252

the dignity of God, which it is necessary to consider this to be, is not only prior to our generation, but also to all of creation and transcends the ages themselves. What then is added to the argument from these things, if the dignity of God is confessed to be superior not only to Basil, but also to all existing things? Yes, he says, 2.1.545 but the name is the dignity. And who has demonstrated the appellation to be the same as the dignity, so that we too might agree with what is said? 20The law of nature teaches us,20 he says, 20that the dignity of the names lies in the things that are named, not in the power of those who name them20. What is this law of nature and how is it not established over all things? For if nature legislated such a thing, it ought to have power over all who share in nature, just as all the other 2.1.546 things which are properties of nature. If therefore the law of nature caused appellations to spring up for us from the things themselves, like shoots from seeds or roots, and did not entrust the significant names for the subjects to the choice of those designating the things, we men would all have spoken the same language to one another. For if the names assigned to things were not different, we would not differ from one another in the form of speech. 20It is holy,20 he says, 20and most fitting to the law of providence for the words to be assigned to the 2.1.547 things from above20. How then were the prophets ignorant of what is holy and were not taught the law of providence, they who nowhere, according to your argument, deified "unbegottenness"? And how is God himself ignorant of this kind of holiness, who indeed does not impose from above the appellations on the living creatures formed by him, but grants to Adam the authority of name-giving? For if it is fitting to the law of providence, as Eunomius says, and holy for the words to be assigned to the things from above, it is entirely unholy and unfitting for the names to be applied to existing things by those below. 2.1.548 But 20the guardian of all,20 he says, 20saw fit by a law of creation to sow in our souls20. And if these things were sown in the souls of men, how is it that from Adam until your transgression the fruit of this futility did not sprout, though present, as you say, in the souls of men, so that 20unbegottenness20 would be called the name of the Father's essence? For both Adam and all those in succession from him would have said this, if such a thing had been sown by God in nature 2.1.549. For just as the things now growing from the earth from the succession of seed from the first creation continue forever, and no new seed is introduced by nature at present, so also this argument, if it were, as you say, sown in nature by God, would have sprouted with the first voice of the first-formed and would have continued through the succession of those who came after. But since this was not so at the beginning (for none of the first men until now uttered such a thing before you), it is clear that something bastard and spurious sprang up from the weedy sowing, not from those good seeds which God, to speak evangelically, cast upon the field 2.1.550 of nature. For whatever things are altogether in our common nature, do not have their beginning of existence now, but appeared together with nature from its first constitution, such as the activity of the senses and the disposition of desire or aversion toward certain human things and anything else of this sort is confessed to be common to nature, of which life has introduced no innovation among succeeding generations, but humanity is preserved throughout in the same properties from the first until the last, with nature neither casting off any of the things present from the beginning nor 2.1.551 taking on any of the things not present. And just as seeing is confessed to be common to nature, but seeing skillfully comes from practice to those who have devoted themselves to the sciences (for not everyone has scientific understanding through a dioptra or the demonstrative

252

θεοῦ ἀξία, ἥντινα χρὴ καὶ ταύτην νομίζειν εἶναι, οὐ τῆς καθ' ἡμῶν μόνον γενεᾶς προτερεύει, ἀλλὰ καὶ πάσης τῆς κτίσεως καὶ αὐτῶν ὑπέρκειται τῶν αἰώνων. τί οὖν ἐκ τούτων τῷ λόγῳ προσγίνεται, εἰ μὴ Βασιλείου μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ πάντων τῶν ὄντων ἀνωτέρα ὁμολογεῖται τοῦ θεοῦ ἡ ἀξία; ναί, φησίν, 2.1.545 ἀλλὰ τὸ ὄνομα ἡ ἀξία ἐστίν. καὶ τίς ἀπέδειξε ταὐτὸν εἶναι τῇ ἀξίᾳ τὴν προσηγορίαν, ἵνα καὶ ἡμεῖς τῷ λεγομένῳ συνθώμεθα; 20φύσεως ἡμᾶς20, φησί, 20διδάσκει θε σμὸς ἐν τοῖς ὀνομαζομένοις πράγμασιν, οὐκ ἐν τῇ τῶν ὀνομαζόντων ἐξουσίᾳ κεῖσθαι τὴν τῶν ὀνομάτων ἀξίαν20. τίς οὗτος ὁ τῆς φύσεως νόμος καὶ πῶς οὐ κατὰ πάντων κεκυρωμένος; εἰ γὰρ <ἡ> φύσις τὸ τοιοῦτον ἐνομοθέτησε, κατὰ πάντων αὐτὴν ἔδει τὸ κράτος ἔχειν τῶν κοινωνούντων τῆς φύσεως, ὥσπερ καὶ τὰ ἄλλα 2.1.546 πάντα ὅσα ἐστὶ τῆς φύσεως ἴδια. εἰ οὖν ὁ νόμος τῆς φύ σεως ἐκ τῶν πραγμάτων ἡμῖν ἀναφύεσθαι τὰς προσηγορίας ἐποίει ὥσπερ ἐκ τῶν σπερμάτων ἢ τῶν ῥιζῶν τὰ βλαστή ματα, καὶ μὴ τῇ προαιρέσει τῶν δηλούντων τὰ πράγματα τὰς σημαντικὰς τῶν ὑποκειμένων ἐπωνυμίας ἐπέτρεπε, πάντες ἂν ἦμεν οἱ ἄνθρωποι πρὸς ἀλλήλους ὁμόγλωσσοι. μὴ γὰρ παρηλλαγμένων τῶν ἐπικειμένων τοῖς πράγμασιν ὀνομάτων, οὐκ ἂν πρὸς ἀλλήλους κατὰ τὸ εἶδος διεφωνοῦμεν τοῦ λόγου. 20ὅσιόν20 φησιν 20εἶναι καὶ τῷ τῆς προνοίας νόμῳ προσφυέστατον ἄνωθεν ἐπικεῖσθαι τοῖς 2.1.547 πράγμασι τὰς φωνάς20. πῶς οὖν ἠγνόησαν οἱ προφῆται τὸ ὅσιον καὶ τὸν τῆς προνοίας νόμον οὐκ ἐπαιδεύθησαν, οἱ μηδαμοῦ κατὰ τὸν σὸν λόγον τὴν ἀγεννησίαν θεοποιή σαντες; πῶς δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ θεὸς ἀγνοεῖ τὸ τοιοῦτον εἶδος τῆς ὁσιότητος, ὅς γε οὐκ ἄνωθεν ἐπιτίθησι τοῖς παρ' αὐτοῦ πλασθεῖσι ζῴοις τὰς προσηγορίας, ἀλλὰ τῷ Ἀδὰμ τὴν ἐξουσίαν τῆς ὀνοματοποιΐας χαρίζεται; εἰ γὰρ προσφυὲς τῷ τῆς προνοίας νόμῳ, καθώς φησιν ὁ Εὐνόμιος, καὶ ὅσιόν ἐστι τὸ ἄνωθεν ἐπικεῖσθαι τοῖς πράγμασι τὰς φωνάς, ἀνό σιον πάντως καὶ ἀνάρμοστον παρὰ τῶν κάτω τοῖς οὖσιν ἐφαρμοσθῆναι τὰς κλήσεις. 2.1.548 Ἀλλ' 20ὁ πάντων κηδεμών20, φησί, 20δημιουρ γίας νόμῳ ταῖς ἡμετέραις ἐγκατασπεῖραι ψυ χαῖς ἐδικαίωσε20. καὶ εἰ ταῦτα ταῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων ψυχαῖς κατεσπάρη, πῶς ἀπὸ Ἀδὰμ μέχρι τῆς σῆς παρα βάσεως ὁ τῆς ματαιότητος ταύτης καρπὸς οὐκ ἐβλάστησε ταῖς ψυχαῖς, ὡς φῄς, τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐγκείμενος, ὥστε ὄνομα τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίας τὴν 20ἀγεννησίαν20 κλη θῆναι; εἶπε γὰρ ἂν τοῦτο καὶ ὁ Ἀδὰμ καὶ οἱ καθεξῆς ἀπ' ἐκείνου πάντες, εἴπερ παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ τῇ φύσει τὸ τοι 2.1.549 οῦτον κατέσπαρτο. ὥσπερ γὰρ τὰ νῦν ἐκ τῆς γῆς φυόμενα ἐκ τῆς σπερματικῆς διαδοχῆς ἀπὸ τῆς πρώτης κτίσεως εἰς ἀεὶ διαμένει καὶ οὐδὲν ἐν τῷ παρόντι σπέρμα καινοτομεῖται παρὰ τῆς φύσεως, οὕτως καὶ ὁ λόγος οὗτος, εἴπερ ἦν, καθὼς σὺ φῄς, θεόθεν κατεσπαρμένος τῇ φύσει, τῇ πρώτῃ ἂν τῶν πρωτοπλάστων φωνῇ συνεβλάστησε καὶ τῇ διαδοχῇ τῶν ἐπιγινομένων συνδιεξήρχετο. ἀλλ' ἐπειδὴ τοῦτο παρὰ τὴν πρώτην οὐκ ἦν (οὐδεὶς γὰρ τῶν πρώτων μέχρι τοῦ νῦν ἀνθρώπων πρὸ σοῦ τὸ τοιοῦτον ἐφθέγξατο), δῆλον ὅτι νόθον τι καὶ παρευρημένον ἐκ τῆς ζιζανιώδους ἀνεφύη σπορᾶς, οὐκ ἐκ τῶν καλῶν ἐκείνων σπερμάτων ἃ τῷ ἀγρῷ 2.1.550 τῆς φύσεως, εὐαγγελικῶς εἰπεῖν, ὁ θεὸς κατεβάλετο. ὅσα γὰρ ἐν τῇ κοινῇ φύσει πάντως ἐστίν, οὐ νῦν τοῦ εἶναι τὴν ἀρχὴν ἔχει, ἀλλ' ἐκ τῆς πρώτης συστάσεως συνανεφάνη τῇ φύσει, ὡς ἥ τε τῶν αἰσθητηρίων ἐνέργεια καὶ τὸ πρός τι τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων ἐπιθυμητικῶς ἢ ἀλλοτρίως ἔχειν καὶ εἴ τι ἄλλο τοιοῦτον κοινὸν ὁμολογεῖται τῆς φύσεως, ὧν οὐδὲν ἐν τοῖς ἐπιγινομένοις ὁ βίος ἐκαινοτόμησεν, ἀλλ' ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῖς ἰδιώμασι ἀπὸ τῶν πρώτων μέχρι τῶν ἐσχάτων συνδιατηρεῖται διὰ παντὸς τὸ ἀνθρώπινον, οὐδὲν τῆς φύ σεως οὔτε τῶν ἐξ ἀρχῆς προσόντων ἀποβαλλούσης οὔτε 2.1.551 τῶν μὴ προσόντων προσλαμβανούσης. ὥσπερ δὲ τὸ μὲν ὁρᾶν κοινὸν ὁμολογεῖται τῆς φύσεως, τὸ δὲ τεχνικῶς ὁρᾶν ἐξ ἐπιτηδεύσεως τοῖς ἐσπουδακόσι περὶ τὰς ἐπιστήμας προσγίνεται (οὐ γὰρ πάντων ἐστὶν ἡ διὰ τῆς διόπτρας ἐπι στημονικὴ κατανόησις ἢ τῶν γεωμετρικῶν γραμμῶν ἡ ἀπο δεικτικὴ