§4. He thus shows the oneness of the Eternal Son with the Father the identity of essence and the community of nature (wherein is a natural inquiry into the production of wine), and that the terms “Son” and “product” in the naming of the Only-Begotten include a like idea of relationship.

What has been said, therefore, has clearly exposed the slackness which is to be found in the knavery of our author, who, while he goes about to establish the opposition of the essence of the Only-begotten to that of the Father, by the method of calling the one “ungenerate,” and the other “generate,” stands convicted of playing the fool with his inconsistent arguments. For it was shown from his own words, first, that the name of “essence” means one thing, and that of “generation” another; and next, that there did not come into existence, with the Son, any new and different essence besides the essence of the Father, but that what the Father is as regards the definition of His nature, that also He is Who is of the Father, as the nature does not change into diversity in the Person of the Son, according to the truth of the argument displayed by our consideration of Adam and Abel. For as, in that instance, he that was not generated after a like sort was yet, so far as concerns the definition of essence, the same with him that was generated, and Abel’s generation did not produce any change in the essence, so, in the case of these pure doctrines, the Only-begotten God did not, by His own generation, produce in Himself any change in the essence of Him Who is ungenerate (coming forth, as the Gospel says, from the Father, and being in the Father,) but is, according to the simple and homely language of the creed we profess, “Light of Light, very God of very God,” the one being all that the other is, save being that other. With regard, however, to the aim for the sake of which he carries on this system-making, I think there is no need for me at present to express any opinion, whether it is audacious and dangerous, or a thing allowable and free from danger, to transform the phrases which are employed to signify the Divine nature from one to another, and to call Him Who is generated by the name of “product of generation.”

I let these matters pass, that my discourse may not busy itself too much in the strife against lesser points, and neglect the greater; but I say that we ought carefully to consider the question whether the natural relation does introduce the use of these terms: for this surely Eunomius asserts, that with the affinity of the appellations there is also asserted an essential relationship. For he would not say, I presume, that the mere names themselves, apart from the sense of the things signified, have any mutual relation or affinity; but all discern the relationship or diversity of the appellations by the meanings which the words express. If, therefore, he confesses that “the Son” has a natural relation with “the Father,” let us leave the appellations, and consider the force that is found in their significations, whether in their affinity we discern diversity of essence, or that which is kindred and characteristic. To say that we find diversity is downright madness. For how does something without kinship or community “preserve order,” connected and conformable, in the names, where “the generated essence itself,” as he says, “and the appellation of ‘Son,’ make such a relation of words appropriate”? If, on the other hand, he should say that these appellations signify relationship, he will necessarily appear in the character of an advocate of the community of essence, and as maintaining the fact that by affinity of names is signified also the connection of subjects: and this he often does in his composition without being aware of it525    Oehler’s punctuation is here slightly altered.    S. John xi. 51. For, by the arguments wherewith he endeavours to destroy the truth, he is often himself unwittingly drawn into an advocacy of the very doctrines against which he is contending. Some such thing the history tells us concerning Saul, that once, when moved with wrath against the prophets, he was overcome by grace, and was found as one of the inspired, (the Spirit of prophecy willing, as I suppose, to instruct the apostate by means of himself,) whence the surprising nature of the event became a proverb in his after life, as the history records such an expression by way of wonder, “Is Saul also among the prophets526    1 Sam. xix. 24.?”

At what point, then, does Eunomius assent to the truth? When he says that the Lord Himself, “being the Son of the living God, not being ashamed of His birth from the Virgin, often named Himself, in His own sayings, ‘the Son of Man’”? For this phrase we also allege for proof of the community of essence, because the name of “Son” shows the community of nature to be equal in both cases. For as He is called the Son of Man by reason of the kindred of His flesh to her of whom He was born, so also He is conceived, surely, as the Son of God, by reason of the connection of His essence with that from which He has His existence, and this argument is the greatest weapon of the truth. For nothing so clearly points to Him Who is the “mediator between God and man527    1 Tim. ii. 5.” (as the great Apostle called Him), as the name of “Son,” equally applicable to either nature, Divine or Human. For the same Person is Son of God, and was made, in the Incarnation, Son of Man, that, by His communion with each, He might link together by Himself what were divided by nature. Now if, in becoming Son of Man, he were without participation in human nature, it would be logical to say that neither does He share in the Divine essence, though He is Son of God. But if the whole compound nature of man was in Him (for He was “in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin”528    Heb. iv. 15.), it is surely necessary to believe that every property of the transcendent essence is also in Him, as the Word “Son” claims for Him both alike—the Human in the man, but in the God the Divine.

If then the appellations, as Eunomius says, indicate relationship, and the existence of relationship is observed in the things, not in the mere sound of the words (and by things I mean the things conceived in themselves, if it be not over-bold thus to speak of the Son and the Father), who would deny that the very champion of blasphemy has by his own action been dragged into the advocacy of orthodoxy, overthrowing by his own means his own arguments, and proclaiming community of essence in the case of the Divine doctrines? For the argument that he unwillingly casts into the scale on the side of truth does not speak falsely as regards this point,—that He would not have been called Son if the natural conception of the names did not verify this calling. For as a bench is not called the son of the workman, and no sane man would say that the builder engendered the house, and we do not say that the vineyard is the “product529    γέννημα.” of the vine-dresser, but call what a man makes his work, and him who is begotten of him the son of a man, (in order, I suppose, that the proper meaning might be attached by means of the names to the respective subjects,) so too, when we are taught that the Only-begotten is Son of God, we do not by this appellation understand a creature of God, but what the word “Son” in its signification really displays. And even though wine be named by Scripture the “product530    γέννημα. E.g. S. Matt. xxvi. 29.” of the vine, not even so will our argument with regard to the orthodox doctrine suffer by this identity of name. For we do not call wine the “product” of the oak, nor the acorn the “product” of the vine, but we use the word only if there is some natural community between the “product” and that from which it comes. For the moisture in the vine, which is drawn out from the root through the stem by the pith, is, in its natural power, water: but, as it passes in orderly sequence along the ways of nature, and flows from the lowest to the highest, it changes to the quality of wine, a change to which the rays of the sun contribute in some degree, which by their warmth draw out the moisture from the depth to the shoots, and by a proper and suitable process of ripening make the moisture wine: so that, so far as their nature is concerned, there is no difference between the moisture that exists in the vine and the wine that is produced from it. For the one form of moisture comes from the other, and one could not say that the cause of wine is anything else than the moisture which naturally exists in the shoots. But, so far as moisture is concerned, the differences of quality produce no alteration, but are found when some peculiarity discerns the moisture which is in the form of wine from that which is in the shoots, one of the two forms being accompanied by astringency, or sweetness, or sourness, so that in substance the two are the same, but are distinguished by qualitative differences. As, therefore, when we hear from Scripture that the Only-begotten God is Son of man, we learn by the kindred expressed in the name His kinship with true man, so even, if the Son be called, in the adversaries’ phrase, a “product,” we none the less learn, even by this name, His kinship in essence with Him that has “produced531    γεγεννηκότα: which, as answering to γέννημα, is here translated “produced” rather than “begotten.”” Him, by the fact that wine, which is called the “product” of the vine has been found not to be alien, as concerns the idea of moisture, from the natural power that resides in the vine. Indeed, if one were judiciously to examine the things that are said by our adversaries, they tend to our doctrine, and their sense cries out against their own fabrications, as they strive at all points to establish their “difference in essence.” Yet it is by no means an easy matter to conjecture whence they were led to such conceptions. For if the appellation of “Son” does not merely signify “being from something,” but by its signification presents to us specially, as Eunomius himself says, relationship in point of nature, and wine is not called the “product” of an oak, and those “products” or “generation of vipers532    γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν. E.g. S. Matt. iii. 7.,” of which the Gospel somewhere speaks, are snakes and not sheep, it is clear, that in the case of the Only-begotten also, the appellation of “Son” or of “product” would not convey the meaning of relationship to something of another kind: but even if, according to our adversaries’ phrase, He is called a “product of generation,” and the name of “Son,” as they confess, has reference to nature, the Son is surely of the essence of Him Who has generated or “produced” Him, not of that of some other among the things which we contemplate as external to that nature. And if He is truly from Him, He is not alien from all that belongs to Him from Whom He is, as in the other cases too it was shown that all that has its existence from anything by way of generation is clearly of the same kind as that from whence it came.

Οὐκοῦν ἐναργῶς πεφώραται διὰ τῶν εἰρημένων τοῦ λογογράφου ἡ ἀτονία τῆς κακουργίας, ὃς κατασκευάζειν ἐπιχειρῶν τὴν τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ μονογενοῦς πρὸς τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς ἐναντίωσιν διὰ τοῦ τὴν μὲν ἀγέννητον τὴν δὲ γεννητὴν ὀνομάζειν ἀπηλέγχθη τοῖς ἀσυστάτοις ἐμματαιάζων. ἐδείχθη γὰρ διὰ τῶν παρ' αὐτοῦ λόγων πρῶτον μὲν ἕτερον εἶναι τὸ τῆς οὐσίας καὶ ἄλλο τὸ τῆς γεννήσεως ὄνομα, ἔπειτα δὲ ὅτι οὐκ οὐσία τις καινὴ καὶ παρηλλαγμένη παρὰ τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίαν ἐν τῷ υἱῷ ὑπέστη, ἀλλ' ὅπερ ἐστὶν ὁ πατὴρ ἐν τῷ λόγῳ τῆς φύσεως, τοῦτο καὶ ὁ ἐξ ἐκείνου ἐστίν, οὐ μεταβληθείσης εἰς ἑτερότητα ἐν τῇ τοῦ υἱοῦ ὑποστάσει τῆς φύσεως, κατὰ τὴν προδειχθεῖσαν ἡμῖν τοῦ λόγου ἀλήθειαν ἐπὶ τῆς τοῦ Ἄβελ καὶ τοῦ Ἀδὰμ θεωρίας. ὡς γὰρ ἐκεῖ ὁ αὐτὸς ἦν ἐν τῷ τῆς οὐσίας λόγῳ τῷ γεννηθέντι ὁ μὴ γεννηθεὶς ὁμοιοτρόπως καὶ ἡ γέννησις τοῦ Ἄβελ τὴν τῆς φύσεως παραλλαγὴν οὐκ ἐποίησεν, οὕτως καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀκηράτων δογμάτων οὐδὲν ἐν ἑαυτῷ διὰ τῆς ἰδίας γεννήσεως τὴν τοῦ μὴ γεννηθέντος οὐσίαν ἠλλοίωσεν ὁ μονογενὴς θεός, ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐξελθὼν καὶ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ ὤν, καθὼς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον λέγει, ἀλλ' ἐστὶ κατὰ τὸν ἁπλοῦν τε καὶ ἰδιωτικὸν τῆς καθ' ἡμᾶς πίστεως λόγον φῶς ἐκ φωτός, θεὸς ἀληθινὸς ἐκ θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, πάντα ὢν οὗτος ὅσα ἐστὶν ἐκεῖνος πλὴν τοῦ ἐκεῖνος εἶναι. τὸν δὲ σκοπὸν οὗ χάριν ταῦτα τεχνολογῶν διεξέρχεται οὐδὲν οἶμαι δεῖν ἐν τῷ παρόντι λέγειν, εἴτε τολμηρόν τε καὶ κινδυνῶδες εἴτε συγκεχωρημένον ἐστὶ καὶ ἀκίνδυνον τὸ παρασχηματίζειν ἔκ τινος εἴς τι τὰς σημαντικὰς ἐπὶ τῆς θείας φύσεως λέξεις καὶ « γέννημα » λέγειν τὸν γεννηθέντα.
Παρίημι ταῦτα, ὡς ἂν μὴ τῇ πρὸς τὰ μικρότερα μάχῃ πέρα τοῦ δέοντος ὁ λόγος ἡμῖν ἐνασχολούμενος ἀμελοίη τοῦ μείζονος: ἀλλ' ἐκεῖνό φημι δεῖν ἀκριβῶς κατανοῆσαι, εἰ ἡ κατὰ φύσιν σχέσις παρεισάγει τῶν ὀνομάτων τούτων τὴν χρῆσιν: τοῦτο γὰρ ἐκεῖνός φησι πάντως, ὅτι τῇ τῶν προσηγοριῶν οἰκειότητι καὶ τὸ κατ' οὐσίαν οἰκεῖον συμπαρεισάγεται: οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἐφ' ἑαυτῶν ψιλὰ τὰ ὀνόματα τῆς τῶν σημαινομένων ἐμφάσεως διεζευγμένα σχέσιν ἔχειν τινὰ πρὸς ἄλληλα καὶ οἰκειότητα φήσειε: ἀλλ' ἐν ταῖς σημασίαις ταῖς ὑπὸ τῶν λέξεων δηλουμέναις τὸ οἰκεῖόν τε καὶ ἀλλότριον τῶν προσηγοριῶν διακρίνομεν. οὐκοῦν εἰ φυσικὴν ἔχειν ὁμολογεῖ σχέσιν τὸν υἱὸν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, καταλιπόντες τὰς προσηγορίας τὴν ἐν τοῖς σημαινομένοις κατανοήσωμεν δύναμιν, πότερον τὸ ἀλλότριον τῆς οὐσίας ἐν οἰκειότητι κατανοεῖται ἢ τὸ συγγενές τε καὶ ἴδιον. ἀλλὰ τὸ μὲν ἀλλότριον εἰπεῖν φανερᾶς μανίας ἐστίν. πῶς γάρ τις διὰ τῶν ξένων τε καὶ ἀκοινωνήτων συναφῆ τε καὶ οἰκεῖαν ἐν τοῖς ὀνόμασι διασώσει τάξιν, « τῆς γεννηθείσης αὐτῆς οὐσίας », καθώς φησι, « καὶ τῆς τοῦ υἱοῦ προσηγορίας τὴν τοιαύτην τῶν ὀνομάτων οἰκειουμένης σχέσιν »; εἰ δὲ τὸ οἰκεῖον διὰ τῶν προσηγοριῶν τούτων ἀποσημαίνεσθαι λέγοι, συνήγορος ἐξ ἀνάγκης τοῦ κοινοῦ τῆς οὐσίας ἀναφανήσεται διὰ τῆς τῶν ὀνομάτων οἰκειότητος, καὶ τὸ τῶν ὑποκειμένων συναφὲς κατασκευάζων σημαίνεσθαι καὶ τοῦτο πολλαχοῦ τῆς λογογραφίας ποιῶν οὐκ ἐπίσταται. δι' ὧν γὰρ ἐπιχειρεῖ καθαιρεῖν τὴν ἀλήθειαν, ἀκουσίως πολλάκις καθέλκεται πρὸς συνηγορίαν τῶν πολεμουμένων δογμάτων. οἷόν τι καὶ περὶ τοῦ Σαοὺλ ἐκ τῆς ἱστορίας ἠκούσαμεν, ὅτι θυμῷ ποτε κατὰ τῶν προφητευόντων κινούμενος ἡττήθη τῆς χάριτος καὶ τῶν θεοφορουμένων εἷς ἦν, τοῦ προφητικοῦ πνεύματος, ὡς οἶμαι, δι' ἑαυτοῦ τὸν ἀποστάτην παιδεῦσαι θελήσαντος: ὅθεν τὸ παράλογον τῆς συντυχίας παροιμία τῷ μετὰ ταῦτα γέγονε βίῳ, θαυμαστικῶς τῆς ἱστορίας τὸ τοιοῦτο διεξιούσης: Ἢ καὶ Σαοὺλ ἐν προφήταις;
Ἐν τίσιν οὖν ὁ Εὐνόμιος τῇ ἀληθείᾳ συνίσταται; ἐν οἷς φησιν ὅτι « αὐτὸς ὁ κύριος υἱὸς ὢν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος τὴν ἐκ τῆς παρθένου γέννησιν οὐκ ἐπαισχυνόμενος ἐν τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ λόγοις υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου πολλάκις ὠνόμασεν ἑαυτόν ». τοῦτον γὰρ καὶ ἡμεῖς τὸν λόγον εἰς ἀπόδειξιν τοῦ κοινοῦ τῆς οὐσίας προφέρομεν, ὅτι τοῦ υἱοῦ τὸ ὄνομα ἴσην κατ' ἀμφότερα τὴν τῆς φύσεως κοινωνίαν ἐνδείκνυται. ὡς γὰρ υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου λέγεται διὰ τὴν τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ πρὸς τὴν ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήθη συγγένειαν, οὕτω καὶ τοῦ θεοῦ πάντως υἱὸς νοεῖται διὰ τὴν τῆς οὐσίας αὐτοῦ πρὸς τὴν ἐξ ἧς ὑπέστη συνάφειαν. καὶ τὸ μέγιστον τῆς ἀληθείας ὅπλον οὗτος ὁ λόγος ἐστίν. τὸν γὰρ μεσίτην θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων, καθὼς ὠνόμασεν ὁ μέγας ἀπόστολος, οὐδὲν οὕτως ὡς τὸ τοῦ υἱοῦ δείκνυσιν ὄνομα, ἑκατέρᾳ φύσει, τῇ θείᾳ τε καὶ ἀνθρωπίνῃ, κατὰ τὸ ἴσον ἐφαρμοζόμενον. ὁ γὰρ αὐτὸς καὶ θεοῦ υἱός ἐστι καὶ υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου κατ' οἰκονομίαν ἐγένετο, ἵνα τῇ πρὸς ἑκάτερον κοινωνίᾳ δι' ἑαυτοῦ συνάψῃ τὰ διεστῶτα τῇ φύσει. εἰ μὲν οὖν ἀνθρώπου γενόμενος υἱὸς ἀμέτοχος ἦν τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης φύσεως, ἀκόλουθον ἂν ἦν θεοῦ υἱὸν ὄντα αὐτὸν μηδὲ κοινωνεῖν τῆς θείας οὐσίας λέγειν. εἰ δὲ πᾶν τὸ ἀνθρώπινον σύγκριμα ἐν αὐτῷ ἦν (Ἐπειράθη γὰρ κατὰ πάντα καθ' ὁμοιότητα χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας), ἀνάγκη πᾶσα καὶ πᾶν τῆς ὑπερεχούσης οὐσίας ἰδίωμα ἐν αὐτῷ πιστεύειν εἶναι, τῆς τοῦ υἱοῦ φωνῆς ὁμοίως αὐτῷ μαρτυρούσης ἑκάτερον, ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ μὲν τὸ ἀνθρώπινον, ἐν δὲ τῷ θεῷ τὸ θεῖον.
Εἰ οὖν αἱ προσηγορίαι, καθώς φησιν ὁ Εὐνόμιος, τὸ οἰκεῖον ἐνδείκνυνται, ἡ δὲ οἰκειότης ἐν τοῖς πράγμασιν, οὐκ ἐν ψιλαῖς θεωρεῖται ταῖς τῶν ὀνομάτων φωναῖς (πράγματα δέ φημι « τὰ » καθ' ἑαυτὰ νοούμενα, εἰ μὴ τολμηρὸν οὕτως εἰπεῖν τὸν υἱόν τε καὶ τὸν πατέρα), τίς ἂν ἀντείποι μὴ οὐχὶ καὶ αὐτὸν τὸν τῆς βλασφημίας προστάτην αὐτομάτως πρὸς τὴν συνηγορίαν τῆς εὐσεβείας καθελκυσθῆναι, δι' ἑαυτοῦ τοὺς οἰκείους ἀνατρέποντα λόγους καὶ τὸ τῆς οὐσίας κοινὸν ἐπὶ τῶν θείων δογμάτων ἀνακηρύσσοντα; οὐ γὰρ ψεύδεται περὶ τούτων ἀκουσίως παρ' αὐτοῦ προσριφεὶς ὑπὲρ τῆς ἀληθείας ὁ λόγος, ὅτι οὐκ ἂν ἐκλήθη υἱός, μὴ τῆς φυσικῆς τῶν ὀνομάτων ἐννοίας ἐπαληθευούσης τὴν κλῆσιν. ὡς γὰρ οὐ λέγεται βάθρον υἱὸς τοῦ τεχνίτου οὐδ' ἄν τις εἴποι τῶν σωφρονούντων ὅτι ὁ οἰκοδόμος τὴν οἰκίαν ἐτεκνώσατο οὐδὲ γέννημα τοῦ ἀμπελουργοῦ τὸν ἀμπελῶνα κατονομάζομεν, ἀλλ' ἔργον μὲν ἀνθρώπου τὸ κατασκεύασμα, υἱὸν δὲ ἀνθρώπου τὸν ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεννώμενον, ὡς ἄν, οἶμαι, τὸ πρόσφορον διὰ τῶν ὀνομάτων ἐν τοῖς ὑποκειμένοις σημαίνοιτο, οὕτως καὶ υἱὸν θεοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ διδαχθέντες οὐ « κτίσμα » θεοῦ διὰ τῆς προσηγορίας ἐνοήσαμεν ταύτης, ἀλλ' ὅπερ ἀληθῶς ἡ τοῦ υἱοῦ φωνὴ τῷ σημαινομένῳ ἐνδείκνυται. εἰ δὲ καὶ ἀμπέλου γέννημα ὁ οἶνος ὑπὸ τῆς γραφῆς ὀνομάζεται, οὐδὲ οὕτως ἐκ τῆς ὁμωνυμίας ταύτης ἐπὶ τῶν τῆς εὐσεβείας δογμάτων ὁ λόγος παραβλαβήσεται. οὐ γὰρ δρυὸς γέννημα τὸν οἶνόν φαμεν οὐδὲ ἀμπέλου τὴν βάλανον, ἀλλ' εἴ τίς ἐστι κοινωνία κατὰ τὴν φύσιν τοῦ γεννήματος πρὸς τὸ ὅθεν ἐστίν. ἡ γὰρ ἐν τῇ ἀμπέλῳ νοτὶς διὰ τοῦ πυθμένος τῆς ῥίζης ὑπὸ τῆς ἐντεριώνης ἐξελκομένη τῇ δυνάμει μὲν ὕδωρ ἐστίν, ἀκολουθίᾳ δέ τινι διὰ τῶν ὁδῶν τῆς φύσεως πορευομένη καὶ ἐκ τῶν κατωτέρων πρὸς τὸ ὑπερκείμενον μεταρρέουσα πρὸς οἴνου μεταβάλλει ποιότητα, συνεργούσης τι καὶ τῆς ἡλιακῆς ἀκτῖνος, ἣ διὰ τῆς θερμότητος τὸ ὑγρὸν ἐκ τοῦ βάθους ἐπὶ τὴν βλάστην ἐξέλκουσα διὰ τῆς οἰκείας καὶ καταλλήλου πέψεως οἶνον τὴν ἰκμάδα ποιεῖ: ὥστε κατὰ φύσιν μὲν μηδεμίαν ἀλλοτριότητα τὴν ἐγκειμένην τῇ ἀμπέλῳ νοτίδα πρὸς τὸν οἶνον τὸν ἐξ αὐτῆς ἀπογεννώμενον ἔχειν. ἐξ ἐκείνου γὰρ τοῦ ὑγροῦ τὸ ὑγρὸν τοῦτο, καὶ οὐκ ἄν τις ἑτέραν τῆς τοῦ οἴνου ὑγρότητος αἰτίαν εἴποι, εἰ μὴ τὴν φυσικῶς ἐγκειμένην ταῖς κληματίσι νοτίδα. αἱ δὲ τῶν ποιοτήτων διαφοραὶ οὔ τινα κατὰ τὸ ὑγρὸν παραλλαγὴν ἐμποιοῦσιν, ἀλλά τινος ἰδιότητος τὸ ἐν τῷ οἴνῳ ὑγρὸν ἀπὸ τῆς ἐν τῷ κλήματι διακρινούσης † στύψεως ἢ γλυκύτητος ἢ ὑγρότητος † θατέρῳ τούτων παρομαρτούσης, ὥστε τῷ μὲν ὑποκειμένῳ ταὐτὸν εἶναι, ταῖς δὲ τῶν ποιοτήτων διαφοραῖς ἐξαλλάσσειν.
Οὐκοῦν ὥσπερ υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου τὸν μονογενῆ θεὸν παρὰ τῆς γραφῆς ἀκηκοότες διὰ τῆς τοῦ ὀνόματος σχέσεως τὴν πρὸς τὸν ἀληθινὸν ἄνθρωπον οἰκειότητα μεμαθήκαμεν, οὕτω κἂν « γέννημα » κατὰ τὸν λόγον τῶν ὑπεναντίων ὁ υἱὸς λέγηται, οὐδὲν ἧττον καὶ διὰ τούτου τὸ κατ' οὐσίαν οἰκεῖον αὐτοῦ πρὸς τὸν γεγεννηκότα μανθάνομεν, διὰ τὸ καὶ τὸν οἶνον γέννημα τῆς ἀμπέλου λεγόμενον μὴ ἀλλότριον εὑρεθῆναι κατὰ τὸν τῆς ὑγρότητος λόγον τῆς φυσικῶς ἐγκειμένης τῇ ἀμπέλῳ δυνάμεως. ἀλλὰ τὰ μὲν λεγόμενα παρὰ τῶν ὑπεναντίων εἴ τις ὑγιῶς ἐξετάζοι, πρὸς τὸ ἡμέτερον δόγμα βλέπει, ἡ δὲ διάνοια ταῖς ἰδίαις αὐτῶν κατασκευαῖς ἀντιφθέγγεται, πανταχοῦ τὸ κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν ἀλλότριον κατασκευάζειν φιλονεικούντων. καίτοι γε παντάπασιν ἄπορόν ἐστι καταστοχάσασθαι, ὅθεν πρὸς τὰς τοιαύτας ὑπολήψεις ὑπήχθησαν. εἰ γὰρ ἡ τοῦ υἱοῦ προσηγορία οὐχ ἁπλῶς τὸ ἔκ τινος εἶναι σημαίνει, ἀλλ' ἰδίως τὴν κατὰ φύσιν οἰκείωσιν διὰ τοῦ σημαινομένου παρίστησιν, ὡς αὐτός φησιν ὁ Εὐνόμιος, καὶ γέννημα δρυὸς οἶνος οὐ λέγεται, καὶ γεννήματα τῶν ἐχιδνῶν, καθώς φησί που τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, ὄφεις εἰσὶ καὶ οὐ πρόβατα, δῆλον ὅτι καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ μονογενοῦς ἥ τε τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ γεννήματος προσηγορία οὐκ ἂν πρὸς τὸ ἑτερογενὲς ἔχοι τὴν οἰκειότητα. ἀλλ' εἴπερ κατὰ τὸν λόγον τῶν ὑπεναντίων καὶ « γέννημα » λέγεται καὶ κατὰ τὴν φύσιν, ὡς ὁμολογοῦσιν, ἐστὶν ἡ τοῦ υἱοῦ κλῆσις, τῆς οὐσίας ἐστὶ πάντως τοῦ γεγεννηκότος υἱός, οὐκ ἄλλου τινὸς τῶν ἔξω θεωρουμένων τῆς φύσεως. εἰ δὲ ἐκεῖθεν ἀληθῶς ἐστιν, οὐκ ἀπεξένωται πάντως τοῦ ὅθεν ἐστίν, ὡς καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις ἐδείχθη, ὅτι πᾶν τὸ γεννητῶς ἔκ τινος ὑποστὰν ὁμογενές ἐστι πάντως τῷ ἐξ οὗ γέγονεν.