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
§31. The observations made by watching Providence are sufficient to give us the knowledge of sameness of Being.
And yet, if he could see the consequences of his own statements, he would be led on by them to acquiesce in the doctrine of the Church. For if the maker’s nature is an indication of the thing made, as he affirms, and if, according to his school, the Son is something made by the Father, anyone who has observed the Father’s nature would have certainly known thereby that of the Son; if, I say, it is true that the worker’s nature is a sign of that which he works. But the Only-begotten, as they say, of the Father’s unlikeness, will be excluded from operating through Providence. Eunomius need not trouble any more about His being generated, nor force out of that another proof of the son’s unlikeness. The difference of purpose will itself be sufficient to bring to light His alien nature. For the First Being is, even by our opponents’ confession, one and single, and necessarily His will must be thought of as following the bent of His nature; but Providence shows that purpose is good, and so the nature from which that purpose comes is shown to be good also. So the Father alone works good; and the Son does not purpose the same things as He, if we adopt the assumptions of our adversary; the difference then, of their nature will be clearly attested by this variation of their purposes. But if, while the Father is provident for the Universe, the Son is equally provident for it (for ‘what He sees the Father doing that also the Son does’), this sameness of their purposes exhibits a communion of nature in those who thus purpose the same things. Why, then, is all mention of Providence omitted by him, as if it would not help us at all to that which we are searching for. Yet many familiar examples make for our view of it. Anyone who has gazed on the brightness of fire and experienced its power of warming, when he approaches another such brightness and another such warmth, will assuredly be led on to think of fire; for his senses through the medium of these similar phænomena will conduct him to the fact of a kindred element producing both; anything that was not fire could not work on all occasions like fire. Just so, when we perceive a similar and equal amount of providential power in the Father and in the Son, we make a guess by means of what thus comes within the range of our knowledge about things which transcend our comprehension; we feel that causes of an alien nature cannot be detected in these equal and similar effects. As the observed phenomena are to each other, so will the subjects of those phenomena be: if the first are opposed to each other, we must reckon the revealed entities to be so too; if the first are alike, so too must those others be. Our Lord said allegorically that their fruit is the sign of the characters of trees, meaning that it does not belie that character, that the bad is not attached to the good tree, nor the good to the bad tree;—“by their fruits ye shall know them;”—so when the fruit, Providence, presents no difference, we detect a single nature from which that fruit has sprung, even though the trees be different from which the fruit is put forth. Through that, then, which is cognizable by our apprehension, viz., the scheme or Providence visible in the Son in the same way as in the Father, the common likeness of the Only-begotten and the Father is placed beyond a doubt; and it is the identity of the fruits of Providence by which we know it.
καίτοι γε δι' αὐτῶν τούτων ὧν αὐτός φησιν, εἴπερ τοῖς ἰδίοις κατακολουθεῖν ἠπίστατο λόγοις, ὡδηγήθη ἂν πρὸς τὴν τοῦ ἐκκλησιαστικοῦ δόγματος συγκατάθεσιν. εἰ γὰρ ἡ τοῦ ποιήσαντος φύσις τὸ παρ' αὐτῆς γεγενημένον δείκνυσι, καθὼς οὗτός φησι, « ποίημα » δὲ κατ' αὐτοὺς ὁ υἱός ἐστι τοῦ πατρός, πάντως ὁ τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς φύσιν κατανοήσας καὶ τὴν τοῦ μονογενοῦς δι' ἐκείνης ἐγνώρισεν, εἴπερ ἡ τοῦ ἐνεργήσαντος φύσις τὸ ἐνεργηθὲν ἀπεσήμηνεν, ὡς καὶ διὰ τούτου τὸν τῆς ἀνομοιότητος αὐτοῖς . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . μονογενῆ τῶν τῆς προνοίας ἔργων ἀποσχοινίζεσθαι. μηδὲν πολυπραγμονείσθω ἡ γέννησις μηδὲ βεβιασμένως ἐκεῖθεν ἡ ἀνομοιότης τοῦ μονογενοῦς διελεγχέσθω. αὐτάρκης γὰρ καὶ ἡ τῶν προαιρέσεων διαφορὰ τὴν τῆς φύσεως ἑτερότητα φανερῶσαι. διότι ἁπλῆς εἶναι συνομολογηθείσης καὶ παρὰ τῶν ἐναντίων τῆς πρώτης οὐσίας, ἐπάναγκές ἐστι τῇ φύσει σύνδρομον ἐννοεῖν τὴν προαίρεσιν, τῆς δὲ προαιρέσεως ἀγαθῆς διὰ τῆς προνοίας ἀποδειχθείσης, ἀγαθὴ συναπεδείχθη καὶ ἡ φύσις, ἀφ' ἧς ἡ προαίρεσις. μόνου δὲ τοῦ πατρὸς τὰ ἀγαθὰ ἐνεργοῦντος, τοῦ δὲ υἱοῦ μὴ τὰ αὐτὰ προαιρουμένου (λέγω δὲ καθ' ὑπόθεσιν τῶν ἐναντίων ἕνεκεν), πρόδηλος ἂν ἦν ἡ κατὰ τὴν οὐσίαν διαφορὰ τῷ παρηλλαγμένῳ τῶν προαιρέσεων μαρτυρουμένη. εἰ δὲ προνοεῖ μὲν ὁ πατὴρ τῶν ἁπάντων, προνοεῖ δὲ ὡσαύτως καὶ ὁ υἱός (ἃ γὰρ βλέπει τὸν πατέρα ποιοῦντα, καὶ ὁ υἱὸς ὁμοίως ποιεῖ), ἡ τῶν προαιρέσεων ταὐτότης τὸ κοινὸν τῆς φύσεως τῶν τὰ αὐτὰ προαιρουμένων πάντως ἐνδείκνυται. διὰ τί οὖν ἀτιμάζεται ὁ τῆς προνοίας λόγος, ὡς οὐδεμίαν παρέχων πρὸς τὸ ζητούμενον τὴν συνεργίαν; καίτοι πολλὰ καὶ τῶν κατὰ τὸν βίον ὑποδειγμάτων τῷ ἡμετέρῳ λόγῳ συναγωνίζεται: λέγω δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν πᾶσι γνωρίμων τὰ ὑποδείγματα. ὁ τοῦ πυρὸς τὸ φῶς τεθεαμένος καὶ τῆς θερμαντικῆς αὐτοῦ δυνάμεως εἰς πεῖραν ἐλθών, εἰ ἄλλῳ τοιούτῳ φωτὶ καὶ θερμότητι τοιαύτῃ πελάσειε, δηλονότι πρὸς τὴν τοῦ πυρὸς ἔννοιαν ἀναχθήσεται, ἐκ τῆς ὁμοιότητος τῶν φανέντων αὐτῷ διὰ τῆς αἰσθήσεως πρὸς τὴν συγγένειαν τῆς ἀπεργασαμένης αὐτὰ φύσεως ἐναγόμενος: οὐ γὰρ ἄν τι κατὰ πάντα τὰ τοῦ πυρὸς ἐνεργήσειε μὴ πῦρ ὄν. οὕτως εἴπερ ὅμοιον καὶ ἴσον τὸν αὐτὸν τῆς προνοίας λόγον τῷ τε πατρὶ καὶ τῷ υἱῷ « ἐγ »καθορῶμεν, διὰ τῶν εἰς τὴν ἡμετέραν γνῶσιν φθανόντων καὶ τῶν ὑπερπιπτόντων τὴν κατάληψιν ἡμῶν στοχαζόμεθα, ὡς οὐκ ἂν τοῦ ἑτερογενοῦς κατὰ τὴν φύσιν τοῖς ἴσοις τε καὶ ὁμοίοις ἐνεργήμασι καταληφθέντος. καὶ γὰρ ὅπως ἂν ἔχῃ πρὸς ἄλληλα τὰ ἐπιφαινόμενα ἑκάστῳ γνωρίσματα, οὕτως ἐξ ἀνάγκης καὶ τὰ ὑποκείμενα ἕξει. καὶ εἰ μὲν ἐναντίως ἔχει τὰ γνωρίσματα, ἐναντία χρὴ πάντως λογίζεσθαι καὶ τὰ διὰ τούτων δηλούμενα, εἰ δὲ ταῦτα ὡσαύτως, οὐδὲ ἐκεῖνα ἑτέρως. καὶ ὥσπερ δι' αἰνίγματος τῆς τῶν δένδρων φύσεως τοὺς καρποὺς ὁ κύριος εἶναί φησι τὰ σημεῖα, ὡς οὐκ ἐπαλλασσομένων παρὰ φύσιν τῶν τοιούτων, οὐδὲ τοῖς κακοῖς τῶν ἀγαθῶν οὐδὲ τὸ ἔμπαλιν τοῖς καλοῖς τῶν ἐναντίων ἐφαρμοζόντων (ἐκ γὰρ τῶν καρπῶν, φησί, τὰ δένδρα γνωρίζεται), οὕτω καὶ τοῦ καρποῦ τῆς προνοίας οὐδεμίαν ἔχοντος διαφοράν, μίαν ὁρῶμεν καὶ τὴν τοὺς καρποὺς τούτους ἐκβλαστήσασαν φύσιν, κἂν ἐκ διαφόρων ὁ καρπὸς τῶν δένδρων προβάλληται. οὐκοῦν διὰ τῶν τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ καταλήψει γνωρίμων (γνώριμος δὲ ἡμῖν ἐστι τῆς προνοίας ὁ λόγος ὡσαύτως ἐπὶ πατρός τε καὶ υἱοῦ θεωρούμενος) ἀναμφίβολος γίνεται καὶ ἡ κατὰ τὴν φύσιν ὁμοιότης καὶ κοινωνία τοῦ μονογενοῦς πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, διὰ τῆς ταὐτότητος τῶν καρπῶν τῆς προνοίας γνωριζομένη.
