127

Moses seeing God in light and John naming him true light, and Paul himself, having been surrounded by the light in the first theophany and after this hearing the voices from the light, that "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting," is he then not sufficient for a testimony? And concerning the bread, let him read the gospel, that the food from Moses supplied from heaven to Israel has been taken by the Lord himself as a type of the Lord. 2.1.350 "For Moses has not given you the bread, but my Father gives the true bread," saying he himself is the one who came down from heaven and gives life to the world. But the genuine hearer of the law says that none of the prophets or apostles has applied these names to Christ. What follows then, if the Lord himself named himself with these? Since indeed of the Savior's names there is not a first and a second, nor one more subtle or more precise than another, since he knows them all together and with equal precision, nor is it possible to harmonize the argument spoken by him concerning the concept with any of these. 2.1.351 I have poured much nonsense from that source into my discourse; but I ask the readers to be indulgent, if we do not overlook even the manifest vanities as incomprehensible, not as taking delight in the indecency of the speech-writer (for what profit does the folly of our opponents bring us when it is refuted?) but so that the truth might proceed on its way, establishing itself through all things. 20Since20, he says, 20the Lord applied these titles to himself, understanding neither anything first nor second, nor anything more subtle or more precise, it is not possible to say these names are from a concept20. 2.1.352 How does he remember his own purpose? How does he know the arguments against which he has instigated the war? Our teacher mentioned something of the things that commonly underlie the interpretation of the concept, and having clarified the meaning in the lesser examples, he thus applies the theory of the argument to the higher things. For he said that in itself wheat appears to be one thing in its substance, but in relation to the various properties observed in it, it changes its names, becoming seed and fruit and food, and as many things as it becomes, 2.1.353 by so many names it is called. Similarly, he says, the Lord is in himself whatever he is by nature, but being named in accordance with the differences of his energies, he does not have one title for all, but for each concept that comes to us from an energy he takes on the name. How then is our argument refuted by what has been said, the one which stated it is possible for many titles to be applied according to the differences of the energies and the relation to the things being energized to the one who is one in his subject, the Son of God, just as wheat, being one, is divided into different names from the various concepts about it? 2.1.354 How then does he overturn what has been said by saying that Christ says these names about himself? For the question was not who it was that named, but the theory proposed was about the meaning of the names, whether it indicates nature or is named conceptually from the energies. But this sharp and comprehensive mind, in overturning the argument given about the concept—the one that stated it is possible to find many titles for one subject according to the meanings of the energies—fights strongly against us, saying 20that such words were not given to the Lord by another20. 2.1.355 What then has this to do with the present inquiry? Is it that because the names are spoken by the Lord, he will not grant that these are names or titles or words significant of concepts? For if he does not accept that these are names, by the abolition of the titles, the concept is also abolished with them; but if he does not deny that these words are names, how does it harm the argument from concept by showing that such appellations were not given by another, but by the Lord himself? 2.1.356 For what was said was, that similarly to the example concerning wheat, one

127

Μωϋσῆς ἐν φωτὶ τὸν θεὸν βλέπων καὶ ὁ Ἰωάννης φῶς ἀληθινὸν ὀνομάζων, τὸ δὲ αὐτὸ τοῦτο καὶ Παῦλος ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ θεοφανείᾳ περι λαμφθεὶς τῷ φωτὶ καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα τὰς παρὰ τοῦ φωτὸς ἀκούων φωνὰς ὅτι Ἐγὼ Ἰησοῦς ὃν σὺ διώκεις, οὐχ ἱκανὸς ἄρα πρὸς μαρτυρίαν ἐστί; περὶ δὲ τοῦ ἄρτου ἀναγνώτω τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, ὅτι ἡ παρὰ τοῦ Μωϋσέως τροφὴ ἡ οὐρανόθεν τῷ Ἰσραὴλ χορηγουμένη εἰς τὸν τοῦ κυρίου τύπον ὑπ' 2.1.350 αὐτοῦ τοῦ κυρίου μετείληπται. Οὐ γὰρ Μωϋσῆς δέδωκεν ὑμῖν τὸν ἄρτον, ἀλλ' ὁ πατήρ μου δίδωσι τὸν ἄρτον τὸν ἀληθινόν, ἑαυτὸν λέγων τὸν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβάντα καὶ ζωὴν διδόντα τῷ κόσμῳ. ἀλλ' ὁ γνήσιος ἀκροατὴς τοῦ νόμου μηδένα φησὶ τῶν προφητῶν ἢ τῶν ἀποστόλων ταῦτα ἐπιτεθεικέναι τῷ Χριστῷ τὰ ὀνόματα. τί οὖν τὸ ἐφεξῆς, εἰ αὐτὸς ἑαυτὸν τούτοις ὠνόμασεν ὁ κύριος; ἐπειδή γε τῶν τοῦ σωτῆρος ὀνομάτων οὐκ ἔστι τὸ μὲν πρῶτον τὸ δὲ δεύ τερον οὐδὲ λεπτότερον ἕτερον ἑτέρου καὶ ἀκριβέστερον, ὁμοῦ τὰ πάντα καὶ μετὰ τῆς ἴσης ἀκριβείας γινώσκοντος, οὐδὲ τούτων οὐδενὶ δυνατὸν συναρμόσαι τὸν περὶ τῆς ἐπι νοίας αὐτῷ ῥηθέντα λόγον. 2.1.351 Πολὺν ἐπήντλησα τῷ λόγῳ τὸν ἐκεῖθεν λῆρον· ἀλλὰ παραιτοῦμαι τοὺς ἐντυγχάνοντας συγγνώμην ἔχειν, εἰ μηδὲ τὰ πρόδηλα τῶν ματαίων περιορῶμεν ἀκατανόητα, οὐχ ὡς ἐμφαιδρυνόμενοι τῇ ἀσχημοσύνῃ τοῦ λογογράφου (τί γὰρ φέρει κέρδος ἡμῖν ἐλεγχομένη τῶν ἐναντίων ἡ ἄνοια;) ἀλλ' ὡς ἂν ὁδῷ προΐοι συνιστῶσα διὰ πάντων ἑαυτὴν ἡ ἀλή θεια. 20ἐπειδή20, φησίν, 20ἑαυτῷ ταύτας ἐπέθηκε τὰς προσηγορίας ὁ κύριος οὔτε τι πρῶτον νοῶν οὔτε δεύτερον οὔτε λεπτότερόν τι ἢ ἀκριβέ στερον, οὐκ ἔστιν ἐξ ἐπινοίας εἶναι ταῦτα 2.1.352 εἰπεῖν τὰ ὀνόματα20. πῶς μέμνηται τοῦ ἰδίου σκο ποῦ; πῶς οἶδε τοὺς λόγους καθ' ὧν τὸν πόλεμον ἐνε στήσατο; ἐμνήσθη τινὸς τῶν ὑποτρεχόντων τῇ συνηθείᾳ πρὸς τὴν ἑρμηνείαν τῆς ἐπινοίας ὁ καθηγητὴς ὁ ἡμέ τερος καὶ ἐν τοῖς κατωτέροις τῶν ὑποδειγμάτων τὸν νοῦν διασαφήσας οὕτως προσβιβάζει τοῖς ἄνω τὴν θεω ρίαν τοῦ λόγου. εἶπεν γὰρ ὅτι καθ' ἑαυτὸν ὁ σῖτος ἕν τι πρᾶγμα κατὰ τὴν ὑπόστασιν φαίνεται, πρὸς δὲ τὰς ἐπιθεωρουμένας αὐτῷ ποικίλας ἰδιότητας ἐξαλλάσσει τὰς κλήσεις καὶ σπόρος γινόμενος καὶ καρπὸς καὶ τροφὴ καὶ 2.1.353 ὅσα γίνεται, τοσαῦτα ὀνομαζόμενος. παραπλησίως δέ, φησί, καὶ ὁ κύριος ἐστὶ μὲν καθ' ἑαυτὸν ὅ τι ποτὲ κατὰ τὴν φύσιν ἐστί, ταῖς δὲ τῶν ἐνεργειῶν διαφοραῖς συνονομαζόμενος οὐ μίαν ἐπὶ πάντων ἴσχει προσηγορίαν, ἀλλὰ καθ' ἑκάστην ἔννοιαν τὴν ἐξ ἐνεργείας ἐγγινομένην ἡμῖν μεταλαμβάνει τὸ ὄνομα. τί οὖν ὁ λόγος ἡμῶν διὰ τῶν εἰρημένων ἐλέγχεται ὁ εἰπὼν δυνατὸν εἶναι πολλὰς ἐφαρμόζεσθαι προσηγορίας κατὰ τὰς τῶν ἐνεργειῶν διαφορὰς καὶ τὴν πρὸς τὰ ἐνεργού μενα σχέσιν ἑνὶ κατὰ τὸ ὑποκείμενον ὄντι τῷ υἱῷ τοῦ θεοῦ, ὡς καὶ ὁ σῖτος εἷς ὢν ἐκ τῶν ποικίλων περὶ αὐτοῦ νοημά 2.1.354 των διαφόροις ἐπωνυμίαις ἐπιμερίζεται; πῶς οὖν ἀνατρέπει τὰ εἰρημένα ὁ λέγων περὶ ἑαυτοῦ ταῦτα τὸν Χριστὸν τὰ ὀνόματα λέγειν; οὐ γὰρ ὅστις ὁ κατονομάσας τὸ ζητούμενον ἦν, ἀλλὰ περὶ τῆς τῶν ὀνομάτων ἐννοίας ἡ θεωρία προ έκειτο πότερον φύσιν ἐνδείκνυται ἢ ἐπινοητικῶς ἐκ τῶν ἐν εργειῶν ὀνομάζεται. ἀλλ' ὁ δριμὺς οὗτος καὶ ἀμφιλαφὴς τὴν διάνοιαν ἀνατρέπων τὸν ἀποδοθέντα περὶ τῆς ἐπινοίας λόγον τὸν εἰπόντα δυνατὸν εἶναι ἑνὶ τῷ ὑποκειμένῳ πολλὰς ἐξευρίσκειν προσηγορίας κατὰ τῶν ἐνεργειῶν τὰς σημασίας ἰσχυρῶς κέχρηται καθ' ἡμῶν τῇ μάχῃ λέγων 20μὴ παρ' ἑτέρου τινὸς τεθεῖσθαι τῷ κυρίῳ τὰς τοι 2.1.355 αύτας φωνάς20. τί οὖν ταῦτα πρὸς τὴν νῦν προκειμένην σπουδήν; μὴ ἐπειδὴ παρὰ τοῦ κυρίου τὰ ὀνόματα λέγεται, οὐδὲ ὀνόματα δώσει ταῦτα εἶναι οὐδὲ προσηγορίας οὐδὲ φωνὰς νοημάτων σημαντικάς; εἰ μὲν γὰρ οὐ δέχεται τὸ εἶναι ταῦτα ὀνόματα, τῇ τῶν προσηγοριῶν ἀναιρέσει καὶ ἡ ἐπίνοια συνανῄρηται· εἰ δὲ οὐκ ἀντιλέγει τὸ τὰς φωνὰς ταύτας ὀνόματα εἶναι, τί βλάπτει τὸν κατ' ἐπίνοιαν λόγον διὰ τοῦ δεῖξαι μὴ παρ' ἑτέρου τινός, ἀλλὰ παρ' αὐτοῦ 2.1.356 τοῦ κυρίου τὰς τοιαύτας τεθεῖσθαι κλήσεις; τὸ γὰρ λεγό μενον ἦν, ὅτι παραπλησίως τῷ κατὰ τὸν σῖτον ὑποδείγματι ἓν