The first part of my contentions against Eunomius has with God’s help been sufficiently established in the preceding work, as all who will may see fro

 And let no one suppose that it is through pride or desire of human reputation that I go down to this truceless and implacable warfare to engage with t

 First of all, however, I think it advisable to run briefly over our own doctrinal views and our opponent’s disagreement with them, so that our review

 But to the best of my ability I will raise my voice to rebut our enemies’ argument. They say that God is declared to be without generation, that the G

 Now if the term ungenerate did not signify the being without origin, but the idea of simplicity entered into the meaning of such a term, and He were c

 But, saith he, He is without both quantity and magnitude. Granted: for the Son also is unlimited by quantity and magnitude, and yet is He the Son. But

 But this thing he leaves untold, and only says that ungeneracy should not be predicated of God as a mere conception. For what is so spoken, saith he,

 But before we examine what he has written, it may be better to enquire with what purpose it is that he refuses to admit that ungenerate can be predica

 For after saying that the Only-begotten God is not the same in essence with the true Father, and after sophistically inferring this from the oppositio

 Accordingly, enveloping his former special-pleading in the mazy evolutions of his sophistries, and dealing subtly with the term ungenerate, he steals

 Seeing, then, the mischief resulting to the dupes of this fallacious reasoning—that to assent to His not being very God is a departure from our confes

 It will presently be time to bring to their own recollection the method of this argument. Suffice it first to say this. There is no faculty in human n

 If, then, the lower creation which comes under our organs of sense transcends human knowledge, how can He, Who by His mere will made the worlds, be wi

 How pitiable are they for their cleverness! how wretched, how fatal is their over-wise philosophy! Who is there who goes of his own accord to the pit

 This, then, was the meaning of his safe guidance on the way to what he sought—that he was not blindly led by any of the means ready to hand for his in

 He shows, I think, by the relation of these elements to each other, or rather by their distance, how far the divine nature is above the speculations o

 Knowing, then, how widely the Divine nature differs from our own, let us quietly remain within our proper limits. For it is both safer and more revere

 And on other accounts also it may be called safe to let alone the Divine essence, as unspeakable, and beyond the scope of human reasoning. For the des

 Wherefore Holy Scripture omits all idle inquiry into substance as superfluous and unnecessary. And methinks it was for this that John, the Son of Thun

 But, nevertheless, with only such a nature for their base of operations, they open their mouths wide against the unspeakable Power, and encompass by o

 I have said, then (for I make my master’s words my own), that reason supplies us with but a dim and imperfect comprehension of the Divine nature neve

 But although our great master has thus cleared away all unworthy notions respecting the Divine nature, and has urged and taught all that may be revere

 And yet it is plain to every one who has given any attention to the uses of words, that the word incorruption denotes by the privative particle that n

 While, however, we strenuously avoid all concurrence with absurd notions in our thoughts of God, we allow ourselves in the use of many diverse appella

 And if any one would distinguish such notions by words, he would find it absolutely necessary to call that which admits of no changing to the worse un

 I say, then, that men have a right to such word-building, adapting their appellations to their subject, each man according to his judgment and that t

 For God is not an expression, neither hath He His essence in voice or utterance. But God is of Himself what also He is believed to be, but He is named

 But in applying such appellations to the Divine essence, “which passeth all understanding,” we do not seek to glory in it by the names we employ, but

 But let us hear how, “in the way most needed, and the form that preceded” (for with such rhymes he again gives us a taste of the flowers of style), le

 If, then, the creation is of later date than its Creator, and man is the latest in the scale of creation, and if speech is a distinctive characteristi

 He says that God was what He is, before the creation of man. Nor do we deny it. For whatsoever we conceive of God existed before the creation of the w

 But that we might gain some sort of comprehension of what with reverence may be thought respecting Him, we have stamped our different ideas with certa

 They say that God is ungenerate, and in this we agree. But that ungeneracy itself constitutes the Divine essence, here we take exception. For we maint

 With such gibes at the term “conception,” he shows, to the best of his ability, that it is useless and unprofitable for the life of man. What, then, w

 But why enumerate the greater and more splendid results of this faculty? For every one who is not unfriendly to truth can see for himself that all els

 Now that He did not teach us such things by some visible operation, Himself presiding over the work, as we may see in matters of bodily teaching, no o

 For that one who proposes to himself to terrify or charm an audience should have plenty of conception to effect such a purpose, and should display to

 For it is not the case that, while the intelligence implanted in us by the Giver is fully competent to conjure up non-realities, it is endowed with no

 But as far as possible to elucidate the idea, I will endeavour to illustrate it by a still plainer example. Let us suppose the inquiry to be about som

 This example being understood, it is time to go on to the thing which it illustrates. This much we comprehend, that the First Cause has His existence

 Such are his charges against us not indeed his notions as expressed in his own phraseology, for we have made such alterations as were required to cor

 If, then, God gives things their names as our new expositor of the Divine record assures us, naming germ, and grass, and tree, and fruit, He must of n

 Such is the nature of this new-fangled Deity, as deducible from the words of our new God-maker. But he takes his stand on the Scriptures, and maintain

 But it may be said that the voice of the Father was addressed to the Holy Spirit. But neither does the Holy Spirit require instruction by speech, for

 But, says he, the record of Moses does not lie, and from it we learn that God spake. No! nor is great David of the number of those who lie, and he exp

 What, then, do we think of this passage? For it may be that, if we understand it, we shall also understand the meaning of Moses. It often happens that

 But to return to the matter in question. We assert that the words “He said” do not imply voice and words on the part of God but the writer, in showin

 For the case is different from that of men endowed by nature with practical ability, where you may look at capability and execution apart from each ot

 But if any one would give a more sensuous interpretation to the words “God said,” as proving that articulate speech was His creation, by a parity of r

 And the futility of such assertions may be seen also by this. For as the natures of the elements, which are the work of the Creator, appear alike to a

 And if any one cites the confusion of tongues that took place at the building of the tower, as contradicting what I have said, not even there is God s

 But some who have carefully studied the Scriptures tell us that the Hebrew tongue is not even ancient like the others, but that along with other mirac

 For to suppose that God used the Hebrew tongue, when there was no one to hear and understand such a language, methinks no reasonable being will consen

 But this is denied by Eunomius, the author of all this contumely with which we are assailed, and the companion and adviser of this impious band. For,

 On these passages it is probable that our opponents will take their stand. And I will agree for them with what is said, and will myself take advantage

 But since the nature of most things that are seen in Creation is not simple, so as to allow of all that they connote being comprehended in one word, a

 In like manner before him Jacob, having taken hold of his brother’s heel, was called a supplanter , from the attitude in which he came to the birth. F

 But I will pass over his other babblings against the truth, possessing as they do no force against our doctrines, for I deem it superfluous to linger

 To pass on, then, to what remains. He brings forward once more some of the Master’s words, to this effect: “And it is in precisely the same manner tha

 But to return. Such names are used of our Lord, and no one familiar with the inspired Scriptures can deny the fact. What then? Does Eunomius affirm th

 But, like a mighty wrestler, he will not relinquish his irresistible hold on us, and affirms in so many words, that “these names are the work of human

 “But God,” he says, “gave the weakest of terrestrial things a share in the most honourable names, though not giving them an equal share of dignity, an

 This it is that our strong-minded opponent, who accuses us of dishonesty, and charges us with being irrational in judgment,—this it is that he pretend

 But what is our author’s meaning, and what is the object of this argument of his? For no one need imagine that, for lack of something to say, in order

 He does not, in fact, partake of that dignity which the meaning of those names indicates and whereas wise Daniel, in setting right the Babylonians’ e

 But in dwelling on such nonsense I fear that I am secretly gratifying our adversaries. For in setting the truth against their vain and empty words, I

 But I fear that all we shall find in the discourse of Eunomius will turn out to be mere tumours and sea lungs, so that what has been said must necessa

 Basil, he says, asserts that after we have obtained our first idea of a thing, the more minute and accurate investigation of the thing under considera

 And Moses, seeing God in the light, and John calling Him the true Light , and in the same way Paul, when our Lord first appeared to him, and a Light s

 I have deluged my discourse with much nonsense of his, but I trust my hearers will pardon me for not leaving unnoticed even the most glaring of his in

 Then going farther, as if his object were thus far attained, he takes up other charges against us, more difficult, as he thinks, to deal with than the

 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,

 But it is time to examine the argument that leads to this profanity, and see how, as regards itself, it is logically connected with his whole discours

 But in His very essence, he says, God is indestructible. Well, what other conceivable attribute of God does not attach to the very essence of the Son,

 Now that the idea of ungeneracy and the belief in the Divine essence are quite different things may be seen by what he himself has put forward. God, h

 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

 But if it were in any way possible by some other means to lay bare the movements of thought, abandoning the formal instrumentality of words, we should

 All his argument, then, in opposition to the doctrine of conception I think it best to pass over, though he charge with madness those who think that t

 But, like some viscous and sticky clay, the nonsense he has concocted in contravention of our teaching of conception seems to hold us back, and preven

 But I will pass over both this and their reading of Epicurus’ nature-system, which he says is equivalent to our conception, maintaining that the doctr

 But, says he, since God condescends to commune with His servants, we may consequently suppose that from the very beginning He enacted words appropriat

 But our pious opponent will not allow of God’s using our language, because of our proneness to evil, shutting his eyes (good man!) to the fact that fo

 But most people, perhaps, will think this too far removed from the scope of our present inquiry. This, however, no one will regard as out of keeping w

 Since, then, it is improper to regard God as the inventor of such names, lest the names even of these idol gods should seem to have had their origin f

 And if we set forth the opinion of most commentators on these words of the Psalmist, that of Eunomius regarding them will be still more convicted of f

 But the names which the Lord gives to such stars we may plainly learn from the prophecy of Esaias, which says, “I have called thee by thy name thou a

 I will pass over, then, the abuse with which he has prefaced his discussion of these matters, as when he uses such terms as “alteration of seed,” and

 I pass in silence his blasphemy in reducing God the Only-begotten to a level with all created things, and, in a word, allowing to the Son of God no hi

 For, proceeding with his discourse, he asks us what we mean by the ages. And yet we ourselves might more reasonably put such questions to him. For it

 But I think we must pass over this and all that follows. For it is the mere trifling of children who amuse themselves with beginning to build houses i

 Such is our position our adversary’s, with regard to the precise meaning of this term , is such as can derive no help from any reasonings he only sp

 He says, “The Life that is the same, and thoroughly single, must have one and the same outward expression for it, even though in mere names, and manne

 But why do we linger over these follies, when we ought rather to put Eunomius’ book itself into the hands of the studious, and so, apart from any exam

 But if he should still answer with regard to this opposition (of the Divine names), that it is only the term Father, and the term Creator, that are ap

 But let us examine a still more vehement charge of his against us it is this: “If one must proceed to say something harsher still, he does not even k

 What, then, does Eunomius say to this? “If He is imperishable only by reason of the unending in His Life, and ungenerate only by reason of the unbegin

 What, then, out of all that we have said, has stirred him up to this piece of childish folly, in which he returns to the charge and repeats himself in

 Such are the clever discoveries of Eunomius against the truth. For what need is there to go through all his argument with trifling prolixity? For in e

 Either, he says, that which is endless is distinct in meaning from that which is imperishable, or else the two must make one. But if he call both one,

 But that he himself also may be brought to the knowledge of his own trifling, we will convict him from his own statements. For in the course of his ar

 Thus far our argument goes with him. But the riddle with which he accompanies his words we must leave to those trained in the wisdom of Prunicus to in

 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

 But who, pray, is so simple as to be harmed by such arguments, and to imagine that if names are once believed to be an outcome of the reasoning facult

 But I do not think that we need linger on this, nor minutely examine that which follows. To the more attentive reader, the argument elaborated by our

 But now I do not know which it is best to do to pursue step by step this subject, or to put an end here to our contest with such folly. Well, as in t

 When, then, he is on the point of introducing this treatment of terms of “privation,” he takes upon himself to show “the incurable absurdity,” as he c

 Every term—every term, that is, which is really such—is an utterance expressing some movement of thought. But every operation and movement of sound th

 Well, then, if God did not exist formerly, or if there be a time when He will not exist, He cannot be called either unending or without beginning and

 Thus much, then, is known to us about the names uttered in any form whatever in reference to the Deity. We have given a simple explanation of them, un

 How it is possible, then, to assign one’s gratuities to the non-subsistent, let this man, who claims to be using words and phrases in their natural fo

 Well, if the term imperishable or indestructible is not considered by this maker of an empty system to be privative of destruction, then by a stern ne

 “But I do not see,” he rejoins, “how God can be above His own works simply by virtue of such things as do not belong to Him .” And on the strength of

 He declares that God surpasses mortal beings as immortal, destructible beings as indestructible, generated beings as ungenerate, just in the same degr

 Therefore let us again handle this dictum of his: “God is not called immortal by virtue of the absence of death.” How are we to accept this statement,

 Still I cannot see what profit there is in deigning to examine such nonsense. For a man like myself, who has lived to gray hairs , and whose eyes are

 But it is time now to expose that angry accusation which he brings against us at the close of his treatise, saying that we affirm the Father to be fro

 “The evangelist Luke, when giving the genealogy according to the flesh of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ, and stepping up from the last to the first

 With what eyes will you now dare to gaze upon your guide? I speak to you, O flock of perishing souls! How can you still turn to listen to this man who

 Such, to use your own words, is the “evil,” as one might expect, not indeed “of valuing the character for being clever before one is really such” (for

It will presently be time to bring to their own recollection the method of this argument. Suffice it first to say this. There is no faculty in human nature adequate to the full comprehension of the divine essence. It may be that it is easy to show this in the case of human capacity alone, and to say that the incorporeal creation is incapable of taking in and comprehending that nature which is infinite will not be far short of the truth, as we may see by familiar examples; for as there are many and various things that have fleshly life, winged things, and things of the earth, some that mount above the clouds by virtue of their wings, others that dwell in hollows or burrow in the ground, on comparing which it would appear that there was no small difference between the inhabitants of air and of land; while, if the comparison be extended to the stars and the fixed circumference, it will be seen that what soars aloft on wings is not less widely removed from heaven than from the animals that are on the earth; so, too, the strength of angels compared with our own seems preeminently great, because, undisturbed by sensation, it pursues its lofty themes with pure naked intelligence. Yet, if we weigh even their comprehension with the majesty of Him Who really is, it may be that if any one should venture to say that even their power of understanding is not far superior to our own weakness, his conjecture would fall within the limits of probability, for wide and insurmountable is the interval that divides and fences off uncreated from created nature. The latter is limited, the former not. The latter is confined within its own boundaries according to the pleasure of its Maker. The former is bounded only by infinity. The latter stretches itself out within certain degrees of extension, limited by time and space: the former transcends all notion of degree, baffling curiosity from every point of view. In this life we can apprehend the beginning and the end of all things that exist, but the beatitude that is above the creature admits neither end nor beginning, but is above all that is connoted by either, being ever the same, self-dependent, not travelling on by degrees from one point to another in its life; for there is no participation of other life in its life, such that we might infer end and beginning; but, be it what it may, it is life energizing in itself, not becoming greater or less by addition or diminution. For increase has no place in the infinite, and that which is by its nature passionless excludes all notion of decrease. And as, when looking up to heaven, and in a measure apprehending by the visual organs the beauty that is in the height, we doubt not the existence of what we see, but if asked what it is, we are unable to define its nature, but we simply admire as we contemplate the overarching vault, the reverse planetary motion13    Gregory here refers to the apparent “retrograde” motion of the planets, i.e. that, while passing through part of their orbits, they appear to us to move in a direction contrary to the order of the Zodiac. In what follows he represents the views of the ancient astronomy, imagining a series of concentric spheres, allotted to the several planets, the planetary motions being accomplished by the rotation of the spheres. Beyond the planetary spheres is the sphere allotted to the fixed stars, within which the others revolve. See Gale, Opusc. Mythol. (1688), p 550; and Introduction to Colet’s Lectures on Corinthians, pp. xl–xliii., the so-called Zodiac graven obliquely on the pole, whereby astronomers observe the motion of bodies revolving in an opposite direction, the differences of luminaries according to their magnitude, and the specialities of their rays, their risings and settings that take place according to the circling year ever at the same seasons undeviatingly, the conjunctions of planets, the courses of those that pass below, the eclipses of those that are above, the obumbrations of the earth, the reappearance of eclipsed bodies, the moon’s multiform changes, the motion of the sun midway within the poles, and how, filled with his own light, and crowned with his encircling beams, and embracing all things in his sovereign light, he himself also at times suffers eclipse (the disc of the moon, as they say, passing before him), and how, by the will of Him Who has so ordained, ever running his own particular course, he accomplishes his appointed orbit and progress, opening out the four seasons of the year in succession; we, as I say, when we contemplate these phenomena by the aid of sight, are in no doubt of their existence, though we are as far from comprehending their essential nature as if sight had not given us any glimpse whatever of what we have seen; and even so, with regard to the Creator of the world, we know that He exists, but of His essential nature we cannot deny that we are ignorant. But, boasting as they do that they know these things, let them first tell us about the things of inferior nature; what they think of the body of the heavens, of the machinery which conveys the stars in their eternal courses, or of the sphere in which they move; for, however far speculation may proceed, when it comes to the uncertain and incomprehensible it must stop. For though any one say that another body, like in fashion (to that body of the heavens), fitting to its circular shape, checks its velocity, so that, ever turning in its course, it revolves conformably to that other upon itself, being retained by the force that embraces it from flying off at a tangent, yet how can he assert that these bodies will remain unspent by their constant friction with each other? And how, again, is motion produced in the case of two coeval bodies mutually conformed, when the one remains motionless (for the inner body, one would have thought, being held as in a vice by the motionlessness of that which embraces it, will be quite unable to act); and what is it that maintains the embracing body in its fixedness, so that it remains unshaken and unaffected by the motion of that which fits into it? And if in restless curiosity of thought we should conceive of some position for it that should keep it stationary, we must go on in logical consistency to search for the base of that base, and of the next, and of the next, and so on, and so the inquiry, proceeding from like to like, will go on to infinity, and end in helpless perplexity, still, even when some body has been put for the farthest foundation of the system of the universe, reaching after what is beyond, so that there is no stopping in our inquiry after the limit of the embracing circles. But not so, say others: but (according to the vain theory of those who have speculated on these matters) there is an empty space spread over the back of the heavens, working in which vacuum the motion of the universe revolves upon itself, meeting with no resistance from any solid body capable of retarding it by opposition and of checking its course of revolution. What, then, is that vacuum, which they say is neither a body nor an idea? How far does it extend, and what succeeds it, and what relation exists between the firm, resisting body, and that void and unsubstantial one? What is there to unite things so contrary by nature? and how can the harmony of the universe consist out of elements so incongruous; and what can any one say of Heaven itself? That it is a mixture of the elements which it contains, or one of them, or something else beside them? What, again, of the stars themselves? whence comes their radiance? what is it and how is it composed? and what is the reason of their difference in beauty and magnitude? and the seven inner orbs revolving in an opposite direction to the motion of the universe, what are they, and by what influence are they propelled? Then, too, what is that immaterial and ethereal empyrean, and the intermediate air which forms a wall of partition between that element in nature which gives heat and consumes, and that which is moist and combustible? And how does earth below form the foundation of the whole, and what is it that keeps it firmly in its place? what is it that controls its downward tendency? If any one should interrogate us on these and such-like points, will any of us be found so presumptuous as to promise an explanation of them? No! the only reply that can be given by men of sense is this:—that He Who made all things in wisdom can alone furnish an account of His creation. For ourselves, “through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God,” as saith the Apostle14    Heb. i. 2..

Καιρὸς δ' ἂν εἴη λοιπὸν καὶ αὐτῆς μνησθῆναι τῆς εἰς τοῦτο κατασκευῆς, τοσοῦτον ὑπειπόντας μόνον. οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἀνθρωπίνῃ φύσει δύναμις εἰς ἀκριβῆ κατανόησιν οὐσίας θεοῦ: τάχα δὲ μικρόν ἐστιν ἐπὶ μόνης ἀποφήνασθαι τοῦτο τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης δυνάμεως, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν ἀσώματον κτίσιν ἐλάττονά τις εἰπὼν ἢ ὥστε χωρῆσαι καὶ περιλαβεῖν τῇ γνώσει τὴν ἀόριστον φύσιν οὐ τοῦ παντὸς ἁμαρτήσεται. οἷον ἔστιν ἐπὶ τῶν καθ' ἡμᾶς ὑποδειγμάτων κατανοῆσαι, ὅτι πολλῶν ὄντων καὶ διαφόρων τῶν διὰ σαρκὸς τὴν ζωὴν εἰληχότων, τῶν μὲν πτηνῶν τῶν δὲ χερσαίων, τό τε ὑπερνεφὲς ἐν τῇ τῶν πτερῶν δυνάμει γενόμενον καὶ τὸ τοῖς κοίλοις ἐγκαθιδρυμένον καὶ ἐμφωλεῦον εἰ μὲν πρὸς ἄλληλα κρίνοιντο, οὐκ ὀλίγον ἂν ἀφεστάναι δόξειε τοῦ χερσαίου τὸ ἐναέριον, εἰ δὲ πρὸς τὰ ἄστρα καὶ τὴν ἀπλανῆ σφαῖραν ἡ σύγκρισις εἴη, οὐδὲν ἔλαττον κεχωρίσθαι τοῦ οὐρανοῦ τὸ μετεωροποροῦν διὰ πτήσεως τῶν περὶ γῆν νομισθήσεται ζῴων. οὕτως καὶ ἡ τῶν ἀγγέλων δύναμις τῷ μὲν ἡμετέρῳ συγκρινομένη πάμπολυ προέχειν δοκεῖ, ὅτι οὐδεμιᾶς αἰσθήσεως ἐνοχλούσης γυμνῇ τε καὶ ἀπαρακαλύπτῳ τῇ γνωστικῇ δυνάμει τῶν ὑψηλῶν ἐπορέγεται: εἰ δὲ πρὸς τὸ μεγαλεῖον τοῦ ὄντως ὄντος καὶ ἡ ἐκείνων κατάληψις ἐξετάζοιτο, τάχα ὁ τολμήσας εἰπεῖν μὴ πόρρω τῆς ἡμετέρας βραχύτητος καὶ τὴν ἐκείνων δύναμιν ἀφεστάναι τῆς θείας κατανοήσεως οὐκ ἔξω τοῦ εἰκότος ἀποτολμήσει. πολὺ γὰρ τὸ μέσον καὶ ἀδιεξίτητον, ᾧ πρὸς τὴν κτιστὴν οὐσίαν ἡ ἄκτιστος φύσις διατετείχισται. αὕτη πεπεράτωται, ἐκείνη πέρας οὐκ ἔχει: αὕτη τοῖς ἰδίοις μέτροις κατὰ τὸ ἀρέσαν τῇ σοφίᾳ τοῦ πεποιηκότος ἐμπεριείληπται, τῆς δὲ μέτρον ἡ ἀπειρία ἐστίν: αὕτη διαστηματικῇ τινι παρατάσει συμπαρεκτείνεται, καὶ χρόνῳ καὶ τόπῳ περιειργομένη, ἐκείνη ὑπερεκπίπτει πᾶσαν διαστήματος ἔννοιαν, καθ' ὅπερ ἄν τις ἐπιβάλλῃ τὸν νοῦν, κατ' ἐκεῖνο τὴν πολυπραγμοσύνην ἐκφεύγουσα: ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ ζωῇ καὶ ἀρχὴν τοῖς οὖσι καὶ τέλος ἔστιν ἐπινοῆσαι, ἡ δὲ ὑπὲρ τὴν κτίσιν μακαριότης οὔτε ἀρχὴν οὔτε τέλος προσίεται, ἀλλ' ὑπὲρ τὸ ἐν ἑκατέρῳ σημαινόμενον πέφυκεν ἀεὶ ὡσαύτως ἔχουσα καὶ ἐφ' ἑαυτῆς βεβηκυῖα, οὐ διαστηματικῶς ἔκ τινος εἴς τι τῇ ζωῇ διοδεύουσα: οὔτε γὰρ μετουσίᾳ ζωῆς ἑτέρας ἐν τῷ ζῆν γίνεται, ὡς ἀκόλουθον εἶναι καὶ πέρας καὶ ἀρχὴν τῆς μετουσίας νοεῖσθαι, ἀλλ' αὐτὸ ὅπερ ἐστὶ ζωή ἐστιν ἐν ἑαυτῇ ἐνεργουμένη, οὔτε μείζων οὔτε ἐλάττων ἐκ προσθήκης ἢ ὑφαιρέσεως γίνεται. ἡ μὲν γὰρ εἰς τὸ μεῖζον ἐπαύξησις ἐν τῷ ἀπείρῳ χώραν οὐκ ἔχει, τῆς δὲ κατὰ τὴν ἐλάττωσιν ἐπινοίας τὸ κατὰ φύσιν ἀπαθὲς ἀνεπίδεκτον. ὥσπερ δὲ τὸν οὐρανὸν ὁρῶντες καὶ τρόπον τινὰ διὰ τῶν ὁρατικῶν αἰσθητηρίων τοῦ κατὰ τὸ ὕψος ἐφαπτόμενοι κάλλους εἶναι μὲν τὸ φαινόμενον οὐκ ἀμφιβάλλομεν, τὸ δὲ τί ἐστιν ἐρωτηθέντες διερμηνεῦσαι τῷ λόγῳ τὴν φύσιν οὐκ ἔχομεν, θαυμάζομεν δὲ μόνον τὴν ἐγκύκλιον τοῦ παντὸς ὁρῶντες περιφορὰν καὶ τῶν πλανητῶν τὴν ἐναρμόνιον ἐπὶ τὸ ἔμπαλιν κίνησιν κύκλον τέ τινα τὸν λεγόμενον ζῳοφόρον κατὰ τὸ λοξὸν ἐγκεχαραγμένον τῷ πόλῳ, ᾧ τὴν κίνησιν τῶν κατὰ τὸ ἐναντίον ἀνειλουμένων παρατηροῦσιν οἱ ταῦτα σοφοί, φωστήρων τε διαφορὰς κατά τε τὰ μεγέθη καὶ τὰς τῶν αὐγῶν ἰδιότητας ἐπιτολάς τε καὶ δύσεις κατὰ τὴν ἐγκύκλιον τοῦ ἔτους περίοδον ἐπὶ τῶν αὐτῶν ἀεὶ καιρῶν γινομένας ἀπαραβάτως, συνόδους τε τῶν πλανωμένων καὶ ὑποδρομὰς τῶν ὑποβεβηκότων καὶ ἐκλείψεις τῶν ὑπερκειμένων καὶ γῆς ἀποσκιάσεις καὶ ἀποκαταστάσεις τῶν ἐκλειπόντων τήν τε πολυειδῆ τῆς σελήνης ἀλλοίωσιν καὶ τοῦ ἡλίου τὴν ἐπὶ τοῦ μέσου τῶν πόλων κίνησιν, καὶ ὡς ἀνάπλεως ὢν τοῦ ἰδίου φωτὸς καὶ ταῖς ἀκτῖσιν ἐν κύκλῳ καταστεφὴς πάντα τε τῇ φωτιστικῇ δυνάμει περιπτυσσόμενος ἔστιν ὅτε καὶ αὐτὸς ἐκλείπει, τοῦ σεληναίου σώματος ὥς φασιν ἐπιπροσθοῦντος, καὶ ὡς κατὰ τὸ βούλημα τοῦ διατάξαντος ἀεὶ τὸν ἴδιον δρόμον ἀνύων περιπορεύεται διὰ τῆς τεταγμένης προόδου καὶ ὑποβάσεως, τὰς τέσσαρας τοῦ ἔτους ὥρας ἐν ἑαυταῖς ἀνελίσσων, ταῦτα ὁρῶντες εἶναι μὲν τὰ φαινόμενα δι' ὧν ὁρῶμεν οὐκ ἀμφιβάλλομεν, οὐσίας δὲ λόγον ἑκάστου τῶν ὄντων τοσοῦτον ἀπέχομεν κατανοῆσαι, ὅσον εἰ μηδὲ τὴν ἀρχὴν τῇ αἰσθήσει τὸ φανὲν ἐγνωρίσαμεν: οὕτω καὶ τὸν ποιητὴν τοῦ κόσμου ὅτι μὲν ἔστιν οἴδαμεν, τὸν δὲ τῆς οὐσίας λόγον ἀγνοεῖν οὐκ ἀρνούμεθα.
Οἱ δὲ γινώσκειν ταῦτα κομπάζοντες πρότερον μὲν περὶ τῶν ὑποβεβηκότων εἰπάτωσαν, τί τὸ οὐράνιον οἴονται σῶμα, τίνα δὲ τὴν κυκλοφοροῦσαν διὰ παντὸς μηχανήν, ἐν τίνι δὲ τὴν κίνησιν γίνεσθαι; ὅπερ γὰρ ἄν τις τῇ διανοίᾳ λογίσηται, πάντως εἰς τὸ ἀμήχανόν τε καὶ ἀκατάληπτον ὁ λογισμὸς προϊὼν καταλήξει. εἴ τε γὰρ ἕτερον ὁμοιοσχημάτιστον σῶμα λέγοι τις ἐν τύπῳ περιηρμοσμένον περικρατεῖν τὴν φοράν, ὡς ἀεὶ τὸν δρόμον καμπτόμενον ὁμοιοτρόπως περὶ ἑαυτὸν ἑλίσσεσθαι, τῇ ἀνάγκῃ τοῦ περιέχοντος ἐξενεχθῆναι πρὸς τὸ εὐθὺ κωλυόμενον, πῶς ἐρεῖ διαμένειν ταῦτα τὰ σώματα, διὰ τῆς διηνεκοῦς τρίψεως ἐν ἀλλήλοις οὐ δαπανώμενα; πῶς δὲ καὶ ἐνεργεῖται ἡ κίνησις, δύο σωμάτων ὁμοφυῶν πρὸς τύπον ἀλλήλοις ἐναρμοττόντων, ὅταν τὸ ἕτερον ἀκίνητον μένῃ; τῇ γὰρ ἀκινησίᾳ τοῦ περιδεδραγμένου τὸ ἐντὸς διασφιγγόμενον ἀδυνατήσει πάντως πρὸς τὴν ἰδίαν ἐνέργειαν. τί δὲ καὶ τὸ ἑδράζον τοῦ περιέχοντος ἐκείνου τὴν παγιότητα, ὥστε διαμένειν ἄσειστον, ὑπὸ τῆς τοῦ ἐνηρμοσμένου κινήσεως μὴ τινασσόμενον; εἰ δὲ κἀκείνου κατὰ τὴν πολυπραγμοσύνην τῆς διανοίας εἶναί τις ἕδρα ὑποληφθείη ἡ συντηροῦσα ἐν τῷ παγίῳ τὴν στάσιν, πάντως προϊὼν κατὰ τὸ ἀκόλουθον ὁ λόγος κἀκείνης πολυπραγμονήσει βάσιν τῆς βάσεως καὶ ταύτης ἄλλην καὶ τῆς ἐφεξῆς ἑτέραν καὶ οὕτω διὰ τῶν ὁμοίων ἡ ἐξέτασις ἀνιοῦσα πρὸς τὸ ἄπειρον ἐνεχθήσεται καὶ εἰς ἄπορον καταλήξει, τοῦ εἰς τὴν τοῦ παντὸς σύστασιν ὑποβεβλημένου σώματος τὸ ἐπέκεινα πάλιν κατεξετάζουσα, ὡς μηδαμοῦ στῆναι τὸν λόγον τοῦ ἀεὶ περιέχοντος τὴν περιβολὴν ζητοῦντα. ἀλλὰ τοῦτο μὲν οὐχί: κενὸν δέ τι κατὰ τὴν ματαίαν τῶν ταῦτα πεφιλοσοφηκότων ὑπόνοιαν τοῖς οὐρανίοις περικέχυται νώτοις καὶ τούτῳ ἐνολισθαίνουσα τοῦ παντὸς ἡ δίνησις πρὸς ἑαυτὴν ἀναστρέφει, μηδεμίαν ἐκ στερεοῦ τινος ἀντιτυπίαν εὑρίσκουσα τὴν δυναμένην ἐξ ἀντιβάσεως στῆσαι καὶ ἀνακόψαι προϊοῦσαν ἐν κύκλῳ τὴν κίνησιν. τί τοίνυν ἐστὶ τὸ κενὸν ἐκεῖνο, ὃ μήτε σῶμά φασι μήτε νόημα, καὶ μέχρι τίνος ἱστάμενον, καὶ τί τὸ διαδεχόμενον; τίς δὲ τοῦ ναστοῦ καὶ ἀντιτύπου ἡ πρὸς τὸ κενὸν καὶ ἀνυπόστατον ἐκεῖνο συγγένεια; τί τὸ μεσιτεῦον τοῖς παρηλλαγμένοις τῇ φύσει; πῶς δὲ διὰ τῶν ἑτεροφυῶν ἡ τοσαύτη τοῦ παντὸς εὐαρμοστία συνίσταται; τί δ' ἄν τις εἴποι τὸν οὐρανὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι, μίγμα τι τῶν περιεχομένων στοιχείων ἢ ἓν ἐξ ἁπάντων ἢ ἄλλο τι παρὰ ταῦτα; τί δὲ τοὺς ἀστέρας αὐτούς, πόθεν δὲ αὐτοῖς τὴν αὐγὴν ἀποστίλβειν τί οὖσαν καὶ ὅπως συνισταμένην; τῆς δὲ διαφορᾶς αὐτῶν κατά τε τὸ κάλλος καὶ τὸ μέγεθος ὁ λόγος τίς; τοὺς δὲ ἐντὸς ἑπτὰ κύκλους τὴν ἐναντίαν τῷ παντὶ κίνησιν περιαγομένους τί εἶναι, ὑπὸ ποίας ἀνάγκης ἐλαύνεσθαι; τὸ δὲ ἄϋλον ἐκεῖνο καὶ αἰθέριον πῦρ καὶ ὁ ἐγκεχυμένος διὰ μέσου ἀὴρ οἷόν τι διατείχισμα γινόμενος τῆς θερμαντικῆς τε καὶ ἀναλωτικῆς φύσεως πρὸς τὴν ὑγρὰν καὶ εὐανάλωτον; καὶ ὅπως κατὰ τὸ ἔσχατον ἡ γῆ τῷ παντὶ ὑποβέβληται; τί τὸ φυλάσσον ἔχει ἐν τῷ βεβαίῳ τὴν στάσιν; τί τὸ ὑπερεῖδον αὐτῆς τὴν ἐπὶ τὸ κάτω φοράν; εἰ ταῦτα καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτά τις ἡμᾶς κατεξετάζοι, ἆρά τις ἔσται τοσοῦτον ἀνεστηκὼς τὴν διάνοιαν ὥστε καθυποσχέσθαι τῶν τοιούτων τὴν γνῶσιν; οὐδὲν γὰρ ἕτερον εἰς ἀπόκρισιν τοῖς εὐγνώμοσιν ἢ τοῦτο λείπεται, ὅτι ὁ τὰ πάντα ἐν σοφίᾳ ποιήσας μόνος οἶδε τὸν λόγον τῆς κτίσεως. ἡμεῖς δὲ Πίστει νοοῦμεν κατηρτίσθαι τοὺς αἰῶνας ῥήματι θεοῦ, καθώς φησιν ὁ ἀπόστολος.