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

§5. He next marvellously overthrows the unintelligible statements of Eunomius which assert that the essence of the Father is not separated or divided, and does not become anything else.

“We believe in God,” he tells us, “not separated as regards the essence wherein He is one, into more than one, or becoming sometimes one and sometimes another, or changing from being what He is, or passing from one essence to assume the guise of a threefold personality: for He is always and absolutely one, remaining uniformly and unchangeably the only God.” From these citations the discreet reader may well separate first of all the idle words inserted in the statement without any meaning from those which appear to have some sense, and afterwards examine the meaning that is discoverable in what remains of his statement, to ascertain whether it is compatible with due reverence towards Christ.

The first, then, of the statements cited is completely divorced from any intelligible meaning, good or bad. For what sense there is in the words, “not separated, as regards the essence wherein He is one, into more than one, or becoming sometimes one and sometimes another, or changing from being what He is,” Eunomius himself could not tell us, and I do not think that any of his allies could find in the words any shadow of meaning. When he speaks of Him as “not separated in regard to the essence wherein He is one,” he says either that He is not separated from His own essence, or that His own essence is not divided from Him. This unmeaning statement is nothing but a random combination of noise and empty sound. And why should one spend time in the investigation of these meaningless expressions? For how does any one remain in existence when separated from his own essence? or how is the essence of anything divided and displayed apart? Or how is it possible for one to depart from that wherein he is, and become another, getting outside himself? But he adds, “not passing from one essence to assume the guise of three persons: for He is always and absolutely one, remaining uniformly and unchangeably the only God.” I think the absence of meaning in his statement is plain to every one without a word from me: against this let any one argue who thinks there is any sense or meaning in what he says: he who has an eye to discern the force of words will decline to involve himself in a struggle with unsubstantial shadows. For what force has it against our doctrine to say “not separated or divided into more than one as regards the essence wherein He is one, or becoming sometimes one and sometimes another, or passing from one essence to assume the guise of three persons?”—things that are neither said nor believed by Christians nor understood by inference from the truths we confess. For who ever said or heard any one else say in the Church of God, that the Father is either separated or divided as regards His essence, or becomes sometimes one, sometimes another, coming to be outside Himself, or assumes the guise of three persons? These things Eunomius says to himself, not arguing with us but stringing together his own trash, mixing with the impiety of his utterances a great deal of absurdity. For we say that it is equally impious and ungodly to call the Lord of the creation a created being and to think that the Father, in that He is, is separated or split up, or departs from Himself, or assumes the guise of three persons, like clay or wax moulded in various shapes.

But let us examine the words that follow: “He is always and absolutely one, remaining uniformly and unchangeably the only God.” If he is speaking about the Father, we agree with him, for the Father is most truly one, alone and always absolutely uniform and unchangeable, never at any time present or future ceasing to be what He is. If then such an assertion as this has regard to the Father, let him not contend with the doctrine of godliness, inasmuch as on this point he is in harmony with the Church. For he who confesses that the Father is always and unchangeably the same, being one and only God, holds fast the word of godliness, if in the Father he sees the Son, without Whom the Father neither is nor is named. But if he is inventing some other God besides the Father, let him dispute with the Jews or with those who are called Hypsistiani, between whom and the Christians there is this difference, that they acknowledge that there is a God Whom they term the Highest235    ὕψιστον, whence the name of the sect. or Almighty, but do not admit that he is Father; while a Christian, if he believe not in the Father, no Christian at all.

« Οὐ τὴν οὐσίαν », φησί, « καθ' ἥν ἐστιν εἷς, χωριζόμενον ἢ μεριζόμενον εἰς πλείους, ἢ ἄλλοτε ἄλλον γινόμενον, ἢ τοῦ εἶναι ὅ ἐστι μεθιστάμενον, οὐδὲ ἐκ μιᾶς οὐσίας εἰς ὑπόστασιν τρισσὴν σχιζόμενον: πάντῃ γὰρ καὶ καθάπαξ ἐστὶν εἷς, κατὰ τὰ αὐτά τε καὶ ὡσαύτως διαμένων μόνος ». ἐκ τούτων δὲ τῶν παρατεθέντων προσήκει τὸν συνετὸν ἀκροατὴν διακρῖναι πρῶτον μὲν τὰ χωρὶς διανοίας ἐνριφέντα τῷ λόγῳ διάκενα ῥήματα ἀπὸ τῶν δοκούντων νοῦν ἔχειν, μετὰ ταῦτα δὲ τὴν εὑρισκομένην ἐν τοῖς ὑπολοίποις διάνοιαν τῶν εἰρημένων ἐπισκοπεῖν, εἰ συμβαίνει τῇ περὶ τὸν Χριστὸν εὐσεβείᾳ. τὰ μὲν οὖν πρῶτα τῶν παρατεθέντων καθόλου πάσης καὶ καλῆς καὶ κακῆς διανοίας κεχώρισται. τίνα γὰρ διάνοιαν ἔχει τὸ « οὐ τὴν οὐσίαν, καθ' ἥν ἐστιν εἷς, χωριζόμενον εἰς πλείους, ἢ ἄλλοτε ἄλλον γινόμενον, ἢ τοῦ εἶναι ὅ ἐστι μεθιστάμενον », οὔτ' ἂν αὐτὸς εἴποι οὔτε τινὰ τῶν συμμαχούντων αὐτῷ νομίζω δύνασθαι ἂν ἐξευρεῖν σκιάν τινα διανοίας ἐν τοῖς εἰρημένοις. « οὐ τὴν οὐσίαν, καθ' ἥν ἐστιν εἷς, χωριζόμενον ». αὐτὸν λέγει τῆς οὐσίας ἑαυτοῦ μὴ χωρίζεσθαι, ἢ τὴν οὐσίαν λέγει ἐπ' αὐτοῦ μὴ μερίζεσθαι; ψόφος τίς ἐστι καὶ ἦχος μάταιος εἰκῇ συγκείμενος ὁ ἀσήμαντος οὗτος λόγος. καὶ τί χρὴ παραμένειν τῇ ἐξετάσει τῶν ἀδιανοήτων τούτων ῥημάτων; πῶς γάρ τις τῆς ἑαυτοῦ οὐσίας χωρισθεὶς ἐν τῷ εἶναι μένει; ἢ πῶς ἡ οὐσία τινὸς μερισθεῖσα ἐφ' ἑαυτῆς δείκνυται; ἢ πῶς ἐστι δυνατὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐν ᾧ ἐστιν ἐκβάντα ἄλλον γενέσθαι ἔξω ἑαυτοῦ γενόμενον; ἀλλ' « οὐδὲ ἐκ μιᾶς », φησίν, « οὐσίας εἰς ὑποστάσεις τρεῖς σχιζόμενον: πάντῃ γὰρ καὶ καθάπαξ ἐστὶν εἷς, κατὰ τὰ αὐτά τε καὶ ὡσαύτως διαμένων μόνος ». τὸ μὲν οὖν ἀδιανόητον ἐν τοῖς εἰρημένοις παντὶ δῆλον οἶμαι καὶ πρὸ τῶν ἡμετέρων εἶναι λόγων: τούτοις δὲ ἀντιλεγέτω ὁ νομίζων εἶναί τινα ἐν τοῖς λεγομένοις νοῦν ἢ διάνοιαν: ὁ γὰρ κρίνειν ἐπεσκεμμένος λόγου δύναμιν ἀπαξιώσει τοῖς ἀνυποστάτοις συμπλέκεσθαι. τίνα γὰρ ἰσχὺν ἔχει κατὰ τοῦ ἡμετέρου δόγματος τὸ λέγειν « οὐ τὴν οὐσίαν, καθ' ἥν ἐστιν εἷς, χωριζόμενον ἢ μεριζόμενον εἰς πλείους, ἢ ἄλλοτε ἄλλον γινόμενον, ἢ τοῦ εἶναι ὅ ἐστι μεθιστάμενον, οὐδὲ ἐκ μιᾶς οὐσίας εἰς ὑποστάσεις τρεῖς σχιζόμενον », ἃ μήτε λέγεται παρὰ τῶν Χριστιανῶν μήτε πιστεύεται μήτε ἐκ τοῦ ἀκολούθου διὰ τῶν παρ' ἡμῖν ὁμολογουμένων νοεῖται; τίς γὰρ εἶπε τοῦτό ποτε ἢ λέγοντος ἤκουσεν ἐν τῇ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐκκλησίᾳ, ὅτι ὁ πατὴρ τὴν οὐσίαν ἢ χωρίζεται ἢ μερίζεται ἢ ἄλλοτε ἄλλος γίνεται ἔξω ἑαυτοῦ γινόμενος ἢ εἰς ὑποστάσεις τρεῖς σχίζεται; ἑαυτῷ ταῦτα λαλεῖ ὁ Εὐνόμιος, οὐ πρὸς ἡμᾶς μαχόμενος, ἀλλ' ἰδίους φληνάφους εἴρων, πολλὴν καταμίξας τῇ ἀσεβείᾳ τῶν λεγομένων τὴν ἄνοιαν. ἡμεῖς γὰρ ἐπίσης ἀσεβές τε καὶ ἄθεον λέγομεν καὶ τὸ κτιστὸν λέγειν τὸν δεσπότην τῆς κτίσεως καὶ τὸ οἴεσθαι τὸν πατέρα, καθὸ ἔστι, χωρίζεσθαι ἢ τέμνεσθαι ἢ ἑαυτοῦ ἐξίστασθαι ἢ εἰς ὑποστάσεις τρεῖς σχίζεσθαι, ὥσπερ τινὰ πηλὸν ἢ κηρὸν ἐν μορφαῖς διαφόροις διαπλασσόμενον.
Ἀλλὰ τοὺς ἐφεξῆς λόγους σκεψώμεθα: « πάντῃ γὰρ καὶ καθάπαξ ἐστὶν εἷς, κατὰ τὰ αὐτά τε καὶ ὡσαύτως διαμένων μόνος ». εἰ περὶ τοῦ πατρὸς λέγει, τούτῳ καὶ ἡμεῖς συντιθέμεθα: εἷς γάρ ἐστιν ὡς ἀληθῶς ὁ πατὴρ μόνος καὶ πάντῃ καθάπαξ κατὰ τὰ αὐτά τε καὶ ὡσαύτως ἔχων, καὶ οὐδέποτε, ὅπερ ἐστίν, οὔτε μὴ ὢν οὔτε μὴ ἐσόμενος. εἰ τοίνυν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα βλέπει ἡ τοιαύτη φωνή, μὴ μαχέσθω τῷ δόγματι τῆς εὐσεβείας, συμφωνῶν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ κατὰ τοῦτο τὸ μέρος. ὁ γὰρ ὁμολογῶν τὸν πατέρα πάντοτε « κατὰ τὰ αὐτά τε » καὶ ὡσαύτως ἔχειν ἕνα καὶ μόνον ὄντα, τὸν τῆς εὐσεβείας κρατύνει λόγον, βλέπων ἐν τῷ πατρὶ τὸν υἱόν, οὗ χωρὶς πατὴρ οὔτε ἔστιν οὔτε λέγεται. εἰ δὲ ἄλλον τινὰ παρὰ τὸν πατέρα θεὸν ἀναπλάσσει, Ἰουδαίοις διαλεγέσθω ἢ τοῖς λεγομένοις Ὑψιστιανοῖς, ὧν αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ πρὸς τοὺς Χριστιανοὺς διαφορά, τὸ θεὸν μὲν αὐτοὺς ὁμολογεῖν εἶναί τινα, ὃν ὀνομάζουσιν ὕψιστον ἢ παντοκράτορα, πατέρα δὲ αὐτὸν εἶναι μὴ παραδέχεσθαι: ὁ δὲ Χριστιανός, εἰ μὴ τῷ πατρὶ πιστεύοι, Χριστιανὸς οὐκ ἔστιν.