292

having been benumbed to the perception of the deceit. It is dreadful, then, to be secretly caught by hidden snares through some deception, yet the misfortune is pardonable when it is involuntary; but to draw on oneself the experience of evil through some forethought and zeal, not being ignorant of the calamity, surpasses every excess 3.2.81 of misfortunes. For how can one not lament, when we hear that even gluttonous fish flee the bare iron approaching, but being deceived by the bait, they swallow the hook in hope of food, but for those for whom the evil is manifest to go over willingly to this destruction is more wretched even than the irrationality of fish. For the former were led by gluttony to a hidden destruction, but the latter gape at the bare hook of impiety, loving destruction through some irrational affection. For what could be more manifest than this contradiction, than to say that the same one was both begotten and is a creature and has the fitting title of Son and again is alienated from the meaning of Son? But enough of these things. 3.2.82 But it might perhaps be useful to see the whole thought of the saying of Eunomius set before us, going back consistently to the beginning of his statement. For what has now been examined, because of the obviousness of the contradiction of the things said, readily moved us to begin the refutation from the end. These things, then, have been said by Eunomius at the beginning: 20these things being thus distinguished, one might reasonably say that the most proper and first and only substance, which subsisted by the energy of the Father, admits to itself the appellations of offspring and product and creature 3.2.83 20. First, then, I wish to remind those who are paying attention to the argument that he says in his first treatise that the substance of the Father is also 20most proper20, having brought forward the argument with these words: 20the whole account of our doctrines is completed from the highest and most proper substance20. And here he says the substance of the Only-begotten is 20most proper20 and 20first20. Therefore, by putting together the words of Eunomius from each book, we shall present him as a witness of the community of substance, the one who somewhere else declared such a thing, that 20of things that have the same appellations, 3.2.84 their nature is not different either20. For one who contradicts himself would not have signified things distinct in nature by the identity of their appellations. But since the account of the substance is one in the Father and the Son, for this reason he says that that one is most proper, and this one is also most proper. The common usage of men also bears witness to the argument, applying 'most proper' to nothing for which the name is not true to its nature. For example, we call a likeness a man by an improper use, but we properly name by this word the living being shown in its nature; and likewise the word of Scripture knows to call an idol and a demon and a belly 'god,' but the title does not have the proper sense, and all other things 3.2.85 in the same way. Someone is said to have eaten according to a dream-fantasy, but it is not possible to call the fantasy proper food. Just as, therefore, in the case of two men subsisting according to nature, we properly address each of them by the word 'man', but if someone should join a lifeless image with a man who exists in truth and count them, he might perhaps say there are two men, the one truly existing and the likeness, but he would no longer testify that 'proper' applies to both, so if the nature of the Only-begotten were conceived to be something other than the substance of the Father, the writer would not have named each of the substances 20most proper20. For how could anyone signify things differing in nature by the identity of their names? 3.2.86 But it seems that the truth is made manifest even through those who fight against it, since falsehood is not able to prevail at all over the truth, not even in the voices of its enemies. For this reason the word of piety is proclaimed by the mouth of its opponents, who do not know what they are saying; just as also by Caiaphas the

292

σύνεσιν τῆς ἀπάτης ἀποναρκή σαντα. δεινὸν μὲν οὖν καὶ τοῖς κεκρυμμένοις δόλοις ἔκ τινος παραλογισμοῦ κατὰ τὸ λεληθὸς ἐνσχεθῆναι, πλὴν ἀλλὰ συγγνωστὸν τὸ ἀτύχημα, ὅταν ἀκούσιον ᾖ· τὸ δ' ἐκ προνοίας τινὸς καὶ σπουδῆς τοῦ κακοῦ τὴν πεῖραν ἐφέλ κεσθαι, μὴ ἀγνοοῦντα τὴν συμφοράν, πᾶσαν ὑπερβολὴν 3.2.81 δυστυχημάτων παρέρχεται. πῶς γὰρ οὐκ ἄξιον σχετλιάζειν, ὅταν ἀκούωμεν ὅτι καὶ τῶν ἰχθύων οἱ λίχνοι γυμνὸν μὲν προσεγγίζοντα τὸν σίδηρον φεύγουσι, πρὸς δὲ τὸ δέλεαρ ἀπατώμενοι τροφῆς ἐλπίδι κατασπῶσι τὸ ἄγκιστρον, ἐν οἷς δὲ πρόδηλόν ἐστι τὸ κακὸν αὐτομολεῖν ἑκουσίως ἐπὶ τὸν ὄλεθρον τοῦτον καὶ τῆς τῶν ἰχθύων ἀλογίας ἐστὶν ἀθλιώ τερον. οἱ μὲν γὰρ πρὸς τὸν κεκαλυμμένον διὰ γαστριμαρ γίας ὑπήχθησαν ὄλεθρον, οἱ δὲ γυμνὸν περιχαίνουσι τῆς ἀσεβείας τὸ ἄγκιστρον, διά τινος ἀλόγου προσπαθείας ἀγα πῶντες τὸν ὄλεθρον. τί γὰρ ἂν ταύτης τῆς ἐναντιότητος γένοιτο προδηλότερον ἢ τὸ λέγειν, ὅτι ὁ αὐτὸς καὶ ἐγεν νήθη καὶ κτίσμα ἐστὶ καὶ τὸ προσφυὲς ἔχει τῆς τοῦ υἱοῦ κλήσεως καὶ πάλιν ἀλλοτριοῦται τῆς τοῦ υἱοῦ σημασίας; ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν εἰς τοσοῦτον. 3.2.82 Χρήσιμον δ' ἂν ἴσως εἴη τῆς παρατεθείσης ἡμῖν τοῦ Εὐνομίου ῥήσεως πᾶσαν ἀκολούθως ἰδεῖν τὴν διάνοιαν ἐπὶ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἀναδραμόντας τοῦ λόγου. τὰ γὰρ νῦν ἐξετα σθέντα διὰ τὸ προφανὲς τῆς τῶν εἰρημένων ἐναντιότητος προχείρως ἡμᾶς ἐκίνησεν ἐκ τῶν τελευταίων τῆς ἀντιρρή σεως ἄρξασθαι. εἴρηται τοίνυν κατὰ τὴν ἀρχὴν παρὰ τοῦ Εὐνομίου ταῦτα· 20οὕτω δὲ τούτων διῃρημένων, εἰ κότως φαίη τις ἂν τὴν κυριωτάτην καὶ πρώτην καὶ μόνην ἐνεργείᾳ τοῦ πατρὸς ὑποστᾶσαν οὐσίαν εἰς ἑαυτὴν δέχεσθαι τὰς τοῦ γεννή ματος καὶ ποιήματος καὶ κτίσματος προση 3.2.83 γορίας20. πρῶτον τοίνυν ὑπομνησθῆναι τοὺς τῷ λόγῳ προσέχοντας βούλομαι ὅτι 20κυριωτάτην20 εἶναι καὶ τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίαν ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ λογογραφίᾳ φησί, διὰ τού των προαγαγὼν τῶν ῥημάτων τὸν λόγον ὅτι 20πᾶς ὁ τῶν καθ' ἡμᾶς δογμάτων συμπληροῦται λόγος ἐκ τῆς ἀνωτάτω καὶ κυριωτάτης οὐσίας20. καὶ ἐν ταῦθα 20κυριωτάτην20 λέγει καὶ 20πρώτην20 τοῦ μονογενοῦς τὴν οὐσίαν. οὐκοῦν συνθέντες ἀφ' ἑκατέρου βιβλίου τὰς Εὐνομίου φωνὰς αὐτὸν τοῦτον παραστησόμεθα μάρτυρα τοῦ κοινοῦ τῆς οὐσίας τὸν ἑτέρωθί που τὸ τοιοῦτον ἀποφη νάμενον, ὅτι 20ὧν αἱ αὐταὶ προσηγορίαι, τούτων 3.2.84 οὐδὲ ἡ φύσις διάφορος20. οὐ γὰρ ἂν διεστῶτα τῇ φύσει τῇ ταὐτότητι τῶν προσηγοριῶν διεσήμαινεν ὁ ἑαυτῷ μαχό μενος. ἀλλ' ἐπειδὴ εἷς ἐν πατρὶ καὶ υἱῷ ὁ τῆς οὐσίας λόγος, διὰ τοῦτο πάντως κυριωτάτην μὲν ἐκείνην, κυριω τάτην δὲ καὶ ταύτην εἶναί φησι. μαρτυρεῖ δὲ τῷ λόγῳ καὶ ἡ τῶν ἀνθρώπων συνήθεια, μηδενὶ τὸ κυριώτατον ἐφαρμό ζουσα, ᾧ μὴ συναληθεύεται τῇ φύσει τὸ ὄνομα. οἷον ἄν θρωπον ἐκ καταχρήσεως τὸ ὁμοίωμα λέγομεν, ἀλλὰ κυρίως τῇ φωνῇ ταύτῃ κατονομάζομεν τὸ ζῷον τὸ ἐν τῇ φύσει δεικνύμενον· καὶ θεὸν ὡσαύτως εἴδωλόν τε καὶ δαιμόνιον καὶ κοιλίαν οἶδεν ὁ τῆς γραφῆς λόγος προσαγορεύειν, ἀλλ' οὐχὶ καὶ τὸ κύριον ἡ κλῆσις ἔχει, καὶ τὰ ἄλλα πάντα 3.2.85 κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον. βεβρωκέναι τις κατὰ τὴν ἐνύπνιον φαντασίαν λέγεται, ἀλλ' οὐκ ἔστι κυρίαν βρῶσιν τὴν φαντα σίαν εἰπεῖν. ὥσπερ τοίνυν ἐπίσης ἐπὶ δύο τινῶν ἀνθρώπων κατὰ φύσιν ὑφεστηκότων ἑκάτερον αὐτῶν κυρίως τῇ φωνῇ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου προσαγορεύομεν, εἰ δὲ τὴν ἄψυχόν τις εἰκόνα πρὸς τὸν κατὰ ἀλήθειαν ἄνθρωπον συνθεὶς ἀριθμήσειε, δύο μὲν ἀνθρώπους ἴσως ἂν εἴποι τόν τε ἀληθῶς ὄντα καὶ τὸ ὁμοίωμα, οὐκέτι δ' ἂν καὶ τὸ κύριον ἀμφοτέροις προσμαρτυρήσειεν, οὕτως εἴπερ ἄλλο τι παρὰ τὴν τοῦ πα τρὸς οὐσίαν ἡ τοῦ μονογενοῦς φύσις ὑπενοεῖτο, οὐκ ἂν 20κυ ριωτάτην20 ἑκατέραν τῶν οὐσιῶν ὁ λογογράφος ὠνόμασε. πῶς γὰρ ἄν τις τὰ διαφέροντα τῇ φύσει τῇ ταὐτότητι τῶν ὀνομάτων σημάνειεν; 3.2.86 Ἀλλ' ἔοικεν ἡ ἀλήθεια καὶ διὰ τῶν πολεμούντων αὐτῇ φανεροῦσθαι, μὴ δυναμένου καθάπαξ μηδὲ ἐν ταῖς τῶν ἐχθρῶν φωναῖς ὑπερισχύειν τῆς ἀληθείας τοῦ ψεύ δους. διὰ τοῦτο τῷ στόματι τῶν ἀντικειμένων καὶ μὴ εἰδότων ἃ λέγουσιν ὁ τῆς εὐσεβείας ἀνακηρύσσεται λόγος· καθάπερ καὶ ὑπὸ τοῦ Καϊάφα τὸ