But all this is beside our purpose. Would that our charges against him were limited to this, and that he could be thought to err only in his delivery, and not in matters of faith; since it would have been of comparatively little importance to him to be praised or blamed for expressing himself in one style or another. But however that may be, the sequel of his charges against us contains this in addition: “Considering the case of corn (he says), and of our Lord, after exercising his conceptions in various ways upon them, he96    he,i.e. Basil. “God’s nature can be looked at in as many aspects as corn can (i.e. in its growth, fructification, distribution, &c.).” declares that even in like manner the most holy essence of God admits of the same variety of conception.” This is the gravest of his accusations, and it is in prosecuting this that he rehearses those heavy invectives of his, charging what we have said with blasphemy, absurdity, and so forth. What, then, is the proof of our blasphemy? “He97    He,i.e. Basil. The words ὁ Εὐνόμιος, here are the additions of a copyist who did not understand that εἶπεν referred to Basil, or else φησὶν must be read with them. Certainly ταῦτα εἰπὼν below must refer to the same subject as εἶπεν. has mentioned” (says Eunomius) “certain well-known facts about corn,—perceiving how it grows, and how when ripe it affords food, growing, multiplying, and being dispensed by certain forces of nature—and, having mentioned these, he adds that it is only reasonable to suppose that the Only-begotten Son also admits of different modes of being conceived of98    διαφόρους δέχεσθαι ἐπινοίας. Oehler has rightly omitted the words that follow (διά τε τὰς ἐννοίας), both because of their irrelevancy, and from the authority of his mss., by reason of certain differences of operation, certain analogies, proportions, and relations. For he uses these terms respecting Him to satiety. And is it not absurd, or rather blasphemous, to compare the Ungenerate with such objects as these?”—What objects? Why, corn, and God the Only-begotten! You see his artfulness. He would show that insignificant corn and God the Only-begotten are equally removed from the dignity of the Ungenerate. And to show that we are not treating his words unfairly, we may learn his meaning from the very words he has written. “For,” he asks, “is it not absurd, or rather blasphemous, to compare the Ungenerate with these?” And in thus speaking, he instances the case of corn and of our Lord as on a level in point of dignity, thinking it equally absurd to compare God with either. Now every one knows that things equally distant from a given object are possessed of equality as regards each other, so that according to our wise theologian the Maker of the worlds, Who holds all nature in His hand, is shown to be on a par with the most insignificant seed, since He and corn to the same degree fall short of comparison with God. To such a pitch of blasphemy has he come!

ἀλλ' οὐδὲν τοῦτο πρὸς τὸν σκοπὸν τὸν ἡμέτερον. εἴθε γὰρ μέχρι τούτων ἦν κατ' αὐτοῦ τὰ ἐγκλήματα καὶ μηδὲν περὶ τὴν πίστιν ἐξαμαρτάνων περὶ μόνην τὴν τοῦ λόγου προφορὰν πλημμελεῖν ἐνομίζετο, ὡς ἀντ' οὐδενὸς ἂν ἦν αὐτῷ πρὸς ἔπαινον ἢ διαβολὴν τὸ οὕτως ἢ ὡς ἑτέρως τὴν λέξιν ἔχειν. ἡ δ' οὖν ἀκολουθία τῶν παρ' αὐτοῦ καθ' ἡμῶν εἰρημένων καὶ τοῦτο προστίθησιν. « ἐπὶ τοῦ σίτου », φησί, « καὶ τοῦ κυρίου διαφόρως γυμνάσας τὰς ἐπινοίας παραπλησίως καὶ τὴν ἁγιωτάτην οὐσίαν τοῦ θεοῦ διαφόρως δέχεσθαι τὰς ἐπινοίας φησί ». τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ χαλεπώτατον τῶν ἐγκλημάτων καὶ ἐπὶ τούτῳ τὰ βαρέα καθ' ἡμῶν ἐκεῖνα προετραγῴδησε, δυσσέβειαν καὶ ἀτοπίαν καὶ πάντα τὰ τοιαῦτα τοῖς εἰρημένοις ἐπικαλῶν. τίς οὖν ἡ τῆς ἀσεβείας ἀπόδειξις; εἶπεν ὁ Εὐνόμιός τινα περὶ τοῦ σίτου, τὰ κοινὰ ταῦτα καὶ πᾶσιν ἐκ τοῦ προχείρου γνώριμα διευκρινούμενος, ὅπως τε γίνεται καὶ ὅπως τελειωθεὶς διὰ τοῦ καρποῦ τρέφει, φυσικαῖς τισι δυνάμεσι φυόμενός τε καὶ αὔξων καὶ διοικούμενος: καὶ ταῦτα εἰπὼν « καὶ τὸν μονογενῆ θεὸν οὐδὲν ἀπεικὸς εἶναί » φησι « διαφόρους δέχεσθαι τὰς ἐπινοίας διά τε τὰς ἑτερότητας τῶν ἐνεργειῶν καὶ ἀναλογίας τινὰς καὶ σχέσεις ». ταῦτα γὰρ κατακόρως ἐπ' αὐτοῦ διαθρυλεῖ τὰ ὀνόματα. « ἀλλὰ πῶς », φησίν, « οὐκ ἄτοπον, ἀθέμιτον δὲ μᾶλλον, τούτοις παραβάλλειν τὸν ἀγέννητον; τίσι τούτοις; τῷ σίτῳ, φησί, καὶ τῷ μονογενεῖ θεῷ. ὁρᾷς τὴν εὐλάβειαν; ἴσον ἀπέχειν τῆς ἀξίας τοῦ ἀγεννήτου θεοῦ κατασκευάζει τὸν βραχὺν σῖτον καὶ τὸν μονογενῆ θεόν. καὶ ὅτι οὐ συκοφαντοῦμεν τὸν λόγον, παρ' αὐτῶν ἔστι τῶν γεγραμμένων μαθεῖν αὐτοῦ τὴν διάνοιαν. « πῶς γάρ », φησίν, « οὐκ ἄτοπον, ἀθέμιτον δὲ μᾶλλον, τούτοις παραβάλλειν τὸν ἀγέννητον »; καὶ ταῦτα εἰπὼν ἐπάγει κατὰ τὸ ὁμότιμον τὸν περὶ τοῦ σίτου καὶ τοῦ κυρίου λόγον, ἴσον εἰς ἀτοπίαν κρίνων ἑνὶ τούτων παραβάλλειν τὸν θεόν. παντὶ δὲ γνώριμον πάντως τὸ τοιοῦτόν ἐστιν, ὅτι τὰ ἴσῳ τῷ μέτρῳ τινὸς ἀφεστηκότα καὶ αὐτὰ πρὸς ἄλληλα τὸ ἴσον ἔχει: ὥστε κατὰ τὸν σοφὸν θεολόγον ὁ τῶν αἰώνων ποιητὴς καὶ πάσης περιδεδραγμένος τῶν ὄντων « τῆς » φύσεως ἰσοστάσιος ἀνεδείχθη τῷ βραχυτάτῳ σπέρματι, εἴπερ ἐπίσης ἀπολείπεται τῆς πρὸς τὸν θεὸν συγκρίσεως καὶ αὐτὸς καὶ ὁ σῖτος.