275

to believe that the property of the transcendent essence is in him, since the voice of the Son likewise witnesses to both for him, the human in the man, and the divine in God. 3.1.94 If, then, the appellations, as Eunomius says, indicate what is proper, and this propriety is observed in the things themselves, not in the bare sounds of the names (and by things I mean <those> conceived of in themselves, if it is not too bold to speak thus of the Son and the Father), who could deny that the very champion of blasphemy is spontaneously drawn to the advocacy of piety, overthrowing his own arguments by himself and proclaiming the 3.1.95 community of essence in the divine doctrines? For the argument unwillingly put forth by him on behalf of the truth is not false in these matters, that he would not have been called Son, unless the natural meaning of the names verified the title. For just as a pedestal is not called the son of the artisan, nor would anyone in their right mind say that the builder begot the house, nor do we name the vineyard the offspring of the vinedresser, but the construction is the work of a man, while the son of a man is the one begotten from him, so that, I think, what is fitting might be signified by the names in the subjects, so too, having been taught that the Only-begotten is the Son of God, we have not understood him to be a 20creature20 of God through this appellation, but what the term 'Son' truly indicates by its meaning. 3.1.96 But if wine is also called the offspring of the vine by Scripture, not even so will the argument concerning the doctrines of piety be harmed by this homonymy. For we do not say wine is the offspring of an oak, nor an acorn of a vine, but if there is any fellowship in nature of the offspring 3.1.97 with its origin. For the moisture in the vine, drawn up through the bottom of the root by the pith, is in potentiality water, but proceeding by a certain sequence through the pathways of nature and flowing from the lower parts to what is above, it changes to the quality of wine, with the sun's ray also cooperating, which by its heat draws the liquid from the depth to the shoot and through its own proper and suitable digestion makes the sap into wine; so that according to nature, the moisture inherent in the vine has no foreignness to the wine that is produced from 3.1.98 it. For from that liquid comes this liquid, and one could state no other cause of the wine's liquidity than the moisture naturally inherent in the vine shoots. But the differences of qualities do not produce any variation in the liquid, but some property distinguishing the liquid in the wine from that in the shoot, † of astringency or sweetness or liquidity † accompanying one or the other of these, so that in its subject it is the same, but it differs in the differences of its qualities. 3.1.99 Therefore, just as, having heard from Scripture that the Only-begotten God is the Son of Man, we have learned through the relation of the name his kinship with true man, so also if the Son is called 20offspring20 according to the argument of our opponents, we learn no less through this his essential kinship with the one who begot him, because wine, too, being called the offspring of the vine, is found not to be foreign in respect of its liquidity to the power naturally 3.1.100 inherent in the vine. But if one were to examine soundly what is said by our opponents, it looks toward our dogma, but their thought contradicts their own constructions, since they are eager everywhere to construct an essential foreignness. And yet it is altogether difficult to conjecture from where they were led to such 3.1.101 assumptions. For if the appellation 'Son' does not simply signify being from something, but specifically represents the natural kinship through what is signified, as Eunomius himself says, and wine is not called the offspring of an oak, and the offspring of vipers, as the Gospel somewhere says, are snakes and not sheep, it is clear that also in the case of the Only-begotten, both the

275

ὑπερεχούσης οὐσίας ἰδίωμα ἐν αὐτῷ πιστεύειν εἶναι, τῆς τοῦ υἱοῦ φωνῆς ὁμοίως αὐτῷ μαρτυρούσης ἑκάτερον, ἐν τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ μὲν τὸ ἀν θρώπινον, ἐν δὲ τῷ θεῷ τὸ θεῖον. 3.1.94 Εἰ οὖν αἱ προσηγορίαι, καθώς φησιν ὁ Εὐνόμιος, τὸ οἰκεῖον ἐνδείκνυνται, ἡ δὲ οἰκειότης ἐν τοῖς πράγμασιν, οὐκ ἐν ψιλαῖς θεωρεῖται ταῖς τῶν ὀνομάτων φωναῖς (πράγματα δέ φημι <τὰ> καθ' ἑαυτὰ νοούμενα, εἰ μὴ τολμηρὸν οὕτως εἰπεῖν τὸν υἱόν τε καὶ τὸν πατέρα), τίς ἂν ἀντείποι μὴ οὐχὶ καὶ αὐτὸν τὸν τῆς βλασφημίας προστάτην αὐτο μάτως πρὸς τὴν συνηγορίαν τῆς εὐσεβείας καθελκυσθῆναι, δι' ἑαυτοῦ τοὺς οἰκείους ἀνατρέποντα λόγους καὶ τὸ τῆς 3.1.95 οὐσίας κοινὸν ἐπὶ τῶν θείων δογμάτων ἀνακηρύσσοντα; οὐ γὰρ ψεύδεται περὶ τούτων ἀκουσίως παρ' αὐτοῦ προσριφεὶς ὑπὲρ τῆς ἀληθείας ὁ λόγος, ὅτι οὐκ ἂν ἐκλήθη υἱός, μὴ τῆς φυσικῆς τῶν ὀνομάτων ἐννοίας ἐπαληθευούσης τὴν κλῆσιν. ὡς γὰρ οὐ λέγεται βάθρον υἱὸς τοῦ τεχνίτου οὐδ' ἄν τις εἴποι τῶν σωφρονούντων ὅτι ὁ οἰκοδόμος τὴν οἰκίαν ἐτεκνώσατο οὐδὲ γέννημα τοῦ ἀμπελουργοῦ τὸν ἀμπελῶνα κατονομάζομεν, ἀλλ' ἔργον μὲν ἀνθρώπου τὸ κατασκεύασμα, υἱὸν δὲ ἀνθρώπου τὸν ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεννώμενον, ὡς ἄν, οἶμαι, τὸ πρόσφορον διὰ τῶν ὀνομάτων ἐν τοῖς ὑποκειμένοις σημαί νοιτο, οὕτως καὶ υἱὸν θεοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ διδαχθέντες οὐ 20κτίσμα20 θεοῦ διὰ τῆς προσηγορίας ἐνοήσαμεν ταύτης, ἀλλ' ὅπερ ἀληθῶς ἡ τοῦ υἱοῦ φωνὴ τῷ σημαινομένῳ ἐνδείκνυται. 3.1.96 εἰ δὲ καὶ ἀμπέλου γέννημα ὁ οἶνος ὑπὸ τῆς γραφῆς ὀνο μάζεται, οὐδὲ οὕτως ἐκ τῆς ὁμωνυμίας ταύτης ἐπὶ τῶν τῆς εὐσεβείας δογμάτων ὁ λόγος παραβλαβήσεται. οὐ γὰρ δρυὸς γέννημα τὸν οἶνόν φαμεν οὐδὲ ἀμπέλου τὴν βάλανον, ἀλλ' εἴ τίς ἐστι κοινωνία κατὰ τὴν φύσιν τοῦ γεννήματος 3.1.97 πρὸς τὸ ὅθεν ἐστίν. ἡ γὰρ ἐν τῇ ἀμπέλῳ νοτὶς διὰ τοῦ πυθμένος τῆς ῥίζης ὑπὸ τῆς ἐντεριώνης ἐξελκομένη τῇ δυνάμει μὲν ὕδωρ ἐστίν, ἀκολουθίᾳ δέ τινι διὰ τῶν ὁδῶν τῆς φύσεως πορευομένη καὶ ἐκ τῶν κατωτέρων πρὸς τὸ ὑπερκείμενον μεταρρέουσα πρὸς οἴνου μεταβάλλει ποιότητα, συνεργούσης τι καὶ τῆς ἡλιακῆς ἀκτῖνος, ἣ διὰ τῆς θερ μότητος τὸ ὑγρὸν ἐκ τοῦ βάθους ἐπὶ τὴν βλάστην ἐξέλ κουσα διὰ τῆς οἰκείας καὶ καταλλήλου πέψεως οἶνον τὴν ἰκμάδα ποιεῖ· ὥστε κατὰ φύσιν μὲν μηδεμίαν ἀλλοτριότητα τὴν ἐγκειμένην τῇ ἀμπέλῳ νοτίδα πρὸς τὸν οἶνον τὸν ἐξ 3.1.98 αὐτῆς ἀπογεννώμενον ἔχειν. ἐξ ἐκείνου γὰρ τοῦ ὑγροῦ τὸ ὑγρὸν τοῦτο, καὶ οὐκ ἄν τις ἑτέραν τῆς τοῦ οἴνου ὑγρότητος αἰτίαν εἴποι, εἰ μὴ τὴν φυσικῶς ἐγκειμένην ταῖς κληματίσι νοτίδα. αἱ δὲ τῶν ποιοτήτων διαφοραὶ οὔ τινα κατὰ τὸ ὑγρὸν παραλλαγὴν ἐμποιοῦσιν, ἀλλά τινος ἰδιότητος τὸ ἐν τῷ οἴνῳ ὑγρὸν ἀπὸ τῆς ἐν τῷ κλήματι διακρινούσης † στύ ψεως ἢ γλυκύτητος ἢ ὑγρότητος † θατέρῳ τούτων παρο μαρτούσης, ὥστε τῷ μὲν ὑποκειμένῳ ταὐτὸν εἶναι, ταῖς δὲ τῶν ποιοτήτων διαφοραῖς ἐξαλλάσσειν. 3.1.99 Οὐκοῦν ὥσπερ υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου τὸν μονογενῆ θεὸν παρὰ τῆς γραφῆς ἀκηκοότες διὰ τῆς τοῦ ὀνόματος σχέσεως τὴν πρὸς τὸν ἀληθινὸν ἄνθρωπον οἰκειότητα μεμαθήκαμεν, οὕτω κἂν 20γέννημα20 κατὰ τὸν λόγον τῶν ὑπεναντίων ὁ υἱὸς λέγηται, οὐδὲν ἧττον καὶ διὰ τούτου τὸ κατ' οὐσίαν οἰκεῖον αὐτοῦ πρὸς τὸν γεγεννηκότα μανθάνομεν, διὰ τὸ καὶ τὸν οἶνον γέννημα τῆς ἀμπέλου λεγόμενον μὴ ἀλλότριον εὑρεθῆναι κατὰ τὸν τῆς ὑγρότητος λόγον τῆς φυσικῶς 3.1.100 ἐγκειμένης τῇ ἀμπέλῳ δυνάμεως. ἀλλὰ τὰ μὲν λεγόμενα παρὰ τῶν ὑπεναντίων εἴ τις ὑγιῶς ἐξετάζοι, πρὸς τὸ ἡμέ τερον δόγμα βλέπει, ἡ δὲ διάνοια ταῖς ἰδίαις αὐτῶν κα τασκευαῖς ἀντιφθέγγεται, πανταχοῦ τὸ κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν ἀλλότριον κατασκευάζειν φιλονεικούντων. καίτοι γε παντά πασιν ἄπορόν ἐστι καταστοχάσασθαι, ὅθεν πρὸς τὰς τοιαύτας 3.1.101 ὑπολήψεις ὑπήχθησαν. εἰ γὰρ ἡ τοῦ υἱοῦ προσηγορία οὐχ ἁπλῶς τὸ ἔκ τινος εἶναι σημαίνει, ἀλλ' ἰδίως τὴν κατὰ φύσιν οἰκείωσιν διὰ τοῦ σημαινομένου παρίστησιν, ὡς αὐτός φησιν ὁ Εὐνόμιος, καὶ γέννημα δρυὸς οἶνος οὐ λέγεται, καὶ γεννήματα τῶν ἐχιδνῶν, καθώς φησί που τὸ εὐαγγέ λιον, ὄφεις εἰσὶ καὶ οὐ πρόβατα, δῆλον ὅτι καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ μονογενοῦς ἥ τε τοῦ