But let us leave this, and along with it the usual foul deluge of calumny in his words; and let us go on to his subsequent quotations (of Basil). But I think it would perhaps be well to pass without examination over most of these subsequent words. For in all of them he shows himself the same, not grappling with that which we have really said, but only inventing for himself points for refutation which he pretends are taken from our statement. To go carefully through these would be pronounced useless by any one possessed of judgment; for any understanding reader of his book can from his very words perceive his scurrility. He says that God’s Glory is prior to our leader’s “conception.” We too do not deny that. For God’s glory, whatever we are to think of it, is prior not only to this present generation of ours, but to all creation; it transcends the ages. What, then, is gained for his argument from this fact, that God’s glory is conceded to be superior not only to Basil, but to all the ages? “Yes, but this name is His glory,” he says. But pray tell us, in order that we may assent to this statement, who has proved that the appellation is identical with the glory? “A law of our nature,” he replies, “teaches us that, in naming realities, the dignity of the names does not depend on the will of those who give them.” What is this law of nature? And how is it that it is not in force amongst all? If nature had really enacted such a law, it ought to have authority amongst all who share the common nature, just as the other things peculiar to that nature have. If, in fine, it was the law of nature that caused the appellations to spring up for us from the objects, just as her plants spring up from seeds and roots, and she did not entrust the significant naming of each of the subjects to the choice of those who had to indicate the objects, then all mankind would be of one tongue. For if the names imposed upon these objects did not vary, we should not differ from one another in the department of speech. He says it is “a holy thing, and most closely connected with the designs of Providence, that their sounds should be imposed upon realities from a source above us.” How is it, then, that the Prophets were ignorant of this holy thing, and were not instructed in this design of Providence, who according to your account did not make God at all of this Ungeneracy? How, too, is it that the Deity Himself never knew of this kind of holiness, when He did not give names from above to the animals which He had formed, but gave away this power of name-giving to Adam? If it is closely connected with the designs of Providence, as Eunomius says, and a holy thing, that their sounds should be imposed from above upon realities, it is certainly an unholy thing, and an unfitting thing, that these names should have been fitted to the things that are by any here below. “But the universal Guardian,” he says, “thought it right to engraft these names in our minds by a law of His creation.” And how was it, then, if these were engrafted in the minds of men, that from Adam onward to your transgression no fruits of this folly were produced, grafted as they were, according to you, in those minds, so that ungeneracy should be the name of the Father’s essence? Adam and all in succession after him would have pronounced this word, if such had been grafted by God in his nature. For as all that now grows upon the earth continues always, owing to a transmission of its seed from the first creation, and not one single seed at the present time innovates upon the natural form, so this word, if it had been, as you say, grafted by God in our nature, would have sprung up along with the first utterances of the first-formed human beings, and would have accompanied the line of their posterity. But seeing that this word did not exist at the first (for no one in former generations and up to the present ever uttered such a word, except this man), it is plain that it is a bastard invention, that has sprung up from the seed of tares, not from that good seed which God has sown, to use evangelic words, in the field of our nature. For all the things that characterize our common nature do not have their beginning now, but appeared with that nature at its first formation; such, for instance, as the operation of the senses, the appetitive, or contrary, instinct of the man with regard to anything, and other generally acknowledged accompaniments of his nature, none of which a particular epoch has introduced amongst those born in it; but our humanity is preserved continually, from first to last, within the same circle of qualities, losing none which it had at the beginning, any more than it acquires any which it had not then. But just as, while sight is a faculty common to our nature, scientific observation comes by training to those who have devoted themselves to some science (it is not every one, for instance, who can observe with the theodolite, or prove a theorem by means of lines in geometry, or do anything else, where art has introduced, not mere sight, but a special use of sight), so too, while one might pronounce the possession of reason to be a common property of humanity united to the very essence of our nature from above, the invention of terms significative of realities is the work of men who, possessing from above the power of reason, are continually finding out, according as they wish for them towards the elucidation of that which they plainly see, certain words expressive of these things. “But if these views are to prevail,” says he, “one of two things is proved; either that conception is anterior to those who conceive, or that the names naturally befitting the Deity, and pre-existent to everything, are posterior to the beginning of man.” Ought we to continue the fight against such assertions, and join issue with such manifest absurdity?

Ἀλλ' ἐάσθω καὶ ταῦτα καὶ ἡ συνήθης αὐτοῦ λοιδορία, ἣν τοῖς εἰρημένοις ἐπήντλησε, μετὰ τούτων σιγάσθω, πρὸς δὲ τὸ ἀκόλουθον ἔλθωμεν τῆς ἀναγνώσεως. τάχα δέ μοι δοκεῖ καλῶς ἔχειν καὶ τὰ πλεῖστα τῶν ἐφεξῆς παραδραμεῖν ἀνεξέταστα. ἐν πᾶσι γὰρ ὁ αὐτός ἐστιν οὐ τοῖς παρ' ἡμῶν συμπλεκόμενος, ἀλλ' ἑαυτῷ διδοὺς ὡς ἐκ τοῦ ἡμετέρου δῆθεν τὰς πρὸς ἀντίρρησιν ἀφορμάς: οἷς τὸ δι' ἀκριβείας ἐπεξιέναι μάταιον ἄν τις εἴποι τῶν κρίνειν ἐπεσκεμμένων, ἑκάστου τῶν μετὰ διανοίας ἐντυγχανόντων αὐτὸν τῷ συγγράμματι ἐξ αὐτῶν τῶν λεγομένων τὴν συκοφαντίαν καταλαμβάνοντος. « πρεσβυτέραν » λέγει « τοῦ θεοῦ τὴν ἀξίαν τῆς τοῦ ἡμετέρου καθηγητοῦ ἐπινοίας ». οὐδὲ ἡμεῖς ἀντιλέγομεν. ἡ γὰρ τοῦ 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, ἀλλὰ τὸ ὄνομα ἡ ἀξία ἐστίν. καὶ τίς ἀπέδειξε ταὐτὸν εἶναι τῇ ἀξίᾳ τὴν προσηγορίαν, ἵνα καὶ ἡμεῖς τῷ λεγομένῳ συνθώμεθα; « φύσεως ἡμᾶς », φησί, « διδάσκει θεσμὸς ἐν τοῖς ὀνομαζομένοις πράγμασιν, οὐκ ἐν τῇ τῶν ὀνομαζόντων ἐξουσίᾳ κεῖσθαι τὴν τῶν ὀνομάτων ἀξίαν ». 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 πάντα ὅσα ἐστὶ τῆς φύσεως ἴδια. εἰ οὖν ὁ νόμος τῆς φύσεως ἐκ τῶν πραγμάτων ἡμῖν ἀναφύεσθαι τὰς προσηγορίας ἐποίει ὥσπερ ἐκ τῶν σπερμάτων ἢ τῶν ῥιζῶν τὰ βλαστήματα, 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. « ὅσιόν » φησιν « εἶναι καὶ τῷ τῆς προνοίας νόμῳ προσφυέστατον ἄνωθεν ἐπικεῖσθαι τοῖς πράγμασι τὰς φωνάς ». πῶς οὖν ἠγνόησαν οἱ προφῆται τὸ ὅσιον καὶ τὸν τῆς προνοίας νόμον οὐκ ἐπαιδεύθησαν, οἱ μηδαμοῦ κατὰ τὸν σὸν λόγον τὴν ἀγεννησίαν θεοποιήσαντες; 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, ἀνόσιον πάντως καὶ ἀνάρμοστον παρὰ τῶν κάτω τοῖς οὖσιν ἐφαρμοσθῆναι τὰς κλήσεις.
Ἀλλ' « ὁ πάντων κηδεμών », φησί, « δημιουργίας νόμῳ ταῖς ἡμετέραις ἐγκατασπεῖραι ψυχαῖς ἐδικαίωσε ». καὶ εἰ ταῦτα ταῖς τῶν ἀνθρώπων ψυχαῖς κατεσπάρη, πῶς ἀπὸ Ἀδὰμ μέχρι τῆς σῆς παραβάσεως ὁ τῆς ματαιότητος ταύτης καρπὸς οὐκ ἐβλάστησε ταῖς ψυχαῖς, ὡς φῄς, τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐγκείμενος, ὥστε ὄνομα τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς οὐσίας τὴν « ἀγεννησίαν » κληθῆναι; εἶπε γὰρ ἂν τοῦτο καὶ ὁ Ἀδὰμ καὶ οἱ καθεξῆς ἀπ' ἐκείνου πάντες, εἴπερ παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ τῇ φύσει τὸ τοιοῦτον 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 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 φύσεως οὔτε τῶν ἐξ ἀρχῆς προσόντων ἀποβαλλούσης οὔτε 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 ἐπιστημονικὴ κατανόησις ἢ τῶν γεωμετρικῶν γραμμῶν ἡ ἀποδεικτικὴ θεωρία ἢ εἴ τι τοιοῦτον ἕτερον, ἐφ' ὧν οὐ τὸ βλέπειν, ἀλλὰ τὸ πρός τι κεχρῆσθαι τῷ βλέπειν παρὰ τῆς τέχνης ἐφεύρηται), οὕτω καὶ τὸ λογικὸν μὲν εἶναι κοινὸν ἄν τις εἴποι τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης οὐσίας καὶ ἴδιον ἄνωθεν συγκατουσιωμένον τῇ φύσει, τὸ δὲ τοῖς οὖσι σημαντικάς τινας ἐφευρίσκειν προσηγορίας τῶν ἀνθρώπων εἶναι τῶν τὴν λογικὴν δύναμιν θεόθεν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς κεκτημένων, τῶν ἀεὶ κατὰ τὸ ἀρέσκον αὐτοῖς πρὸς τὴν τῶν δηλουμένων σαφήνειαν λέξεις τινὰς τῶν πραγμάτων ἐμφαντικὰς ἐφευρισκόντων. ἀλλ' « ἐὰν ταῦτα κρατῇ, δυοῖν » φησι κατασκευάζεσθαι θάτερον, ἢ τῶν ἐπινοούντων τὴν ἐπίνοιαν πρεσβυτέραν ἢ τὰς τῷ θεῷ κατὰ φύσιν προσηκούσας προσηγορίας καὶ πάντων προϋπαρχούσας τῆς τῶν ἀνθρώπων γενέσεως ὑστέρας ». ἆρα καὶ πρὸς τὰ τοιαῦτα διαμάχεσθαι χρὴ καὶ πρὸς τὴν οὕτως ἔκδηλον ἄνοιαν διὰ τοῦ λόγου συμπλέκεσθαι;