280

that these names have been assigned to him, which demonstrate his beneficence. But as many as interpret what is divine, even apart from the things of the economy, are fittingly and properly applied to the only-begotten God. So that such a doctrine might be revealed to us more clearly, 3.1.133 the contemplation will be upon the names themselves. The Lord would not have been called a vine, if not for the sake of planting those rooted in him, nor a shepherd, if the sheep of the house of Israel had not perished, nor a physician, if not for the sake of the sick, nor would he have accepted the other names for himself, not appropriating the names through some providential activity suitably for those being benefited. For why is it necessary to prolong the discourse by speaking of each particular thing in matters that are agreed upon? But Son and Right Hand and Only-begotten and Word and Wisdom and Power and all such things, which are said in relation to something, just as in a certain relational pairing, he is said to be named always together with the Father. 3.1.134 For he is called the Power of God and the Right Hand of God and the Wisdom of God and Son of the Father and Only-begotten and Word with God and all such things. Therefore, it follows from what has been said to contemplate for each of the names some meaning that is suitable and fitting for the subject, so that we may not, by missing the right understanding, sin against the doctrine of piety. 3.1.135 Just as, therefore, taking each of the others in a divine sense, we reject the ready-at-hand meaning for them, as neither material light nor a trodden way nor a lifeless stone nor bread from agriculture nor a word through speech, but instead of these to name those things which represent the majesty of the power of God the Word, so if someone were to reject the customary and natural meaning of 'Son', through which we learn of his being from the substance of the one who begot him, he will certainly transfer the name to some more divine interpretation. For since for each of the others the transfer, being made to what is more glorious, was fitting for the demonstration of divine power, it is entirely consistent that the meaning of this name also be transferred to what is higher. 3.1.136 What more divine concept, then, could there be for the title of 'Son', if the natural relation to the one who begot him were to be rejected according to the argument of our opponents? For surely no one is so bold toward impiety as to think, in discussions concerning the divine nature, that what is lowly and on the ground is more suitable than what is lofty and great. 3.1.137 Therefore, if they find some concept more sublime than this, such that it seems unworthy to think concerning the only-begotten that he is from the nature of the Father, let them say if they know anything, according to their secret wisdom, that is higher than the paternal nature, so that by raising the only-begotten God to that, they may elevate him above the relation to the Father; but if the majesty of the divine nature lies beyond all height and surpasses every admirable power, what argument is left that carries the interpretation of the title of 3.1.138 'Son' to something greater? Since, therefore, it is agreed that every significant word concerning the only-begotten, even if it is named from common usage below, is spoken of properly when transferred in its concepts to what is more majestic, and it is shown that no one is able to find a more sublime concept for the title 'Son' than this, which represents his genuine relation to the one who begot him, I think it is not necessary to linger further on the topic, it having been sufficiently demonstrated through what has been said that it is not fitting for the title 'Son' also to be reinterpreted in the same way as the other names. 3.1.139 But the contemplation must be brought back again to the book. It is not for the same people to not refuse to call the begotten a 20"product of generation"20 (for I shall use their own words), 20"the substance itself which has been begotten and the title of 'Son' appropriating such a relation of names,"20 and then again to transfer the fitting designations into tropical transfers; so that one of two things is true, either their first argument has fallen through and they flee in vain to the order from nature to a

280

φωνὰς ταύτας ἐπ' αὐτοῦ τετάχθαι αἳ τὴν εὐεργεσίαν ἐνδείκνυνται. ὅσαι δὲ τὸ θεοπρεπὲς ἑρ μηνεύουσι, καὶ δίχα τῶν οἰκονομουμένων προσφυῶς καὶ κυρίως ἐφαρμόζονται τῷ μονογενεῖ θεῷ. ὡς δ' ἂν ἐναρ γέστερον ἡμῖν ἐκκαλυφθείη τὸ τοιοῦτον δόγμα, ἐπ' αὐτῶν 3.1.133 ἔσται τῶν ὀνομάτων ἡ θεωρία. οὐκ ἂν ἄμπελος ὠνομάσθη ὁ κύριος, εἰ μὴ τῆς φυτείας χάριν τῶν ἐν αὐτῷ ῥιζου μένων, οὐδ' ἂν ποιμήν, εἰ μὴ τὰ πρόβατα τοῦ οἴκου Ἰσ ραὴλ ἀπολώλει, οὐδ' ἰατρός, εἰ μὴ τῶν νοσούντων χάριν, οὐδὲ τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν ὀνομάτων ἐφ' ἑαυτοῦ κατεδέχετο, μὴ διά τινος προνοητικῆς ἐνεργείας προσφόρως ἐπὶ τῶν εὐεργε τουμένων τὰς φωνὰς οἰκειούμενος. τί γὰρ δεῖ τὰ καθ' ἕκαστον λέγοντα μηκύνειν ἐν τοῖς ὁμολογουμένοις τὸν λόγον; υἱὸς δὲ καὶ δεξιὰ καὶ μονογενὴς καὶ λόγος καὶ σοφία καὶ δύναμις καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα πάντα, ὅσα πρός τι λέγεται, καθ άπερ ἐν συζυγίᾳ τινὶ σχετικῇ τῷ πατρὶ πάντως συνονομα 3.1.134 ζόμενος λέγεται. θεοῦ γὰρ δύναμις ὀνομάζεται καὶ θεοῦ δεξιὰ καὶ θεοῦ σοφία καὶ πατρὸς υἱὸς καὶ μονογενὴς καὶ λόγος πρὸς τὸν θεὸν καὶ ὅσα τοιαῦτα. οὐκοῦν ἀκόλουθον ἐκ τῶν εἰρημένων ἑκάστου τῶν ὀνομάτων κατάλληλόν τινα τῷ ὑποκειμένῳ καὶ πρέπουσαν ἐνθεωρεῖν σημασίαν, ὡς ἂν μὴ τῷ διαμαρτεῖν τῆς ὀρθῆς διανοίας περὶ τὸν τῆς εὐσε βείας πλημμελήσαιμεν λόγον. 3.1.135 Ὥσπερ τοίνυν τῶν ἄλλων ἕκαστον πρὸς τὸ θεοπρεπὲς μεταλαβόντες ἀθετοῦμεν τὴν πρόχειρον ἐπ' αὐτῶν ἔννοιαν, ὡς μήτε φῶς ὑλικὸν μήτε πατουμένην ὁδὸν μήτε ἄψυχον λίθον μήτε τὸν ἐκ γεωργίας ἄρτον μήτε τὸν διὰ ῥημάτων λόγον, ἀλλ' ἀντὶ τούτων ἐκεῖνα ὀνομάζειν ὅσα τὸ μεγαλεῖον τῆς δυνάμεως τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου παρίστησιν, οὕτως εἴ τις ἀθετοίη τοῦ υἱοῦ τὴν συνήθη καὶ κατὰ φύσιν σημασίαν, δι' ἧς τὸ ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας εἶναι τοῦ γεγεννηκότος μανθά νομεν, πρός τινα θεοπρεπεστέραν ἑρμηνείαν μεταλήψεται πάντως τὸ ὄνομα. ἐπειδὴ γὰρ τῶν ἄλλων ἑκάστου πρὸς τὸ ἐνδοξότερον ἡ μετάληψις γινομένη πρὸς τὴν τῆς θείας δυνάμεως ἔνδειξιν ἥρμοσεν, ἀκόλουθον πάντως ἐστὶ καὶ τούτου τοῦ ὀνόματος ἐπὶ τὸ ὑψηλότερον μετενεχθῆναι τὸ 3.1.136 σημαινόμενον. τίς ἂν οὖν γένοιτο θεοπρεπεστέρα διάνοια ἐπὶ τῆς τοῦ υἱοῦ προσηγορίας, εἰ ἀθετοῖτο κατὰ τὸν λόγον τῶν ὑπεναντίων ἡ φυσικὴ πρὸς τὸν γεννήσαντα σχέσις; τάχα γὰρ οὕτως οὐδεὶς πρὸς ἀσέβειαν τολμηρός, ὡς ἐν τοῖς περὶ τῆς θείας φύσεως λόγοις τὸ ταπεινὸν καὶ χαμαί ζηλον τῶν ὑψηλῶν τε καὶ μεγάλων ἁρμοδιώτερον οἴεσθαι. 3.1.137 οὐκοῦν εἰ μέν τινα ταύτης μεγαλοφυεστέραν διάνοιαν ἐξευ ρίσκουσιν, ὡς ἀνάξιον εἶναι δοκεῖν περὶ τοῦ μονογενοῦς νοεῖν τὸ ἐκ τῆς φύσεως τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτὸν εἶναι, εἰπάτωσαν εἴ τι γινώσκουσι κατὰ τὴν ἀπόρρητον αὐτῶν σοφίαν τῆς πατρικῆς φύσεως ὑψηλότερον, ὥστε πρὸς ἐκεῖνο τὸν μονο γενῆ θεὸν ἐπάραντας τῆς πρὸς τὸν πατέρα σχέσεως αὐτὸν ὑπερᾶραι· εἰ δὲ παντὸς ὕψους ὑπέρκειται καὶ πᾶσαν δύ ναμιν θαυμαστικὴν ὑπερβαίνει τῆς θείας φύσεως τὸ μεγα λεῖον, τίς ὑπολείπεται λόγος ἐπὶ τὸ μεῖζον φέρων τῆς τοῦ 3.1.138 υἱοῦ κλήσεως τὴν ἑρμηνείαν; ἐπειδὴ τοίνυν ὁμολογεῖται πᾶσαν περὶ τοῦ μονογενοῦς σημαντικὴν λέξιν, κἂν ἐκ τῆς κάτω συνηθείας ὀνομάζηται, πρὸς τὸ μεγαλειότερον ταῖς ἐννοίαις μετατεθεῖσαν κυρίως λέγεσθαι, δείκνυται δὲ μὴ δύνασθαί τινα μεγαλοφυεστέραν ἔννοιαν τῆς τοῦ υἱοῦ προση γορίας εὑρεῖν ταύτης, ἣ τὸ γνήσιον πρὸς τὸν γεγεννηκότα παρίστησι, οὐδὲν οἶμαι χρῆναι πλέον ἐπιδιατρίβειν τῷ τόπῳ, ἱκανῶς διὰ τῶν εἰρημένων ἀποδειχθέντος ὅτι οὐ προσήκει καθ' ὁμοιότητα τῶν λοιπῶν ὀνομάτων καὶ τὴν τοῦ υἱοῦ προσηγορίαν μεθερμηνεύεσθαι. 3.1.139 Ἀλλ' ἐπὶ τὸ βιβλίον πάλιν ἐπανακτέον τὴν θεωρίαν. οὐκ ἔστι τῶν αὐτῶν τὸν γεννητὸν 20γέννημα λέγειν μὴ παραιτεῖσθαι20 (τοῖς γὰρ ἐκείνων χρήσομαι ῥήμασιν), 20τῆς γεννηθείσης αὐτῆς οὐσίας καὶ τῆς τοῦ υἱοῦ προσηγορίας τὴν τοιαύτην τῶν ὀνομάτων οἰ κειουμένης σχέσιν20, καὶ πάλιν μετατιθέναι τὰς προσ φυεῖς ὀνομασίας εἰς τροπικὰς μεταλήψεις· ὥστε δυοῖν θάτε ρον, ἢ τὸ πρότερον τῶν ἐπιχειρημάτων αὐτοῖς διαπέπτωκε καὶ μάτην καταφεύγουσι πρὸς τὴν ἐκ φύσεως τάξιν εἰς κατα