179

of these according to the logic of nature, but as this is said, something else besides this is understood through 3.1.129 what is said. And if such names are truly applied to the only-begotten God and do not contain the indication of his nature, they say it follows20 that the meaning of "Son" should not be taken for the interpretation of his nature according to the prevailing custom, but that some other meaning for this word should be found, besides the common and obvious one20. These things and such as these they philosophize to establish that the Son is not 3.1.130 what He is and is said to be. But our argument was hastening to another point, to show that the recent treatise of Eunomius is false and incoherent, and in agreement neither with the truth nor with itself. But since through our accusations of their doctrine, a sort of defense of their blasphemy has been introduced into the argument, it would be well to discuss this first in brief, and then to return to the sequence of what has been written. 3.1.131 What then can one say in response to such things without missing the mark? That while there are many names, as they too say, which are applied to the Only-begotten by Scripture, we say that none of the others has a natural reference to the one who begot him. For not in the same way as Son of the Father, do we speak, referring to the God of all, of a stone or a resurrection or a shepherd or a light or any of the other things, but it is possible, as if by some art and rule, to divide the meaning of the divine names in two. 3.1.132 For some have the indication of the high and ineffable glory, while others show the diversity of the providential economy; so that, hypothetically, if there were not that which is benefited, these terms which indicate the benefit would not have been applied to him. But as many as interpret that which is fitting for God, even apart from the things of the economy, are naturally and properly applied to the only-begotten God. And that such a doctrine may be more clearly revealed to us, the examination will be upon the names themselves. 3.1.133 The Lord would not have been named a vine, were it not for the sake of the planting of those rooted in him, nor a shepherd, if the sheep of the house of Israel had not been lost, nor a physician, if not for the sake of the sick, nor would he have accepted the rest of the names for himself, had he not, through some providential activity, appropriately applied the terms to those being benefited. For why is it necessary to prolong the argument by speaking of each particular in matters that are agreed upon? But Son and Right Hand and Only-begotten and Word and Wisdom and Power and all such things, as many as are spoken of in relation to something, are said, being always named together with the Father, as in a certain relational pairing. 3.1.134 For he is called Power of God and Right Hand of God and Wisdom of God and Son of the Father and Only-begotten and the Word toward God and all such things. Therefore it follows from what has been said to perceive in each of the names a meaning that is suitable and fitting to the subject, so that by not missing the right understanding we might not sin against the doctrine of piety. 3.1.135 Just as, therefore, by taking each of the other names in a manner fitting to God, we set aside the obvious meaning in them, as neither material light, nor a trodden road, nor a lifeless stone, nor the bread from agriculture, nor speech through words, but instead of these, to name those things which represent the majesty of the power of God the Word, so if someone were to set aside the customary and natural meaning of Son, through which we learn that he is from the substance of the one who begot him, he will certainly transfer the name to some interpretation more fitting to God. For since the transference of each of the other names to something more glorious was fitting for the indication of divine power, it is entirely consistent that the meaning of this name also be transferred to what is higher. 3.1.136 What, then, could be a more God-fitting understanding for the title of Son, if, according to the argument of our opponents, the natural relation to the one who begot him were set aside? For perhaps no one is so bold toward impiety, as in the things concerning

179

τούτων κατὰ τὸν λόγον τῆς φύσεως, ἀλλ' ὡς ταῦτα μὲν λεγόμενον, ἄλλο δέ τι παρὰ ταῦτα διὰ 3.1.129 τῶν λεγομένων νοούμενον. εἰ δὲ τὰ τοιαῦτα τῶν ὀνομάτων καὶ ἀληθῶς ἐπιλέγεται τῷ μονογενεῖ θεῷ καὶ τῆς φύσεως οὐ περιέχει τὴν ἔνδειξιν, ἀκόλουθον εἶναι20 λέγουσι 20μηδὲ τοῦ υἱοῦ τὸ σημαινό μενον κατὰ τὴν ἐπικρατοῦσαν συνήθειαν εἰς τὴν τῆς φύσεως ἐρμηνείαν παραλαμβάνειν, ἀλλ' ἐξευρίσκειν τινὰ σημασίαν καὶ ταύτης τῆς φωνῆς ἑτέραν παρὰ τὴν κοινήν τε καὶ πρόχειρον20. ταῦτα καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα φιλοσοφοῦσι πρὸς κατασκευὴν τοῦ μὴ εἶναι 3.1.130 τὸν υἱὸν ὅπερ ἐστί τε καὶ λέγεται. ἡμῖν δὲ πρὸς ἕτερον μὲν ἦν σπεύδων ὁ λόγος, τὴν πρόσφατον τοῦ Εὐνομίου λογο γραφίαν δεῖξαι ψευδῆ καὶ ἀσύστατον καὶ οὔτε πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν οὔτε πρὸς ἑαυτὴν συμφωνοῦσαν. ἐπεὶ δὲ δι' ὧν κατηγοροῦμεν τοῦ δόγματος αὐτῶν οἷόν τις συνηγορία τῆς βλασφημίας ἐπεισήχθη τῷ λόγῳ, καλῶς ἂν ἔχοι περὶ τού του πρότερον ἐν ὀλίγῳ διαλαβεῖν, εἶθ' οὕτως ἐπὶ τὴν ἀκο λουθίαν τῶν γεγραμμένων ἐπανελθεῖν. 3.1.131 Τί τοίνυν ἔστιν εἰπόντας πρὸς τὰ τοιαῦτα μὴ διαμαρ τεῖν τοῦ προσήκοντος; ὅτι πολλῶν ὄντων, καθὼς κἀκεῖνοί φασι, τῶν ὀνομάτων, ἃ τῷ μονογενεῖ παρὰ τῆς γραφῆς ἐπι λέγεται, οὐδὲν τῶν ἄλλων τῇ πρὸς τὸν γεγεννηκότα φαμὲν ἀναφορᾷ τὸ προσφυὲς ἔχειν. οὐ γὰρ ὥσπερ υἱὸν τοῦ πατρός, οὕτως ἢ λίθον ἢ ἀνάστασιν ἢ ποιμένα ἢ φῶς ἤ τι τῶν ἄλλων ἐπὶ τὸν θεὸν τῶν ὅλων ἐπαναφέροντες λέγομεν, ἀλλ' ἔστιν οἷον τέχνῃ τινὶ καὶ κανόνι διχῇ διελέσθαι τῶν θείων ὀνομάτων 3.1.132 τὴν σημασίαν. τὰ μὲν γὰρ τῆς ὑψηλῆς τε καὶ ἀφράστου δόξης τὴν ἔνδειξιν ἔχει, τὰ δὲ τὸ ποικίλον τῆς προνοητικῆς οἰκονομίας ἐνδείκνυται· ὥστε καθ' ὑπόθεσιν εἰ μὴ τὸ εὐερ γετούμενον εἴη, μηδὲ τὰς φωνὰς ταύτας ἐπ' αὐτοῦ τετάχθαι αἳ τὴν εὐεργεσίαν ἐνδείκνυνται. ὅσαι δὲ τὸ θεοπρεπὲς ἑρ μηνεύουσι, καὶ δίχα τῶν οἰκονομουμένων προσφυῶς καὶ κυρίως ἐφαρμόζονται τῷ μονογενεῖ θεῷ. ὡς δ' ἂν ἐναρ γέστερον ἡμῖν ἐκκαλυφθείη τὸ τοιοῦτον δόγμα, ἐπ' αὐτῶν 3.1.133 ἔσται τῶν ὀνομάτων ἡ θεωρία. οὐκ ἂν ἄμπελος ὠνομάσθη ὁ κύριος, εἰ μὴ τῆς φυτείας χάριν τῶν ἐν αὐτῷ ῥιζου μένων, οὐδ' ἂν ποιμήν, εἰ μὴ τὰ πρόβατα τοῦ οἴκου Ἰσ ραὴλ ἀπολώλει, οὐδ' ἰατρός, εἰ μὴ τῶν νοσούντων χάριν, οὐδὲ τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν ὀνομάτων ἐφ' ἑαυτοῦ κατεδέχετο, μὴ διά τινος προνοητικῆς ἐνεργείας προσφόρως ἐπὶ τῶν εὐεργε τουμένων τὰς φωνὰς οἰκειούμενος. τί γὰρ δεῖ τὰ καθ' ἕκαστον λέγοντα μηκύνειν ἐν τοῖς ὁμολογουμένοις τὸν λόγον; υἱὸς δὲ καὶ δεξιὰ καὶ μονογενὴς καὶ λόγος καὶ σοφία καὶ δύναμις καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα πάντα, ὅσα πρός τι λέγεται, καθ άπερ ἐν συζυγίᾳ τινὶ σχετικῇ τῷ πατρὶ πάντως συνονομα 3.1.134 ζόμενος λέγεται. θεοῦ γὰρ δύναμις ὀνομάζεται καὶ θεοῦ δεξιὰ καὶ θεοῦ σοφία καὶ πατρὸς υἱὸς καὶ μονογενὴς καὶ λόγος πρὸς τὸν θεὸν καὶ ὅσα τοιαῦτα. οὐκοῦν ἀκόλουθον ἐκ τῶν εἰρημένων ἑκάστου τῶν ὀνομάτων κατάλληλόν τινα τῷ ὑποκειμένῳ καὶ πρέπουσαν ἐνθεωρεῖν σημασίαν, ὡς ἂν μὴ τῷ διαμαρτεῖν τῆς ὀρθῆς διανοίας περὶ τὸν τῆς εὐσε βείας πλημμελήσαιμεν λόγον. 3.1.135 Ὥσπερ τοίνυν τῶν ἄλλων ἕκαστον πρὸς τὸ θεοπρεπὲς μεταλαβόντες ἀθετοῦμεν τὴν πρόχειρον ἐπ' αὐτῶν ἔννοιαν, ὡς μήτε φῶς ὑλικὸν μήτε πατουμένην ὁδὸν μήτε ἄψυχον λίθον μήτε τὸν ἐκ γεωργίας ἄρτον μήτε τὸν διὰ ῥημάτων λόγον, ἀλλ' ἀντὶ τούτων ἐκεῖνα ὀνομάζειν ὅσα τὸ μεγαλεῖον τῆς δυνάμεως τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου παρίστησιν, οὕτως εἴ τις ἀθετοίη τοῦ υἱοῦ τὴν συνήθη καὶ κατὰ φύσιν σημασίαν, δι' ἧς τὸ ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας εἶναι τοῦ γεγεννηκότος μανθά νομεν, πρός τινα θεοπρεπεστέραν ἑρμηνείαν μεταλήψεται πάντως τὸ ὄνομα. ἐπειδὴ γὰρ τῶν ἄλλων ἑκάστου πρὸς τὸ ἐνδοξότερον ἡ μετάληψις γινομένη πρὸς τὴν τῆς θείας δυνάμεως ἔνδειξιν ἥρμοσεν, ἀκόλουθον πάντως ἐστὶ καὶ τούτου τοῦ ὀνόματος ἐπὶ τὸ ὑψηλότερον μετενεχθῆναι τὸ 3.1.136 σημαινόμενον. τίς ἂν οὖν γένοιτο θεοπρεπεστέρα διάνοια ἐπὶ τῆς τοῦ υἱοῦ προσηγορίας, εἰ ἀθετοῖτο κατὰ τὸν λόγον τῶν ὑπεναντίων ἡ φυσικὴ πρὸς τὸν γεννήσαντα σχέσις; τάχα γὰρ οὕτως οὐδεὶς πρὸς ἀσέβειαν τολμηρός, ὡς ἐν τοῖς περὶ