To pass on, then, to what remains. He brings forward once more some of the Master’s words, to this effect: “And it is in precisely the same manner that we are taught by Holy Scripture the employment of a conception. Our Lord Jesus Christ, when declaring to men the nature of His Godhead, explains it by certain special characteristics, calling Himself the Door, the Bread, the Way, the Vine, the Shepherd, the Light.” Now I think it seemly to pass over his insolent remarks on these words (for it is thus that his rhetorical training has taught him to contend with his opponents), nor will I suffer myself to be disturbed by his ebullitions of childish folly. Let us, however, examine one pungent and “irresistible” argument which he puts forward for our refutation. Which of the sacred writers, he asks, gives evidence that these names were attributed to our Lord by a conception? But which of them, I reply, forbids it, deeming it a blasphemy to regard such names as the result of a conception? For if he maintains that its not being mentioned is a proof that it is forbidden, by a parity of reasoning he must admit that its not being forbidden is an argument that it is permitted. Is our Lord called by these names, or does Eunomius deny this also? If he does deny that these names are spoken of Christ, we have conquered without a battle. For what more signal victory could there be, than to prove our adversary to be fighting against God, by robbing the sacred words of the Gospel of their meaning? But if he admits that it is true that Christ is named by these names, let him say in what manner they may be applied without irreverence to the Only-begotten Son of God. Does he take “the stone” as indicative of His nature? Does he understand His essence under the figure of the Axe (not to encumber our argument by enumerating the rest)? None of these names represents the nature of the Only-begotten, or His Godhead, or the peculiar character of His essence. Nevertheless He is called by these names, and each appellation has its own special fitness. For we cannot, without irreverence, suppose anything in the words of God to be idle and unmeaning. Let him say, then, if he disallows these names as the result of a conception, how do they apply to Christ? For we on our part say this, that as our Lord provided for human life in various forms, each variety of His beneficence is suitably distinguished by His several names, His provident care and working on our behalf passing over into the mould of a name. And such a name is said by us to be arrived at by a conception. But if this is not agreeable to our opponents, let it be as each of them pleases. In his ignorance, however, of the figures of Scripture, our opponent contradicts what is said. For if he had learned the Divine names, he must have known that our Lord is called a Curse and Sin73    Gal. iii. 13., and a Heifer74    Heb. ix. 13., and a lion’s Whelp75    Gen. xlix. 9., and a Bear bereaved of her whelps76    Hosea xiii. 3., and a Leopard77    Hosea xiii. 7. and such-like names, according to various modes of conception, by Holy Scripture, the sacred and inspired writers by such names, as by well-directed shafts, indicating the central point of the idea they had in view; even though these words, when taken in their literal and obvious signification, seem not above suspicion, but each single one of them, unless we allow it to be predicated of God by some process of conception, will not escape the taint of a blasphemous suggestion. But it would be a lengthy task to bring them forward, and elucidate in every case how, in the general idea, these words have been perverted78    διαβέβληται. The Latin, “vulgo usurpata sunt,” misses the force of the Greek. Or “are disliked because of their obvious meaning.” Cf. above “even though these words…seem not above suspicion (διαβεβλῆοθαι δοκεῖ).” For this use of διαβάλλεσθαι (to be brought into suspicion or odium), cf. Origen c. Cels. iii. 58, διαβεβλημενῳ πρὸς ἀρετὴν καὶ καλοκἀγαθίαν, i.e. “who has quite broken with virtue and decency?” and vi. 42, where Celsus blasphemously says, that “the Son of God ought to have himself punished the Devil, rather than frighten with his threats that mankind which had been dragged into the quarrel by himself” (τοῖς ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ διαβεβλημένοις ἀνθρώποις): a passage quite missed in the Latin. out of their obvious meanings, and how it is only in connection with the conceptive faculty that the names of God can be reconciled with that reverence which is His due.

μετέλθωμεν δὲ τῷ λόγῳ πρὸς τὰ λειπόμενα.
Προτίθησι πάλιν τοῦ διδασκάλου ῥῆσιν ἔχουσαν οὕτως. „παραπλησίως δὲ καὶ οὐδὲν ἀλλοιότερον τὴν τῆς ἐπινοίας χρῆσιν παρὰ τοῦ θείου δεδιδάγμεθα λόγου. ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς τὴν φύσιν τῆς θεότητος τοῖς ἀνθρώποις παραδηλῶν ἰδιώμασί τισι τοῖς θεωρουμένοις περὶ αὐτὸν ἀποσημαίνει ταύτην, θύραν ἑαυτὸν λέγων καὶ ἄρτον καὶ ὁδὸν καὶ ἄμπελον καὶ ποιμένα καὶ φῶς.” τὰ μὲν οὖν ἐφ' ὕβρει ῥηθέντα καθ' ἡμῶν παρ' αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τούτοις (οὕτω γὰρ αὐτὸν ἡ διαλεκτικὴ μάχεσθαι τοῖς ἀντιλέγουσιν ἐδιδάξατο), παριδεῖν οἶμαι πρέπειν καὶ μηδὲν πρὸς τὰς μειρακιώδεις ἀνοίας ὑποταράσσεσθαι. ἀλλὰ τὸ δριμὺ τοῦτο καὶ ἄφυκτον ῥῆμα κατεξετάσωμεν, ὅπερ εἰς ἀνατροπὴν τοῦ καθ' ἡμᾶς προτείνεται λόγου. « τίς », φησί, « τῶν ἁγίων ἐστὶν ὃς κατ' ἐπίνοιαν λέγεσθαι τῷ κυρίῳ ταῦτα μαρτυρεῖ τὰ ὀνόματα »; τίς δὲ ἀπαγορεύει, πρὸς αὐτὸν εἴποιμι ἄν, βλάσφημον εἶναι κρίνων τὸ ἐν ἐπινοίᾳ θεωρεῖν τῶν ὀνομάτων τὴν χρῆσιν; εἰ γὰρ τὸ μὴ εἰρῆσθαι τοῦ κεκωλῦσθαι λέγει τεκμήριον εἶναι, καὶ τὸ μὴ κεκωλῦσθαι τοῦ συγκεχωρῆσθαι σημεῖον εἶναι πάντως συνθήσεται. ὀνομάζεται τοῖς ὀνόμασι τούτοις ὁ κύριος, ἢ καὶ περὶ τούτων ἔξαρνος ὁ Εὐνόμιος γίνεται; ἀλλ' εἰ μὲν ἀρνεῖται τὸ λέγεσθαι ταύτας ἐπὶ Χριστοῦ τὰς φωνάς, ἀμαχητὶ κεκρατήκαμεν. τίς γὰρ ἂν περιφανεστέρα γένοιτο νίκη τοῦ δεῖξαι φανερῶς θεομαχοῦντα τὸν ἀντικείμενον διὰ τοῦ τὰς θείας τοῦ εὐαγγελίου φωνὰς παραγράφεσθαι; εἰ δὲ ἀληθῶς ὁμολογεῖ ταῦτα τὸν Χριστὸν ὀνομάζεσθαι, λεγέτω τὸν τρόπον καθ' ὃν εὐσεβῶς ἐφαρμόζεται τῷ μονογενεῖ τὰ ὀνόματα. μὴ τῆς φύσεως αὐτοῦ τὸν λίθον ἐνδεικτικὸν διορίζεται; μὴ τὴν οὐσίαν αὐτοῦ διὰ τῆς ἀξίνης ἐνόησεν; μὴ διὰ τῆς θύρας ἡ τῆς θεότητος τοῦ μονογενοῦς ἰδιότης σημαίνεται ἢ δι' ἑκάστου τῶν ἄλλων, ἵνα μὴ πολὺν ἐπάγωμεν ὄχλον τῷ λόγῳ πάντα καταλέγοντες τὰ ὀνόματα; οὐ φύσις τοῦ μονογενοῦς ἕκαστον τούτων τῶν ὀνομάτων ἐστίν, οὐ θεότης, οὐκ οὐσίας ἰδίωμα, ἀλλὰ μὴν ὀνομάζεται ταῦτα καὶ ἡ κλῆσις τὸ κύριον ἔχει. οὐδὲν γὰρ ἀργὸν καὶ ἀσήμαντον ἐν ταῖς θείαις φωναῖς εὐαγές ἐστιν οἴεσθαι. οὐκοῦν εἰπάτω τὸν λόγον, εἰ ἀθετεῖ τὸ κατ' ἐπίνοιαν λέγεσθαι, πόθεν ἐφαρμόζεται ταῦτα τῷ θεῷ τὰ ὀνόματα. ἡμεῖς μὲν γὰρ τοῦτό φαμεν, ὅτι πολυειδῶς τοῦ κυρίου τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης προνοοῦντος ζωῆς ἕκαστον εὐεργεσίας εἶδος δι' ἑκάστου τῶν τοιούτων ὀνομάτων καταλλήλως γνωρίζεται, τῆς ἐνθεωρουμένης αὐτῷ προνοίας τε καὶ ἐνεργείας εἰς ὀνόματος τύπον μεταβαινούσης. τὸ δὲ τοιοῦτον ὄνομα παρ' ἡμῶν ”ἐπινοίᾳ„ λέγεται ὀνομάζεσθαι. εἰ δὲ μὴ τοῦτο φίλον τοῖς ἀντιλέγουσιν, ὅπως ἄν τῳ δοκῇ ἐχέτω. ἀλλ' ἀντιλέγει τοῖς λεγομένοις ὁ τῶν γραφικῶν αἰνιγμάτων ἀνήκοος. εἰ γὰρ πεπαίδευτο τὰς θείας φωνάς, ἔγνω πάντως ἂν ὅτι καὶ κατάρα καὶ ἁμαρτία καὶ παροιστρῶσα δάμαλις καὶ σκύμνος λέοντος καὶ ἄρκτος ἀπορουμένη καὶ πάρδαλις καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα κατὰ διαφόρους ἐπινοίας παρὰ τῆς γραφῆς ὁ κύριος λέγεται, τῶν ἁγίων τε καὶ θεοφόρων ἀνδρῶν τὸν σκοπὸν τοῦ νοήματος πρὸς ὃν ἀφεώρων εὐθυβόλως τοῖς ὀνόμασι τούτοις διατρανούντων, εἰ καὶ διαβεβλῆσθαι ταῦτα δοκεῖ πως κατὰ τὴν πρόχειρον ἔνδειξιν τὰ ὀνόματα: ἅπερ ἕκαστον εἰ μὴ κατά τινά τις ἐπίνοιαν εὐαγῶς ἐπιλέγεσθαι τῷ θεῷ συγχωρήσειεν, οὐ καθαρεύσει τῆς ἀσεβεστέρας ὑπονοίας ἡ λέξις. καὶ μακρὸν ἂν εἴη περὶ πάντων παριστᾶν τε καὶ ἀποδεικνύειν πῶς ταῦτα καὶ διαβέβληται κατὰ τὴν κοινὴν ὑπόληψιν ἐκ τῆς προχείρου ἐμφάσεως καὶ ὁ τῆς ἐπινοίας λόγος οἰκειοῖ τῇ εὐσεβείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ τὰ ὀνόματα.