272

the weakness of the argument. For he speaks maliciously of a generation of substance, in order to construct an opposition of the substances to each other, split by the generated and the ungenerated into a difference of nature. But the absurdity of the argument is refuted by the very means through which the malice 3.1.69 is constructed. For the one who said that the substance has been generated clearly defines generation to be something other than the substance, so that the meaning of generation could not be applied to the definition of substance. For he has not done in this part what he constructed in many places, namely, to say that generation itself is substance, but he confesses that the substance was generated, so that a distinct notion arises in the hearers for each term, for one idea comes to the one hearing 'it was generated' and another through the name of 'substance'. But the argument might become clearer to us through 3.1.70 examples. The Lord said in the gospel that when the travail approaches, the woman is in sorrow, but after this she rejoices with joy, because a man was born into the world. As, therefore, in this passage we learn two distinct meanings from the gospel, one the birth which we understood through the term 'generation', and the other the very thing that comes from the birth (for the birth is not the man, but through the birth is the man), so also here, since Eunomius confessed that the substance was generated, by the preceding verb we were taught the 'from something,' and by the following one we understood the subject itself, whose 3.1.71 existence is from something. If, then, the meaning of 'substance' is one thing, and the term 'generation' suggests we understand another, their clever devices have suddenly fallen apart, like earthenware vessels dashed against each other and shattered by each other. For it will no longer be possible for them, when they transfer the distinction of the generated from the ungenerated to the substance of the Son and of the Father, to transfer along with it to the realities the 3.1.72 conflict of the names with each other. For since it was confessed by Eunomius that the substance was generated, just as the gospel example also interprets such a meaning, in which, learning that the man was generated, we did not understand the man to be the same as the generation, but received a distinct idea for each of the names, the heresy will no longer have any ground at all for dogmatizing about the difference of the substances through such terms. 3.1.73 But so that the argument concerning these things might be revealed to us most clearly, we will take up the subject again in this way. He who established the universe made human nature in the beginning along with all things, and after Adam came to be, He then legislated for human beings generation from one another, saying, 'Increase and multiply.' Since, therefore, Abel came to be by generation, who of those who are right-minded would not say, according to the very meaning of human generation, 3.1.74 that Adam came to be ungeneratedly? And yet the first man had in himself the whole definition of human substance, and the one generated from him is likewise described by the same definition of substance. But if the generated substance were constructed as something different from the non-generated, the same definition of substance would not have applied to both. For of those whose substance is different, the definition of the substance is not the same. Since, therefore, the substance of Adam and that of Abel are characterized by the same properties, it is altogether necessary to agree that there is one substance in both, but that one and another person is shown in the same nature. 3.1.75 For Adam and Abel, in the definition of their nature, the two are one, but in the properties observed in each of them they have an unconfused distinction from each other. Therefore it is not possible to say properly that Adam generated another substance besides himself, but rather that from himself he generated another self, to whom the whole definition of the substance of the one who generated 3.1.76 was imparted. What, therefore, we have learned regarding human nature through the guidance previously shown to us by the argument in a consistent manner, this I think we must also apply to the undefiled of the

272

ἐπιχειρήσεως τὴν ἀτονίαν. κακουργεῖ μὲν γὰρ γέννησιν οὐσίας λέγων, ἵνα κατασκευάσῃ τὴν πρὸς ἀλλήλας τῶν οὐσιῶν ἐναντίωσιν, τῷ γεννητῷ τε καὶ ἀγεν νήτῳ πρὸς ἑτερότητα φύσεως διεσχισμένας. ἐλέγχεται δὲ τὸ τῆς ἐπιχειρήσεως ἄτονον δι' αὐτῶν ὧν ἡ κακουργία 3.1.69 κατασκευάζεται. ὁ γὰρ γεγεννῆσθαι τὴν οὐσίαν εἰπὼν ἕτε ρόν τι τὴν γέννησιν εἶναι παρὰ τὴν οὐσίαν σαφῶς διορί ζεται, ὡς μὴ ἂν τὸ σημαινόμενον τῆς γεννήσεως τῷ τῆς οὐσίας ἐφαρμοσθῆναι λόγῳ. οὐ γὰρ ὅπερ ἐν πολλοῖς κατε σκεύασε, τοῦτο καὶ ἐν τῷ μέρει τούτῳ πεποίηκεν, ὥστε αὐτὴν εἰπεῖν οὐσίαν εἶναι τὴν γέννησιν, ἀλλὰ γεννηθῆναι ὁμολογεῖ τὴν οὐσίαν, ὡς διακεκριμένην ἐφ' ἑκατέρας φωνῆς τοῖς ἀκούουσιν ἐγγενέσθαι τὴν ἔννοιαν, ἄλλο γάρ τι νόημα γίνεται τῷ ὅτι ἐγεννήθη ἀκούσαντι καὶ ἄλλο διὰ τοῦ τῆς οὐσίας ὀνόματος. σαφέστερος δὲ γένοιτ' ἂν ἡμῖν διὰ τῶν 3.1.70 ὑποδειγμάτων ὁ λόγος. εἶπεν ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ ὁ κύριος ὅτι προσεγγιζούσης τῆς ὠδῖνος ἐν λύπῃ γίνεται ἡ γυνή, μετὰ ταῦτα δὲ χαρᾷ χαίρει, ὅτι ἐγεννήθη ἄνθρωπος εἰς τὸν κόσμον. ὡς τοίνυν ἐν τῷ μέρει τούτῳ δύο νοήματα διακεκριμένα παρὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου μανθάνομεν, ἓν μὲν τὸν τόκον ὃν διὰ τῆς γεννήσεως ἐνοήσαμεν, ἕτερον δὲ αὐτὸ τὸ ἐκ τοῦ τόκου γινόμενον (οὐ γὰρ ὁ τόκος ἐστὶν ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ἀλλὰ διὰ τοῦ τόκου ὁ ἄνθρωπος), οὕτω καὶ ἐνταῦθα τοῦ Εὐνομίου γεννηθῆναι τὴν οὐσίαν ὁμολογήσαντος τῷ μὲν προ άγοντι ῥήματι τὸ ἔκ τινος ἐδιδάχθημεν, τῷ δὲ ἐφεξῆς αὐτὸ τὸ ὑποκείμενον ἐνοήσαμεν, ᾧ ἐκ τοῦ τινός ἐστιν ἡ ὑπό 3.1.71 στασις. εἰ οὖν ἄλλο μέν ἐστιν τῆς οὐσίας τὸ σημαινόμενον, ἕτερον δὲ ἡ τῆς γεννήσεως φωνὴ νοεῖν ὑποτίθεται, δια πέπτωκεν ἀθρόως αὐτοῖς τὰ σοφὰ μηχανήματα, ὥσπερ ὀστράκινα σκεύη ἀλλήλοις προσαραχθέντα καὶ δι' ἀλλήλων διατρυφθέντα. οὐκέτι γὰρ αὐτοῖς ἐξέσται τὴν τοῦ γεννητοῦ πρὸς τὸ ἀγέννητον διαστολὴν ἐπὶ τῆς τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίας μεταφέρουσι συμμεταφέρειν ἐπὶ τὰ πράγματα τὴν 3.1.72 πρὸς ἄλληλα τῶν ὀνομάτων μάχην. ὁμολογηθέντος γὰρ παρὰ τοῦ Εὐνομίου ὅτι ἐγεννήθη ἡ οὐσία, καθὼς καὶ τὸ εὐαγγελικὸν ὑπόδειγμα τὴν τοιαύτην ἑρμηνεύει διάνοιαν, ἐν ᾧ τὸν ἄνθρωπον γεννηθῆναι μαθόντες οὐ ταὐτὸν ἐνοή σαμεν τῇ γεννήσει τὸν ἄνθρωπον, ἀλλ' ἴδιον ἐφ' ἑκατέρου τῶν ὀνομάτων ἐδεξάμεθα νόημα, οὐκέτι χώραν ἕξει πάντως ἡ αἵρεσις τὴν ἑτερότητα τῶν οὐσιῶν διὰ τῶν τοιούτων φωνῶν δογματίζουσα. 3.1.73 Ὡς δ' ἂν μάλιστα σαφέστερον ἡμῖν ὁ περὶ τούτων λόγος ἐκκαλυφθείη, οὑτωσὶ τὸ προκείμενον πάλιν διαληψό μεθα. ἐποίησε τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην φύσιν κατ' ἀρχὰς μετὰ πάντων ὁ τὸ πᾶν συστησάμενος, καὶ μετὰ τὸ γενέσθαι τὸν Ἀδὰμ τότε τὴν ἐξ ἀλλήλων γέννησιν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἐνο μοθέτησεν εἰπὼν Αὐξάνεσθε καὶ πληθύνεσθε. τοῦ τοίνυν Ἄβελ γεννητῶς ὑποστάντος, τίς οὐκ ἂν εἴποι τῶν εὖ φρο νούντων κατ' αὐτὸ τὸ τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης γεννήσεως σημαι 3.1.74 νόμενον ἀγεννήτως τὸν Ἀδὰμ ὑποστῆναι; ἀλλὰ μὴν ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος ὅλον ἔσχεν ἐν ἑαυτῷ τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης οὐσίας τὸν ὅρον, καὶ ὁ ἐξ ἐκείνου γεννηθεὶς ὡσαύτως ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ τῆς οὐσίας ὑπογράφεται λόγῳ. εἰ δὲ ἄλλη τις ἡ γεννηθεῖσα οὐσία παρὰ τὴν μὴ γεννηθεῖσαν κατεσκευάζετο, οὐκ ἂν ἐπ' ἀμφοτέρων ὁ αὐτὸς τῆς οὐσίας ἥρμοσε λόγος. ὧν γὰρ ἡ οὐσία διάφορος, τούτων οὐδὲ ὁ λόγος ἐστὶν ὁ αὐτὸς τῆς οὐσίας. ἐπεὶ οὖν τοῖς αὐτοῖς χαρακτηρίζεται ἰδιώμασιν ἥ τε τοῦ Ἀδὰμ καὶ ἡ τοῦ Ἄβελ οὐσία, πᾶσα ἀνάγκη μίαν μὲν οὐσίαν ἐπ' ἀμφοτέροις εἶναι συντίθεσθαι, ἄλλον δὲ καὶ ἄλλον τὸν ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ φύσει δεικνύμενον. 3.1.75 ὁ γὰρ Ἀδὰμ καὶ ὁ Ἄβελ ἐν μὲν τῷ λόγῳ τῆς φύσεως εἷς οἱ δύο εἰσίν, ἐν δὲ τοῖς ἐπιθεωρουμένοις ἑκατέρῳ αὐτῶν ἰδιώμασιν ἀσύγχυτον ἔχουσι τὴν ἀπ' ἀλλήλων διάκρισιν. οὐκοῦν οὐκ ἔστι κυρίως εἰπεῖν ὅτι ὁ Ἀδὰμ οὐσίαν παρ' αὐτὸν ἄλλην ἐγέννησεν, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον ὅτι ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ ἐγέν νησεν ἄλλον ἑαυτόν, ᾧ πᾶς ὁ τῆς τοῦ γεννήσαντος οὐσίας 3.1.76 συναπετέχθη λόγος. ὅπερ οὖν ἐπὶ τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης μεμα θήκαμεν φύσεως διὰ τῆς κατὰ τὸ ἀκόλουθον ὑπὸ τοῦ λόγου προδειχθείσης ἡμῖν ὁδηγίας, τοῦτο οἶμαι δεῖν καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν ἀκήρατον τῶν