6.  But why say anything of mere verbal inconsistency?  The practical proofs of their change of position afforded by their conduct are far stronger.  They refused to yield to the sentence of fifty bishops passed against them. i.e. at Constantinople in 360.  They declined to resign the government of their Churches although the number of bishops assenting to the decree for their deposition was so many, on the alleged ground that they were not partakers of the Holy Ghost, and were not governing their Churches by the grace of God, but had clutched their dignity by the aid of human power, and through lust of vain glory.  Now they are for receiving the men consecrated by these same persons as bishops.  I should like you to ask them in my stead, (although they despise all mankind, as bereft of eyes, ears, and common sense), to perceive the inconsistency of their conduct, what sentiments they do really entertain in their own hearts.  How can there be two bishops, one deposed by Euippius, cf. Letter ccxxviii. and the other consecrated by him?  Both are the actions of the same man.  Had he not been endowed with the grace bestowed upon Jeremiah to pull down and build again, to root out and to plant, cf. Jer. i. 10. he certainly would not have rooted the one out and planted the other.  Grant him the one and you must grant him the other.  Their one object, as it seems, is everywhere to look to their own advantage, and to regard every one who acts in accordance with their own wishes as a friend, while they treat any one who opposes them as an enemy, and spare no calumny to run him down. The Ben. note on this passage suggests that the reference to Jeremiah is an argument supposed to be put forward by Eustathius, and immediately answered by Basil, but there seems no necessity of this.  Basil says nothing for or against the powers of the bishops who condemned Eustathius; he only points out the inconsistency of Eustathius in accepting their powers to ordain when it suited his purpose, while he refused to admit their authority to depose.  It is enough for Basil’s argument that Eustathius treated him as having authority.  On Basil’s own views as to the validity of heretical ordination, cf. Canon i., Letter clxxxviii.