But to return. Such names are used of our Lord, and no one familiar with the inspired Scriptures can deny the fact. What then? Does Eunomius affirm that the words are indicative of His nature itself? If so, he asserts that the Divine nature is multiform, and that the variety which it displays in what is signified by the names is very complex. For the meanings of the words Bread and Lion are not the same, nor those of Axe and Water79    S. John vii. 37, but to each of them we can assign a definition of its own, of which the others do not partake. They do not, therefore, signify nature or essence, yet no one will presume to say that this nomenclature is quite inappropriate and unmeaning. If, then, these words are given us, but not as indicative of essence, and every word given in Scripture is just and appropriate, how else can these appellations be fitly applied to the Only-begotten Son of God, except in connection with the faculty of conception? For it is clear that the Divine Being is spoken of under various names, according to the variety of His operations, so that we may think of Him in the aspect so named. What harm, then, is done to our reverential ideas of God by this mental operation, instituted with a view to our thinking upon the things done, and which we call conception, though if any one choose to call it by some other name, we shall make no objection.

Ἀλλὰ πρὸς τὸ συνεχὲς τῆς ἀκολουθίας προέλθωμεν πάλιν ἐπαναλαβόντες τὸν λόγον. λέγεται τὰ τοιαῦτα τῶν ὀνομάτων ἐπὶ τοῦ κυρίου, καὶ οὐκ ἄν τις ἀντείποι τῶν καθωμιληκότων ταῖς θεοπνεύστοις γραφαῖς ταῦτα μὴ λέγεσθαι. τί οὖν; ἆρ' αὐτῆς τῆς φύσεως σημαντικὰς τὰς φωνὰς διορίζεται; οὐκοῦν πολυειδῆ τινά φησι τὴν θείαν φύσιν καὶ πολυσύνθετον, κατὰ τὰς διαφορὰς τῶν ἐν τοῖς ὀνόμασι σημαινομένων τὸ ποικίλον ἐνδεικνυμένην. οὐ γὰρ ἡ αὐτὴ τοῦ ἄρτου καὶ τοῦ λέοντος ἡ σημασία οὐδὲ θύρας τε καὶ δαμάλεως οὐδὲ ἀξίνης καὶ ὕδατος, ἀλλ' ἑκάστου τῶν ὀνομάτων ἴδιον ἔστιν ὁρισμὸν ἀποδοῦναι κατ' οὐδὲν ἐπικοινωνοῦντα τοῖς ἄλλοις. οὐκοῦν φύσιν μὲν οὐ σημαίνουσιν, ἄκυρον δέ τις καὶ ἀσήμαντον εἰπεῖν τὴν κλῆσιν τῶν ὀνομάτων οὐκ ἂν τολμήσειεν. εἰ τοίνυν λέγεται μέν, οὐ κατὰ φύσιν δέ, πᾶν δὲ τὸ παρὰ τῆς γραφῆς λεγόμενον κύριον πάντως ἐστὶ καὶ προσφυῶς ἐπιλέγεται, τίς ἕτερος ὑπολείπεται λόγος τοῦ ἁρμοζόντως τῷ μονογενεῖ θεῷ τὰς τοιαύτας τετάχθαι φωνὰς πλὴν τοῦ κατ' ἐπίνοιαν τρόπου; δῆλον γὰρ ὅτι πρὸς τὸ ποικίλον τῶν ἐνεργειῶν κατὰ διαφόρους σημασίας ὀνοματοποιεῖται τὸ θεῖον, ὅπως ἂν νοήσωμεν, οὕτως ὀνομαζόμενον. τί οὖν λυμαίνεται τοῖς εὐσεβεστέροις νοήμασιν ἡ τοῦ νοῦ ἡμῶν πρὸς τὴν κατανόησιν τῶν γινομένων συνεργία, ἣν ἡμεῖς μὲν ἐπίνοιαν λέγομεν, εἰ δέ τις ἕτερόν τι καλεῖν ἐθέλοι, οὐ διοισόμεθα;