182

to the impassible and undefiled nature? For neither does the fact that we are mortal invalidate the immortality of the Only-begotten, nor does the inclination of men to evil render the immutability of the divine nature doubtful, nor is anything else of ours transferred to God. But the particularity of human and of divine life is unmixed and has no fellowship, and their characteristic properties are entirely different, so that neither are the latter understood in the former, nor, conversely, the former in the latter. 3.2.11 How then does Eunomius, when the divine generation is the subject of discussion, abandon the subject and go through earthly things, when we have no dispute with him about these? But the purpose of the craftsman is manifest, that by the slander of 3.2.12 passion he might circumscribe the generation of the Lord. At which, leaving aside the matter of the blasphemy, I marvel at the man’s cleverness, how he remembers his own earnestness, who, having established through his previous statements that the Son must both be and be called an offspring, now strives to show that generation should not be conceived of concerning him. For if every generation, as this man thinks, has conjoined with it the disposition of passion, it must by every necessity be acknowledged through these arguments that what is foreign to passion is also in every way foreign to generation. For if these things, passion and generation, are conceived of as connected with each other, he who has no part in the one would not have fellowship with the other. 3.2.13 How then does he call him an offspring on account of the generation, who is proven by his present words not to have been generated? And for what reason does he contend against our teacher who advises not to presume to coin words regarding the divine dogmas, but to confess that He was begotten, yet not to shape this concept into the form of a name, so as to call the one begotten 20offspring20, since this term is specially assigned by Scripture to inanimate things or to those who are taken as a type of 3.2.14 wickedness? But when it is said by us that the term 20offspring20 ought to be passed over in silence, he brings forth that invincible rhetoric, taking as an ally also grammatical pedantry and by the art of words, whether by derivation or paronymy or I know not how one should call these things, through these he concludes his syllogisms, not refusing to call the one begotten 3.2.15 20offspring20. But when we accept this and consider the meaning of the name, as the community of substance is thereby co-indicated, he again retracts his own statements and insists that the 20offspring20 was not generated, invalidating the pure and divine and impassible generation of the Lord by the sordid natural science of corporeal birth, as if it were not possible for two things to concur in God at the same time, both true sonship to the Father and the impassibility of the nature, but that if there were impassibility, there would be no generation, and if one confessed true sonship, one would also in every case have to admit passion in the generation. 3.2.16 Not so does the sublime John, not so does that voice of thunder proclaim the mystery of theology, who both names him Son of God and purges the proclamation of every passionate conception. For behold how he prepares the hearing in the prologues of the gospel. For how great is the teacher’s foresight that none of the hearers should fall into base conceptions, slipping from ignorance into certain unfitting suspicions. 3.2.17 For so that he might best lead the untrained hearing far from passion, he did not say in the prologues "Son," nor "Father," nor "generation," lest someone at the very first, upon hearing of a Father, be dragged down to the ready significance of the name, or learning that a Son is proclaimed, understand the name according to the custom here, or stumble at the word of generation as at a stone of stumbling; but instead of Father he names "beginning," and instead of "was begotten," "was," and instead of "Son," "the Word," and he says, "In the beginning was the Word." What passion is in these things, tell me, "beginning" and "was" and

182

πρὸς τὴν ἀπαθῆ καὶ ἀκήρατον φύσιν; οὐδὲ γὰρ τὸ θνητοὺς ἡμᾶς εἶναι τὴν ἀθανασίαν τοῦ μονογενοῦς παρα γράφεται οὐδὲ ἡ πρὸς κακίαν τροπὴ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀμφί βολον ἐπὶ τῆς θείας φύσεως εἶναι παρασκευάζει τὸ ἄτρεπτον οὐδὲ ἄλλο τι τῶν ἡμετέρων καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν θεὸν μεταφέρεται, ἀλλά τις ἄμικτός ἐστι καὶ ἀκοινώνητος ἡ ἰδιότης τῆς ἀν θρωπίνης τε καὶ τῆς θείας ζωῆς καὶ παρήλλακται παντά πασι τὰ γνωριστικὰ ἰδιώματα, ὡς μήτε ταῦτα ἐπ' ἐκείνης μήτε τὸ ἔμπαλιν ἐπὶ ταύτης ἐκεῖνα καταλαμβάνεσθαι. 3.2.11 Πῶς οὖν ὁ Εὐνόμιος, τῆς θείας προκειμένης τῷ λόγῳ γεννήσεως, ἀφεὶς τὸ προκείμενον τὰ ἐν τῇ γῇ διεξέρχεται, οὐδεμιᾶς ἡμῖν περὶ τούτων πρὸς αὐτὸν οὔσης ἀμφισβητή σεως; ἀλλὰ πρόδηλος ὁ σκοπὸς τοῦ τεχνίτου, ἵνα τῇ πρὸς 3.2.12 τὸ πάθος διαβολῇ περιγράψῃ τοῦ κυρίου τὴν γέννησιν. ἐφ' οἷς ἔγωγε τὸ κατὰ τὴν βλασφημίαν παρεὶς θαυμάζω τῆς ἀγχινοίας τὸν ἄνθρωπον, πῶς μέμνηται τῆς οἰκείας σπου δῆς, ὃς τὸ δεῖν γέννημα τὸν υἱὸν καὶ εἶναι καὶ λέγεσθαι διὰ τῶν προειρημένων κατασκευάσας νῦν περὶ τοῦ μὴ χρῆναι γέννησιν περὶ αὐτὸν νοεῖν ἀγωνίζεται. εἰ γὰρ πᾶσα γέν νησις, καθὼς οὗτος οἴεται, συνεζευγμένην ἔχει τὴν κατὰ τὸ πάθος διάθεσιν, ἀνάγκη πᾶσα διὰ τούτων ὁμολογεῖσθαι, ὅτι τὸ τοῦ πάθους ἀλλότριον συναλλοτριοῦται πάντως καὶ τῆς γεννήσεως. εἰ γὰρ ταῦτα μετ' ἀλλήλων συνημμένως νοεῖται, τὸ πάθος τε καὶ ἡ γέννησις, ὁ τοῦ ἑνὸς τούτων ἀμέτοχος οὐδ' ἂν πρὸς τὸ ἕτερον τὴν κοινωνίαν ἔχοι. 3.2.13 πῶς οὖν γέννημα διὰ τὴν γέννησιν λέγει τὸν ὅτι οὐκ ἐγεν νήθη διὰ τῶν νῦν παρ' αὐτοῦ λεγομένων ἀποδεικνύμενον, καὶ ὑπὲρ τίνος μάχεται πρὸς τὸν διδάσκαλον ἡμῶν τὸν συμβουλεύοντα μὴ κατατολμᾶν ἐπὶ τῶν θείων δογμάτων τῆς ὀνοματοποιΐας, ἀλλὰ γεγεννῆσθαι μὲν ὁμολογεῖν, μὴ παρασχηματίζειν δὲ τὴν ἔννοιαν ταύτην εἰς ὀνόματος τύπον, ὥστε 20γέννημα20 τὸν γεννηθέντα προσαγορεύειν, ἰδίως τῆς φωνῆς ταύτης ἐπὶ τῶν ἀψύχων ἢ ἐπὶ τῶν εἰς εἰκόνα πο 3.2.14 νηρίας παρειλημμένων ὑπὸ τῆς γραφῆς τεταγμένης; ἀλλ' ὅταν μὲν παρ' ἡμῶν λέγηται τὸ δεῖν σιωπᾶσθαι τὴν φωνὴν τοῦ 20γεννήματος20, τὴν ἄμαχον ἐκείνην ῥητορικὴν προ χειρίζεται, συμπαραλαμβάνων εἰς συμμαχίαν καὶ τὴν γραμ ματικὴν ψυχρολογίαν καὶ διὰ τῆς τεχνικῆς τῶν ὀνομάτων εἴτε παραγωγῆς εἴτε παρωνυμίας εἴτε οὐκ οἶδ' ὅπως δὴ λέγειν ταῦτα προσήκει, διὰ τούτων τοὺς συλλογισμοὺς συμ περαίνει 20γέννημα20 τὸν γεννηθέντα λέγειν οὐ παραιτού 3.2.15 μενος. ἐπειδὰν δὲ τοῦτο δεξάμενοι τὴν τοῦ ὀνόματος ἔν νοιαν θεωρήσωμεν, ὡς τοῦ κοινοῦ τῆς οὐσίας ἐντεῦθεν συνενδεικνυμένου, πάλιν ἀνατίθεται τὰς ἰδίας φωνὰς καὶ περὶ τοῦ μὴ γεννηθῆναι τὸ 20γέννημα20 διατείνεται, τῇ ῥυ πώσῃ φυσιολογίᾳ τοῦ σωματικοῦ τόκου τὴν καθαράν τε καὶ θείαν καὶ ἀπαθῆ τοῦ κυρίου παραγραφόμενος γέννησιν, ὡς οὐκ ἐνδεχόμενον τὰ δύο κατὰ ταὐτὸν ἐπὶ τοῦ θεοῦ συνδραμεῖν, τό τε πρὸς τὸν πατέρα γνήσιον καὶ τὴν ἀπά θειαν τῆς φύσεως, ἀλλ' εἰ μὲν τὸ ἀπαθὲς εἴη, μὴ εἶναι τὴν γέννησιν, εἰ δὲ τὸ γνήσιόν τις ὁμολογοίη, καὶ πάθος τῇ γεννήσει πάντως συμπαραδέχεσθαι. 3.2.16 Οὐχ οὕτως ὁ ὑψηλὸς Ἰωάννης, οὐχ οὕτως ἐκείνη ἡ βρονταία φωνὴ τὸ τῆς θεολογίας κηρύσσει μυστήριον, ὃς καὶ υἱὸν ὀνομάζει θεοῦ καὶ πάσης ἐμπαθοῦς ὑπολήψεως ἐκ καθαίρει τὸ κήρυγμα. ἰδοὺ γὰρ πῶς προθεραπεύει τὴν ἀκοὴν ἐν τοῖς προοιμίοις τοῦ εὐαγγελίου. ὅση γὰρ ἐν τῷ διδασκάλῳ προμήθεια τοῦ μή τινα τῶν ἀκουόντων εἰς τα πεινὰς ὑπολήψεις καταπεσεῖν, πρὸς ἀτόπους τινὰς ὑπονοίας 3.2.17 ἐξ ἀμαθίας ὑπολισθήσαντα. ὡς γὰρ ἂν μάλιστα πόρρω πάθους ἀπαγάγοι τὴν ἀγύμναστον ἀκοήν, οὐχ υἱὸν εἶπεν ἐν προοιμίοις, οὐ πατέρα, οὐ γέννησιν, ἵνα μή τις ἐν πρώ τοις ἢ πατρὸς ἀκούσας κατασυρῇ πρὸς τὴν πρόχειρον ἔμφασιν τοῦ ὀνόματος, ἢ υἱὸν μαθὼν κηρυσσόμενον κατὰ τὴν ὧδε συνήθειαν νοήσῃ τὸ ὄνομα, ἢ προσπταίσῃ τῷ ῥήματι τῆς γεννήσεως ὡς λίθῳ προσκόμματος· ἀλλ' ἀντὶ μὲν πατρὸς ἀρχὴν ὀνομάζει, ἀντὶ δὲ τοῦ ἐγεννήθη τὸ ἦν, ἀντὶ δὲ τοῦ υἱοῦ τὸν λόγον, καί φησιν Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος. ποῖον ἐν τούτοις πάθος, εἰπέ μοι, ἀρχὴ καὶ ἦν καὶ