Against Eunomius.
Contents of Book I.
Contents of Book II.
Contents of Book III.
Contents of Book IV.
Contents of Book V.
Contents of Book VI.
Contents of Book VII.
Contents of Book VIII.
Contents of Book IX.
Contents of Book X.
Contents of Book XI.
Contents of Book XII.
§1. Preface.—It is useless to attempt to benefit those who will not accept help.
§2. We have been justly provoked to make this Answer, being stung by Eunomius’ accusations of our brother.
§3. We see nothing remarkable in logical force in the treatise of Eunomius, and so embark on our Answer with a just confidence.
§4. Eunomius displays much folly and fine writing, but very little seriousness about vital points.
§5. His peculiar caricature of the bishops, Eustathius of Armenia and Basil of Galatia, is not well drawn.
§6. A notice of Aetius, Eunomius’ master in heresy, and of Eunomius himself, describing the origin and avocations of each.
§7. Eunomius himself proves that the confession of faith which He made was not impeached.
§8. Facts show that the terms of abuse which he has employed against Basil are more suitable for himself.
§9. In charging Basil with not defending his faith at the time of the ‘Trials,’ he lays himself open to the same charge.
§10. All his insulting epithets are shewn by facts to be false.
§11. The sophistry which he employs to prove our acknowledgment that he had been tried, and that the confession of his faith had not been unimpeached,
§12. His charge of cowardice is baseless: for Basil displayed the highest courage before the Emperor and his Lord-Lieutenants.
§13. Résumé of his dogmatic teaching. Objections to it in detail.
§14. He did wrong, when mentioning the Doctrines of Salvation, in adopting terms of his own choosing instead of the traditional terms Father, Son, and
§15. He does wrong in making the being of the Father alone proper and supreme, implying by his omission of the Son and the Spirit that theirs is impro
§16. Examination of the meaning of ‘subjection:’ in that he says that the nature of the Holy Spirit is subject to that of the Father and the Son. It i
§17. Discussion as to the exact nature of the ‘energies’ which, this man declares, ‘follow’ the being of the Father and of the Son.
§18. He has no reason for distinguishing a plurality of beings in the Trinity. He offers no demonstration that it is so.
§19. His acknowledgment that the Divine Being is ‘single’ is only verbal.
§20. He does wrong in assuming, to account for the existence of the Only-Begotten, an ‘energy’ that produced Christ’s Person.
§21. The blasphemy of these heretics is worse than the Jewish unbelief.
§22. He has no right to assert a greater and less in the Divine being. A systematic statement of the teaching of the Church.
§23. These doctrines of our Faith witnessed to and confirmed by Scripture passages .
§24. His elaborate account of degrees and differences in ‘works’ and ‘energies’ within the Trinity is absurd .
§25. He who asserts that the Father is ‘prior’ to the Son with any thought of an interval must perforce allow that even the Father is not without begi
§26. It will not do to apply this conception, as drawn out above, of the Father and Son to the Creation, as they insist on doing: but we must contempl
§27. He falsely imagines that the same energies produce the same works, and that variation in the works indicates variation in the energies.
§28. He falsely imagines that we can have an unalterable series of harmonious natures existing side by side.
§29. He vainly thinks that the doubt about the energies is to be solved by the beings, and reversely.
§30. There is no Word of God that commands such investigations: the uselessness of the philosophy which makes them is thereby proved.
§31. The observations made by watching Providence are sufficient to give us the knowledge of sameness of Being.
§32. His dictum that ‘the manner of the likeness must follow the manner of the generation’ is unintelligible.
§33. He declares falsely that ‘the manner of the generation is to be known from the intrinsic worth of the generator’.
§34. The Passage where he attacks the ‘ Ομοούσιον , and the contention in answer to it.
§35. Proof that the Anomœan teaching tends to Manichæism.
§36. A passing repetition of the teaching of the Church.
§37. Defence of S. Basil’s statement, attacked by Eunomius, that the terms ‘Father’ and ‘The Ungenerate’ can have the same meaning .
§38. Several ways of controverting his quibbling syllogisms .
§39. Answer to the question he is always asking, “Can He who is be begotten?”
§40. His unsuccessful attempt to be consistent with his own statements after Basil has confuted him.
§41. The thing that follows is not the same as the thing that it follows.
§42. Explanation of ‘Ungenerate,’ and a ‘study’ of Eternity.
Book II
Book II.
§2. Gregory then makes an explanation at length touching the eternal Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
§3. Gregory proceeds to discuss the relative force of the unnameable name of the Holy Trinity and the mutual relation of the Persons, and moreover the
§4. He next skilfully confutes the partial, empty and blasphemous statement of Eunomius on the subject of the absolutely existent.
§5. He next marvellously overthrows the unintelligible statements of Eunomius which assert that the essence of the Father is not separated or divided,
§6. He then shows the unity of the Son with the Father and Eunomius’ lack of understanding and knowledge in the Scriptures.
§7. Gregory further shows that the Only-Begotten being begotten not only of the Father, but also impassibly of the Virgin by the Holy Ghost, does not
§8. He further very appositely expounds the meaning of the term “Only-Begotten,” and of the term “First born,” four times used by the Apostle.
§9. Gregory again discusses the generation of the Only-Begotten, and other different modes of generation, material and immaterial, and nobly demonstra
§10. He explains the phrase “The Lord created Me,” and the argument about the origination of the Son, the deceptive character of Eunomius’ reasoning,
§11. After expounding the high estate of the Almighty, the Eternity of the Son, and the phrase “being made obedient,” he shows the folly of Eunomius i
§12. He thus proceeds to a magnificent discourse of the interpretation of “Mediator,” “Like,” “Ungenerate,” and “generate,” and of “The likeness and s
§13. He expounds the passage of the Gospel, “The Father judgeth no man,” and further speaks of the assumption of man with body and soul wrought by the
§14. He proceeds to discuss the views held by Eunomius, and by the Church, touching the Holy Spirit and to show that the Father, the Son, and the Hol
§15. Lastly he displays at length the folly of Eunomius, who at times speaks of the Holy Spirit as created, and as the fairest work of the Son, and at
Book III
Book III.
§2. He then once more excellently, appropriately, and clearly examines and expounds the passage, “The Lord Created Me.”
§3. He then shows, from the instance of Adam and Abel, and other examples, the absence of alienation of essence in the case of the “generate” and “ung
§4. He thus shows the oneness of the Eternal Son with the Father the identity of essence and the community of nature (wherein is a natural inquiry int
§5. He discusses the incomprehensibility of the Divine essence, and the saying to the woman of Samaria, “Ye worship ye know not what.”
§6. Thereafter he expounds the appellation of “Son,” and of “product of generation,” and very many varieties of “sons,” of God, of men, of rams, of pe
§7. Then he ends the book with an exposition of the Divine and Human names of the Only-Begotten, and a discussion of the terms “generate” and “ungener
Book IV
Book IV.
§2. He convicts Eunomius of having used of the Only-begotten terms applicable to the existence of the earth, and thus shows that his intention is to p
§3. He then again admirably discusses the term πρωτότοκος as it is four times employed by the Apostle.
§4. He proceeds again to discuss the impassibility of the Lord’s generation and the folly of Eunomius, who says that the generated essence involves t
§5. He again shows Eunomius, constrained by truth, in the character of an advocate of the orthodox doctrine, confessing as most proper and primary, no
§6. He then exposes argument about the “Generate,” and the “product of making,” and “product of creation,” and shows the impious nature of the languag
§7. He then clearly and skilfully criticises the doctrine of the impossibility of comparison with the things made after the Son, and exposes the idola
§8. He proceeds to show that there is no “variance” in the essence of the Father and the Son: wherein he expounds many forms of variation and harmony,
§9. Then, distinguishing between essence and generation, he declares the empty and frivolous language of Eunomius to be like a rattle. He proceeds to
Book V
Book V.
§2. He then explains the phrase of S. Peter, “Him God made Lord and Christ.” And herein he sets forth the opposing statement of Eunomius, which he mad
§3. A remarkable and original reply to these utterances, and a demonstration of the power of the Crucified, and of the fact that this subjection was o
§4. He shows the falsehood of Eunomius’ calumnious charge that the great Basil had said that “man was emptied to become man,” and demonstrates that th
§5. Thereafter he shows that there are not two Christs or two Lords, but one Christ and one Lord, and that the Divine nature, after mingling with the
Book VI
Book VI.
§2. Then he again mentions S. Peter’s word, “made,” and the passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews, which says that Jesus was made by God “an Apostle a
§3. He then gives a notable explanation of the saying of the Lord to Philip, “He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father ” and herein he excellently di
§4. Then returning to the words of Peter, “God made Him Lord and Christ,” he skilfully explains it by many arguments, and herein shows Eunomius as an
Book VII
Book VII.
§2. He then declares that the close relation between names and things is immutable, and thereafter proceeds accordingly, in the most excellent manner,
§3. Thereafter he discusses the divergence of names and of things, speaking, of that which is ungenerate as without a cause, and of that which is non-
§4. He says that all things that are in creation have been named by man, if, as is the case, they are called differently by every nation, as also the
§5. After much discourse concerning the actually existent, and ungenerate and good, and upon the consubstantiality of the heavenly powers, showing the
Book VIII
Book VIII.
§2. He then discusses the “willing” of the Father concerning the generation of the Son, and shows that the object of that good will is from eternity,
§3. Then, thus passing over what relates to the essence of the Son as having been already discussed, he treats of the sense involved in “generation,”
§4. He further shows the operations of God to be expressed by human illustrations for what hands and feet and the other parts of the body with which
§5. Then, after showing that the Person of the Only-begotten and Maker of things has no beginning, as have the things that were made by Him, as Eunomi
Book IX
Book IX.
§2. He then ingeniously shows that the generation of the Son is not according to the phrase of Eunomius, “The Father begat Him at that time when He ch
§3. He further shows that the pretemporal generation of the Son is not the subject of influences drawn from ordinary and carnal generation, but is wit
§4. Then, having shown that Eunomius’ calumny against the great Basil, that he called the Only-begotten “Ungenerate,” is false, and having again with
Book X
Book X.
§2. He then wonderfully displays the Eternal Life, which is Christ, to those who confess Him not, and applies to them the mournful lamentation of Jere
§3. He then shows the eternity of the Son’s generation, and the inseparable identity of His essence with Him that begat Him, and likens the folly of E
§4. After this he shows that the Son, who truly is, and is in the bosom of the Father, is simple and uncompounded, and that, He Who redeemed us from b
Book XI
Book XI.
§2. He also ingeniously shows from the passage of the Gospel which speaks of “Good Master,” from the parable of the Vineyard, from Isaiah and from Pau
§3. He then exposes the ignorance of Eunomius, and the incoherence and absurdity of his arguments, in speaking of the Son as “the Angel of the Existen
§4. After this, fearing to extend his reply to great length, he passes by most of his adversary’s statements as already refuted. But the remainder, fo
§5. Eunomius again speaks of the Son as Lord and God, and Maker of all creation intelligible and sensible, having received from the Father the power a
Book XII
Book XII.
§2. Then referring to the blasphemy of Eunomius, which had been refuted by the great Basil, where he banished the Only-begotten God to the realm of da
§3. He further proceeds notably to interpret the language of the Gospel, “In the beginning was the Word,” and “Life” and “Light,” and “The Word was ma
§4. He then again charges Eunomius with having learnt his term ἀγεννησία from the hieroglyphic writings, and from the Egyptian mythology and idolatry,
§5. Then, again discussing the true Light and unapproachable Light of the Father and of the Son, special attributes, community and essence, and showin
§11. The sophistry which he employs to prove our acknowledgment that he had been tried, and that the confession of his faith had not been unimpeached, is feeble.
He objects to sophistries in others; see the sort of care he takes himself that his proofs shall be real ones. Our Master said, in the book which he addressed to him, that at the time when our cause was ruined, Eunomius won Cyzicus as the prize of his blasphemy. What then does this detector of sophistry do? He fastens at once on that word prize, and declares that we on our side confess that he made an apology, that he won thereby, that he gained the prize of victory by these efforts; and he frames his argument into a syllogism consisting as he thinks of unanswerable propositions. But we will quote word for word what he has written. ‘If a prize is the recognition and the crown of victory, and a trial implies a victory, and, as also inseparable from itself, an accusation, then that man who grants (in argument) the prize must necessarily allow that there was a defence.’ What then is our answer to that? We do not deny that he fought this wretched battle of impiety with a most vigorous energy, and that he went a very long distance beyond his fellows in these perspiring efforts against the truth; but we will not allow that he obtained the victory over his opponents; but only that as compared with those who were running the same as himself through heresy into error he was foremost in the number of his lies and so gained the prize of Cyzicus in return for high attainments in evil, beating all who for the same prize combated the Truth; and that for this victory of blasphemy his name was blazoned loud and clear when Cyzicus was selected for him by the umpires of his party as the reward of his extravagance. This is the statement of our opinion, and this we allowed; our contention now that Cyzicus was the prize of a heresy, not the successful result of a defence, shews it. Is this anything like his own mess of childish sophistries, so that he can thereby hope to have grounds for proving the fact of his trial and his defence? His method is like that of a man in a drinking bout, who has made away with more strong liquor than the rest, and having then claimed the pool from his fellow-drunkards should attempt to make this victory a proof of having won some case in the law courts. That man might chop the same sort of logic. ‘If a prize is the recognition and the crown of victory, and a law-trial implies a victory and, as also inseparable from itself, an accusation, then I have won my suit, since I have been crowned for my powers of drinking in this bout.’
One would certainly answer to such a boaster that a trial in court is a very different thing from a wine-contest, and that one who wins with the glass has thereby no advantage over his legal adversaries, though he get a beautiful chaplet of flowers. No more, therefore, has the man who has beaten his equals in the advocacy of profanity anything to show in having won the prize for that, that he has won a verdict too. The testimony on our side that he is first in profanity is no plea for his imaginary ‘apology.’ If he did speak it before the court, and, having so prevailed over his adversaries, was honoured with Cyzicus for that, then he might have some occasion for using our own words against ourselves; but as he is continually protesting in his book that he yielded to the animus of the voters, and accepted in silence the penalty which they inflicted, not even waiting for this hostile decision, why does he impose upon himself and make this word prize into the proof of a successful apology? Our excellent friend fails to understand the force of this word prize; Cyzicus was given up to him as the reward of merit for his extravagant impiety; and as it was his will to receive such a prize, and he views it in the light of a victor’s guerdon, let him receive as well what that victory implies, viz. the lion’s share in the guilt of profanity. If he insists on our own words against ourselves, he must accept both these consequences, or neither.
Ἀλλὰ καὶ « τὸν σοφιστικὸν λόγον » ἐπονειδίζων ἑτέροις, θεωρεῖτε οἵαν τῆς τἀληθοῦς ἀποδείξεως ποιεῖται τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν. εἶπεν ἐν τῷ λόγῳ τῷ πρὸς αὐτὸν ὁ διδάσκαλος ἡμῶν, ὅτι ἐν τῷ καιρῷ τῆς τῶν πραγμάτων καταστροφῆς οὗτος „ἆθλον τῆς ἀσεβείας τὴν Κύζικον ἀπηνέγκατο”. τί οὖν ὁ τοὺς σοφιστὰς διελέγχων ποιεῖ; εὐθὺς ἐπιφύεται τῷ τοῦ ἄθλου ὀνόματι καὶ συνομολογεῖσθαι παρ' ἡμῶν φησι τὸ καὶ ἀπολελογῆσθαι καὶ νικῆσαι διὰ τῆς ἀπολογίας καὶ τὸ ἐκ τῆς νίκης ἆθλον διὰ τῶν ἀγώνων κομίσασθαι καὶ συντίθησι συλλογισμόν, διὰ τῶν ἀναντιρρήτων, ὡς οἴεται, συμπεραίνων τὸν λόγον. εἰρήσεται δὲ αὐτὰ τὰ γεγραμμένα παρ' αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ λέξεως. « εἰ γὰρ τὸ ἆθλον, φησί, νίκης ἐστὶ γνώρισμα καὶ τέλος, μηνύει δὲ τὴν δίκην ἡ νίκη, συνεισάγει δὲ πάντως ἑαυτῇ τὴν κατηγορίαν ἡ δίκη, ὁ τὸ ἆθλον διδοὺς ἀναγκαίαν εἶναι φήσει καὶ τὴν ἀπολογίαν ». τί οὖν ἡμεῖς; ἠγωνίσθαι μὲν αὐτὸν καὶ πάνυ σφοδρῶς τε καὶ ἐρρωμένως τὸν πονηρὸν τοῦτον ἀγῶνα τῆς ἀσεβείας οὐκ ἀντιλέγομεν καὶ οὐ μικρῷ τῷ μέτρῳ τοὺς ὁμοίους ὑπερβεβληκέναι καὶ ὑπερέχειν ἐν τοῖς κατὰ τῆς ἀληθείας ἱδρῶσιν, ἀλλ' οὐχὶ κατὰ τῶν ἀντιτεταγμένων ἐσχηκέναι τὰ νικητήρια, συγκρίσει δὲ τῶν συνδραμόντων αὐτῷ δι' ἀσεβείας ἐπὶ τὴν πλάνην προτερεύειν πάντων ἐν τῇ περιουσίᾳ τοῦ ψεύδους καὶ οὕτω λαβεῖν ἀντὶ τῆς εἰς τὸ κακὸν ὑπερβολῆς ἆθλον τὴν Κύζικον, ὡς πάντων τῶν ἐπὶ τοῖς ὁμοίοις κατὰ τῆς ἀληθείας κονισαμένων τὸ πλέον ἔχοντα, καὶ ἐπὶ τῇ νίκῃ τῇ κατὰ τὴν βλασφημίαν ἀναρρηθῆναι λαμπρῷ καὶ περιφανεῖ τῷ κηρύγματι ἐν τῷ μισθὸν τῆς ἀτοπίας αὐτῷ παρὰ τῶν οὕτως ἀγωνοθετούντων ἐξαιρεθῆναι τὴν Κύζικον. καὶ ὅτι ταῦτα κατὰ τὴν ῥηθεῖσαν διάνοιαν παρ' ἡμῶν ὡμολόγηται, δείκνυσιν ὁ ἡμέτερος λόγος, ὅτι ἀσεβείας ἆθλον, οὐχὶ ἀπολογίας κατόρθωμά φαμεν αὐτῷ γεγενῆσθαι τὴν Κύζικον. τί οὖν κοινὸν ἔχει τὰ παρ' ἡμῶν εἰρημένα πρὸς τὴν παιδιώδη ταύτην τῶν σοφισμάτων πλοκήν, ὡς διὰ τοῦτο συστῆναι αὐτῷ καὶ τὴν δίκην καὶ τὴν ἀπολογίαν κατασκευάζεσθαι; ὅμοιον γὰρ τὸ τοιοῦτον ὥσπερ ἄν τις ἐν συμποσίῳ πλείω τῶν ἄλλων τὸν ἄκρατον ἐγχεάμενος καὶ διὰ τοῦτο γέρως τινὸς παρὰ τῶν συμμεθυόντων ἀξιωθεὶς τὴν ἐν τῷ συμποσίῳ νίκην τεκμήριον ποιοῖτο τοῦ καὶ ἐν δικαστηρίοις δεδικάσθαι καὶ ὑπερέχειν δικασάμενος. ἐξέσται γὰρ κἀκείνῳ τὴν πλοκὴν τοῦ συλλογισμοῦ τούτου μιμήσασθαι: εἰ τὸ ἆθλον νίκης ἐστὶ γνώρισμα καὶ τέλος, μηνύει δὲ τὴν δίκην ἡ νίκη, συνεισάγει δὲ πάντως ἑαυτῇ τὴν κατηγορίαν ἡ δίκη, ἐνίκησα τὴν δίκην ἐγώ, ἐπειδὴ πίνων ἐστέφθην ἐν τῷ τῆς πολυποσίας ἀγῶνι. ἀλλ' ἐρεῖ τις πάντως πρὸς τὸν οὕτω καλλωπιζόμενον, ὅτι ἄλλοι ἀγῶνες ἐν δικαστηρίῳ καὶ ἄλλος τρόπος τῆς ἐν συμποσίοις ἀθλήσεως: καὶ ὁ νικήσας διὰ τῆς κύλικος οὐδὲν ἔχει πλέον ἐκ τῆς τοιαύτης νίκης τῶν ἐν δικαστηρίοις ἀντιτεταγμένων αὐτῷ, κἂν τοῖς ἀνθίνοις στεφάνοις ἐπαγλαΐσηται. οὐκοῦν οὐδὲ ὁ τῷ λόγῳ τῆς ἀσεβείας τῶν ὁμοίων προτεταγμένος ἤδη καὶ τοῦ ἐν τῇ κρίσει νενικηκέναι διὰ τοῦ ἄθλου τῆς ἀσεβείας τὴν μαρτυρίαν παρέχεται. τί οὖν συνηγορεῖ τῇ μὴ ῥηθείσῃ ἀπολογίᾳ ἡ τοῦ προέχειν αὐτὸν ἐν ἀσεβείᾳ παρ' ἡμῶν μαρτυρία; εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἀπολογησάμενος πρὸς τοὺς δικαστὰς καὶ τῶν ἀντιτεταγμένων κρατήσας οὕτως ἐδέξατο τὴν ἐπὶ Κυζίκῳ τιμήν, καιρὸν ἂν εἶχε τὰ ἡμέτερα καθ' ἡμῶν προχειρίζεσθαι: εἰ δὲ συνεχῶς ἐπὶ τοῦ λόγου μαρτύρεται, ὅτι φεύγων τὸ δυσμενὲς τῶν κυρίων τῆς ψήφου σιωπῇ δέχεται τὴν ἐπαχθεῖσαν αὐτῷ τιμωρίαν, ἐν ἐχθροῖς διαθέσθαι τοὺς ἀγῶνας οὐκ ἀνασχόμενος, τί ἑαυτὸν φενακίζει καὶ τῇ φωνῇ τοῦ ἄθλου εἰς μαρτυρίαν τοῦ ἀπολελογῆσθαι συγκέχρηται μὴ συνιεὶς ὁ θαυμάσιος τοῦ ἄθλου τὴν ἔμφασιν, ὅτι καθάπερ τι γέρας καὶ ἀριστεῖον αὐτῷ τῆς κατὰ τὴν ἀσέβειαν ὑπεροχῆς ”ἡ Κύζικος προεπόθη„. ἀλλ' ἐπειδὴ πρὸς τὸ δοκοῦν δέχεται τὸ ἆθλον καὶ ὡς δωρεὰν ἐπινίκιον, δεξάσθω καὶ τὸ συνημμένον τῷ λόγῳ, ὅτι ἐν ἀσεβείᾳ τὸ πλέον διὰ τῆς νίκης ἔσχεν. ἐπειδὴ γὰρ τοῖς ἡμετέροις καθ' ἡμῶν ἰσχυρίζεται, ἢ ἀμφοτέροις ἢ οὐθετέροις κεχρῆσθαι δίκαιος.
