121

did he not understand his essence through the axe? is the property of the divinity of the only-begotten signified by the door, or by each of the others, so that we may not bring a great crowd to the discourse by listing all the names? 2.1.298 each of these names is not the nature of the only-begotten, not divinity, not a property of essence, but yet these things are named and the name has authority. For it is not pious to think anything in the divine utterances is idle and insignificant. Therefore let him state the reason, if he rejects what is said by concept, from where these names are applied to God. For we say this, that since the Lord provides for human life in many ways, each kind of benefaction is suitably made known through each of such names, as the providence and energy contemplated in him passes into 2.1.299 the form of a name. And such a name is said by us to be named by "1concept"2. But if this is not agreeable to those who speak against it, let it be as it seems to anyone. But he who is unacquainted with the riddles of scripture contradicts what is said. 2.1.300 For if he had been instructed in the divine utterances, he would have known that the Lord is also called by scripture a curse and sin and a goaded heifer and a lion's whelp and a bereft bear and a leopard and such things according to different concepts, as the holy and God-bearing men unerringly made clear the purpose of the meaning at which they looked by these names, even if these names seem somehow disparaged according to their surface indication; each of which, unless one piously concedes that it is said of God according to some concept, the expression will not be free from a more impious 2.1.301 suspicion. And it would be a long task to present and prove concerning all of them how these names are both disparaged according to common opinion from their surface meaning and how the argument from concept makes them appropriate to the piety of God. 2.1.302 But let us proceed to the continuity of the sequence, taking up the argument again. Such names as these are said of the Lord, and no one familiar with the divinely-inspired scriptures would deny that these are said. What then? Does he define the utterances as significant of the nature itself? Therefore he says the divine nature is manifold and composite, showing its variety according to the differences of the things signified in the 2.1.303 names. For the meaning of bread and of lion is not the same, nor of door and of heifer, nor of axe and of water, but it is possible to give a proper definition for each of the names that has nothing in common with the others. Therefore they do not signify nature, but no one would dare to call the naming of the names 2.1.304 invalid and insignificant. If, therefore, they are said, but not according to nature, and everything said by scripture is certainly authoritative and fittingly said, what other reason remains for such utterances to be applied fittingly to the only-begotten God, except the mode of concept? For it is clear that the divine is given names according to various meanings in relation to the variety of its energies, so that we may understand, being so named. What harm, then, is done to the more pious thoughts by the cooperation of our mind toward the understanding of what happens, which we call concept, but if someone else wishes to call it something else, 2.1.305 we will not disagree? But he does not let go, like skilled wrestlers, this inescapable hold against us, and says thus, word for word, that 20these are names through human concept and are said by concept of some, which no apostle or evangelist taught20. And after this invincible attack he brings forward that sacred voice, with a tongue trained in such things spitting out again the foul-smelling slander against 2.1.306 us. 20For indeed20, he says, 20to bring forward the homonymy from analogy into human concept is the work of a soul justly deprived of a sound mind, and contemplating the words of the Lord with a sick intellect and a certain detected habit20. O the dialectical proof, how

121

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 ἐπά γωμεν ὄχλον τῷ λόγῳ πάντα καταλέγοντες τὰ ὀνόματα; 2.1.298 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 λέ γεσθαι, 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 2.1.299 ὀνόματος τύπον μεταβαινούσης. τὸ δὲ τοιοῦτον ὄνομα παρ' ἡμῶν "1ἐπινοίᾳ"2 λέγεται ὀνομάζεσθαι. εἰ δὲ μὴ τοῦτο φίλον τοῖς ἀντιλέγουσιν, ὅπως ἄν τῳ δοκῇ ἐχέτω. ἀλλ' ἀντιλέγει τοῖς λεγομένοις ὁ τῶν γραφικῶν αἰνιγμάτων ἀνή 2.1.300 κοος. 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 ὑπο 2.1.301 νοίας 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 ἐπι νοίας λόγος οἰκειοῖ τῇ εὐσεβείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ τὰ ὀνόματα. 2.1.302 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 λέγε σθαι. 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 2.1.303 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 ἐπικοι νωνοῦντα τοῖς ἄλλοις. οὐκοῦν φύσιν μὲν οὐ σημαίνουσιν, ἄκυρον δέ τις καὶ ἀσήμαντον εἰπεῖν τὴν κλῆσιν τῶν ὀνο 2.1.304 μάτων 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 ὑπολεί πεται 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 ὀνο μαζόμενον. τί οὖν λυμαίνεται τοῖς εὐσεβεστέροις νοήμασιν ἡ τοῦ νοῦ ἡμῶν πρὸς τὴν κατανόησιν τῶν γινομένων συν εργία, ἣν ἡμεῖς μὲν ἐπίνοιαν λέγομεν, εἰ δέ τις ἕτερόν τι 2.1.305 καλεῖν ἐθέλοι, οὐ διοισόμεθα; ἀλλ' οὐ μεθίησι καθάπερ οἱ δεινοὶ τῶν ἀγωνιστῶν τὴν ἄφυκτον ταύτην καθ' ἡμῶν λαβὴν καί φησιν οὑτωσὶ κατὰ λέξιν ὅτι 20ταῦτα δι' ἐπι νοίας ἀνθρωπίνης ἐστὶ τὰ ὀνόματα καὶ κατ' ἐπίνοιαν λέγεταί τινων, ἃ οὐδεὶς ἀποστόλων οὐδὲ εὐαγγελιστῶν ἐδίδαξε20. καὶ μετὰ τὴν ἄμαχον ταύτην ἐπιχείρησιν ἐπιφέρει τὴν ἱερὰν ἐκείνην φωνήν, τῇ πεπαιδευμένῃ τὰ τοιαῦτα γλώσσῃ τὴν δυσώδη πάλιν καθ' 2.1.306 ἡμῶν λοιδορίαν ἐκπτύων. 20τὸ γάρ τοι20, φησί, 20τὴν ἐξ ἀναλογίας ὁμωνυμίαν προφέρειν εἰς ἀνθρω πίνην ἐπίνοιαν, ψυχῆς ἔργον τὸν μὲν ἐρρωμένον νοῦν κατὰ δίκην παρῃρημένης, ἀρρώστῳ δὲ δια νοίᾳ καὶ πεφωρημένῃ τινὶ συνηθείᾳ τοὺς τοῦ κυρίου λόγους ἐπισκοπούσης20. βαβαὶ τῆς διαλε κτικῆς ἀποδείξεως, ὡς