277

of that which is moved, by this very inability to grasp with our reasonings we contemplate the incomparable nature of its greatness; and what was said by the Lord to the Samaritan woman, but brought forward against us by our enemies, would more properly be said to them. For "You worship what you do not know," says the Lord to the Samaritan woman, who was prejudiced by corporeal notions in her beliefs about God, whom the word rightly censures, because the Samaritans, thinking they worship God, and then supposing that the divine is corporeally established in a place, are pious only in word, worshipping something else and not God. 3.1.110 For nothing conceived within a boundary is divine; but it is proper to the Godhead to be everywhere and to pervade all things and to be confined by nothing, so that the saying brought against us is turned back upon those who fight against Christ as an accusation against them. For just as the Samaritans, thinking that the divine is contained in some local boundary, were rebuked by what they heard, that "You worship what you do not know," and "your worship directed to God is unprofitable," for a god thought to be established in some place is not God, - so would it be proper to say also to the new Samaritans that, because you suppose that the divine substance is contained by the name of unbegottenness as if by some place, "You worship what you do not know," since you worship Him as God, but are ignorant that the indefinable nature of God surpasses all meaning and comprehension derived from names. 3.1.111 But our argument has been carried further than the matter at hand, following the points that continually arise in sequence. Therefore let us resume the sequence, since I think his proposed saying has been sufficiently shown by what has been said to be contrary not only to the truth, 3.1.112 but also to itself. For if according to them the natural relation is established by the title of Son in relation to the Father and that of offspring in relation to the one who begot, through some grammatical nonsense, their wisdom misrepresenting the words which signify the divine nature into a form of names, no one would any longer doubt that the relation between the names which is established by nature becomes a proof of their affinity in substance, or rather, 3.1.113 of their identity. But let my argument take up the contrary voice, so that it might not seem that the dogma of piety is strengthened only by the weakness of its opponents, but that it has its strength most of all in itself. As it is possible then, let the opposing argument be confirmed by us ourselves through a more vigorous advocacy, so that the excess of its power might be discerned with much confidence, even bringing forward the points omitted by our opponents for a precise examination of our truth. For perhaps one who argues for the opponents will say, that the title of "son" and "offspring" does not in every case indicate what is proper according to nature. 3.1.114 For in Scripture someone is called a "child of wrath," and a "son of destruction," and an "offspring of vipers," and surely no community of nature is indicated by such names. For Judas the subject, who was named the "son of destruction," is not the same as destruction itself as it is conceived. 3.1.115 For the meaning of the man Judas is one thing, and the meaning of destruction is another. And similarly from the opposite side the argument has the same structure. For certain men who are called "sons of light" and "sons of day" are not the same as the light and the day according to the principle of nature, and the stones become children of Abraham, when through faith and works they appropriate the kinship with him, and those who are led by the Spirit of God, as the apostle says, are called sons of God, not being the same as God according to nature, and many such things can be gathered from the divinely inspired Scripture, by which deception, like some image adorned with scriptural testimonies, impersonates the phantom of truth. 3.1.116 What then do we say to this? The divine Scripture knows how to use the term "son" in both senses, so that for some it is by nature, while for others the

277

κυνουμένου, αὐτῷ τῷ μὴ δύνασθαι τοῖς λογισμοῖς κατα λαβεῖν ἀναλογιζόμενοι τὸ τοῦ μεγέθους ἀνείκαστον· καὶ τὸ πρὸς τὴν Σαμαρεῖτιν παρὰ τοῦ κυρίου ῥηθέν, καθ' ἡμῶν δὲ παρὰ τῶν ἐχθρῶν προφερόμενον, πρὸς ἐκείνους ἂν μᾶλ λον κυρίως λέγοιτο. τὸ γὰρ Ὑμεῖς προσκυνεῖτε ὃ οὐκ οἴδατε φησὶ πρὸς τὴν Σαμαρεῖτιν ὁ κύριος, σωματικαῖς ἐννοίαις ἐν ταῖς περὶ θεοῦ δόξαις προειλημμένην, ἧς καλῶς ὁ λόγος καθάπτεται, ὅτι θεὸν προσκυνεῖν οἱ Σαμαρεῖται νομίζοντες εἶτα σωματικῶς ἐγκαθιδρῦσθαι τόπῳ τὸ θεῖον οἰόμενοι μέχρι τῆς φωνῆς εὐσεβοῦσιν, ἄλλο τι προσκυ 3.1.110 νοῦντες καὶ οὐ θεόν. οὐδὲν γὰρ ἐν περιγραφῇ νοούμενον θεῖόν ἐστιν· ἀλλ' ἴδιον τῆς θεότητος τὸ πανταχοῦ εἶναι καὶ διὰ πάντων ἥκειν καὶ μηδενὶ περιείργεσθαι, ὥστε περι στρέφεται τοῖς χριστομάχοις εἰς κατηγορίαν αὐτῶν ὁ καθ' ἡμῶν προφερόμενος λόγος. ὡς γὰρ τοπικῇ τινι περιγραφῇ τὸ θεῖον περιέχεσθαι Σαμαρεῖται νομίζοντες ἐπετιμήθησαν δι' ὧν ἤκουσαν ὅτι Προσκυνεῖτε ὃ οὐκ οἴδατε, καὶ ἀνόνητος γίνεται ὑμῖν ἡ λατρεία ἡ πρὸς θεὸν βλέπουσα, θεὸς γὰρ τόπῳ τινὶ καθιδρῦσθαι νομιζόμενος θεὸς οὐκ ἔστιν, - οὕτως ἂν εἴη κυρίως καὶ πρὸς τοὺς νέους Σαμαρείτας εἰπεῖν ὅτι τῷ ὀνόματι τῆς ἀγεννησίας οἷόν τινι τόπῳ περι ειλῆφθαι τὴν θείαν οὐσίαν ὑπονοοῦντες Προσκυνεῖτε ὃ οὐκ οἴδατε, ὡς θεῷ μὲν λατρεύοντες, ἀγνοοῦντες δέ, ὅτι πάσης τῆς ἐξ ὀνομάτων σημασίας καὶ περιλήψεως ὑπερπίπτει τοῦ θεοῦ τὸ ἀόριστον. 3.1.111 Ἀλλὰ γὰρ ἐπὶ πλέον παρηνέχθη τῶν προκειμένων ὁ λόγος, τοῖς ἀεὶ κατὰ τὸ ἀκόλουθον ἐφευρισκομένοις ἑπό μενος. οὐκοῦν πάλιν τὴν ἀκολουθίαν ἐπαναλάβωμεν, ἐπειδὴ τὴν προτεθεῖσαν αὐτοῦ ῥῆσιν ἀποχρώντως οἶμαι διὰ τῶν εἰρημένων πεφανερῶσθαι οὐ πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν μόνον, 3.1.112 ἀλλὰ καὶ πρὸς ἑαυτὴν ἔχουσαν ἐναντίως. εἰ γὰρ κατ' αὐτοὺς ἡ φυσικὴ σχέσις τῇ τοῦ υἱοῦ προσηγορίᾳ πρὸς τὸν πατέρα συνίσταται καὶ πρὸς τὸν γεγεννηκότα ἡ τοῦ γεννή ματος, κατά τινα γραμματικὴν φλυαρίαν τὰς σημαντικὰς τῆς θείας φύσεως λέξεις τῆς σοφίας τούτων εἰς ὀνομάτων σχῆμα παρατυπούσης, οὐκέτ' ἄν τις ἀμφιβάλλοι τὴν ἐκ φύσεως συνισταμένην τῶν ὀνομάτων πρὸς ἄλληλα σχέσιν ἀπόδειξιν τῆς κατ' οὐσίαν αὐτῶν οἰκειότητος, μᾶλλον δὲ 3.1.113 ταὐτότητος γίνεσθαι. ἀλλά μοι μεταλαβέτω τὴν ἐναντίαν φωνὴν ὁ ἡμέτερος λόγος, ὡς ἂν μὴ δοκοίη τῇ ἀσθενείᾳ μόνῃ τῶν ἀντιμαχομένων τὸ δόγμα τῆς εὐσεβείας κρατύ νεσθαι, ἀλλ' ἐν ἑαυτῷ μάλιστα τὴν ἰσχὺν ἔχειν. ὡς οὖν ἐστι δυνατόν, δι' εὐτονωτέρας τῆς συνηγορίας βεβαιωθήτω παρ' ἡμῶν αὐτῶν ὁ ἀντικείμενος λόγος, ὡς ἂν τὸ ὑπερ βάλλον τῆς δυνάμεως διαγνωσθείη κατὰ πολλὴν πεποί θησιν, καὶ τὰ παρειμένα παρὰ τῶν ἐναντίων εἰς ἀκριβῆ βάσανον τῆς ἀληθείας ἡμῶν προφερόντων. ἐρεῖ γὰρ ἴσως ὁ τοῖς ἐναντίοις ἰσχυριζόμενος, ὅτι οὐ πάντως ἡ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ γεννήματος κλῆσις τὸ κατὰ τὴν φύσιν οἰκεῖον 3.1.114 παρίστησι. καὶ γὰρ καὶ τέκνον τις ὀργῆς ἐν τῇ γραφῇ λέγεται καὶ ἀπωλείας υἱὸς καὶ γέννημα ἐχίδνης, καὶ οὐ δήπου κοινότης τις φύσεως τοῖς τοιούτοις ὀνόμασι συναν εφάνη. οὐ γὰρ ταὐτόν ἐστι τῷ ὑποκειμένῳ Ἰούδας, ὁ τῆς ἀπωλείας υἱὸς ὠνομασμένος, καὶ αὐτὴ κατὰ τὸ νοού μενον ἡ ἀπώλεια. ἄλλο γὰρ τοῦ κατὰ τὸν Ἰούδαν ἀν 3.1.115 θρώπου καὶ ἕτερον τῆς ἀπωλείας τὸ σημαινόμενον. ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ἐναντίου τὴν ἴσην κατασκευὴν ὁ λόγος ἔχει. υἱοὶ γὰρ φωτός τινες καὶ υἱοὶ ἡμέρας λεγόμενοι οὐ ταὐτόν εἰσι τῷ φωτὶ καὶ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ κατὰ τὸν λόγον τῆς φύσεως, καὶ τέκνα τοῦ Ἀβραὰμ οἱ λίθοι γίνονται, ὅταν διὰ τῆς πίστεως καὶ τῶν ἔργων τὴν συγγένειαν τὴν πρὸς αὐτὸν οἰκειώσωνται, καὶ οἱ τῷ πνεύματι τοῦ θεοῦ ἀγόμενοι, καθ ώς φησιν ὁ ἀπόστολος, υἱοὶ θεοῦ λέγονται, οὐ ταὐτὸν ὄντες τῷ θεῷ κατὰ τὴν φύσιν, καὶ πολλὰ τοιαῦτα παρὰ τῆς θεοπνεύστου γραφῆς ἔστιν ἀναλέξασθαι, δι' ὧν ἡ ἀπάτη καθάπερ εἰκών τις ἐπηνθισμένη ταῖς γραφικαῖς μαρτυρίαις τὸ τῆς ἀληθείας εἴδωλον ὑποκρίνεται. 3.1.116 Τί οὖν ἡμεῖς πρὸς τοῦτό φαμεν; οἶδεν ἡ θεία γραφὴ κατ' ἀμφοτέρων τῶν ἐννοιῶν κεχρῆσθαι τοῦ υἱοῦ τῇ φωνῇ, ὥστε τισὶ μὲν ἐκ φύσεως, τισὶ δὲ ἐπισκευαστὴν καὶ ἐπί κτητον εἶναι τὴν