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

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 reason he must understand by the words “God saw,” that He did so by faculties of perception like our own, through the organs of vision; and so again by the words “The Lord heard me and had mercy upon me,” and again, “He smelled a sweet savour46    Ps. xxx. 10 (LXX.). Gen. viii. 21.,” and whatever other sensuous expressions are employed by Scripture in reference to head, or foot, or hand, or eyes, or fingers, or sandals, as appertaining to God, taking them, I say, in their plain literal acceptation, he will present to us an anthropomorphous deity, after the similitude of what is seen among ourselves. But if any one hearing that the heavens are the work of His fingers, that He has a strong hand, and a mighty arm, and eyes, and feet, and sandals, deduces from such words ideas worthy of God, and does not degrade the idea of His pure nature by carnal and sensuous imaginations, it will follow that on the one hand he will regard the verbal utterances as indications of the Divine will, but on the other he will not conceive of them as articulate sounds, but will reason thus; that the Creator of human reason has gifted us with speech proportionally to the capacity of our nature, so that we might be able thereby to signify the thoughts of our minds; but that, so far as the Divine nature differs from ours, so great will be the degree of difference between our notions respecting it and its own inherent majesty and godhead. And as our power compared with God’s, and our life with His life, is as nothing, and all else that is ours, compared with what is in Him, is “as nothing in comparison47    Ps. xxxix. 5.” with Him, as saith the inspired Teaching, so also our word as compared with Him, Who is the Word indeed, is as nothing48    Or. Cat. c. 1. “For since our nature is liable to corruption, and weak, therefore is our life short, our strength unsubstantial, our word unstable (ἀπαγὴς);” and see note.. For this word of yours was not in the beginning, but was created along with our nature, nor is it to be regarded as having any reality of its own, but, as our master (Basil) somewhere has said, it vanishes along with the sound of the voice, nor is any operation of the word discernible, but it has its subsistence in voice only, or in written characters. But the word of God is God Himself, the Word that was in the beginning and that abideth for ever, through Whom all things were and are, Who ruleth over all, and hath all power over the things in heaven and the things on earth, being Life, and Truth, and Righteousness, and Light, and all that is good, and upholding all things in being. Such, then, and so great being the word, as we understand it, of God, our opponent allows God, as some great thing, the power of language, made up of nouns, verbs, and conjunctions, not perceiving that, as He Who conferred practical powers on our nature is not spoken of as fabricating each of their several results, but, while He gave our nature its ability, it is by us that a house is constructed, or a bench, or a sword, or a plough, and whatsoever thing our life happens to be in need of, each of which things is our own work, although it may be ascribed to Him Who is the author of our being, and Who created our nature capable of every science,—so also our power of speech is the work of Him Who made our nature what it is, but the invention of each several term required to denote objects in hand is of our own devising. And this is proved by the fact that many terms in use are of a base and unseemly character, of which no man of sense would conceive God the inventor: so that, if certain of our familiar expressions are ascribed by Holy Scripture to God as the speaker, we should remember that the Holy Spirit is addressing us in language of our own, as e.g. in the history of the Acts we are told that each man received the teaching of the disciples in his own language wherein he was born, understanding the sense of the words by the language which he knew. And, that this is true, may be seen yet more clearly by a careful examination of the enactments of the Levitical law. For they make mention of pans, and cakes, and fine flour49    Lev. ii. 5, seqq., and the like, in the mystic sacrifices, instilling wholesome doctrine under the veil of symbol and enigma. Mention, too, is made of certain measures then in use, such as ephah, and nebel50    Nebel is defined by Epiphanius de pond. et mens. c. 24, as follows, Νέβελ οἴνου, ὅπερ ἐστὶ μέτρον ξεστῶν ρ'ν' (150 pints). The word is merely a transcription of the Hebrew for a skin, i.e. wine-skin, “bottle.” Cf. Hosea iii. 2, νέβελ οἴνου (LXX.): Symmachus has ἀσκος., and hin, and the like. Are we, then, to suppose that God made these names and appellations, or that in the beginning He commanded them to be such, and to be so named, calling one kind of grain wheat, and its pith flour, and flat sweetmeats, whether heavy or light, cakes; and that He commanded a vessel of the kind in which a moist lump is boiled or baked to be called a pan, or that He spoke of a certain liquid measure by the name of hin or nebel, and measured dry produce by the homer? surely it is trifling and mere Jewish folly, far removed from the grandeur of Christian simplicity, to think that God, Who is the Most High and above every name and thought, Who by sole virtue of His will governs the world, which He brought into existence, and upholds it in being, should set Himself like some schoolmaster to settle the niceties of terminology. Rather let us say, that as we indicate to the deaf what we want them to do, by gestures and signs, not because we have no voice of our own, but because a verbal communication would be utterly useless to those who cannot hear, so, in as much as human nature is in a sense deaf and insensible to higher truths, we maintain that the grace of God at sundry times and in divers manners spake by the Prophets, ordering their voices conformably to our capacity and the modes of expression with which we are familiar, and that by such means it leads us, as with a guiding hand, to the knowledge of higher truths, not teaching us in terms proportioned to their inherent sublimity, (for how can the great be contained by the little?) but descending to the lower level of our limited comprehension. And as God, after giving animals their power of motion, no longer prescribes each step they take, for their nature, having once for all taken its beginning from the Creator, moves of itself, and makes its way, adapting its power of motion to its object from time to time (except in so far as it is said that a man’s steps are directed by the Lord), so our nature, having received from God the power of speech and utterance and of expressing the will by the voice, proceeds on its way through things, giving them distinctive names by varying inflections of sound; and these signs are the verbs and nouns which we use, and through which we signify the meaning of the things. And though the word “fruit” is made use of by Moses before the creation of fruit, and “seed” before that of seed, this does not disprove our assertion, nor is the sense of the lawgiver opposed to what we have said in respect to thought and conception. For that end of past husbandry which we speak of as fruit, and that beginning of future husbandry which we speak of as seed, this thing, I mean, underlying these names,—whether wheat or some other produce which is increased and multiplied by sowing—does not, he teaches us, grow spontaneously, but by the will of Him Who created them to grow with their peculiar power, so as to be the same fruit and to reproduce themselves as seed, and to support mankind with their increase. And by the Divine will the thing is produced, not the name, so that the substantial thing51    Here is the answer to Eunomius’ contention above (p. 270), that “in the earliest of the sacred records before the creation of man, the naming of fruit and seed are mentioned in Holy Writ.” He calls Basil, for not observing this, a pagan and atheist. So below he calls him a follower of Valentinus, “a sower of tares,” for making the human faculty (ἐπίνοια) the maker of names, even of those of the Only-begotten; apparently, as Valentinus multiplied the names of Christ. is the work of the Creator, but the distinguishing names of things, by which speech furnishes us with a clear and accurate description of them, are the work and the invention of man’s reasoning faculty, though the reasoning faculty itself and its nature are a work of God. And since all men are endowed with reason, differences of language will of necessity be found according to differences of country. But if any one maintain that light, or heaven, or earth, or seed were named after human fashion by God, he will certainly conclude that they were named in some special language. What that was, let him show. For he who knows the one thing will not, in all probability, be ignorant of the other. For at the river Jordan, after the descent of the Holy Ghost, and again in the hearing of the Jews, and at the Transfiguration, there came a voice from heaven, teaching men not only to regard the phenomenon as something more than a figure, but also to believe the beloved Son of God to be truly God. Now that voice was fashioned by God, suitably to the understanding of the hearers, in airy substance, and adapted to the language of the day, God, “who willeth that all men should be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth52    1 Tim. ii. 4.,” having so articulated His words in the air with a view to the salvation of the hearers, as our Lord also saith to the Jews, when they thought it thundered because the sound took place in the air. “This voice came not because of Me, but for your sakes53    S. John xii. 30.” But before the creation of the world, inasmuch as there was no one to hear the word, and no bodily element capable of accentuating the articulate voice, how can he who says that God used words give any air of probability to his assertion? God Himself is without body, creation did not yet exist. Reason does not suffer us to conceive of anything material in respect to Him. They who might have been benefited by the hearing were not yet created. And if men were not yet in being, neither had any form of language been struck out in accordance with national peculiarities, by what arguments, then, can he who looks to the bare letter make good his assertion, that God spoke thus using human parts of speech?

Εἰ δέ τις τὸ Εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς σαρκικώτερον ἑρμηνεύοι, ὡς διὰ τοῦτο τὸν ἔναρθρον λόγον παρ' αὐτοῦ γεγενῆσθαι κατασκευάζειν, ὁ αὐτὸς οὗτος καὶ τὸ Εἶδεν ὁ θεὸς κατὰ τὴν ἀντιληπτικὴν ἡμῶν αἴσθησιν διὰ τῆς τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν ἐνεργείας πάντως ὑπονοήσει καὶ τὸ Ἤκουσε κύριος καὶ ἠλέησέ με καὶ Ὠσφράνθη ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας καὶ ὅσα περὶ κεφαλῆς θείας ἢ ποδὸς ἢ χειρὸς ἢ ῥινὸς ἢ βλεφάρων ἢ δακτύλων ἢ ὑποδήματος ἡ γραφὴ σωματικώτερον διεξέρχεται, πάντα κατὰ τὸ προχείρως σημαινόμενον ἐκλαβὼν ἀνθρωποειδὲς ἡμῖν διαγράψει τὸ θεῖον καθ' ὁμοιότητα τῶν ἐν ἡμῖν φαινομένων. εἰ δὲ δακτύλων τις ἔργα τοὺς οὐρανοὺς ἀκούων καὶ χεῖρα κραταιὰν καὶ βραχίονα ὑψηλὸν καὶ ὀφθαλμὸν καὶ βλέφαρα καὶ πόδα καὶ ὑποδήματα θεοπρεπεῖς ἐννοίας δι' ἑκάστου τῶν εἰρημένων ἀναλογίζεται καὶ οὐ διαμολύνει τὸν περὶ τῆς καθαρᾶς φύσεως λόγον ταῖς σωματικαῖς ὑπολήψεσι καταρρυπαίνων, ἀκόλουθον ἂν εἴη καὶ τὰς τῶν ῥημάτων ἐκφωνήσεις ἐνδεικτικὰς μὲν ἡγεῖσθαι τοῦ θείου βουλήματος, μὴ μέντοι φωνὰς ἐνάρθρους ὑπολαμβάνειν, ἀλλ' ἐκεῖνο λογίζεσθαι, ὅτι ὁ τῆς λογικῆς φύσεως δημιουργὸς ἀναλογοῦντα τῷ μέτρῳ τῆς φύσεως τὸν λόγον ἡμῖν δεδώρηται, ὡς ἂν ἔχοιμεν ἐξαγγέλλειν δι' αὐτοῦ τῆς ψυχῆς τὰ κινήματα. ὅσον δὲ ἀπέχει ἡ φύσις τῆς φύσεως, ἡ θεία λέγω τῆς ἡμετέρας, κατὰ τὸ ἴσον μέτρον τῆς ἀποστάσεως πάντα τὰ περὶ αὐτὴν ὄντα τῶν ἐν ἡμῖν θεωρουμένων πρὸς τὸ μεγαλειότερόν τε καὶ θεοπρεπέστερον τὴν παραλλαγὴν ἔχει: καὶ ὡς ἡ δύναμις ἡ καθ' ἡμᾶς πρὸς τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ κρινομένη τὸ μηδέν ἐστι καὶ ἡ ζωὴ πρὸς τὴν ζωὴν καὶ τὰ ἄλλα πάντα τὰ ἡμέτερα πρὸς τὰ ἐν ἐκείνῳ κρινόμενα ὡς οὐδὲν ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ, καθὼς ἡ προφητεία φησίν, οὕτως καὶ ὁ ἡμέτερος λόγος πρὸς τὸν ὄντως ὄντα λόγον κρινόμενός ἐστιν οὐδέν. οὗτος μὲν γὰρ ἐν ἀρχῇ οὐκ ἦν, ἀλλὰ τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ συγκατεσκευάσθη φύσει, οὔτε κατ' ἰδίαν θεωρεῖται ὑπόστασιν, ἀλλ' ὥς φησί που ὁ διδάσκαλος τῷ ψόφῳ τῆς γλώσσης συναφανίζεται, οὔτε τι ἔργον ἔστι τούτου νοῆσαι τοῦ λόγου, ἀλλ' ἐν μόνῃ φωνῇ καὶ γράμματι τὴν ὑπόστασιν ἔχει: ὁ δὲ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ λόγος θεός ἐστι, λόγος ἐν ἀρχῇ ὢν καὶ εἰσαεὶ διαμένων, δι' οὗ τὰ πάντα ἔστι καὶ συνέστηκε, καὶ τοῦ παντὸς ἐπιστατεῖ καὶ πᾶσαν ἔχει τὴν ἐξουσίαν τῶν ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ τῶν ἐπὶ γῆς, ζωὴ καὶ ἀλήθεια καὶ δικαιοσύνη καὶ φῶς καὶ πᾶν ἀγαθὸν ὢν καὶ πάντα τὰ ἐν τῷ εἶναι διακρατῶν. τοιούτου τοίνυν ὄντος καὶ τοσούτου τοῦ λόγου τοῦ περὶ τὸν θεὸν νοουμένου οὗτος τὸν ἐν ὀνόμασι καὶ ῥήμασι καὶ συνδέσμοις συναπαρτιζόμενον λόγον ὥς τι μέγα χαρίζεται τῷ θεῷ, ἀγνοῶν ὅτι ὥσπερ ὁ τὴν πρακτικὴν τῇ φύσει ἡμῶν χαρισάμενος δύναμιν οὐ τὰ καθ' ἕκαστον ἡμῶν ἔργα δημιουργεῖν λέγεται, ἀλλ' ὁ μὲν ἔδωκε τῇ φύσει τὴν δύναμιν, ἐνεργεῖται δὲ παρ' ἡμῶν οἰκία καὶ βάθρον καὶ ῥομφαία καὶ ἄροτρον καὶ ὅτουπερ ἂν ὁ βίος τύχῃ δεόμενος, ὧν τὰ καθ' ἕκαστόν ἐστι μὲν ἔργα ἡμέτερα, εἰς δὲ τὸν ἡμῶν αὐτῶν αἴτιον τὴν ἀναφορὰν ἔχει τὸν δεκτικὴν πάσης ἐπιστήμης τὴν φύσιν ἡμῶν δημιουργήσαντα, οὕτως καὶ ἡ τοῦ λόγου δύναμις ἔργον μέν ἐστι τοῦ τοιαύτην ἡμῶν πεποιηκότος τὴν φύσιν, ἡ δὲ τῶν καθ' ἕκαστον ῥημάτων εὕρεσις πρὸς τὴν χρείαν τῆς τῶν ὑποκειμένων σημασίας παρ' ἡμῶν αὐτῶν ἐπενοήθη. τεκμήριον δὲ ὅτι πολλὰ τῶν λεγομένων αἰσχρά τε καὶ ἀπρεπῆ παντάπασιν εἶναι νενόμισται, ὧν οὐκ ἄν τις τῶν νοῦν ἐχόντων εὑρετὴν τὸν θεὸν ὑπολάβοι: ὥστε κἂν ἐκ προσώπου τοῦ θεοῦ λέγηταί τινα παρὰ τῆς θείας γραφῆς τῶν ἡμῖν συνήθων ῥημάτων, γνωστέον ὅτι τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἐκ τῶν ἡμετέρων ἡμῖν διαλέγεται, καθάπερ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς τῶν Πράξεων ἱστορίας ἐμάθομεν ὅτι ἕκαστος ἐν τῇ ἰδίᾳ διαλέκτῳ ἐν ᾗ ἐγεννήθη τὴν διδασκαλίαν ἐδέχετο, διὰ τῶν γνωρίμων αὐτῷ ῥημάτων τῆς δυνάμεως ἐπαΐων τῶν λόγων. Καὶ ὅτι ἀληθῆ ταῦτα, μᾶλλον ἄν τις μάθοι φιλοπονώτερον τὴν Λεϋιτικὴν νομοθεσίαν κατεξετάζων. τηγάνου γὰρ ἐκεῖ καὶ λαγάνου καὶ σεμιδάλεως καὶ τοιούτων μέμνηται ὀνομάτων ἐν ταῖς μυστικαῖς ἱερουργίαις συμβολικῶς καὶ δι' αἰνίγματος ψυχωφελῆ τινα δόγματα ὑφηγούμενος, καὶ μέτρα τινὰ κατονομάζει κατὰ τὴν τότε συνήθειαν ὕφι τι λέγων καὶ νέβελ καὶ ἲν καὶ πολλὰ τοιαῦτα: ἆρα ποιήσας τὰς προσηγορίας ταύτας καὶ ὀνομάσας, ἢ τὴν ἀρχὴν οὕτω διαταξάμενος γίνεσθαί τε καὶ λέγεσθαι, ὥστε τὸ μὲν τοιοῦτον σπέρμα σῖτον εἰπεῖν, τούτου δὲ τὴν ἐντεριώνην ὀνομάσαι σεμίδαλιν, καὶ τὰ ἐπιπόλαια καὶ ὑμενώδη καὶ διηπλωμένα τῶν πεμμάτων λάγανα προσειπεῖν καὶ τὸ τοιόνδε σκεῦος, ἐν ᾧ τὸ ὑγρὸν τοῦ φυράματος ἐξοπτᾶται καὶ ἐξικμάζεται, τήγανον ὀνομασθῆναι προστάξαι τοῦ τε ὑγροῦ τὴν τοσήνδε ποσότητα τῷ τοῦ ἲν ἢ τῷ τοῦ νέβελ ὀνόματι διαγορεύειν καὶ τοὺς ξηροτέρους καρποὺς διαμετρεῖσθαι τῷ γόμορ; φλυαρία ταῦτα καὶ ματαιότης Ἰουδαϊκὴ πάμπολυ τῆς τῶν Χριστιανῶν μεγαλοφυΐας ἐκπεπτωκυῖα, τὸ οἴεσθαι τὸν μέγαν καὶ ὕψιστον καὶ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομά τε καὶ νόημα θεόν, τὸν μόνῃ τῇ τοῦ βουλήματος δυνάμει τὸ πᾶν διακρατοῦντα καὶ εἰς γένεσιν ἄγοντα καὶ ἐν τῷ εἶναι διατηροῦντα, τοῦτον ὥς τινα γραμματιστὴν τὰς τοιάσδε τῶν ὀνομάτων θέσεις διαλεπτουργοῦντα καθῆσθαι. ἀλλ' ὥσπερ τοῖς κωφοῖς διασχηματιζόμενοι καὶ χειρονομοῦντες τὸ πρακτέον ὑποσημαίνομεν, οὐχὶ τῷ μὴ ἔχειν ἰδίαν αὐτοὶ φωνὴν ὅταν τοῦτο ποιῶμεν, ἀλλὰ τῷ παντάπασιν ἄχρηστον εἶναι τοῖς οὐκ ἀκούουσι τὴν διὰ τῶν ῥημάτων ὑφήγησιν, οὕτω καὶ τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης φύσεως κωφευούσης τρόπον τινὰ καὶ οὐδενὸς τῶν ὑψηλῶν ἐπαϊούσης τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ χάριν φαμὲν πολυμερῶς καὶ πολυτρόπως ἐν τοῖς προφήταις λαλοῦσαν, κατὰ τὸ ἡμῖν εὐσύνοπτόν τε καὶ σύνηθες τὰς τῶν ἁγίων προφητῶν διασχηματίζουσαν γλώσσας, διὰ τούτων ἡμᾶς εἰς τὴν τῶν ὑψηλῶν χειραγωγεῖν κατανόησιν, οὐ κατὰ τὴν ἰδίαν μεγαλοφυΐαν ποιουμένην τὴν διδασκαλίαν (πῶς γὰρ ἂν ἐν τῷ μικρῷ χωρηθείη τὸ μέγα;), ἀλλὰ τῇ βραχύτητι τῆς ἡμετέρας συγκατιοῦσαν δυνάμεως. καὶ ὥσπερ τὴν κινητικὴν τῷ ζῴῳ δύναμιν δοὺς ὁ θεὸς οὐκέτι δημιουργεῖ καὶ τὰ καθ' ἕκαστον διαβήματα (ἅπαξ γὰρ τὴν ἀρχὴν λαβοῦσα παρὰ τοῦ πεποιηκότος ἡ φύσις ἑαυτὴν κινεῖ τε καὶ διεξάγει πρὸς τὸ ἑκάστοτε δοκοῦν ἐνεργοῦσα τὴν κίνησιν, πλὴν παρὰ κυρίου λέγεται τῷ ἀνδρὶ τὰ διαβήματα κατευθύνεσθαι), οὕτως καὶ τὸ δύνασθαι λαλεῖν τε καὶ φθέγγεσθαι καὶ τὸ διὰ φωνῆς ἐξαγγέλλειν τὸ βούλημα παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ λαβοῦσα ὁδῷ πορεύεται διὰ τῶν πραγμάτων ἡ φύσις, σημεῖά τινα τοῖς οὖσι διὰ τῆς ποιᾶς τῶν φθόγγων διαφορᾶς ἐπιβάλλουσα. καὶ ταῦτά ἐστι τὰ παρ' ἡμῶν λεγόμενα ῥήματά τε καὶ ὀνόματα, οἷς τὴν δύναμιν τῶν πραγμάτων διασημαίνομεν. κἂν λέγηται παρὰ τοῦ Μωϋσέως πρὸ τῆς τῶν καρπῶν γενέσεως ὁ καρπὸς καὶ πρὸ τῆς τῶν σπερμάτων τὰ σπέρματα, οὐκ ἐλέγχει τὸν ἡμέτερον λόγον, οὐδὲ μάχεται τοῖς περὶ τῆς ἐπινοίας εἰρημένοις ἡ τοῦ νομοθέτου διάνοια. ὃ γὰρ ἡμεῖς πέρας ὀνομάζομεν τῆς παρελθούσης γεωργίας καρπὸν λέγοντες, ἀρχὴν δὲ τῆς μελλούσης σπέρμα προσαγορεύοντες, τοῦτο τὸ πρᾶγμα τὸ τοῖς ὀνόμασιν ὑποκείμενον, εἴτε σῖτον εἴτε τι ἄλλο τῶν διὰ σπορᾶς πληθυνόντων, διδάσκει μὴ αὐτομάτως γενέσθαι, ἀλλ' ἐν θελήματι τοῦ πεποιηκότος μετὰ τῆς δυνάμεως ταύτης ἀναφυῆναι: ὥστε τὸν αὐτόν τε γίνεσθαι καρπὸν ἑαυτόν τε πάλιν ἄγειν σπέρμα γινόμενον καὶ τῷ περιττεύοντι τρέφειν τὸν ἄνθρωπον. φύεται δὲ κατὰ θεῖον βούλημα πρᾶγμα, οὐκ ὄνομα: ὥστε τὸ μὲν καθ' ὑπόστασιν ὂν πρᾶγμα τῆς τοῦ πεποιηκότος δυνάμεως ἔργον εἶναι, τὰς δὲ γνωριστικὰς τῶν ὄντων φωνάς, δι' ὧν τὰ καθ' ἕκαστον πρὸς ἀκριβῆ τε καὶ ἀσύγχυτον διδασκαλίαν ἐπισημειοῦται ὁ λόγος, ταῦτα τῆς λογικῆς δυνάμεως ἔργα τε καὶ εὑρήματα, αὐτὴν δὲ ταύτην τὴν λογικὴν δύναμίν τε καὶ φύσιν ἔργον θεοῦ. καὶ ἐπειδὴ τὸ λογικὸν ἐν πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις, ἀναγκαίως κατὰ τὰς τῶν ἐθνῶν διαφορὰς καὶ αἱ τῶν ὀνομάτων διαφοραὶ θεωροῦνται. εἰ δή τις ἀνθρωπικῶς τὸ φῶς ἢ τὸν οὐρανὸν ἢ τὴν γῆν ἢ τὰ σπέρματα παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ προσειρῆσθαι λέγοι, πάντως ὅτι κατὰ μίαν τινὰ γλώσσης ἰδιότητα γεγενῆσθαι κατασκευάσει τὸν λόγον. τίς οὖν αὕτη, δειξάτω. τὸν γὰρ ἐκεῖνο γινώσκοντα καὶ τοῦτο μὴ ἀγνοεῖν πάντως οὐκ ἔξω τοῦ εἰκότος ἐστί. καὶ γὰρ καὶ ἐν τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ μετὰ τὴν τοῦ πνεύματος κάθοδον καὶ πάλιν ἐν ἀκοαῖς τῶν Ἰουδαίων καὶ ἐν τῇ μεταμορφώσει φωνὴ γίνεται ἄνωθεν διδάσκουσα τοὺς ἀνθρώπους καὶ σχῆμά τι, μὴ τὸ φαινόμενον οἴεσθαι μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν ἀγαπητὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ πιστεύειν εἶναι ἀληθῆ. ἡ τοιαύτη φωνὴ πρὸς τὴν τῶν ἀκουόντων σύνεσιν ἐν τῷ ἀερίῳ σώματι παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ διετυπώθη κατὰ τὴν ἐπικρατοῦσαν τότε τῶν φθεγγομένων συνήθειαν γενομένη, οὕτω τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ πάντας θέλοντος σωθῆναι καὶ εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας ἐλθεῖν πρὸς τὸν σκοπὸν τῆς σωτηρίας τῶν ἀκουόντων ἐν τῷ ἀέρι τὸν λόγον ἀρθρώσαντος, καθώς φησι καὶ πρὸς τοὺς Ἰουδαίους ὁ κύριος τοὺς οἰομένους βροντὴν γεγονέναι, διὰ τὸ ἐν ἀέρι συστῆναι τὸν ἦχον, ὅτι Οὐ δι' ἐμὲ ἡ φωνὴ αὕτη γέγονεν, ἀλλὰ δι' ὑμᾶς. πρὸ δὲ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς συστάσεως οὐδενὸς ὄντος τοῦ ὑποδεχομένου τὸν λόγον ἢ σωματώδους στοιχείου τινὸς τοῦ τυπῶσαι τὴν ἔναρθρον δυναμένου φωνήν, ὁ λέγων ῥήμασι τὸν θεὸν κεχρῆσθαι πῶς ἀποδώσει τὸ εἰκὸς τῷ λόγῳ; αὐτὸς ἀσώματος, ἡ κτίσις οὐκ ἦν, οὐδὲν περὶ αὐτὸν ὑλῶδες ὁ λόγος ἐννοεῖν δίδωσιν, οἱ ὠφεληθέντες ἂν διὰ τῆς ἀκοῆς οὔπω συνέστησαν. ἀνθρώπων δὲ μὴ ὄντων οὐδὲ διαλέκτου τρόπος κατά τινα ἔθνους ἰδιότητα τετύπωτο πάντως. ὁ τοίνυν πρὸς τὸ γράμμα ψιλὸν βλέπων τίσι λογισμοῖς τῇ τοιαύτῃ διανοίᾳ παρίσταται ὡς τοῦ θεοῦ ταῦτα φθεγγομένου τὰ ῥήματά τε καὶ τὰ ὀνόματα;