171

Since, then, Eunomius's battle against himself has been made manifest, in which he has been refuted for saying contradictory things about himself, at one time saying that because he was begotten according to nature he ought to be called Son, but again that because he was created he should no longer be called Son, but a product, I think it is fitting for one who understands intelligently and with attention, since it is not possible for the truth to be found equally in two arguments that fight against one another, to cast out from both the impious and blasphemous element—I mean what pertains to 20creature20 and 20product20—and to side only with what looks to piety, with what confesses that the title of Son belongs by nature to the only-begotten God, so that even by the voice of the enemies 3.1.67 the argument of piety may find its confirmation. But I speak again, taking up the argument of his which I quoted from the beginning. 20Being begotten20, he says, 20we do not refuse to call the Son a begotten thing, since the substance itself having been begotten, and the title of Son, appropriate this relationship of names20. For now, then, let him who hears what is said with discernment remember this: that in saying 20begotten substance20 of the only-begotten, he has consequently granted that the unbegotten is to be spoken of concerning the Father, so that neither unbegottenness nor begottenness are any longer taken for substance, but the substance is taken on its own, and whether it is begotten or not begotten is understood through the properties observed 3.1.68 in it. But let us consider the argument about this more diligently. He says that a substance has been begotten, and that Son is the name of the begotten substance. But in these things, our argument will refute the opposing argument on two counts: first, the maliciousness of the attempt, and second, the weakness of the attempt against us. For he acts maliciously in speaking of a begetting of a substance, so that he may construct the opposition of the substances to each other, sundered into a difference of nature by the begotten and the unbegotten. But the weakness of the attempt is refuted by the very things by which the malice 3.1.69 is constructed. For he who said that the substance has been begotten clearly defines the begetting to be something other than the substance, so that the meaning of 'begetting' cannot be applied to the account of 'substance'. For he has not done in this part what he constructed in many places, so as to say that begetting is itself substance, but he confesses that the substance has been begotten, so that a distinct notion for each term arises in the hearers; for one idea comes to him who hears that he was begotten, and another through the name of substance. But the argument would become clearer to us through 3.1.70 examples. The Lord said in the gospel that when the travail approaches, the woman is in sorrow, but after this she rejoices with joy, because a man is born into the world. As, therefore, in this passage we learn two distinct notions from the gospel, one the birth, which we understood through the word 'begetting', and the other the very thing that comes from the birth (for the birth is not the man, but the man comes through the birth), so also here, since Eunomius confessed that the substance has been begotten, by the preceding verb we were taught the 'from something', and by the following one we understood the subject itself, whose 3.1.71 existence is from something. If, therefore, the meaning of 'substance' is one thing, and the term 'begetting' suggests we understand another, their clever contrivances have suddenly fallen apart, like earthen vessels dashed against each other and shattered by each other. For it will no longer be possible for them, when transferring the distinction of 'begotten' from 'unbegotten' to the substance of the Son and of the Father, to also transfer to the realities 3.1.72 the conflict of the names with each other. For since it has been confessed by Eunomius that the substance was begotten, just as the gospel example also interprets such a meaning, in which, learning that the man was born, we did not understand the man to be the same as the begetting, but received a distinct idea for each of the names, the heresy will certainly no longer have any place.

171

Φανερᾶς τοίνυν τῆς πρὸς ἑαυτὸν μάχης τοῦ Εὐνομίου γεγενημένης, ἐν οἷς ἐναντία λέγων ἑαυτῷ ἀπελήλεγκται, νῦν μὲν διὰ τὸ γεννηθῆναι κατὰ φύσιν λέγων δεῖν αὐτὸν υἱὸν ὀνομάζεσθαι, πάλιν δὲ διὰ τὸ κτισθῆναι μηκέτι υἱόν, ἀλλὰ ποίημα λέγεσθαι, προσήκειν οἶμαι τὸν νουνεχῶς καὶ ἐπιστατικῶς ἐπαΐοντα, ἐπειδὴ οὐκ ἐνδέχεται δύο μαχο μένων ἀλλήλοις λόγων κατὰ τὸ ἴσον ἐν ἑκατέρῳ τὸ ἀληθὲς εὑρεθῆναι, ἀποβάλλειν ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων τὸ ἀσεβές τε καὶ βλάσφημον, τὸ κατὰ τὸ 20κτίσμα20 λέγω καὶ 20ποίημα20, θέσθαι δὲ μόνῳ τῷ πρὸς εὐσέβειαν βλέποντι, τῷ κατὰ φύσιν ὁμολογοῦντι προσεῖναι τῷ μονογενεῖ θεῷ τὴν τοῦ υἱοῦ προσηγορίαν, ὡς ἂν καὶ διὰ τῆς τῶν ἐχθρῶν φωνῆς 3.1.67 ὁ τῆς εὐσεβείας λόγος ἔχοι τὴν σύστασιν. λέγω δὲ πάλιν ἀναλαβὼν ὃν ἐξ ἀρχῆς αὐτοῦ παρεθέμην λόγον. 20γεννητὸν ὄντα20, φησί, 20τὸν υἱὸν καὶ γέννημα λέ γειν οὐ παραιτούμεθα, τῆς γεννηθείσης αὐτῆς οὐσίας καὶ τῆς τοῦ υἱοῦ προσηγορίας τὴν τοι αύτην τῶν ὀνομάτων οἰκειουμένης σχέσιν20. τέως μὲν οὖν ὁ κριτικῶς τῶν λεγομένων ἀκούων τούτου μεμνήσθω, ὅτι τὴν 20γεννηθεῖσαν οὐσίαν20 ἐπὶ τοῦ μονο γενοῦς εἰπὼν ἔδωκεν ἐκ τοῦ ἀκολούθου καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ πα τρὸς τὴν μὴ γεννηθεῖσαν λέγειν, ὡς μηκέτι μήτε τὴν ἀγεννησίαν μήτε τὴν γέννησιν ἀντ' οὐσίας παραλαμβάνεσθαι, ἀλλ' ἰδίᾳ μὲν τὴν οὐσίαν παραλαμβάνεσθαι, ἰδίᾳ δὲ τὸ γεννηθῆναι αὐτὴν ἢ μὴ γεννηθῆναι διὰ τῶν ἐπιθεωρου 3.1.68 μένων αὐτῇ ἰδιωμάτων κατανοεῖσθαι. φιλοπονώτερον δὲ τὸν περὶ τούτου λόγον κατανοήσωμεν. οὐσίαν γεγεννῆσθαι λέγει, υἱὸν δὲ εἶναι τῆς γεννηθείσης οὐσίας τὸ ὄνομα. ἀλλ' ἐν τούτοις ὁ παρ' ἡμῶν λόγος διὰ δύο τὸν ἐναντίον ἐλέγξει λόγον, ἑνὸς μὲν τῆς κακουργίας τὴν ἐπιχείρησιν, ἑτέρου δὲ τῆς καθ' ἡμῶν ἐπιχειρήσεως τὴν ἀτονίαν. κακουργεῖ μὲν γὰρ γέννησιν οὐσίας λέγων, ἵνα κατασκευάσῃ τὴν πρὸς ἀλλήλας τῶν οὐσιῶν ἐναντίωσιν, τῷ γεννητῷ τε καὶ ἀγεν νήτῳ πρὸς ἑτερότητα φύσεως διεσχισμένας. ἐλέγχεται δὲ τὸ τῆς ἐπιχειρήσεως ἄτονον δι' αὐτῶν ὧν ἡ κακουργία 3.1.69 κατασκευάζεται. ὁ γὰρ γεγεννῆσθαι τὴν οὐσίαν εἰπὼν ἕτε ρόν τι τὴν γέννησιν εἶναι παρὰ τὴν οὐσίαν σαφῶς διορί ζεται, ὡς μὴ ἂν τὸ σημαινόμενον τῆς γεννήσεως τῷ τῆς οὐσίας ἐφαρμοσθῆναι λόγῳ. οὐ γὰρ ὅπερ ἐν πολλοῖς κατε σκεύασε, τοῦτο καὶ ἐν τῷ μέρει τούτῳ πεποίηκεν, ὥστε αὐτὴν εἰπεῖν οὐσίαν εἶναι τὴν γέννησιν, ἀλλὰ γεννηθῆναι ὁμολογεῖ τὴν οὐσίαν, ὡς διακεκριμένην ἐφ' ἑκατέρας φωνῆς τοῖς ἀκούουσιν ἐγγενέσθαι τὴν ἔννοιαν, ἄλλο γάρ τι νόημα γίνεται τῷ ὅτι ἐγεννήθη ἀκούσαντι καὶ ἄλλο διὰ τοῦ τῆς οὐσίας ὀνόματος. σαφέστερος δὲ γένοιτ' ἂν ἡμῖν διὰ τῶν 3.1.70 ὑποδειγμάτων ὁ λόγος. εἶπεν ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ ὁ κύριος ὅτι προσεγγιζούσης τῆς ὠδῖνος ἐν λύπῃ γίνεται ἡ γυνή, μετὰ ταῦτα δὲ χαρᾷ χαίρει, ὅτι ἐγεννήθη ἄνθρωπος εἰς τὸν κόσμον. ὡς τοίνυν ἐν τῷ μέρει τούτῳ δύο νοήματα διακεκριμένα παρὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου μανθάνομεν, ἓν μὲν τὸν τόκον ὃν διὰ τῆς γεννήσεως ἐνοήσαμεν, ἕτερον δὲ αὐτὸ τὸ ἐκ τοῦ τόκου γινόμενον (οὐ γὰρ ὁ τόκος ἐστὶν ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ἀλλὰ διὰ τοῦ τόκου ὁ ἄνθρωπος), οὕτω καὶ ἐνταῦθα τοῦ Εὐνομίου γεννηθῆναι τὴν οὐσίαν ὁμολογήσαντος τῷ μὲν προ άγοντι ῥήματι τὸ ἔκ τινος ἐδιδάχθημεν, τῷ δὲ ἐφεξῆς αὐτὸ τὸ ὑποκείμενον ἐνοήσαμεν, ᾧ ἐκ τοῦ τινός ἐστιν ἡ ὑπό 3.1.71 στασις. εἰ οὖν ἄλλο μέν ἐστιν τῆς οὐσίας τὸ σημαινόμενον, ἕτερον δὲ ἡ τῆς γεννήσεως φωνὴ νοεῖν ὑποτίθεται, δια πέπτωκεν ἀθρόως αὐτοῖς τὰ σοφὰ μηχανήματα, ὥσπερ ὀστράκινα σκεύη ἀλλήλοις προσαραχθέντα καὶ δι' ἀλλήλων διατρυφθέντα. οὐκέτι γὰρ αὐτοῖς ἐξέσται τὴν τοῦ γεννητοῦ πρὸς τὸ ἀγέννητον διαστολὴν ἐπὶ τῆς τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίας μεταφέρουσι συμμεταφέρειν ἐπὶ τὰ πράγματα τὴν 3.1.72 πρὸς ἄλληλα τῶν ὀνομάτων μάχην. ὁμολογηθέντος γὰρ παρὰ τοῦ Εὐνομίου ὅτι ἐγεννήθη ἡ οὐσία, καθὼς καὶ τὸ εὐαγγελικὸν ὑπόδειγμα τὴν τοιαύτην ἑρμηνεύει διάνοιαν, ἐν ᾧ τὸν ἄνθρωπον γεννηθῆναι μαθόντες οὐ ταὐτὸν ἐνοή σαμεν τῇ γεννήσει τὸν ἄνθρωπον, ἀλλ' ἴδιον ἐφ' ἑκατέρου τῶν ὀνομάτων ἐδεξάμεθα νόημα, οὐκέτι χώραν ἕξει πάντως ἡ αἵρεσις