271

of what has been said, let the diligent one, having read the passages of the divine scripture, fit the riddles to the theorems, having tested if it is not by far better to think that the meaning of the riddles looks to this, and not according to what is readily 3.1.62 supposed. For it is not possible for the theology of John to be considered true, which celebrated that all created things are the work of the Word, if indeed here the one who created wisdom were believed to have made all other things with it. For all things will no longer be through it, but it will be numbered with all the things that have come into being. 3.1.63 But that the enigmatic sayings look to this is clearly revealed through the following statement which says, *Now therefore, son, listen to me*, and *Blessed is he who keeps my ways*, calling the ways, of course, the approaches to virtue, of which 3.1.64 the creation of wisdom becomes the beginning. Who then, looking to the divine scripture, will not agree that the enemies of the truth are at once both impious and slanderers? Impious, because, having cast down the ineffable glory of the only-begotten God, as far as it is in their power, they join it to creation, striving to prove the Lord, whose power is unique over all things, to be one of the things that have come into being from him; and slanderers, because, when scripture provides them no starting point for such suppositions, they arm themselves against piety as if bringing testimony from there. 3.1.65 Since, therefore, they are not able to show any saying from any of the saints which advises to see the pre-eternal glory of the only-begotten God with the subordinate creation, it would be well, these things having now been demonstrated by us, that the victory prizes be testified in addition to the argument of piety against the falsehood, and, having thrust aside all these their nominal technicalities, through which they join 20the creature to the creator and the product to the maker20, to confess, as the gospel from heaven teaches, a beloved Son, not illegitimate nor supposititious, and with the name of son, having also accepted all the natural affinity, to say true God from true God and likewise to believe all things about him that are seen in the Father, because they are one and the one is conceived in the other, not exceeding, not being diminished, not being altered or changed with respect to any God-befitting and good characteristic. 3.1.66 Since, therefore, Eunomius’ battle with himself has become manifest, in which he has been refuted saying contradictory things to himself, now saying that because he was begotten according to nature he ought to be named Son, and 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 attentively, since it is not possible for the truth to be found equally in two arguments that fight with each other, to cast out from both what is impious and blasphemous, I mean that which concerns the 20creature20 and the 20product20, and to assent only to that which looks to piety, which confesses that the title of Son belongs to the only-begotten God by nature, so that even through the voice of the enemies 3.1.67 the argument of piety might have its confirmation. And I say again, taking up the argument of his which I set forth from the beginning. 20Being begotten,20 he says, 20we do not refuse to call the son also an offspring, since the begotten essence itself and the title of Son claim for themselves such a relation of names.20 For now, then, let the one who hears what is said with discernment remember this, that by saying 20begotten essence20 of the only-begotten, he has consequently granted that we may also speak of the unbegotten [essence] of the Father, so that no longer are either unbegottenness or begottenness taken in place of essence, but essence is taken on its own, and its being begotten or not being begotten is understood on its own through the properties observed 3.1.68 in it. But let us understand the argument about this more diligently. He says that an essence has been begotten, and that Son is the name of the begotten essence. But in these things our argument will refute the opposing argument on two counts, first the attempt of malice, and second of that against us

271

ῥηθέντων ὁ φιλόπονος ἀναγνοὺς τῆς θείας γραφῆς τὰ ἐδάφη προσ αρμοσάτω τοῖς θεωρήμασι τὰ αἰνίγματα, δοκιμάσας εἰ μὴ παρὰ πολὺ κρεῖττόν ἐστι πρὸς τοῦτο βλέπειν οἴεσθαι τὴν τῶν αἰνιγμάτων διάνοιαν, καὶ μὴ κατὰ τὸ προχείρως ὑπο 3.1.62 νοούμενον. οὐ γὰρ ἔστι δυνατὸν τὴν τοῦ Ἰωάννου θεολο γίαν ἀληθῆ νομισθῆναι τὴν πάντα τὰ κτισθέντα ἔργον εἶναι τοῦ λόγου ὑμνήσασαν, εἴπερ ἐνταῦθα ὁ τὴν σοφίαν κτίσας μετ' αὐτῆς καὶ τὰ ἄλλα πάντα πεποιηκέναι πιστεύοιτο. οὐκέτι γὰρ δι' ἐκείνης ἔσται τὰ πάντα, ἀλλὰ μετὰ πάντων ἐκείνη τῶν γεγονότων ἀριθμηθήσεται. 3.1.63 Ὅτι δὲ πρὸς τοῦτο βλέπουσιν αἱ αἰνιγματώδεις φωναί, διὰ τοῦ ἐφεξῆς λόγου σαφῶς ἐκκαλύπτεται ὅς φησι Νῦν οὖν υἱὲ ἄκουσόν μου, καὶ Μακάριος ὃς τὰς ἐμὰς ὁδοὺς φυλάσσει, ὁδοὺς δηλαδὴ λέγων τὰς πρὸς τὴν ἀρετὴν ἐφόδους, ὧν 3.1.64 ἀρχὴ γίνεται τῆς σοφίας ἡ κτίσις. τίς τοίνυν πρὸς τὴν θείαν βλέπων γραφὴν οὐκ ἀσεβεῖς τε ὁμοῦ καὶ συκοφάντας εἶναι τοὺς ἐχθροὺς τῆς ἀληθείας συνθήσεται; ἀσεβεῖς μέν, ὅτι τὴν ἄρρητον τοῦ μονογενοῦς θεοῦ δόξαν, ὅσον ἐπ' αὐτοῖς, καθελόντες τῇ κτίσει συνάπτουσιν, ἓν τῶν παρ' αὐτοῦ γεγονότων ἀποδεικνύειν φιλονεικοῦντες τὸν κύριον, οὗ μονογενές ἐστι κατὰ πάντων τὸ κράτος· συκοφάντας δέ, ὅτι μηδεμίαν αὐτοῖς τῆς γραφῆς πρὸς τὰς τοιαύτας ὑπο λήψεις ἀφορμὴν παρασχομένης, ὡς ἐκεῖθεν ἐπαγόμενοι τὴν 3.1.65 μαρτυρίαν κατὰ τῆς εὐσεβείας ὁπλίζονται. ἐπεὶ οὖν παρ' οὐδενὸς ἔχουσι τῶν ἁγίων ἐπιδεῖξαί τινα φωνὴν ἥτις τὴν προαιώνιον τοῦ μονογενοῦς θεοῦ δόξαν μετὰ τῆς ὑποχειρίου κτίσεως ὁρᾶν συμβουλεύει, καλῶς ἂν ἔχοι τούτων ἡμῖν ἀπο δειχθέντων ἤδη προσμαρτυρηθῆναι τῷ τῆς εὐσεβείας λόγῳ κατὰ τοῦ ψεύδους τὰ νικητήρια, καὶ πάσας αὐτῶν τὰς ὀνοματικὰς ταύτας τεχνολογίας παρωσαμένους, δι' ὧν συναρ μόζουσι 20τὸ κτίσμα τῷ κτίσαντι καὶ τὸ ποίημα τῷ ποιήσαντι20, ὁμολογεῖν, καθὼς διδάσκει τὸ ἐξ οὐρανῶν εὐαγγέλιον, υἱὸν ἀγαπητόν, οὐ νόθον οὐδὲ ὑπόβλητον, τῇ δὲ τοῦ υἱοῦ φωνῇ πᾶσαν τὴν φυσικὴν οἰκειότητα συμπαρα δεξαμένους θεὸν ἀληθινὸν τὸν ἐκ τοῦ ἀληθινοῦ θεοῦ λέγειν καὶ τὰ πάντα ὡσαύτως ἐπ' αὐτοῦ πιστεύειν, ὅσα ἐν τῷ πατρὶ καθορᾶται, διότι ἕν εἰσι καὶ ἐν τῷ ἑτέρῳ νοεῖται τὸ ἕτερον, οὐχ ὑπερπῖπτον, οὐκ ἐλαττούμενον, οὐ κατά τινα θεοπρεπῆ τε καὶ ἀγαθὸν χαρακτῆρα παρηλ λαγμένον ἢ ἀλλοιούμενον. 3.1.66 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