174

of doctrines. Such a thing we have also heard about Saul from history, that once, moved by anger against those who were prophesying, he was overcome by grace and was one of those inspired by God, as the prophetic spirit, I think, wished to discipline the apostate through himself; whence the strangeness of the event became a proverb for later life, as history relates such a thing in wonder: Is Saul also among the prophets? 3.1.91 In what, then, does Eunomius agree with the truth? In what he says, that 20the Lord himself, being the Son of the living God, not being ashamed of his birth from the virgin, often in his own words called himself Son of man20. For we too bring forward this statement as proof of the community of substance, that the name of "Son" indicates an equal community of nature in both respects. 3.1.92 For as he is called Son of man because of the kinship of his flesh with her from whom he was born, so also he is certainly understood to be Son of God because of the connection of his substance with that from which he has his being. And this statement is the greatest weapon of the truth. For nothing so demonstrates the mediator between God and men, as the great apostle named him, as the name of "Son," being applied equally to each nature, both the divine and the human. For the same one is both Son of God and became Son of man according to the economy, so that by his communion with each he might unite through himself 3.1.93 things separated by nature. If, therefore, having become Son of man, he had no share in human nature, it would have been consistent to say that, being Son of God, he did not even share in the divine substance. But if the whole human constitution was in him (For he was tempted in all things in like manner, without sin), it is altogether necessary to believe that every property of the transcendent substance is also in him, as the title of "Son" similarly witnesses to both for him, in the man, that which is human, and in God, that which is divine. 3.1.94 If therefore the appellations, as Eunomius says, indicate what is proper, and propriety is seen in the things themselves, not in the bare sounds of names (and by things I mean <those> that are conceived in themselves, if it is not too bold to speak thus of the Son and the Father), who would deny that the very champion of blasphemy was automatically drawn to the advocacy of piety, overthrowing his own arguments by himself and proclaiming the community of 3.1.95 substance in the divine doctrines? For the argument unwillingly thrown forth by him on behalf of the truth concerning these things is not false, that he would not have been called Son, unless the natural meaning of the names verified the title. For as a pedestal is not called the son of the artisan, nor would any sensible person say that the builder begot the house, nor do we call the vineyard the offspring of the vinedresser, but the construction is a work of man, and the son of man is he who is born from him, so that, I suppose, what is appropriate might be signified by the names in the subjects, so also, having been taught that the Only-begotten is the Son of God, we have not understood by this appellation a 20creature20 of God, but what the term "Son" truly indicates by its meaning. 3.1.96 And if wine is also called the fruit of the vine by scripture, not even so will the argument concerning the doctrines of piety be harmed by this homonymy. For we do not say wine is the offspring of an oak nor an acorn of a vine, but if there is any community according to nature of the offspring 3.1.97 with that from which it is. For the moisture in the vine, drawn up from the bottom of the root through the pith, is in its potentiality water, but by some sequence, traveling through the paths of nature and flowing from the lower parts to what is above, it changes to the quality of wine, with some cooperation from the sun's ray, which through its heat draws out the liquid from the depth to the shoot and through its own and suitable digestion makes the sap into wine; so that according to nature there is no alienation of the moisture contained in the vine from the

174

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; 3.1.91 Ἐν τίσιν οὖν ὁ Εὐνόμιος τῇ ἀληθείᾳ συνίσταται; ἐν οἷς φησιν ὅτι 20αὐτὸς ὁ κύριος υἱὸς ὢν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος τὴν ἐκ τῆς παρθένου γέννησιν οὐκ ἐπαισχυνόμενος ἐν τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ λόγοις υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου πολλάκις ὠνόμασεν ἑαυτόν20. τοῦτον γὰρ καὶ ἡμεῖς τὸν λόγον εἰς ἀπόδειξιν τοῦ κοινοῦ τῆς οὐσίας προφέρομεν, ὅτι τοῦ υἱοῦ τὸ ὄνομα ἴσην κατ' ἀμ 3.1.92 φότερα 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 3.1.93 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 ἁμαρ τίας), 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 ἀν θρώπινον, ἐν δὲ τῷ θεῷ τὸ θεῖον. 3.1.94 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 αὐτο μάτως πρὸς τὴν συνηγορίαν τῆς εὐσεβείας καθελκυσθῆναι, δι' ἑαυτοῦ τοὺς οἰκείους ἀνατρέποντα λόγους καὶ τὸ τῆς 3.1.95 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 σημαί νοιτο, οὕτως καὶ υἱὸν θεοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ διδαχθέντες οὐ 20κτίσμα20 θεοῦ διὰ τῆς προσηγορίας ἐνοήσαμεν ταύτης, ἀλλ' ὅπερ ἀληθῶς ἡ τοῦ υἱοῦ φωνὴ τῷ σημαινομένῳ ἐνδείκνυται. 3.1.96 εἰ δὲ καὶ ἀμπέλου γέννημα ὁ οἶνος ὑπὸ τῆς γραφῆς ὀνο μάζεται, 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 3.1.97 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 θερ μότητος τὸ ὑγρὸν ἐκ τοῦ βάθους ἐπὶ τὴν βλάστην ἐξέλ κουσα διὰ τῆς οἰκείας καὶ καταλλήλου πέψεως οἶνον τὴν ἰκμάδα ποιεῖ· ὥστε κατὰ φύσιν μὲν μηδεμίαν ἀλλοτριότητα τὴν ἐγκειμένην τῇ ἀμπέλῳ νοτίδα πρὸς τὸν