a father. But who among men is so foolish, that having learned the Son is like the Father, would be led in his reasonings 153 to the likeness of a father to a father? Nor as son, he says, to son; again, his cleverness in the distinction has the same quality. Having said the Son is like the Father, he further specifies that one must not think he is similarly like another son. These are the mysteries of the solemn doctrines of Eunomius, through which his disciples become wiser than others, having learned that a son who is like a father is not like a son; for a son is not a father; nor as unbegotten to unbegotten; for the Son is not unbegotten. But our mystery, when it says Father, it entirely means the Father of the Son, and when you name the Son, it teaches to understand the Son of the Father. And up to now we have had no need of this superfluous wisdom, so as through Father and Son to suppose two fathers or two sons or a dyad of unbegottens.

154 But what is the purpose of Eunomius' great earnestness about 'the unbegotten' has often been made clear already, and now it will be said again in brief. For since the signification of 'Father' indicates no difference in nature with respect to the Son, if he had stopped his argument at this point, the impiety would have had no strength, as the natural meaning of the names 155 does not admit what is alien in essence. But now by saying 'unbegotten' and 'begotten', since the opposition of these names to each other is direct, like that of mortal and immortal, and of rational and irrational, and of all things spoken of in a similar way, as many as are set against each other through meanings of contrariety, he has given a path to blasphemy through these names, so as to perceive in the 'begotten' in relation to the 'unbegotten' the difference of the mortal to the immortal; and just as the nature of the mortal is one thing and that of the immortal another, and the properties of the rational and the irrational are incompatible in essence, so he wishes to construct one nature for the unbegotten, and another for the begotten, so that just as the irrational nature has been created subject to the rational, so he might show the begotten subjugated 156 to the unbegotten by a natural necessity. Therefore he joins the name of 'Almighty' to the 'unbegotten', which, as the preceding argument has shown, he interprets not as referring to providential activity but to tyrannical power, so as to make the Son also a part of the ruled and subject nature, serving with all things the one who rules through tyrannical power equally over all. And that with a view to this he uses such distinctions in his argument, from the underlying texts 157

26

περὶ τοῦ Σὴθ ὁ λόγος, ὅτι ἐγέννησε τὸν Σὴθ ὁ Ἀδὰμ κατὰ τὸ εἶδος αὐτοῦ καὶ κατὰ τὴν ὁμοιότητα· ὅπερ εἰ λέγοι ὁ Εὐ νόμιος, οὐκ ἀπόβλητον τὸν λόγον ποιούμεθα. ἐνταῦθα γὰρ οὔτε ἡ φύσις τῶν ἀλλήλοις ὁμοιουμένων διάφορος, καὶ ὁ χαρακτὴρ καὶ τὸ εἶδος τὴν κοινωνίαν ἔχει. ταῦτα καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτά ἐστιν, ὅσα περὶ τῆς τοῦ ὁμοίου διαφορᾶς ἡμεῖς 151 ἐνοήσαμεν. ἴδωμεν τοίνυν πρὸς τί βλέπων ὁ Εὐνόμιος τὴν ἐξαίρετον ἐκείνην ὁμοιότητα πρὸς τὸν πατέρα μαρ τυρεῖ τῷ υἱῷ λέγων ὅμοιον εἶναι τῷ γεννήσαντι μό νον κατ' ἐξαίρετον ὁμοιότητα κατὰ τὴν ἰδιά ζουσαν ἔννοιαν, οὐχ ὡς πατρὶ πατέρα· οὐ γάρ εἰσι δύο πατέρες. τὴν κατ' ἐξαίρετον ὁμοιότητα τοῦ υἱοῦ πρὸς τὸν πατέρα δεικνύειν ἐπαγγειλάμενος, ὅπως μὴ προσήκει νοεῖν αὐτὸν ὅμοιον, κατασκευάζει τῷ λόγῳ. εἰπὼν γὰρ ὅτι οὐχ ὡς πατρὶ πατὴρ ἔοικεν, κατεσκεύασε τῷ λόγῳ ὅτι οὐκ ἔοικε· καὶ πάλιν προσθεὶς ὅτι οὔτε ὡς ἀγεν νήτῳ ἀγέννητος, καὶ διὰ τούτου ἀπεῖπε νοεῖν ἐπὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ πρὸς τὸν πατέρα τὴν ὁμοιότητα· εἶτα ἐπαγαγὼν ὅτι οὔτε ὡς υἱῷ υἱός, τρίτον ἐπήγαγε νόημα, δι' οὗ παντάπασι 152 τὸν τοῦ ὁμοίου παραφέρεται λόγον. οὕτω μὲν οὖν τοῖς ἰδίοις ἕπεται λόγοις, τὴν τοῦ ὁμοίου ἀπόδειξιν διὰ τῆς κατα σκευῆς τοῦ ἀνομοίου ποιούμενος. ἐξετάσωμεν δὲ τὸ σοφὸν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἁπλοῦν, ὃ τοῖς διορισμοῖς ἐπιδείκνυται. υἱὸν γὰρ πατρὶ ὅμοιον εἶναι εἰπὼν ἀσφαλίζεται τὴν ἀκοήν, μὴ δεῖν ὡς πατέρα πατρὶ τὸν υἱὸν ἐοικέναι νοεῖν. τίς δὲ οὕτως ἐν ἀνθρώποις ἀνόητος, ὥστε υἱὸν ὅμοιον τῷ πατρὶ μαθὼν εἶναι εἰς τὴν πατρὸς πρὸς τὸν πατέρα ὁμοιότητα τοῖς λο 153 γισμοῖς ἐναχθῆναι; οὐδὲ ὡς υἱῷ, φησίν, υἱόν· πάλιν τὸ ἴσον ἐν τῷ διορισμῷ ἡ δριμύτης ἔχει. πατρὶ υἱὸν ὅμοιον εἶναι εἰπὼν τὸ μὴ δεῖν ὡς πρὸς υἱὸν ἄλλον ὁμοίως ἔχειν προσδιορίζεται. ταῦτα τῶν σεμνῶν τοῦ Εὐνομίου δογμάτων ἐστὶ τὰ μυστήρια, δι' ὧν σοφώτεροι τῶν ἄλλων οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐ τοῦ γίνονται μαθόντες, ὅτι πατρὶ υἱὸς ἐοικὼς οὐχ υἱῷ ἔοικεν· οὐ γάρ ἐστιν υἱὸς πατήρ· οὐδὲ ὡς ἀγεννήτῳ ἀγέννητος· οὐ γὰρ ἀγέννητός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός. τὸ δὲ καθ' ἡμᾶς μυστή ριον ὅταν πατέρα εἴπῃ, υἱοῦ πατέρα πάντως διακελεύεται, καὶ ὅταν υἱὸν ὀνομάσῃς πατρὸς υἱὸν διδάσκει νοεῖν. καὶ οὐδὲν τῆς περιττῆς ταύτης σοφίας μέχρι καὶ νῦν ἐδεήθημεν, ὥστε διὰ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ δύο πατέρας ἢ δύο υἱοὺς ὑποτίθε σθαι ἢ ἀγεννήτων δυάδα.

154 Τί δὲ βούλεται ἡ πολλὴ περὶ τὸ ἀγέννητον τοῦ Εὐνομίου σπουδή, πολλάκις μὲν ἤδη δεδήλωται, καὶ νῦν δὲ πάλιν δι' ὀλίγων εἰρήσεται. τῆς γὰρ τοῦ πατρὸς σημασίας μηδεμίαν πρὸς τὸν υἱὸν διαφορὰν κατὰ τὴν φύσιν ἐνδεικνυ μένης, εἰ μέχρι τούτων τὸν λόγον ἔστησεν, οὐκ ἂν ἔσχεν ἰσχὺν ἡ ἀσέβεια, τῆς φυσικῆς τῶν ὀνομάτων ἐννοίας οὐ 155 παραδεχομένης τὸ κατ' οὐσίαν ἀλλότριον. νῦν δὲ ἀγέν νητον καὶ γεννητὸν λέγων, ἐπειδὴ ἄμεσός ἐστι πρὸς ἄλληλα τῶν ὀνομάτων τούτων ἡ ἐναντίωσις, ὡς θνητοῦ καὶ ἀθανάτου καὶ λογικῶν καὶ ἀλόγων καὶ πάντων τῶν ὁμοιοτρό πως ἐκφωνουμένων, ὅσα διὰ τῶν κατὰ τὸ ἐναντίον σημαι νομένων ἀλλήλοις ἀντικαθέστηκεν, ἔδωκεν ὁδὸν τῇ βλα σφημίᾳ διὰ τῶν ὀνομάτων τούτων, ὥστε τὴν τοῦ θνητοῦ πρὸς τὸ ἀθάνατον διαφορὰν καὶ τῷ γεννητῷ πρὸς τὸ ἀγέν νητον ἐνθεωρῆσαι· καὶ ὥσπερ ἄλλη τοῦ θνητοῦ καὶ ἄλλη τοῦ ἀθανάτου ἡ φύσις καὶ τοῦ λογικοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἀλόγου ἀσύμβατα κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν ἐστὶ τὰ ἰδιώματα, οὕτω βούλεται ἄλλην μὲν τοῦ ἀγεννήτου κατασκευάσαι τὴν φύσιν, ἄλλην δὲ τοῦ γεννητοῦ, ἵνα ὥσπερ ὑποχείριος τῷ λογικῷ ἡ ἄλογος φύσις δεδημιούργηται, οὕτως διὰ φυσικῆς ἀνάγκης ὑπεζευγμένον 156 τῷ ἀγεννήτῳ τὸ γεννητὸν ἐπιδείξῃ. διὸ συνάπτει τῷ ἀγεν νήτῳ τὸ τοῦ παντοκράτορος ὄνομα, ὃ οὐκ εἰς προ νοητικὴν ἐνέργειαν, ὡς προλαβὼν ὁ λόγος ὑπέδειξεν, ἀλλ' εἰς τυραννικὴν ἐξουσίαν μεταλαμβάνων τὴν ἑρμηνείαν τοῦ παντοκράτορος, ὡς μέρος τῆς ἀρχομένης τε καὶ ὑπο χειρίου φύσεως καὶ τὸν υἱὸν ποιῆσαι, μετὰ πάντων δου λεύοντα τῷ διὰ τῆς τυραννικῆς ἐξουσίας κρατοῦντι κατὰ τὸ ἴσον τῶν πάντων. καὶ ὅτι πρὸς τοῦτο βλέπων ταῖς τοιαύς χρῆται τοῦ λόγου διαστολαῖς, ἐκ τῶν ὑποκειμένων 157