227

he has used such reasonings for proof. 20Basil said20, he says, 20that after the first concept that arises in us concerning the matter, the finer and more precise examination of what has been conceived is called *epinoia*20. And with such a construction he refutes the argument, as he thinks, that 20in those things in which there is not a first and a second concept, nor one finer and more precise than another, there would be no20, 2.1.345 he says, 20place for that which is by *epinoia*20. For the time being, then, he will be caught having deceitfully stolen this also from those who have hearing. For our teacher has not made this the definition of all *epinoia*, but having made a sort of specific subdivision of the things contemplated by *epinoia*, so as not to introduce much confusion to the argument, having clarified this part, he left it to those with understanding to reason out the 2.1.346 whole from the part. And just as one who said that the term "animal" is predicated of many things that differ in species would not be refuted as having missed the truth for specifically bringing up man for a description, nor would anyone correct him as having erred from reality if he did not give the same account for winged creatures, quadrupeds, and aquatic animals which he set forth for the case of man, so with the much divided and varied account of what is contemplated by *epinoia*, it would not be a refutation to say that that is not properly *epinoia* by saying there is also another kind, so that even if another form of *epinoia* is 2.1.347 contemplated, what was previously stated is not in error. 20If, then, anyone20, he says, 20of the apostles or the prophets were shown to have used these names for Christ, the falsehood would have some comfort20. How much diligence in the scriptures of God do his words testify for the speechwriter. Did no one of the prophets or the apostles call the Lord bread or stone or spring or axe or light 2.1.348 or shepherd? What then of David? About whom does he say, "The Lord shepherds me," and "Give heed, O Shepherd of Israel"? Does it make any difference to say "shepherd" or "the one who shepherds"? And "With you is the spring of life"? Does he accept that the Lord has been called "spring," and "The stone which the builders rejected"? And John, signifying by the name of the axe the power of the Lord that destroys wickedness, in what he says, "Already the axe is laid to the root of the trees," does he not seem to this man a credible 2.1.349 witness for what has been said? And Moses, seeing God in light, and John, calling him true light, and this same thing also Paul, being enveloped by the light at his 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 testimony? And concerning the bread, let him read the gospel, that the food from Moses, supplied from heaven to Israel, has been taken over by 2.1.350 the Lord himself as a type of the Lord. For Moses has not given you the bread, but my Father gives the true bread, calling himself 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 the apostles has applied these names to Christ. What follows then, if the Lord named himself with these? Since, of the Savior's names, there is not a first and a second, nor one finer and more precise than another, since he knows all things at once and with equal precision, it is not possible for any of these to fit the argument stated by him about *epinoia*. 2.1.351 I have poured a great deal of nonsense from him into my argument; but I ask the readers to have forgiveness, if we do not overlook even the obvious futilities as unexamined, not as though we delight in the indecency of the speechwriter (for what profit does it bring us when the folly of our opponents is refuted?) but so that the truth might proceed on its way, establishing itself through all things. 20Since20, he says, 20the Lord applied these appellations to himself, conceiving neither a first nor a second thing, nor anything finer or more precise, it is not possible to say these 2.1.352 names are from *epinoia*20. How does he remember his own aim? How does he know the arguments

227

τοιούτοις κέχρηται λογισμοῖς πρὸς ἀπόδειξιν. 20εἶπε20, φησίν, 20ὁ Βασίλειος μετὰ τὸ πρῶτον ἐγγενόμενον ἡμῖν περὶ τοῦ πράγματος νόημα τὴν λεπτο τέραν καὶ ἀκριβεστέραν τοῦ νοηθέντος ἐξέ τασιν ἐπίνοιαν λέγεσθαι20. καὶ τῇ τοιαύτῃ κατασκευῇ διελέγχει τὸν λόγον, ὡς οἴεται, ὅτι 20ἐν οἷς οὐκ ἔστι πρῶτον καὶ δεύτερον νόημα οὔτε λεπτότερον ἕτερον ἑτέρου καὶ ἀκριβέστερον, οὐκ ἂν ἔχοι20, 2.1.345 φησί, 20χώραν τὸ κατ' ἐπίνοιαν20. τέως μὲν οὖν καὶ τοῦτο δολερῶς ὑφαρπάσας παρὰ τῶν ἐχόντων ἀκοὴν φωρα θήσεται. οὐ γὰρ πάσης ἐπινοίας τοῦτον πεποίηται τὸν ὁρισμὸν ὁ διδάσκαλος ἡμῶν, ἀλλ' οἷον ἰδικήν τινα τῶν κατ' ἐπίνοιαν θεωρουμένων ὑποδιαίρεσιν ποιησάμενος, ὡς ἂν μὴ πολὺν ὄχλον ἐπεισαγάγοι τῷ λόγῳ, τὸ μέρος τοῦτο διασαφήσας ἀφῆκε τοὺς νοῦν ἔχοντας ἐκ τοῦ μέρους τὸ 2.1.346 ὅλον ἐπιλογίζεσθαι. καὶ ὥσπερ κατὰ πλειόνων καὶ δια φερόντων τῷ εἴδει κατηγορεῖσθαί τις τὸ ζῷον εἰπὼν οὐκ ἂν ὡς διαμαρτὼν τῆς ἀληθείας διελεγχθείη ἰδίως τὸν ἄν θρωπον εἰς ὑπογραφὴν ἀγαγὼν οὐδ' ἄν τις αὐτὸν ὡς ἀπο σφαλέντα τοῦ ὄντος εὐθύνοιεν, εἰ μὴ κατὰ πτηνοῦ τε καὶ τετράποδος καὶ ἐνύδρου τὸν αὐτὸν ἀποδιδοίη λόγον, ὃν ἐπὶ τοῦ κατὰ τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἀπεφήνατο, οὕτω πολυσχιδῶς καὶ ποικίλως τοῦ κατ' ἐπίνοιαν θεωρουμένου λόγου οὐκ ἂν ἔλεγχος εἴη τὸ μὴ εἶναι κυρίως ἐκείνην ἐπίνοιαν τῷ καὶ ἕτερον εἶναι εἰπεῖν, ὥστε κἂν ἄλλο τι ἐπινοίας εἶδος θεω 2.1.347 ρηθῇ, τὸ προαποδοθὲν οὐχ ἡμάρτηται. 20εἰ μὲν οὖν τις20, φησί, 20τῶν ἀποστόλων ἢ τῶν προφητῶν τούτοις χρησάμενος ἐπὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῖς ὀνόμασιν ἀπεδείκνυτο, εἶχεν ἂν παραμυθίαν τὸ ψεῦδος20. ὅσην μαρτυρεῖ τῷ λογογράφῳ τὰ εἰρημένα τὴν ἐν ταῖς γραφαῖς τοῦ θεοῦ φιλοπονίαν. οὐδεὶς εἶπε τῶν προφητῶν ἢ τῶν ἀποστόλων ἄρτον ἢ λίθον ἢ πηγὴν ἢ ἀξίνην ἢ φῶς 2.1.348 ἢ ποιμένα τὸν κύριον; τί οὖν ὁ ∆αβίδ; περὶ τίνος φησὶν ὅτι Κύριος ποιμαίνει με, καὶ Ὁ ποιμαίνων τὸν Ἰσραὴλ πρόσ-σχες; ἆρά τι διαφέρει ποιμένα εἰπεῖν ἢ ποιμαίνοντα καὶ Παρὰ σοὶ πηγὴ ζωῆς; ἆρα δέχεται τὸ πηγὴν εἰρῆσθαι τὸν κύριον καὶ Λίθον ὃν ἀπεδοκίμασαν οἱ οἰκοδομοῦντες; ὁ δὲ Ἰωάννης τὴν ἀναιρετικὴν τῆς κακίας· δύναμιν τοῦ κυρίου τῷ τῆς ἀξίνης διασημαίνων ὀνόματι ἐν οἷς φησιν Ἤδη ἡ ἀξίνη πρὸς τὴν ῥίζαν τῶν δένδρων κείται, οὐκ ἀξιόπιστος 2.1.349 τούτῳ μάρτυς τῶν εἰρημένων δοκεῖ; ὁ δὲ 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