177

that the dogma of piety is strengthened only by its adversaries, but that it has its strength especially in itself. Therefore, as far as possible, let the opposing argument be confirmed by us with a more vigorous defense, so that its surpassing power may be discerned with much confidence, as we bring forward for a precise test of our truth the things neglected by our opponents. For perhaps he who argues for the opponents will say that the title of 'son' and 'offspring' does not in every case indicate a kinship according to nature. 3.1.114 For in Scripture someone is called a child of wrath, and a son of perdition, and an offspring of vipers, and surely no community of nature appeared together with such names. For Judas, the one named the son of perdition, is not the same as the subject, perdition itself, according to its meaning. For the meaning of the man Judas is one thing, 3.1.115 and the meaning of perdition is another. And likewise, the argument has the same structure from the opposite side. For some who are called sons of light and sons of day are not the same as the light and the day according to the principle of nature, and stones become children of Abraham when through faith and works they appropriate the kinship with him, and those who are led by the Spirit of God, as the apostle says, are called sons of God, not being the same as God according to nature, and many such things can be gathered from the divinely inspired Scripture, through which deceit, like an image adorned with scriptural testimonies, feigns the appearance of truth. 3.1.116 What then do we say to this? The divine Scripture knows how to use the word 'son' according to both meanings, so that for some this designation is from nature, but for others it is constructed and acquired. For when it says 'sons of men' and 'sons of rams,' it signifies the relationship according to substance of the one begotten to the one from whom he was begotten; but when it says 'sons of power' or 'children of God,' it indicates the kinship that comes from choice. 3.1.117 And indeed, according to the contrary meaning, the same men were named both 'sons of Eli' and 'sons of pestilence,' with the designation of 'sons' being suitably applied to each concept. For by being called 'sons of Eli,' they were testified to have a kinship with him according to nature, but by being named 'sons of pestilence,' they were accused on account of the wickedness of their choice, as not emulating their father in their life, but having appropriated their choice to evil. 3.1.118 Therefore, in the case of the lower nature and of our own affairs, because humanity is inclined to both—I mean to vice and virtue—it is in our power to become sons of night or of day, while nature remains, in the primary sense, within its own bounds. For neither was he who through evil became a child of wrath alienated from human generation, nor did he who by choice appropriated himself to the good cast off his birth from humans through the refinement of his practices, but while nature remains the same in both cases, the differences in choices assume the names of kinship, becoming either children of God through virtue or of the adversary through evil. 3.1.119 But in the case of the divine doctrines, 20the one who preserves the natural order20 Eunomius (for I will use the speechwriter's own words) 20and who adheres to what is known from above and does not shrink from saying that what is begotten is an offspring, of the begotten substance itself20, as he says, 20and of the designation of son appropriating such a relationship of names20, how does he alienate the begotten from the kinship according to substance 3.1.120 with the one who begot? For in the case of sons or offspring spoken of in censure, or again, in the case of those where some praise accompanies such names, it is not possible to say that someone truly begotten by wrath was called a child of wrath, nor again did anyone have day physically as his mother, so as to be named its son, but the difference in choices creates the names of such kinship. But here Eunomius says that 20begotten

177

μόνῃ τῶν ἀντιμαχομένων τὸ δόγμα τῆς εὐσεβείας κρατύ νεσθαι, ἀλλ' ἐν ἑαυτῷ μάλιστα τὴν ἰσχὺν ἔχειν. ὡς οὖν ἐστι δυνατόν, δι' εὐτονωτέρας τῆς συνηγορίας βεβαιωθήτω παρ' ἡμῶν αὐτῶν ὁ ἀντικείμενος λόγος, ὡς ἂν τὸ ὑπερ βάλλον τῆς δυνάμεως διαγνωσθείη κατὰ πολλὴν πεποί θησιν, καὶ τὰ παρειμένα παρὰ τῶν ἐναντίων εἰς ἀκριβῆ βάσανον τῆς ἀληθείας ἡμῶν προφερόντων. ἐρεῖ γὰρ ἴσως ὁ τοῖς ἐναντίοις ἰσχυριζόμενος, ὅτι οὐ πάντως ἡ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ γεννήματος κλῆσις τὸ κατὰ τὴν φύσιν οἰκεῖον 3.1.114 παρίστησι. καὶ γὰρ καὶ τέκνον τις ὀργῆς ἐν τῇ γραφῇ λέγεται καὶ ἀπωλείας υἱὸς καὶ γέννημα ἐχίδνης, καὶ οὐ δήπου κοινότης τις φύσεως τοῖς τοιούτοις ὀνόμασι συναν εφάνη. οὐ γὰρ ταὐτόν ἐστι τῷ ὑποκειμένῳ Ἰούδας, ὁ τῆς ἀπωλείας υἱὸς ὠνομασμένος, καὶ αὐτὴ κατὰ τὸ νοού μενον ἡ ἀπώλεια. ἄλλο γὰρ τοῦ κατὰ τὸν Ἰούδαν ἀν 3.1.115 θρώπου καὶ ἕτερον τῆς ἀπωλείας τὸ σημαινόμενον. ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ἐναντίου τὴν ἴσην κατασκευὴν ὁ λόγος ἔχει. υἱοὶ γὰρ φωτός τινες καὶ υἱοὶ ἡμέρας λεγόμενοι οὐ ταὐτόν εἰσι τῷ φωτὶ καὶ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ κατὰ τὸν λόγον τῆς φύσεως, καὶ τέκνα τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ οἱ λίθοι γίνονται, ὅταν διὰ τῆς πίστεως καὶ τῶν ἔργων τὴν συγγένειαν τὴν πρὸς αὐτὸν οἰκειώσωνται, καὶ οἱ τῷ πνεύματι τοῦ θεοῦ ἀγόμενοι, καθ ώς φησιν ὁ ἀπόστολος, υἱοὶ θεοῦ λέγονται, οὐ ταὐτὸν ὄντες τῷ θεῷ κατὰ τὴν φύσιν, καὶ πολλὰ τοιαῦτα παρὰ τῆς θεοπνεύστου γραφῆς ἔστιν ἀναλέξασθαι, δι' ὧν ἡ ἀπάτη καθάπερ εἰκών τις ἐπηνθισμένη ταῖς γραφικαῖς μαρτυρίαις τὸ τῆς ἀληθείας εἴδωλον ὑποκρίνεται. 3.1.116 Τί οὖν ἡμεῖς πρὸς τοῦτό φαμεν; οἶδεν ἡ θεία γραφὴ κατ' ἀμφοτέρων τῶν ἐννοιῶν κεχρῆσθαι τοῦ υἱοῦ τῇ φωνῇ, ὥστε τισὶ μὲν ἐκ φύσεως, τισὶ δὲ ἐπισκευαστὴν καὶ ἐπί κτητον εἶναι τὴν τοιαύτην προσηγορίαν. ὅταν μὲν γὰρ υἱοὺς ἀνθρώπων καὶ υἱοὺς λέγῃ κριῶν, τὴν κατ' οὐσίαν τοῦ γεν νηθέντος πρὸς τὸν ἐξ οὗ γέγονε σχέσιν ἀποσημαίνει· ὅταν δὲ υἱοὺς δυνάμεως ἢ τέκνα λέγῃ θεοῦ, τὴν ἐκ προαιρέσεως 3.1.117 γινομένην ἀγχιστείαν παρίστησι. καὶ μέντοι καὶ κατὰ τὴν ἐναντίαν διάνοιαν οἱ αὐτοὶ καὶ υἱοὶ Ἠλεὶ καὶ υἱοὶ λοιμοὶ ὠνομάσθησαν, πρὸς ἑκάτερον νόημα τῆς τῶν υἱῶν προση γορίας εὐαρμόστως ἐχούσης. τῷ μὲν γὰρ υἱοὶ τοῦ Ἠλεὶ κληθῆναι τὸ κατὰ τὴν φύσιν συγγενὲς πρὸς ἐκεῖνον ἔχειν ἐμαρτυρήθησαν, λοιμοὶ δὲ υἱοὶ κατονομασθέντες ἐπὶ τῇ τῆς προαιρέσεως μοχθηρίᾳ κατηγορήθησαν, ὡς οὐχὶ τὸν πατέρα ζηλοῦντες τῷ βίῳ, ἀλλὰ τῇ κακίᾳ τὴν προαίρεσιν 3.1.118 ἑαυτῶν οἰκειώσαντες. ἐπὶ μὲν οὖν τῆς κάτω φύσεως καὶ τῶν καθ' ἡμᾶς πραγμάτων διὰ τὸ πρὸς ἑκάτερον ἐπιρρε πῶς τὸ ἀνθρώπινον ἔχειν, πρὸς κακίαν λέγω καὶ ἀρετήν, ἐφ' ἡμῖν ἐστιν ἢ νυκτὸς ἢ ἡμέρας υἱοὺς γενέσθαι, μενούσης κατὰ τὸ προηγούμενον ἐν τοῖς ἰδίοις ὅροις τῆς φύσεως. οὔτε γὰρ ὁ διὰ κακίαν ὀργῆς τέκνον γενόμενος τῆς ἀνθρω πίνης ἠλλοτριώθη γεννήσεως, οὔτε ὁ τῷ ἀγαθῷ διὰ προ αιρέσεως ἑαυτὸν οἰκειώσας τὸ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων φῦναι διὰ τῆς ἀστειότητος τῶν ἐπιτηδευμάτων ἀπώσατο, ἀλλὰ τῆς φύ σεως ὁμοίως ἐφ' ἑκατέρων ἑστώσης αἱ κατὰ τὰς προ αιρέσεις διαφοραὶ τὰ ὀνόματα τῆς οἰκειότητος ὑποδύονται, ἢ θεοῦ τέκνα δι' ἀρετῆς ἢ τοῦ ἀντικειμένου διὰ κακίας γινόμεναι. 3.1.119 Ἐπὶ δέ γε τῶν θείων δογμάτων 20ὁ τὴν φυσικὴν διασῴζων τάξιν20 Εὐνόμιος (αὐτοῖς γὰρ χρήσομαι τοῦ λογογράφου τοῖς ῥήμασι) 20καὶ τοῖς ἄνωθεν ἐγνω σμένοις ἐμμένων καὶ γεννητὸν ὄντα γέννημα λέγειν οὐ παραιτούμενος, τῆς γεννηθείσης αὐτῆς20, ὥς φησιν, 20οὐσίας καὶ τῆς τοῦ υἱοῦ προσ ηγορίας τὴν τοιαύτην τῶν ὀνομάτων οἰκειου μένης σχέσιν20, πῶς ἀλλοτριοῖ τῆς κατ' οὐσίαν οἰκειό 3.1.120 τητος τὸ γεννηθὲν τοῦ γεννήσαντος; ἐπὶ μὲν γὰρ τῶν ἐπὶ διαβολῇ λεγομένων υἱῶν ἢ γεννημάτων ἢ πάλιν ἐφ' ὧν ἔπαινός τις παρομαρτεῖ τοῖς τοιούτοις ὀνόμασιν οὐκ ἔστιν εἰπεῖν ὅτι ἀληθῶς τις παρὰ τῆς ὀργῆς γεννηθεὶς τέκνον ὀργῆς προσηγόρευται, οὐδ' αὖ πάλιν ἡμέραν τις σωματικῶς ἔσχεν ἑαυτοῦ μητέρα, ὥστε υἱὸς ταύτης ὀνομασθῆναι, ἀλλ' ἡ τῶν προαιρέσεων διαφορὰ ποιεῖται τὰ τῆς τοιαύτης συγ γενείας ὀνόματα. ἐνταῦθα δέ φησιν ὁ Εὐνόμιος ὅτι 20γεν νητὸν