278

such an appellation. For when it says "sons of men" and "sons of rams," it signifies the relationship in essence of the one begotten to the one from whom he has come; but when it says "sons of power" or "children of God," it indicates the kinship that comes about from choice. 3.1.117 And indeed, according to the opposite meaning, the same men were called both "sons of Eli" and "pestilent sons," with the appellation of "sons" being suitably applied to each sense. For by being called "sons of Eli" they were testified to have a natural kinship to him, but being named "pestilent sons" they were condemned for the wickedness of their choice, as not imitating their father in his life, but having appropriated their choice to evil. 3.1.118 Therefore, in the case of our lower nature and human affairs, because humanity is inclined toward both—I mean, toward evil and virtue—it is up to us to become sons of either night or day, while nature remains, as a primary matter, within its own bounds. For neither is the one who through evil became a child of wrath alienated from human generation, nor has the one who through choice appropriated himself to the good cast off his birth from men through the excellence of his practices, but while nature stands the same in both cases, the differences according to choices take on the names of kinship, becoming either children of God through virtue or of the adversary through evil. 3.1.119 But in the case of divine doctrines, since Eunomius is one who preserves the natural order (for I will use the writer's own words), and abides by what has been known from above, and does not shrink from calling what is begotten an offspring, with that very begotten substance and the appellation of Son, as he says, appropriating such a relationship of names, how does he alienate 3.1.120 the begotten from the essential kinship of the begetter? For in the case of sons or offspring spoken of in censure, or again, in cases where some praise accompanies such names, it cannot be said that someone truly begotten of wrath is called a child of wrath, nor again did someone have the day as his mother in a bodily sense, so as to be named its son, but the difference of choices creates the names of such a kinship. But here Eunomius says that we do not shrink from calling the Son, who is begotten, offspring, with, he says, the begotten substance and the appellation of Son appropriating such a 3.1.121 relationship of names. If, then, he confesses that because the Son is truly offspring, such a relationship of names is appropriated, how is there occasion to apply such a cause of the names both to those spoken of metaphorically by an improper use and to those for whom the natural relationship, as Eunomius says, appropriates such a title? Therefore, this is true only of those whose nature is on the borderline between virtue and evil, in whose case one often takes on opposite names, now of light, again of darkness, becoming a child through inclination toward the good 3.1.122 or toward its opposite. But where the opposite has no place, no one could say that the term "Son" is applied metaphorically in the same way as for those who appropriate the title through choice. For one would not come to this argument, that just as a man, having put off the works of darkness, becomes a child of light through a seemly life, so also the only-begotten God through a change 3.1.123 from the worse takes hold of what is more honored. For a certain man, being a man, becomes a son of God through spiritual birth, being joined to Christ; but he who through himself makes man a son of God does not himself have need of another son to grant him the adoption, but he is by nature what he is also called. A man changes himself, exchanging the old for the new; but into what will God 3.1.124 be changed, so as to acquire what he does not have? A man, having divested himself, puts on the divine nature; but he who is always the same, what does he put off or what does he put on? A man, a son

278

τοιαύτην προσηγορίαν. ὅταν μὲν γὰρ υἱοὺς ἀνθρώπων καὶ υἱοὺς λέγῃ κριῶν, τὴν κατ' οὐσίαν τοῦ γεν νηθέντος πρὸς τὸν ἐξ οὗ γέγονε σχέσιν ἀποσημαίνει· ὅταν δὲ υἱοὺς δυνάμεως ἢ τέκνα λέγῃ θεοῦ, τὴν ἐκ προαιρέσεως 3.1.117 γινομένην ἀγχιστείαν παρίστησι. καὶ μέντοι καὶ κατὰ τὴν ἐναντίαν διάνοιαν οἱ αὐτοὶ καὶ υἱοὶ Ἠλεὶ καὶ υἱοὶ λοιμοὶ ὠνομάσθησαν, πρὸς ἑκάτερον νόημα τῆς τῶν υἱῶν προση γορίας εὐαρμόστως ἐχούσης. τῷ μὲν γὰρ υἱοὶ τοῦ Ἠλεὶ κληθῆναι τὸ κατὰ τὴν φύσιν συγγενὲς πρὸς ἐκεῖνον ἔχειν ἐμαρτυρήθησαν, λοιμοὶ δὲ υἱοὶ κατονομασθέντες ἐπὶ τῇ τῆς προαιρέσεως μοχθηρίᾳ κατηγορήθησαν, ὡς οὐχὶ τὸν πατέρα ζηλοῦντες τῷ βίῳ, ἀλλὰ τῇ κακίᾳ τὴν προαίρεσιν 3.1.118 ἑαυτῶν οἰκειώσαντες. ἐπὶ μὲν οὖν τῆς κάτω φύσεως καὶ τῶν καθ' ἡμᾶς πραγμάτων διὰ τὸ πρὸς ἑκάτερον ἐπιρρε πῶς τὸ ἀνθρώπινον ἔχειν, πρὸς κακίαν λέγω καὶ ἀρετήν, ἐφ' ἡμῖν ἐστιν ἢ νυκτὸς ἢ ἡμέρας υἱοὺς γενέσθαι, μενούσης κατὰ τὸ προηγούμενον ἐν τοῖς ἰδίοις ὅροις τῆς φύσεως. οὔτε γὰρ ὁ διὰ κακίαν ὀργῆς τέκνον γενόμενος τῆς ἀνθρω πίνης ἠλλοτριώθη γεννήσεως, οὔτε ὁ τῷ ἀγαθῷ διὰ προ αιρέσεως ἑαυτὸν οἰκειώσας τὸ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων φῦναι διὰ τῆς ἀστειότητος τῶν ἐπιτηδευμάτων ἀπώσατο, ἀλλὰ τῆς φύ σεως ὁμοίως ἐφ' ἑκατέρων ἑστώσης αἱ κατὰ τὰς προ αιρέσεις διαφοραὶ τὰ ὀνόματα τῆς οἰκειότητος ὑποδύονται, ἢ θεοῦ τέκνα δι' ἀρετῆς ἢ τοῦ ἀντικειμένου διὰ κακίας γινόμεναι. 3.1.119 Ἐπὶ δέ γε τῶν θείων δογμάτων 20ὁ τὴν φυσικὴν διασῴζων τάξιν20 Εὐνόμιος (αὐτοῖς γὰρ χρήσομαι τοῦ λογογράφου τοῖς ῥήμασι) 20καὶ τοῖς ἄνωθεν ἐγνω σμένοις ἐμμένων καὶ γεννητὸν ὄντα γέννημα λέγειν οὐ παραιτούμενος, τῆς γεννηθείσης αὐτῆς20, ὥς φησιν, 20οὐσίας καὶ τῆς τοῦ υἱοῦ προσ ηγορίας τὴν τοιαύτην τῶν ὀνομάτων οἰκειου μένης σχέσιν20, πῶς ἀλλοτριοῖ τῆς κατ' οὐσίαν οἰκειό 3.1.120 τητος τὸ γεννηθὲν τοῦ γεννήσαντος; ἐπὶ μὲν γὰρ τῶν ἐπὶ διαβολῇ λεγομένων υἱῶν ἢ γεννημάτων ἢ πάλιν ἐφ' ὧν ἔπαινός τις παρομαρτεῖ τοῖς τοιούτοις ὀνόμασιν οὐκ ἔστιν εἰπεῖν ὅτι ἀληθῶς τις παρὰ τῆς ὀργῆς γεννηθεὶς τέκνον ὀργῆς προσηγόρευται, οὐδ' αὖ πάλιν ἡμέραν τις σωματικῶς ἔσχεν ἑαυτοῦ μητέρα, ὥστε υἱὸς ταύτης ὀνομασθῆναι, ἀλλ' ἡ τῶν προαιρέσεων διαφορὰ ποιεῖται τὰ τῆς τοιαύτης συγ γενείας ὀνόματα. ἐνταῦθα δέ φησιν ὁ Εὐνόμιος ὅτι 20γεν νητὸν ὄντα τὸν υἱὸν γέννημα λέγειν οὐ παραι τούμεθα, τῆς γεννηθείσης20, φησίν, 20οὐσίας καὶ τῆς τοῦ υἱοῦ προσηγορίας τὴν τοιαύτην τῶν 3.1.121 ὀνομάτων σχέσιν οἰκειουμένης20. εἰ οὖν διὰ τὸ ἀληθῶς 20γέννημα20 εἶναι τὸν υἱὸν ὁμολογεῖ 20τὴν τοιαύτην τῶν ὀνομάτων οἰκειοῦσθαι σχέσιν20, πῶς ἔχει καιρὸν ἐφαρμόζειν τὴν τοιαύτην αἰτίαν τῶν ὀνομάτων τοῖς τε κατὰ μεταφορὰν ἐκ καταχρήσεως λεγομένοις καὶ οἷς ἡ φυσικὴ σχέσις, καθώς φησιν ὁ Εὐνόμιος, τὴν τοιαύτην οἰκειοῦται κλῆσιν; οὐκοῦν ἐπὶ μόνων ἀληθὲς τὸ τοιοῦτόν ἐστιν οἷς μεθόριος πρὸς ἀρετήν τε καὶ κακίαν ἡ φύσις, ἐφ' ὧν πολλάκις τὰ ἐναντία τις ἀντιμεταλαμβάνει τῶν ὀνομά των, νῦν μὲν φωτός, πάλιν δὲ σκότους διὰ τῆς πρὸς τὸ καλὸν 3.1.122 ἢ πρὸς τὸ ἐναντίον προσκλίσεως τέκνον γινόμενος. ὅπου δὲ τὸ ἐναντίον χώραν οὐκ ἔχει, οὐκέτ' ἄν τις τοῦ υἱοῦ τὴν φωνὴν ἐκ μεταφορᾶς ἐπιφημίζεσθαι λέγοι καθ' ὁμοιότητα τῶν διὰ προαιρέσεως οἰκειουμένων τὴν κλῆσιν. οὐ γὰρ ἂν εἰς τοῦτον ἔλθοι τὸν λόγον, ὅτι ὥσπερ ἄνθρωπος ἀποθέμενος τὰ ἔργα τοῦ σκότους διὰ τῆς εὐσχήμονος ζωῆς φωτὸς γί νεται τέκνον, οὕτω καὶ ὁ μονογενὴς θεὸς ἐκ μεταβολῆς 3.1.123 ἐκ τοῦ χείρονος ἀντιλαμβάνει τὸ προτιμότερον. ἄνθρω πος μὲν γάρ τις ὢν υἱὸς θεοῦ γίνεται διὰ τῆς πνευ ματικῆς γεννήσεως Χριστῷ συναπτόμενος· ὁ δὲ τὸν ἄνθρω πον δι' ἑαυτοῦ θεοῦ υἱὸν ποιῶν αὐτὸς ἄλλου υἱοῦ τοῦ χαρι ζομένου αὐτῷ τὴν υἱοθεσίαν οὐκ ἐπιδέεται, ἀλλ' ὅπερ ἐστὶ κατὰ φύσιν καὶ ὀνομάζεται. ἄνθρωπος μὲν αὐτὸς ἑαυτὸν ἀμείβει, τοῦ παλαιοῦ τὸν νέον ἀνταλλασσόμενος· θεὸς δὲ 3.1.124 εἰς τί ἀλλαγήσεται, ὥστε ὃ μὴ ἔχει προσκτήσασθαι; ἄν θρωπος μὲν ἑαυτὸν ἀπεκδυσάμενος τὴν θείαν ἐπενδύεται φύσιν· ὁ δὲ ἀεὶ ὡσαύτως ἔχων τί ἀποτίθεται ἢ τί περι βάλλεται; ἄνθρωπος μὲν υἱὸς