228

against whom he has waged war? our teacher, having clarified the meaning in the lower examples, mentioned one of the things that commonly occur in the interpretation of the concept, and so he brings the theory of the argument up to the higher things. For he said that wheat, in itself, appears to be one thing in its substance, but with respect to the various qualities observed in it, it changes its names, becoming seed and fruit and food and 2.1.353 being named as many things as it becomes. Similarly, he says, the Lord is in Himself whatever He is by nature, but being named along with the differences of his activities He does not have one appellation for all, but for each concept that comes to us from an activity, He takes on the name. How then is our argument refuted by what has been said, the argument which stated that it is possible for many appellations to be applied according to the differences of activities and the relation to the things being acted upon, to the Son of God, who is one in his subject, 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 speaks these names of Himself? For the question was not who gave the name, but the theory was about the meaning of the names, whether it indicates nature or is named conceptually from the activities. But this sharp and comprehensive-minded man, in overturning the argument given about concept—the one that said it is possible to find many appellations for one subject according to the meanings of the activities—uses the battle against us strongly, saying 20that such utterances were not given to the Lord by anyone else20. 2.1.355 What does this have 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 appellations, or utterances signifying concepts? For if he does not accept that these are names, with the abolition of the appellations the concept is also abolished with them; but if he does not dispute that these utterances are names, how does it harm the argument from concept to show that such titles were given not by another, but by the Lord Himself? 2.1.356 For what was being said was that, similarly to the example of the wheat, the Lord, being one in his subject, has names appropriate to his activities. And since it is agreed that the wheat has its names according to the concept of the things observed about it, it was also co-established that these utterances are not indicative of nature in the case of the Lord, but are constituted by the principle of 2.1.357 concept in the things thought about him. But the one who argues against this, with great attentiveness, does not direct his fight against what was proposed, but says that he is named these things by himself, which is like someone seeking the interpretation of the name Isaac, whether it is interpreted as 'laughter' as some say, or if the name signifies something else, and one of Eunomius's followers would answer authoritatively that the name was given to the child by his mother. But that, one might say, was not the question, from whom the name was provided, but what the meaning of the name signifies when translated into our 2.1.358 tongue. And so here, when the inquiry is whether the various things said of the Lord are said by concept and do not have the indication of his nature, how will he who has brought such a proof—that the appellations are not to be considered conceptually, because they are spoken by the Lord Himself—be numbered among the prudent, he who both wars against the truth and uses such allies for the war, by which he makes the one he is warring against appear stronger? 2.1.359 Then, proceeding as if his argument had been concluded according to his aim, he brings forward other accusations against us, more grievous than those mentioned, as he says, and having lamented much and slandered the argument beforehand and vehemently provoked the hearer regarding the things about to be said, in which he alleges that certain more impious things are being fabricated by us, so as not only the

228

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 κατὰ τὸ ὑποκείμενον ὁ κύριος ὢν πρόσφορα ταῖς ἐνερ γείαις ἔχει καὶ τὰ ὀνόματα. τοῦ δὲ σίτου κατὰ τὴν τῶν περὶ αὐτὸν θεωρουμένων ἐπίνοιαν τὰς ὀνομασίας ἔχειν ὁμο λογουμένου συγκατεσκευάζετο καὶ τὸ μὴ φύσεως εἶναι ταύτας ἐπὶ τοῦ κυρίου σημαντικὰς τὰς φωνάς, ἀλλὰ τῷ λόγῳ τῆς 2.1.357 ἐπινοίας ἐν τοῖς περὶ αὐτὸν νοουμένοις συνίστασθαι. ὁ δὲ ἀντιλέγων ὑπὸ πολλῆς προσοχῆς οὐ πρὸς τὰ τεθέντα ποι εῖται τὴν μάχην, ἀλλά φησιν αὐτὸν ὑφ' ἑαυτοῦ ταῦτα κατονομάζεσθαι, ὅμοιον ὥσπερ ἂν εἴ τις τοῦ κατὰ τὸν Ἰσαὰκ ὀνόματος τὴν ἑρμηνείαν ζητῶν, πότερον γέλως ὥς φασί τινες ἑρμηνεύεται ἢ ἄλλο τι σημαίνει τὸ ὄνομα, ὁ δέ τις τῶν κατὰ Εὐνόμιον ἐπιστατικῶς ἀποκρίνοιτο παρὰ τῆς μητρὸς τεθεῖσθαι τῷ παιδὶ τὴν κλῆσιν· ἀλλ' οὐ τοῦτο, φαίη τις ἄν, τὸ ζητούμενον ἦν, παρὰ τίνος ἡ ἐπωνυμία πεπό ρισται, ἀλλὰ τί σημαίνει μεταληφθεῖσα πρὸς τὴν ἡμετέραν 2.1.358 γλῶσσαν ἡ τοῦ ὀνόματος ἔννοια. καὶ ἐνταῦθα τοίνυν τῆς ζητήσεως οὔσης, εἰ τὰ ποικίλως ἐπιλεγόμενα τῷ κυρίῳ κατ' ἐπίνοιαν λέγεται καὶ οὐχὶ τῆς φύσεως τὴν ἔνδειξιν ἔχει, ὁ τοιαύτην ἐπαγαγὼν τὴν ἀπόδειξιν τοῦ μὴ ἐν ἐπινοίᾳ θεωρεῖσθαι τὰς προσηγορίας, τὸ παρ' αὐτοῦ τοῦ κυρίου λέγεσθαι ταύτας, πῶς μετὰ τῶν σωφρονούντων ἀριθμηθή σεται ὁ καὶ πολεμῶν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ καὶ τοιαύταις πρὸς τὸν πόλεμον συμμαχίαις χρώμενος, δι' ὧν ἰσχυρότερον ἀπο φαίνει τὸν πολεμούμενον; 2.1.359 Εἶτα προϊὼν ὡς δὴ κατὰ σκοπὸν αὐτῷ συμπερανθέντος τοῦ λόγου ἕτερα προχειρίζεται καθ' ἡμῶν χαλεπώτερα τῶν εἰρημένων ὥς φησι τὰ ἐγκλήματα καὶ πολλὰ προσχετλιάσας καὶ προδιαβαλὼν τὸν λόγον καὶ σφοδρῶς τὸν ἀκροατὴν ἐπὶ τοῖς μέλλουσι ῥηθήσεσθαι παροξύνας, ἐν οἷς δυσσεβέστερά τινα παρ' ἡμῶν αἰτιᾶται κατασκευάζεσθαι, ὡς μὴ μόνον τὰς