But it will be well, I think, to pass over his nauseating observations (for such we must term his senseless attacks on the method of conception), and dwell more pleasurably on the subject matter of our thought. For all the venom that our disputant has disgorged with the view of overthrowing our Master’s speculations in regard to conception, is not of such a kind as to be dangerous to those who come in its way, however stupid they may be and liable to be imposed on. For who is so devoid of understanding as to think that there is anything in what Eunomius says, or to see any ingenuity in his artifices against the truth when he takes our Master’s reference to corn (which he meant simply by way of illustration, thereby providing his hearers with a sort of method and introduction to the study of higher instances), and applies it literally to the Lord of all? To think of his assertion that the most becoming cause for God’s begetting the Son was His sovereign authority and power, which may be said not only in regard to the universe and its elements, but in regard to beasts and creeping things; and of our reverend theologian teaching that the same is becoming in our conception of God the Only-begotten—or again, of his saying that God was called ungenerate, or Father, or any other name, even before the existence of creatures to call Him such, as being afraid lest, His name not being uttered among creatures as yet unborn, He should be ignorant or forgetful of Himself, through ignorance of His own nature because of His name being unspoken! To think, again, of the insolence of his attack upon our teaching; what acrimony, what subtlety does he display, while attempting to establish the absurdity of what he (Basil) said, namely that He Who was in a manner the Father before all worlds and time, and all sensitive and intellectual nature, must somehow wait for man’s creation in order to be named by means of man’s conception, not having been so named, either by the Son or by any of the intelligent beings of His creation! Why no one, I imagine, can be so densely stupid as to be ignorant that God the Only-begotten, Who is in the Father102    S. John xiv. 9, and Who seeth the Father in Himself, is in no need of any name or title to make Him known, nor is the mystery of the Holy Spirit, Who searcheth out the deep things of God103    1 Cor. ii. 10., brought to our knowledge by a nominal appellation, nor can the incorporeal nature of supramundane powers name God by voice and tongue. For, in the case of immaterial intellectual nature, the mental energy is speech which has no need of material instruments of communication. For even in the case of human beings, we should have no need of using words and names if we could otherwise inform each other of our pure mental feelings and impulses. But (as things are), inasmuch as the thoughts which arise in us are incapable of being so revealed, because our nature is encumbered with its fleshly surrounding, we are obliged to express to each other what goes on in our minds by giving things their respective names, as signs of their meaning.

Καί μοι δοκεῖ καλῶς ἔχειν ὑπερβάντι τὴν διὰ μέσου ναυτίαν (οὕτω γὰρ οἶμαι χρῆναι τὰς ἀνοήτους αὐτοῦ κατὰ τῆς ἐπινοίας ἐπιχειρήσεις κατονομάζειν) τῷ προκειμένῳ ἡμῖν ἐμφιλοχωρῆσαι νοήματι. τὰ γὰρ ὅσα πρὸς ἀνατροπὴν τῶν περὶ τῆς ἐπινοίας τῷ διδασκάλῳ τεθεωρημένων ὑπὸ τοῦ λογογράφου καθάπερ τις χυμὸς φλεγματώδης ἐξήμεσται, τοιαῦτά ἐστιν ὡς μηδένα κίνδυνον παρέχειν τοῖς ἐντυγχάνουσι, κἂν σφόδρα τις ἠλίθιος ὢν καὶ εὐπαράγωγος τύχῃ. τίς γὰρ οὕτως ἔξω διανοίας ἐστὶν ὥστε τὰ ὑποδειγματικῶς περὶ τοῦ σίτου παρὰ τοῦ διδασκάλου τεθέντα, δι' ὧν οἱονεὶ τέχνην τινὰ καὶ ἔφοδον πρὸς τὴν τῶν ὑψηλῶν θεωρίαν τῷ ἀκροατῇ ὑπετίθετο, ταῦτα ψιλῶς τοῦ Εὐνομίου τοῖς περὶ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ θεοῦ τῶν ὅλων ἐφαρμόζοντος λόγοις οἰηθῆναί τι λέγειν αὐτὸν καὶ μετά τινος ἀγχινοίας κατὰ τῆς ἀληθείας τεχνάζεσθαι; τὸ γὰρ φάσκειν αὐτὸν πρεπωδεστάτην αἰτίαν ἐπὶ τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ γεννῆσαι τὸν υἱὸν εἶναι τὴν ἀδέσποτον ἐξουσίαν καὶ τὴν ἀνυπέρβλητον δύναμιν, ὅπερ οὐ περὶ τοῦ κόσμου μόνον καὶ τῶν ἐν αὐτῷ στοιχείων, ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ τῶν ἑρπετῶν καὶ θηρίων ἔστιν εἰπεῖν, καὶ τοῦτο ὡς πρέπον ἐπὶ τῆς τοῦ μονογενοῦς θεοῦ ὑπολήψεως τὸν σεμνὸν θεολόγον ἐκτίθεσθαι, ἢ τὸ λέγειν καὶ πρὸ τῆς τῶν ὀνομαζόντων γενέσεως ἀγέννητον ἢ πατέρα ἢ τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν ὀνομάτων προσαγορεύεσθαι τὸν θεόν, καθάπερ δεδιότα μὴ τοῦ ὀνόματος παρὰ τοῖς μήπω γεγονόσι σιωπηθέντος ἑαυτὸν ἀγνοήσειεν ἢ εἰς λήθην ἑαυτοῦ πέσοι τῇ σιωπῇ τοῦ ὀνόματος ὅ ἐστιν ἀγνοήσας, ἥ τε χλευαστικὴ τῶν ἡμετέρων λόγων καταδρομή, ὅσον τὸ δριμύ τε καὶ ἀγχίνουν ἔχει: δι' ὧν κατασκευάζει τὸ ἄτοπον, ὅτι ὁ πρὸ πάντων αἰώνων καὶ χρόνων καὶ πάσης αἰσθητῆς τε καὶ νοητῆς φύσεως γεγονὼς πατήρ πως περιμένει τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, ἵνα διὰ τῆς τούτων ὀνομασθῇ ἐπινοίας.
« Οὐκ ὀνομαζόμενος », ὥς φησιν ἐκεῖνος, « οὔτε ὑπὸ τοῦ υἱοῦ οὔτε ὑπὸ τῶν δι' ἐκείνου γενομένων νοητῶν οὐσιῶν ». οὐδένα γὰρ οὕτως οἶμαι κορύζης εἶναι βαθείας μεστὸν ὡς ἀγνοεῖν ὅτι ὁ μονογενὴς υἱὸς ὁ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ ὢν καὶ ἐν ἑαυτῷ τὸν πατέρα βλέπων ὀνόματος ἢ ῥήματος πρὸς τὴν τοῦ ὑποκειμένου γνῶσιν οὐκ ἐπιδέεται, οὔτε τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον τὸ τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ βάθη διερευνώμενον διὰ τῆς ὀνομαστικῆς προσηγορίας πρὸς τὴν τοῦ ζητουμένου γνῶσιν ἐνάγεται, οὔτε ἡ ἀσώματος τῶν ὑπερκοσμίων δυνάμεων φύσις φωνῇ καὶ γλώττῃ κατονομάζει τὸ θεῖον. ἐπὶ γὰρ τῆς ἀΰλου καὶ νοερᾶς φύσεως ἡ κατὰ τὸν νοῦν ἐνέργεια λόγος ἐστὶν οὐδὲν τῇ ὑλικῇ τῶν ὀργάνων ὑπηρεσίᾳ συγχρώμενος. καὶ γὰρ ἐπὶ τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης φύσεως οὐδὲν ἂν ἐδέησεν ἡμῖν τῆς τῶν ῥημάτων καὶ ὀνομάτων χρήσεως, εἰ δυνατὸν ἦν γυμνὰ προδεικνύειν ἀλλήλοις τὰ τῆς διανοίας κινήματα: νυνὶ δὲ τῶν ἐγγενομένων ἡμῖν νοημάτων διὰ τὸ τῇ σαρκίνῃ περιβολῇ τὴν φύσιν ἡμῶν περιείργεσθαι φανερωθῆναι μὴ δυναμένων, ἀναγκαίως καθάπερ σημεῖα τοῖς πράγμασι τὰς ποιὰς τῶν ὀνομάτων θέσεις ἐπιβάλλοντες δι' ἐκείνων τὰς τοῦ νοῦ κινήσεις ἀλλήλοις δημοσιεύομεν.