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
§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 Holy Spirit.
The reason for this invention of new words I take to be manifest to every one—namely: that every one, when the words father and son are spoken, at once recognizes the proper and natural relationship to one another which they imply. This relationship is conveyed at once by the appellations themselves. To prevent it being understood of the Father, and the Only-begotten Son, he robs us of this idea of relationship which enters the ear along with the words, and abandoning the inspired terms, expounds the Faith by means of others devised to injure the truth.
One thing, however, that he says is true: that his own teaching, not the Catholic teaching, is summed up so. Indeed any one who reflects can easily see the impiety of his statement. It will not be out of place now to discuss in detail what his intention is in ascribing to the being of the Father alone the highest degree of that which is supreme and proper, while not admitting that the being of the Son and of the Holy Ghost is supreme and proper. For my part I think that it is a prelude to his complete denial of the ‘being’ of the Only-begotten and of the Holy Ghost, and that this system of his is secretly intended to effect the setting aside of all real belief in their personality, while in appearance and in mere words confessing it. A moment’s reflection upon his statement will enable any one to perceive that this is so. It does not look like one who thinks that the Only-begotten and the Holy Ghost really exist in a distinct personality to be very particular about the names with which he thinks the greatness of Almighty God should be expressed. To grant the fact50 i.e. of the equality of Persons., and then go into minute distinctions about the appropriate phrases51 i.e. for the Persons. would be indeed consummate folly: and so in ascribing a being that is in the highest degree supreme and proper only to the Father, he makes us surmise by this silence respecting the other two that (to him) they do not properly exist. How can that to which a proper being is denied be said to really exist? When we deny proper being to it, we must perforce affirm of it all the opposite terms. That which cannot be properly said is improperly said, so that the demonstration of its not being properly said is a proof of its not really subsisting: and it is at this that Eunomius seems to aim in introducing these new names into his teaching. For no one can say that he has strayed from ignorance into some silly fancy of separating, locally, the supreme from that which is below, and assigning to the Father as it were the peak of some hill, while he seats the Son lower down in the hollows. No one is so childish as to conceive of differences in space, when the intellectual and spiritual is under discussion. Local position is a property of the material: but the intellectual and immaterial is confessedly removed from the idea of locality. What, then, is the reason why he says that the Father alone has supreme being? For one can hardly think it is from ignorance that he wanders off into these conceptions, being one who, in the many displays he makes, claims to be wise, even “making himself overwise,” as the Holy Scripture forbids us to do52 Eccles. vii. 16..
ἀλλὰ παντὶ πρόδηλον οἶμαι τὴν αἰτίαν εἶναι τῆς καινῆς ταύτης ὀνοματοποιΐας, ὅτι πάντες ἄνθρωποι πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ προσηγορίαν ἀκούσαντες εὐθὺς τὴν οἰκείαν αὐτῶν καὶ φυσικὴν πρὸς ἄλληλα σχέσιν ὑπ' αὐτῶν τῶν ὀνομάτων ἐπιγινώσκουσι. τὸ γὰρ τῆς φύσεως συγγενὲς ἐκ τῶν προσηγοριῶν τούτων αὐτομάτως διερμηνεύεται. ἵνα οὖν μὴ ταῦτα νοῆται περὶ τοῦ ἀληθινοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ μονογενοῦς υἱοῦ, διὰ τοῦτο ὑποκλέπτει τῶν ἀκουόντων τὴν διὰ τῶν ὀνομάτων συνεισιοῦσαν τῆς οἰκειότητος ἔμφασιν, καὶ καταλιπὼν τὰ θεόπνευστα ῥήματα διὰ τῶν ἐπινοηθέντων ἐπὶ λύμῃ τῆς ἀληθείας ποιεῖται τὴν τοῦ δόγματος ἔκθεσιν.
Καλῶς δὲ τοῦτό φησιν, οὐ τῶν καθόλου τῆς ἐκκλησίας δογμάτων, ἀλλὰ τῶν καθ' ἑαυτοὺς ἐν τούτοις « συμπληροῦσθαι τὸν λόγον ». ἔστι δὲ πρόχειρος μὲν παντὶ τῷ γε νοῦν ἔχοντι τῆς ἀσεβείας τῶν εἰρημένων ἡ κατανόησις. οὐδὲν δὲ ἴσως ἀπὸ καιροῦ καὶ καθ' ἕκαστον διεξετάσαι τῷ λόγῳ, τί βουλόμενος τὸ « ἀνώτατόν τε καὶ κυριώτατον » μόνῃ προσμαρτυρεῖ τοῦ πατρὸς τῇ οὐσίᾳ, οὔτε τοῦ υἱοῦ οὔτε τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος ἄνω τε καὶ κυρίαν εἶναι συγχωρῶν τὴν οὐσίαν. οἶμαι γὰρ ἔγωγε μελέτην εἶναι ταύτην τῆς παντελοῦς κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν ἀρνήσεως τοῦ τε μονογενοῦς καὶ τοῦ πνεύματος, καὶ τοῦτο λεληθότως κατασκευάζεσθαι διὰ τῆς τοιαύτης τεχνολογίας, τὸ μέχρις ὀνόματος εἶναι ταῦτα δοκεῖν, τὴν δὲ ἀληθῆ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτῶν ὁμολογίαν διὰ τῆς τοιαύτης κατασκευῆς ἀθετεῖσθαι: καὶ ὅτι ταῦτα τοῦτον ἔχει τὸν τρόπον, οὐ χαλεπῶς ἄν τις κατανοήσειε μικρὸν προσδιατρίψας τῷ λόγῳ. οὐκ ἔστι τοῦ νομίζοντος ἀληθῶς εἶναι κατ' ἰδίαν ὑπόστασιν τὸν μονογενῆ καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον τὸ ἀκριβολογεῖσθαι περὶ τὴν ὁμολογίαν τῶν ὀνομάτων, οἷς ἀποσεμνύνειν οἴεται δεῖν τὸν ἐπὶ πάντων θεόν: ἦ γὰρ ἂν ἦν τῆς ἐσχάτης εὐηθείας τῷ πράγματι συντιθέμενον μικρολογεῖσθαι περὶ τὰ ῥήματα. νυνὶ δὲ τῷ μόνῃ προσμαρτυρῆσαι τοῦ πατρὸς τῇ οὐσίᾳ τὸ « ἀνώτατόν τε καὶ κυριώτατον » ἔδωκε διὰ τῆς σιωπῆς περὶ τῶν ὑπολοίπων ὡς οὐ κυρίως ὑφεστώτων στοχάζεσθαι. πῶς γὰρ ἔστιν ἀληθῶς εἶναί τι λέγειν, ᾧ μὴ προσμαρτυρεῖται τὸ κυρίως εἶναι; ἀνάγκη γὰρ ἐφ' ὧν οὐχ ὁμολογεῖται τὸ κύριον, τοῖς ἀντιδιαστελλομένοις τῶν ὀνομάτων συντίθεσθαι. τὸ γὰρ μὴ κύριον ἄκυρον πάντως: ὥστε ἡ τοῦ μὴ κυρίως εἶναι κατασκευὴ τῆς παντελοῦς ἀνυπαρξίας ἀπόδειξις γίνεται. πρὸς ἣν ἔοικεν ὁ Εὐνόμιος βλέπων ταῦτα καινοτομεῖν ἐν τῷ καθ' ἑαυτὸν δόγματι τὰ ὀνόματα. οὐ γὰρ δὴ δι' ἀπειρίαν φήσει τις αὐτὸν εἰς ἀνόητον ὑπόληψιν ἐκπεσόντα τοπικῶς τὸ ἄνω πρὸς τὸ ὑποβεβηκὸς διαστέλλειν καὶ τῷ πατρὶ καθάπερ γεώλοφόν τινα σκοπιὰν ἀφορίζοντα τὸν υἱὸν τοῖς κοιλοτέροις ἐγκαθιδρύειν. οὐδεὶς γὰρ οὕτω παῖς τὴν διάνοιαν, ὡς ἐπὶ τῆς νοερᾶς τε καὶ ἀσωμάτου φύσεως τὴν κατὰ τόπον διαφορὰν ἐννοεῖν. ἴδιον γὰρ σωμάτων ἡ ἐπὶ τόπου θέσις, τὸ δὲ τῇ φύσει νοερόν τε καὶ ἄϋλον πόρρω τῆς κατὰ τόπον ἐννοίας ὁμολογεῖται. τίς οὖν ἡ αἰτία τοῦ « ἀνωτάτω » λέγεσθαι μόνου τοῦ πατρὸς τὴν οὐσίαν; εἰς γὰρ ταύτας τὰς ὑπονοίας ἐξ ἀμαθίας τινὸς αὐτὸν παραφέρεσθαι οὐκ ἄν τις εὐκόλως ὑπονοήσειε τὸν ἐν πολλοῖς, οἷς ἐπιδείκνυται, σοφὸν εἶναι προσποιούμενον καί, καθὼς ἀπαγορεύει ἡ θεία γραφή, [καὶ] τὰ περισσὰ σοφιζόμενον.
