71

but wishing to deceive, if the unbegottenness of the God over all were confessed through the appellation of 'Father,' do they separate the concept of the Father's relation to the Son? 1.1.557 But let us spit out this childish and superficial attempt of theirs and courageously confess what is brought forward by them as absurd, that the name of 'Father' also signifies the same thing as 'unbegotten,' and 'unbegotten' indicates that the Father is from nothing, and the Father, through the relationship, jointly introduces along with himself the concept of the Only-Begotten. For this formidable and invincible champion of the Scriptures has stolen even this saying, which was added to the teacher's discourse, making the refutation easy for himself by the removal of what was securely stated. 1.1.558 For the discourse spoken by the teacher is literally thus: "1But I would say that even the appellation of 'unbegotten,' although it may seem very much to agree with our concepts, yet, as it is found nowhere in Scripture and is the primary element of their blasphemy, deserves rightly to be passed over in silence, since the term 'Father' has equal force with 'unbegotten' for the purpose of also introducing the concept of the Son 1.1.559 jointly with itself through the relationship."2 But this noble champion of the truth—that part added to the discourse for the sake of safety, I mean "1and to introduce the concept of the Son jointly with itself through the relationship"2—this he has removed with his characteristic license, and having stolen the statement from what was written, he grapples with the remainder and, having mutilated the coherence of the body and made it, as he thought, weaker for himself and more vulnerable to refutation, he deceives his own people with a cold and inert sophism, contriving that what has something in common has fellowship in all respects in what is signified, and with this he snatches away the superficial hearer. 1.1.560 For when we had said that the term 'Father' provides the meaning of 'unbegotten' in some respect, this man, making a complete participation of the thing signified from the customary import of the names, ostensibly brings the argument to an absurdity, as if this appellation no longer indicates the relationship to the Son, if also 1.1.561 the meaning of 'unbegotten' were signified through this. Just as if someone, having learned two concepts about bread, both that it is composed of wheat and that it becomes nourishment for the one who uses it, should fight against the one who says this, using a similar kind of sophistry against him, that the account of its composition from wheat is one thing and that of nourishment is again another. If, then, it were granted that bread is from wheat, this same thing will no longer be properly called nourishment. Such is the 1.1.562 thought of the syllogism. 20For if 'unbegotten,'20 he says, 20is signified by the appellation of 'Father,' this term no longer indicates the having begotten the Son.20 But perhaps it is opportune for that solemn period of the clause to be brought forward by us as well in what is being said: 20For such things are altogether fitting for such people, because he would have had more claim to seem wise, if he had defined this security with complete silence. For to one for whom the addition of words results in an addition of blasphemy, or rather, of the utmost folly, for him to be silent is not half, but wholly lighter than to speak.20 1.1.563 Perhaps one might rather bring him to the truth of what is being said from his own examples. And so, leaving aside the contrived complexity of the sophisms, let us discuss the matter before us in a more plain and common way. Your father, O Eunomius, was certainly a man, but this same one also became for you the cause of your being. 1.1.564 Did you, then, ever use this sophism in his case too, so that your father, if he should accept the definition of his nature, would no longer be able to signify his relationship to you because he is a man? For it would have to be one of the two, either to be a man or the father of Eunomius. Then is it not possible for you not to utter the things according to their proper meaning 1.1.565 of the

71

δὲ φενακίζειν βουλόμενοι, εἰ τὸ ἀγέννητον τοῦ ἐπὶ πάντων θεοῦ διὰ τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς προσ ηγορίας ὁμολογηθείη τῆς πρὸς τὸν υἱὸν σχέσεως τοῦ πατρὸς ἀποσχίζειν τὴν ἔννοιαν; 1.1.557 Ἀλλὰ διαπτύσαντες τὴν παιδιώδη ταύτην καὶ ἐπιπό λαιον αὐτῶν ἐπιχείρησιν τὸ ὡς ἄτοπον παρ' ἐκείνων προ φερόμενον ἀνδρικῶς ὁμολογήσωμεν, ὅτι καὶ ταὐτὸν σημαίνει τῷ ἀγεννήτῳ τὸ τοῦ πατρὸς ὄνομα, καὶ τὸ ἀγέννητον τὸ ἐξ οὐδενὸς εἶναι τὸν πατέρα παρίστησι, καὶ ὁ πατὴρ τὴν περὶ τοῦ μονογενοῦς ἔννοιαν συνημμένως διὰ τῆς σχέσεως μεθ' ἑαυτοῦ συνεισάγει. καὶ γὰρ καὶ ταύτην προσκειμένην τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ διδασκάλου τὴν ῥῆσιν ὁ δεινός τε καὶ ἄμαχος οὗτος ἀγωνιστὴς τῶν γεγραμμένων ἐξέκλεψε, τῇ ἀφαιρέσει τῶν ἀσφαλῶς εἰρημένων ἐξευμαρίζων ἑαυτῷ τὴν ἀντίρρησιν. 1.1.558 ὁ μὲν γὰρ παρὰ τοῦ διδασκάλου ῥηθεὶς λόγος οὑτωσὶ κατὰ τὴν λέξιν ἔχει· "1Ἐγὼ δὲ καὶ τὴν τοῦ ἀγεννήτου προσηγο ρίαν, κἂν τὰ μάλιστα δοκῇ ταῖς ἐννοίαις ἡμῶν συμβαίνειν, ἀλλ' οὖν ὡς οὐδαμοῦ τῆς γραφῆς κειμένην καὶ πρῶτον στοιχεῖον οὖσαν τῆς βλασφημίας αὐτῶν, σιωπᾶσθαι ἂν δι καίως ἀξίαν εἶναι φήσαιμι, τῆς πατρὸς φωνῆς ἴσον δυνα μένης τῷ ἀγεννήτῳ πρὸς τὸ καὶ τὴν περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ ἔννοιαν 1.1.559 συνημμένως ἑαυτῇ διὰ τῆς σχέσεως συνεισάγειν."2 ὁ δὲ γενναῖος οὗτος τῆς ἀληθείας πρωταγωνιστὴς τὸ μὲν ἀσφα λείας ἕνεκεν τῷ λόγῳ προσκείμενον, λέγω δὲ τὸ "1καὶ τὴν περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ ἔννοιαν συνημμένως ἑαυτῇ διὰ τῆς σχέσεως συνεισάγειν"2, τοῦτο μὲν ὑπὸ τῆς συγγενοῦς ἐλευθερίας ὑφεί λετο, καὶ διακλέψας τῶν γεγραμμένων τὸν λόγον τοῖς ὑπο λοίποις συμπλέκεται καὶ ἀκρωτηριάσας τὸν εἱρμὸν τοῦ σώ ματος καὶ ὡς ᾤετο σαθρότερον ἑαυτῷ καὶ πρὸς τὴν ἀν τίρρησιν εὐεπίβατον καταστήσας, ψυχρῷ καὶ ἀδρανεῖ τῷ σοφίσματι τοὺς καθ' ἑαυτὸν παρακρούεται, τὸ κατά τι κοι νωνοῦν καὶ διὰ πάντων τὴν κατὰ τὸ σημαινόμενον κοινωνίαν ἔχειν κατασκευάζων καὶ τούτῳ τὴν ἐπιπόλαιον ἀκοὴν συν 1.1.560 αρπάζων. ἡμῶν γὰρ κατά τι σημαινόμενον τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς εἰρηκότων φωνὴν καὶ τὴν τοῦ ἀγεννήτου σημασίαν παρέχε σθαι, οὗτος τὴν παντελῆ τοῦ σημαινομένου μετάληψιν ἀπὸ τῆς συνήθους τῶν ὀνομάτων ἐμφάσεως ποιησάμενος εἰς ἄτοπον δῆθεν ἐκβάλλει τὸν λόγον, ὡς οὐκέτι τὴν πρὸς τὸν υἱὸν σχέσιν τῆς προσηγορίας ταύτης ἐνδεικνυμένης, εἰ καὶ 1.1.561 τὸ τοῦ ἀγεννήτου νόημα διὰ τούτου σημαίνοιτο. ὥσπερ ἂν εἴ τις δύο ἐννοίας περὶ τοῦ ἄρτου μαθών, ὅτι τε ἀπὸ σίτου συνέστηκε καὶ ὅτι τροφὴ τῷ χρωμένῳ γίνεται, μάχοιτο πρὸς τὸν λέγοντα τῷ ὁμοίῳ τρόπῳ τῶν σοφισμάτων κατ' αὐτοῦ χρώμενος, ὅτι ἄλλος λόγος ἐστὶ τῆς ἐκ τοῦ σίτου συστάσεως καὶ ὁ τῆς τροφῆς πάλιν ἕτερος. εἰ οὖν δοθείη τὸ ἐκ τοῦ σίτου εἶναι τὸν ἄρτον, οὐκέτι αὐτὸ τοῦτο καὶ τροφὴ κυρίως ὀνομασθήσεται. τοιαύτη τοῦ συλλογισμοῦ ἡ 1.1.562 διάνοια. 20εἰ γὰρ τὸ ἀγέννητον20, φησίν, 20ὑπὸ τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς προσηγορίας σημαίνεται, οὐκέτι τὸ γεγεννηκέναι τὸν υἱὸν ἡ φωνὴ αὕτη παρίστη σιν20. ἀλλ' εὔκαιρον ἴσως τὴν σεμνὴν ἐκείνην τοῦ κώλου περίοδον καὶ παρ' ἡμῶν ἐπαχθῆναι τῷ λεγομένῳ· 20πρέπει γὰρ τοῖς τοιούτοις πάντως τοιαῦτα, ὅτι πλέον ἂν ἔσχε πρὸς τὸ δοκεῖν σωφρονεῖν, εἰ παντελεῖ σιωπῇ ταύτην ὥριζε τὴν ἀσφάλειαν. ᾧ γὰρ ἡ προσθήκη τῶν λόγων εἰς προσθήκην τελεῖ βλασφημίας, μᾶλλον δὲ τῆς ἐσχάτης ἀνοίας, τούτῳ τὸ σιγᾶν οὐχ ἡμίσει μέρει, ἀλλὰ τῷ παντὶ τοῦ λαλεῖν ἐστι κουφότερον20. 1.1.563 Τάχα ἄν τις αὐτὸν μᾶλλον ἐκ τῶν καθ' ἑαυτὸν προσ αγάγοιτο πρὸς τὴν τῶν λεγομένων ἀλήθειαν. καὶ δὴ καταλιπόντες τὸ κατηγκυλωμένον τῆς τῶν σοφισμάτων πλο κῆς ἰδιωτικώτερόν τε καὶ κοινότερον περὶ τοῦ προκειμένου διαλεξώμεθα. ὁ σὸς πατήρ, ὦ Εὐνόμιε, πάντως ἄνθρωπος ἦν, ἀλλ' ὁ αὐτὸς οὗτος καὶ σοὶ τοῦ εἶναι γέγονεν αἴτιος. 1.1.564 ἆρ' οὖν ἐχρήσω ποτὲ τῷ σοφῷ τούτῳ καὶ ἐπ' ἐκείνου, ὥστε τὸν πατέρα τὸν σόν, εἰ τὸν τῆς φύσεως ὁρισμὸν δέχοιτο, διὰ τὸ ἄνθρωπος εἶναι μηκέτι δύνασθαι τὴν πρὸς σὲ σχέσιν ἀποσημαίνειν; χρῆναι γὰρ πάντως τῶν δύο τὸ ἕτερον, ἢ ἄνθρωπον εἶναι ἢ Εὐνομίου πατέρα. εἶτα σοὶ μὲν οὐκ ἔξεστι μὴ κατὰ τὸ οἰκεῖον τῆς σημασίας προφέρεσθαι τὰ 1.1.565 τῶν