274

made no variation, so also in the case of the pure doctrines, the only-begotten God in no way altered in himself through his own generation the essence of the unbegotten, having come forth from the Father and being in the Father, as the gospel says, but is, according to the simple and plain account of our faith, light from light, true God from true God, being all 3.1.86 that the other is, except for being that one. But the purpose for which he artfully goes through these things, I think I need not state at present, whether it is bold and hazardous or permitted and safe to transfer the significant words regarding the divine nature from one thing to another and to call the one begotten 20offspring20. 3.1.87 I pass over these things, so that our argument, by engaging more than is necessary in the battle over smaller things, may not neglect the greater; but I say we must consider accurately that point, whether the natural relation introduces the use of these names; for he says this absolutely, that with the affinity of the titles, the affinity in essence is also introduced; for he would not say that the bare names in themselves, separated from the meaning of the things signified, have some relation and affinity to one another; but in the meanings indicated by the words, we distinguish the affinity 3.1.88 and the otherness of the titles. Therefore, if he confesses that the Son has a natural relation to the Father, let us leave aside the titles and consider the force in the things signified, whether the otherness of essence is understood in the affinity, or what is kindred and proper. But to say what is other is a sign of manifest madness. For how will anyone, through things that are foreign and have no communion, preserve a connected and kindred order in the names, 20when the very essence that was begotten20, as he says, 20and the title of Son, appropriate such a relation of the names 3.1.89?20 If he should say that affinity is signified through these titles, he will of necessity appear as an advocate for the community of essence through the affinity of the names, both establishing that the connection of the hypostases is signified, and doing this in many places of his treatise without realizing it. For through the things by which he attempts to tear down the truth, he is often drawn down unwillingly to 3.1.90 an advocacy of the doctrines he attacks. Such a thing we have also heard from history concerning Saul, that once, being moved with anger against those prophesying, he was overcome by grace and was one of those inspired by God, as the prophetic spirit, I think, wished to discipline the apostate through himself; whence the unexpectedness of the event became a proverb for later life, as the history recounts this wonderingly: Is Saul also among the prophets? 3.1.91 In what things, then, does Eunomius agree with the truth? In those things where he says that 20the Lord himself, being the Son of the living God, not being ashamed of his birth from the virgin, often called himself Son of Man in his own words20. For we also bring forth this argument as proof of the community of essence, that the name of Son indicates an equal 3.1.92 communion of nature in both respects. For just as he is called Son of Man because of the kinship of his flesh to her from whom he was born, so also is he certainly understood as Son of God because of the connection of his essence to that from which he subsisted. And this argument is the greatest weapon of the truth. For nothing so demonstrates the mediator between God and men, as the great apostle named him, as the name of Son, being applied equally to each nature, both the divine and the human. For the same one is both Son of God and became Son of Man according to the economy, so that by communion with each he might join through himself 3.1.93 the things separated by nature. If, therefore, having become Son of Man he was without a share in human nature, it would follow to say that, being Son of God, he did not share in the divine essence either. But if the whole human constitution was in him (for He was tempted in all things in like manner, without sin), it is entirely necessary and all of the

274

παραλλαγὴν οὐκ ἐποίησεν, οὕτως καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀκηράτων δογμάτων οὐδὲν ἐν ἑαυτῷ διὰ τῆς ἰδίας γεννήσεως τὴν τοῦ μὴ γεννηθέντος οὐσίαν ἠλλοίωσεν ὁ μονογενὴς θεός, ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐξελθὼν καὶ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ ὤν, καθὼς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον λέγει, ἀλλ' ἐστὶ κατὰ τὸν ἁπλοῦν τε καὶ ἰδιωτικὸν τῆς καθ' ἡμᾶς πίστεως λόγον φῶς ἐκ φωτός, θεὸς ἀληθινὸς ἐκ θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, πάντα ὢν οὗτος 3.1.86 ὅσα ἐστὶν ἐκεῖνος πλὴν τοῦ ἐκεῖνος εἶναι. τὸν δὲ σκοπὸν οὗ χάριν ταῦτα τεχνολογῶν διεξέρχεται οὐδὲν οἶμαι δεῖν ἐν τῷ παρόντι λέγειν, εἴτε τολμηρόν τε καὶ κινδυνῶδες εἴτε συγκεχωρημένον ἐστὶ καὶ ἀκίνδυνον τὸ παρασχηματίζειν ἔκ τινος εἴς τι τὰς σημαντικὰς ἐπὶ τῆς θείας φύσεως λέ ξεις καὶ 20γέννημα20 λέγειν τὸν γεννηθέντα. 3.1.87 Παρίημι ταῦτα, ὡς ἂν μὴ τῇ πρὸς τὰ μικρότερα μάχῃ πέρα τοῦ δέοντος ὁ λόγος ἡμῖν ἐνασχολούμενος ἀμε λοίη τοῦ μείζονος· ἀλλ' ἐκεῖνό φημι δεῖν ἀκριβῶς κατα νοῆσαι, εἰ ἡ κατὰ φύσιν σχέσις παρεισάγει τῶν ὀνομάτων τούτων τὴν χρῆσιν· τοῦτο γὰρ ἐκεῖνός φησι πάντως, ὅτι τῇ τῶν προσηγοριῶν οἰκειότητι καὶ τὸ κατ' οὐσίαν οἰκεῖον συμπαρεισάγεται· οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἐφ' ἑαυτῶν ψιλὰ τὰ ὀνόματα τῆς τῶν σημαινομένων ἐμφάσεως διεζευγμένα σχέσιν ἔχειν τινὰ πρὸς ἄλληλα καὶ οἰκειότητα φήσειε· ἀλλ' ἐν ταῖς σημασίαις ταῖς ὑπὸ τῶν λέξεων δηλουμέναις τὸ οἰκεῖόν τε 3.1.88 καὶ ἀλλότριον τῶν προσηγοριῶν διακρίνομεν. οὐκοῦν εἰ φυσικὴν ἔχειν ὁμολογεῖ σχέσιν τὸν υἱὸν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, καταλιπόντες τὰς προσηγορίας τὴν ἐν τοῖς σημαινομένοις κατανοήσωμεν δύναμιν, πότερον τὸ ἀλλότριον τῆς οὐσίας ἐν οἰκειότητι κατανοεῖται ἢ τὸ συγγενές τε καὶ ἴδιον. ἀλλὰ τὸ μὲν ἀλλότριον εἰπεῖν φανερᾶς μανίας ἐστίν. πῶς γάρ τις διὰ τῶν ξένων τε καὶ ἀκοινωνήτων συναφῆ τε καὶ οἰκεῖαν ἐν τοῖς ὀνόμασι διασώσει τάξιν, 20τῆς γεννη θείσης αὐτῆς οὐσίας20, καθώς φησι, 20καὶ τῆς τοῦ υἱοῦ προσηγορίας τὴν τοιαύτην τῶν ὀνομάτων 3.1.89 οἰκειουμένης σχέσιν20; εἰ δὲ τὸ οἰκεῖον διὰ τῶν προσ ηγοριῶν τούτων ἀποσημαίνεσθαι λέγοι, συνήγορος ἐξ ἀνάγ κης τοῦ κοινοῦ τῆς οὐσίας ἀναφανήσεται διὰ τῆς τῶν ὀνο μάτων οἰκειότητος, καὶ τὸ τῶν ὑποκειμένων συναφὲς κα τασκευάζων σημαίνεσθαι καὶ τοῦτο πολλαχοῦ τῆς λογο γραφίας ποιῶν οὐκ ἐπίσταται. δι' ὧν γὰρ ἐπιχειρεῖ καθαι ρεῖν τὴν ἀλήθειαν, ἀκουσίως πολλάκις καθέλκεται πρὸς 3.1.90 συνηγορίαν τῶν πολεμουμένων δογμάτων. οἷόν τι καὶ περὶ τοῦ Σαοὺλ ἐκ τῆς ἱστορίας ἠκούσαμεν, ὅτι θυμῷ ποτε κατὰ τῶν προφητευόντων κινούμενος ἡττήθη τῆς χάριτος καὶ τῶν θεοφορουμένων εἷς ἦν, τοῦ προφητικοῦ πνεύματος, ὡς οἶμαι, δι' ἑαυτοῦ τὸν ἀποστάτην παιδεῦσαι θελήσαντος· ὅθεν τὸ παράλογον τῆς συντυχίας παροιμία τῷ μετὰ ταῦτα γέγονε βίῳ, θαυμαστικῶς τῆς ἱστορίας τὸ τοιοῦτο διεξιούσης· Ἢ καὶ Σαοὺλ ἐν προφήταις; 3.1.91 Ἐν τίσιν οὖν ὁ Εὐνόμιος τῇ ἀληθείᾳ συνίσταται; ἐν οἷς φησιν ὅτι 20αὐτὸς ὁ κύριος υἱὸς ὢν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος τὴν ἐκ τῆς παρθένου γέννησιν οὐκ ἐπαισχυνόμενος ἐν τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ λόγοις υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου πολλάκις ὠνόμασεν ἑαυτόν20. τοῦτον γὰρ καὶ ἡμεῖς τὸν λόγον εἰς ἀπόδειξιν τοῦ κοινοῦ τῆς οὐσίας προφέρομεν, ὅτι τοῦ υἱοῦ τὸ ὄνομα ἴσην κατ' ἀμ 3.1.92 φότερα τὴν τῆς φύσεως κοινωνίαν ἐνδείκνυται. ὡς γὰρ υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου λέγεται διὰ τὴν τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ πρὸς τὴν ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήθη συγγένειαν, οὕτω καὶ τοῦ θεοῦ πάντως υἱὸς νοεῖται διὰ τὴν τῆς οὐσίας αὐτοῦ πρὸς τὴν ἐξ ἧς ὑπέστη συνάφειαν. καὶ τὸ μέγιστον τῆς ἀληθείας ὅπλον οὗτος ὁ λόγος ἐστίν. τὸν γὰρ μεσίτην θεοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπων, καθὼς ὠνόμασεν ὁ μέγας ἀπόστολος, οὐδὲν οὕτως ὡς τὸ τοῦ υἱοῦ δείκνυσιν ὄνομα, ἑκατέρᾳ φύσει, τῇ θείᾳ τε καὶ ἀνθρωπίνῃ, κατὰ τὸ ἴσον ἐφαρμοζόμενον. ὁ γὰρ αὐτὸς καὶ θεοῦ υἱός ἐστι καὶ υἱὸς ἀνθρώπου κατ' οἰκονομίαν ἐγένετο, ἵνα τῇ πρὸς ἑκάτερον κοινωνίᾳ δι' ἑαυτοῦ συνάψῃ 3.1.93 τὰ διεστῶτα τῇ φύσει. εἰ μὲν οὖν ἀνθρώπου γενόμενος υἱὸς ἀμέτοχος ἦν τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης φύσεως, ἀκόλουθον ἂν ἦν θεοῦ υἱὸν ὄντα αὐτὸν μηδὲ κοινωνεῖν τῆς θείας οὐσίας λέγειν. εἰ δὲ πᾶν τὸ ἀνθρώπινον σύγκριμα ἐν αὐτῷ ἦν (Ἐπειράθη γὰρ κατὰ πάντα καθ' ὁμοιότητα χωρὶς ἁμαρ τίας), ἀνάγκη πᾶσα καὶ πᾶν τῆς