222

the conceptual account is misrepresented according to the common opinion from its superficial appearance and appropriates the names 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 are said of the Lord, and no one familiar with the divinely-inspired scriptures would deny that these things are said. What then? Does he define the terms as significant of the nature itself? Therefore he says that the divine nature is somehow multiform and composite, showing its variety according to the differences of what is 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 for each of the names it is possible to give a distinct definition having nothing in common with the others. Therefore they do not signify nature, but one would not dare to call the application of the names 2.1.304 invalid and meaningless. If, therefore, they are said, but not according to nature, and everything said by the scripture is certainly valid and is aptly chosen, what other account remains for such terms to be appropriately assigned to the only-begotten God except for the conceptual mode? For it is clear that with respect to the variety of the energies, the divine is given names according to different meanings, being named thus so that we might understand. What then damages the more pious thoughts, the cooperation of our mind toward the understanding of what comes to be, which we call conception, but if someone should wish to call it something else, 2.1.305 we will not quarrel? But he does not let go, like the skilled wrestlers, of this inescapable hold against us and says thus word for word that 20these names are by human conception and are said by the conception of some, which no apostle nor evangelist taught20. And after this invincible attack he brings forward that sacred utterance, with a tongue trained in such things spewing forth again the foul-smelling slander against 2.1.306 us. 20For indeed20, he says, 20to adduce homonymy from analogy to human conception, is the work of a soul that has been justly deprived of its sound mind, and with a sick intellect and some detected habit examines the words of the Lord20. Bravo for the dialectical proof, how artfully his argument is concluded toward its 2.1.307 goal. Who could still stand by the conceptual account, when so great a smell is poured forth from his mouth for those who attempt to say anything? Must we then for this reason refrain from a joint examination of the argument with him, so that he might not stir up also against us this trench of slander? 2.1.308 Or is it the mark of the fainthearted to be harsh in return for childish insanities? Therefore the insolent one must be allowed to use his manner as he sees fit. But his argument must be taken up again, so that from there also an alliance might be made with the truth. 2.1.309 He mentioned 20analogy20 and understood the homonymy from it. From where did he learn these things and from whom these words? Moses did not say it, he did not hear it from prophets and apostles, the evangelists have been silent about such terms; it is not possible to learn these things from any scripture that teaches them. From where then does he get to speak thus? Is not such an argument, which calls the qualitative meaning of the thought "analogy," an invention of the speaker's mind? How then does he not understand that which he wars against, using these very things as allies for the war? 2.1.310 He wars against the conceptual account, himself establishing through conceptual arguments that one ought not say anything conceptually. But 20no one20, he says, 20of the saints taught this20. But to which of the ancients can you trace the term of 20unbegottenness20 and that the name of God is predicated of its substance, 20or rather that the unbegotten is itself the substance20? 2.1.311 Or is it permitted for you, in matters where something of the impious is about to be inferred, both to innovate and to contrive the terms that please you, but if something should be said by another for the refutation of impiety, to take away the authority

222

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 τεχνικῶς ὁ λόγος αὐτῷ πρὸς τὸν 2.1.307 σκοπὸν συμπεραίνεται. τίς ἂν ἔτι συσταίη τῷ κατ' ἐπί νοιαν λόγῳ, τοσαύτης ὀσμῆς ἐκ τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ τοῖς ἐπιχειροῦσί τι λέγειν προχεομένης; ἆρ' οὖν ἀφεκτέον καὶ ἡμῖν διὰ τοῦτο τῆς πρὸς αὐτὸν τοῦ λόγου συνεξετάσεως, ὡς ἂν μὴ καὶ καθ' ἡμῶν τὴν ἀμάραν ταύτην τῆς λοιδορίας 2.1.308 ὑποκινήσειεν; ἢ μικροψύχων ἐστὶ τὸ πρὸς τὰς νηπιώδεις παραφροσύνας ἀντιτραχύνεσθαι; οὐκοῦν συγχωρητέον τῷ ὑβριστῇ κεχρῆσθαι πρὸς τὸ δοκοῦν τῷ τρόπῳ. ἐπανα ληπτέον δὲ τὸν ἐκείνου λόγον, ὡς ἂν κἀκεῖθεν γένοιτο συμμαχία πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν. 2.1.309 20Ἀναλογίας20 ἐμνήσθη καὶ τὴν ἐκ ταύτης ὁμω νυμίαν ἐνόησε. πόθεν ταῦτα μαθὼν καὶ παρὰ τίνος τὰ ῥήματα; Μωϋσῆς οὐκ εἶπε, προφητῶν καὶ ἀποστόλων οὐκ ἤκουσεν, εὐαγγελισταὶ τὰς τοιαύτας φωνὰς σεσιγήκασιν· οὐδεμιᾶς ἔστι γραφῆς ταῦτα διδασκούσης μαθεῖν. πόθεν οὖν αὐτῷ τὸ οὕτως εἰπεῖν; ἆρ' οὐχὶ τῆς τοῦ εἰπόντος δια νοίας εὕρημα ὁ τοιοῦτος λόγος ἐστὶν ὁ τὴν ποιὰν τοῦ νοή ματος σημασίαν ἀναλογίαν προσαγορεύων; πῶς οὖν οὐ συνίησιν οἷς πολεμεῖ, τούτοις συμμάχοις πρὸς τὸν πόλεμον 2.1.310 χρώμενος; πολεμεῖ δὲ τῷ κατ' ἐπίνοιαν λόγῳ αὐτὸς διὰ τῶν τῆς ἐπινοίας λόγων τὸ μὴ δεῖν κατ' ἐπίνοιάν τι λέγειν κατασκευάζων. ἀλλ' 20οὐδείς20, φησί, 20τοῦτο τῶν ἁγίων ἐδίδαξεν20. σὺ δὲ εἰς τίνα τῶν ἀρχαίων ἀναφέρειν ἔχεις τὴν τῆς 20ἀγεννησίας20 φωνὴν καὶ ὅτι αὐτῆς κατηγορεῖται τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ θεοῦ τῆς οὐσίας, 20μᾶλλον δὲ αὐτό ἐστι 2.1.311 τὸ ἀγέννητον ἡ οὐσία20; ἢ σοὶ μὲν ἔξεστιν ἐν οἷς ἂν μέλλῃ τι τῶν ἀσεβῶν συμπεραίνεσθαι καινοτομεῖν τε καὶ παρευρίσκειν τὰς ἀρεσκούσας φωνάς, εἰ δέ τι πρὸς τὴν τῆς ἀσεβείας καθαίρεσιν παρ' ἑτέρου λέγοιτο, παραιρεῖσθαι τῆς ἐξουσίας