§9. Gregory again discusses the generation of the Only-Begotten, and other different modes of generation, material and immaterial, and nobly demonstrates that the Son is the brightness of the Divine glory, and not a creature.

And now let us return once more to the precise statement of Eunomius. “We believe also in the Son of God, the only begotten God, the first-born of all creation, very Son, not Ungenerate, verily begotten before the worlds.” That he transfers, then, the sense of generation to indicate creation is plain from his expressly calling Him created, when he speaks of Him as “coming into being” and “not uncreate”. But that the inconsiderate rashness and want of training which shows itself in the doctrines may be made manifest, let us omit all expressions of indignation at his evident blasphemy, and employ in the discussion of this matter a scientific division. For it would be well, I think, to consider in a somewhat careful investigation the exact meaning of the term “generation.” That this expression conveys the meaning of existing as the result of some cause is plain to all, and I suppose there is no need to contend about this point: but since there are different modes of existing as the result of a cause, this difference is what I think ought to receive thorough explanation in our discussion by means of scientific division. Of things which have come into being as the results of some cause we recognize the following differences. Some are the result of material and art, as the fabrics of houses and all other works produced by means of their respective material, where some art gives direction and conducts its purpose to its proper aim. Others are the result of material and nature; for nature orders296    Reading οἰκονομεῖ or οἰκοδομεῖ the generation of animals one from another, effecting her own work by means of the material subsistence in the bodies of the parents; others again are by material efflux. In these the original remains as it was before, and that which flows from it is contemplated by itself, as in the case of the sun and its beam, or the lamp and its radiance, or of scents and ointments, and the quality given off from them. For these, while remaining undiminished in themselves, have each accompanying them the special and peculiar effect which they naturally produce, as the sun his ray, the lamp its brightness, and perfumes the fragrance which they engender in the air. There is also another kind of generation besides these, where the cause is immaterial and incorporeal, but the generation is sensible and takes place through the instrumentality of the body; I mean the generation of the word by the mind. For the mind being in itself incorporeal begets the word by means of sensible instruments. So many are the differences of the term generation, which we discover in a philosophic view of them, that is itself, so to speak, the result of generation.

And now that we have thus distinguished the various modes of generation, it will be time to remark how the benevolent dispensation of the Holy Spirit, in delivering to us the Divine mysteries, imparts that instruction which transcends reason by such methods as we can receive. For the inspired teaching adopts, in order to set forth the unspeakable power of God, all the forms of generation that human intelligence recognizes, yet without including the corporeal senses attaching to the words. For when it speaks of the creative power, it gives to such an energy the name of generation, because its expression must stoop to our low capacity; it does not, however, convey thereby all that we include in creative generation, as time, place, the furnishing of matter, the fitness of instruments, the design in the things that come into being, but it leaves these, and asserts of God in lofty and magnificent language the creation of all existent things, when it says, “He spake the word and they were made297    Or “were generated.” The reference is to Ps. cxlviii. 5., He commanded and they were created.” Again when it interprets to us the unspeakable and transcendent existence of the Only-begotten from the Father, as the poverty of human intellect is incapable of receiving doctrines which surpass all power of speech and thought, there too it borrows our language and terms Him “Son,”—a name which our usage assigns to those who are born of matter and nature. But just as Scripture, when speaking of generation by creation, does not in the case of God imply that such generation took place by means of any material, affirming that the power of God’s will served for material substance, place, time and all such circumstances, even so here too, when using the term Son, it rejects both all else that human nature remarks in generation here below,—I mean affections and dispositions and the co-operation of time, and the necessity of place,—and, above all, matter, without all which natural generation here below does not take place. But when all such material, temporal and local298    διαστηματικῆς seems to include the idea of extension in time as well as in space. existence is excluded from the sense of the term “Son,” community of nature alone is left, and for this reason by the title “Son” is declared, concerning the Only-begotten, the close affinity and genuineness of relationship which mark His manifestation from the Father. And since such a kind of generation was not sufficient to implant in us an adequate notion of the ineffable mode of subsistence of the Only-begotten, Scripture avails itself also of the third kind of generation to indicate the doctrine of the Son’s Divinity,—that kind, namely, which is the result of material efflux, and speaks of Him as the “brightness of glory299    Heb. i. 3.,” the “savour of ointment300    The reference may be to the Song of Solomon i. 3.,” the “breath of God301    Wisd. vii. 25.;” illustrations which in the scientific phraseology we have adopted we ordinarily designate as material efflux.

But as in the cases alleged neither the birth of the creation nor the force of the term “Son” admits time, matter, place, or affection, so here too the Scripture employing only the illustration of effulgence and the others that I have mentioned, apart from all material conception, with regard to the Divine fitness of such a mode of generation, shows that we must understand by the significance of this expression, an existence at once derived from and subsisting with the Father. For neither is the figure of breath intended to convey to us the notion of dispersion into the air from the material from which it is formed, nor is the figure of fragrance designed to express the passing off of the quality of the ointment into the air, nor the figure of effulgence the efflux which takes place by means of the rays from the body of the sun: but as has been said in all cases, by such a mode of generation is indicated this alone, that the Son is of the Father and is conceived of along with Him, no interval intervening between the Father and Him Who is of the Father. For since of His exceeding loving-kindness the grace of the Holy Spirit so ordered that the divine conceptions concerning the Only-begotten should reach us from many quarters, and so be implanted in us, He added also the remaining kind of generation,—that, namely, of the word from the mind. And here the sublime John uses remarkable foresight. That the reader might not through inattention and unworthy conceptions sink to the common notion of “word,” so as to deem the Son to be merely a voice of the Father, he therefore affirms of the Word that He essentially subsisted in the first and blessed nature Itself, thus proclaiming aloud, “In the Beginning was the Word, and with God, and God, and Light, and Life302    Cf. S. John i. 1 sqq.,” and all that the Beginning is, the Word was also.

Since, then, these kinds of generation, those, I mean, which arise as the result of some cause, and are recognized in our every-day experience, are also employed by Holy Scripture to convey its teaching concerning transcendent mysteries in such wise as each of them may reasonably be transferred to the expression of divine conceptions, we may now proceed to examine Eunomius’ statement also, to find in what sense he accepts the meaning of “generation.” “Very Son,” he says, “not ungenerate, verily begotten before the worlds.” One may, I think, pass quickly over the violence done to logical sequence in his distinction, as being easily recognizable by all. For who does not know that while the proper opposition is between Father and Son, between generate and ungenerate, he thus passes over the term “Father” and sets “ungenerate” in opposition to “Son,” whereas he ought, if he had any concern for truth, to have avoided diverting his phrase from the due sequence of relationship, and to have said, “Very Son, not Father”? And in this way due regard would have been paid at once to piety and to logical consistency, as the nature would not have been rent asunder in making the distinction between the persons. But he has exchanged in his statement of his faith the true and scriptural use of the term “Father,” committed to us by the Word Himself, and speaks of the “Ungenerate” instead of the “Father,” in order that by separating Him from that close relationship towards the Son which is naturally conceived of in the title of Father, he may place Him on a common level with all created objects, which equally stand in opposition to the “ungenerate303    That is, by using as the terms of his antithesis, not “Son” and “Father,” but “Son” and “Ungenerate,” he avoids suggesting relationship between the two Persons, and does suggest that the Second Person stands in the same opposition to the First Person in which all created objects stand as contrasted with Him..” “Verily begotten,” he says, “before the worlds.” Let him say of Whom He is begotten. He will answer, of course, “Of the Father,” unless he is prepared unblushingly to contradict the truth. But since it is impossible to detach the eternity of the Son from the eternal Father, seeing that the term “Father” by its very signification implies the Son, for this reason it is that he rejects the title Father and shifts his phrase to “ungenerate,” since the meaning of this latter name has no sort of relation or connection with the Son, and by thus misleading his readers through the substitution of one term for the other, into not contemplating the Son along with the Father, he opens up a path for his sophistry, paving the way of impiety by slipping in the term “ungenerate.” For they who according to the ordinance of the Lord believe in the Father, when they hear the name of the Father, receive the Son along with Him in their thought, as the mind passes from the Son to the Father, without treading on an unsubstantial vacuum interposed between them. But those who are diverted to the title “ungenerate” instead of Father, get a bare notion of this name, learning only the fact that He did not at any time come into being, not that He is Father. Still, even with this mode of conception, the faith of those who read with discernment remains free from confusion. For the expression “not to come into being” is used in an identical sense of all uncreated nature: and Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are equally uncreated. For it has ever been believed by those who follow the Divine word that all the creation, sensible and supramundane, derives its existence from the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. He who has heard that “by the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth304    Ps. xxxiii. 6.,” neither understands by “word” mere utterance, nor by “breath” mere exhalation, but by what is there said frames the conception of God the Word and of the Spirit of God. Now to create and to be created are not equivalent, but all existent things being divided into that which makes and that which is made, each is different in nature from the other, so that neither is that uncreated which is made, nor is that created which effects the production of the things that are made. By those then who, according to the exposition of the faith given us by our Lord Himself, have believed in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, it is acknowledged that each of these Persons is alike unoriginate305    τὀ μὴ γενέσθαι τι τούτων ἐπίσης ὁμολογεῖται. This may possibly mean “it is acknowledged that each of those alternatives” (viz. that that which comes into being is uncreate, and that that which creates should itself be created) “is equally untrue.” But this view would not be confined to those who held the Catholic doctrine: the impossibility of the former alternative, indeed, was insisted upon by the Arians as an argument in their own favour., and the meaning conveyed by “ungenerate” does no harm to their sound belief: but to those who are dense and indefinite this term serves as a starting-point for deflection from sound doctrine. For not understanding the true force of the term, that “ungenerate” signifies nothing more than “not having come into being,” and that “not coming into being” is a common property of all that transcends created nature, they drop their faith in the Father, and substitute for “Father” the phrase “ungenerate:” and since, as has been said, the Personal existence of the Only-begotten is not connoted in this name, they determine the existence of the Son to have commenced from some definite beginning in time, affirming (what Eunomius here adds to his previous statements) that He is called Son not without generation preceding His existence.

What is this vain juggling with words? Is he aware that it is God of Whom he speaks, Who was in the beginning and is in the Father, nor was there any time when He was not? He knows not what he says nor whereof he affirms306    Cf. 1 Tim. i. 7, but he endeavours, as though he were constructing the pedigree of a mere man, to apply to the Lord of all creation the language which properly belongs to our nature here below. For, to take an example, Ishmael was not before the generation that brought him into being, and before his birth there was of course an interval of time. But with Him Who is “the brightness of glory307    Cf. Heb. i. 3,” “before” and “after” have no place: for before the brightness, of course neither was there any glory, for concurrently with the existence of the glory there assuredly beams forth its brightness; and it is impossible in the nature of things that one should be severed from the other, nor is it possible to see the glory by itself before its brightness. For he who says thus will make out the glory in itself to be darkling and dim, if the brightness from it does not shine out at the same time. But this is the unfair method of the heresy, to endeavour, by the notions and terms employed concerning the Only-begotten God, to displace Him from His oneness with the Father. It is to this end they say, “Before the generation that brought Him into being He was not Son:” but the “sons of rams308    Ps. cxiv. 4, in Septuagint.,” of whom the prophet speaks,—are not they too called sons after coming into being? That quality, then, which reason notices in the “sons of rams,” that they are not “sons of rams” before the generation which brings them into being,—this our reverend divine now ascribes to the Maker of the worlds and of all creation, Who has the Eternal Father in Himself, and is contemplated in the eternity of the Father, as He Himself says, “I am in the Father, and the Father in Me309    S. John xiv. 10.” Those, however, who are not able to detect the sophistry that lurks in his statement, and are not trained to any sort of logical perception, follow these inconsequent statements and receive what comes next as a logical consequence of what preceded. For he says, “coming into being before all creation,” and as though this were not enough to prove his impiety, he has a piece of profanity in reserve in the phrase that follows, when he terms the Son “not uncreate.” In what sense then does he call Him Who is not uncreate “very Son”? For if it is meet to call Him Who is not uncreate “very Son,” then of course the heaven is “very Son;” for it too is “not uncreate.” So the sun too is “very Son,” and all that the creation contains, both small and great, are of course entitled to the appellation of “very Son.” And in what sense does He call Him Who has come into being “Only-begotten”? For all things that come into being are unquestionably in brotherhood with each other, so far, I mean, as their coming into being is concerned. And from whom did He come into being? For assuredly all things that have ever come into being did so from the Son. For thus did John testify, saying, “All things were made by Him310    S. John i. 3.” If then the Son also came into being, according to Eunomius’ creed, He is certainly ranked in the class of things which have come into being. If then all things that came into being were made by Him, and the Word is one of the things that came into being, who is so dull as not to draw from these premises the absurd conclusion that our new creed-monger makes out the Lord of creation to have been His own work, in saying in so many words that the Lord and Maker of all creation is “not uncreate”? Let him tell us whence he has this boldness of assertion. From what inspired utterance? What evangelist, what apostle ever uttered such words as these? What prophet, what lawgiver, what patriarch, what other person of all who were divinely moved by the Holy Ghost, whose voices are preserved in writing, ever originated such a statement as this? In the tradition of the faith delivered by the Truth we are taught to believe in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. If it were right to believe that the Son was created, how was it that the Truth in delivering to us this mystery bade us believe in the Son, and not in the creature? and how is it that the inspired Apostle, himself adoring Christ, lays it down that they who worship the creature besides the Creator are guilty of idolatry311    Rom. i. 25, where παρὰ τὸν κτίσαντα may be better translated “besides the Creator,” or “rather than the Creator,” than as in the A.V.? For, were the Son created, either he would not have worshipped Him, or he would have refrained from classing those who worship the creature along with idolaters, lest he himself should appear to be an idolater, in offering adoration to the created. But he knew that He Whom he adored was God over all312    Rom. ix. 5., for so he terms the Son in his Epistle to the Romans. Why then do those who divorce the Son from the essence of the Father, and call Him creature, bestow on Him in mockery the fictitious title of Deity, idly conferring on one alien from true Divinity the name of “God,” as they might confer it on Bel or Dagon or the Dragon? Let those, therefore, who affirm that He is created, acknowledge that He is not God at all, that they may be seen to be nothing but Jews in disguise, or, if they confess one who is created to be God, let them not deny that they are idolaters.

Πάλιν δὲ τοῦ Εὐνομίου τὸν λόγον ἐπὶ λέξεως ἀναλάβωμεν. « πιστεύομεν καὶ εἰς τὸν τοῦ θεοῦ υἱόν, τὸν μονογενῆ θεόν, τὸν πρωτότοκον πάσης κτίσεως, υἱὸν ἀληθινόν, οὐκ ἀγέννητον, ἀληθῶς γεννηθέντα πρὸ αἰώνων ». ὅτι μὲν οὖν μετάγει τὴν τῆς γεννήσεως ἔμφασιν εἰς τὸ τῆς κτίσεως σημαινόμενον, δῆλόν ἐστιν ἐξ ὧν διαρρήδην κτιστὸν αὐτὸν προσηγόρευσε, « γενόμενον » αὐτὸν εἰπὼν καὶ « οὐκ ἄκτιστον ». ἡμεῖς δέ, ὡς ἂν μάλιστα τὸ ἀνεπίσκεπτον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀπαίδευτον ἐν τοῖς δόγμασιν φανερωθείη, ἀφέντες τὸ σχετλιάζειν ἐπὶ τῷ προδήλῳ τῆς βλασφημίας τεχνικῇ τινι διαιρέσει τὸν περὶ τούτου λόγον διαληψόμεθα. δοκεῖ γάρ μοι καλῶς ἔχειν αὐτὸ τὸ τῆς γεννήσεως σημαινόμενον δι' ἐπιμελεστέρας ἐξετάσεως διασκοπῆσαι τῷ λόγῳ. ὅτι μὲν οὖν τὸ ἐξ αἰτίας εἶναί τινος τὸ ὄνομα τοῦτο παρίστησι, παντὶ δῆλόν ἐστι, καὶ οὐδὲν οἶμαι χρῆναι περὶ τούτου διαγωνίζεσθαι: ἀλλ' ἐπειδὴ διάφορος τῶν ἐξ αἰτίας ὑφεστώτων ὁ λόγος ἐστί, τοῦτ' οἶμαι προσήκειν διά τινος τεχνικῆς διαιρέσεως σαφηνισθῆναι τῷ λόγῳ. τῶν τοίνυν ἔκ τινος αἰτίας γεγενημένων ταύτας τὰς διαφορὰς κατειλήφαμεν. τὰ μὲν γὰρ ἐξ ὕλης ἐστὶ καὶ τέχνης, ὡς αἱ τῶν οἰκοδομημάτων καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ἔργων κατασκευαὶ « αἱ » διὰ τῆς καταλλήλου ὕλης γινόμεναι, ὧν καθηγεῖταί τις τέχνη πρὸς τὸν ἴδιον σκοπὸν τὸ προτεθὲν συμπεραίνουσα, τὰ δὲ ἐξ ὕλης καὶ φύσεως: τὰς γὰρ ἐξ ἀλλήλων γενέσεις τῶν ζῴων ἡ φύσις οἰκοδομεῖ, διὰ τῆς ἐν τοῖς σώμασιν ὑλικῆς ὑποστάσεως τὸ ἑαυτῆς ἐνεργοῦσα: τὰ δὲ ἐξ ὑλικῆς ἀπορροίας, ἐφ' ὧν καὶ τὸ προηγούμενον μένει οἷόν ἐστιν καὶ τὸ ἀπ' ἐκείνου ῥέον ἐφ' ἑαυτοῦ καθορᾶται, ὡς ἐπὶ τοῦ ἡλίου καὶ τῆς ἀκτῖνος ἢ ἐπὶ τῆς λαμπάδος καὶ τῆς αὐγῆς ἢ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀρωμάτων τε καὶ τῶν μύρων καὶ τῆς ἐκεῖθεν ἐκδιδομένης ποιότητος. ταῦτα γὰρ ἐφ' ἑαυτῶν ἀμείωτα μένοντα εὐθὺς ἔχει συμπαρομαρτοῦσαν ἕκαστον τὴν ἀπ' αὐτῶν ἐκδιδομένην φυσικὴν ἰδιότητα, οἷον ὁ μὲν ἥλιος τὴν ἀκτῖνα, ἡ δὲ λαμπὰς τὴν αὐγήν, τὰ δὲ ἀρώματα τὴν τῷ ἀέρι ἐντικτομένην ἐξ αὐτῶν εὐωδίαν. ἔστι καὶ ἕτερον εἶδος παρὰ ταῦτα γεννήσεως, οὗ ἡ μὲν αἰτία ἄϋλός ἐστι καὶ ἀσώματος, ἡ δὲ γέννησις αἰσθητή τε καὶ διὰ σώματος, λέγω δὲ τὸν ἐκ τοῦ νοῦ γεννώμενον λόγον: ἀσώματος γὰρ ὢν καθ' ἑαυτὸν ὁ νοῦς διὰ τῶν αἰσθητῶν ὀργάνων τίκτει τὸν λόγον. τοσαύτας γεννήσεων διαφορὰς οἷον ἐν γενικῇ τινι θεωρίᾳ κατενοήσαμεν.
Τούτων τοίνυν τῶν τῆς γεννήσεως τρόπων οὕτως ἡμῖν διῃρημένων, καιρὸς ἂν εἴη κατιδεῖν, πῶς ἡ φιλάνθρωπος τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος οἰκονομία παραδιδοῦσα τὰ θεῖα μυστήρια διὰ τῶν ἡμῖν χωρητῶν τὴν διδασκαλίαν ποιεῖται τῶν ὑπὲρ λόγον. πάντα γὰρ τὰ τῆς γεννήσεως εἴδη, ὅσα ἡ ἀνθρωπίνη γινώσκει διάνοια, ἡ θεόπνευστος διδασκαλία πρὸς τὴν παράστασιν τῆς ἀρρήτου δυνάμεως παραλαμβάνει, οὐ συμπαραδεχομένη τὰς σωματικὰς τῶν ὀνομάτων ἐμφάσεις. ὅταν μὲν γὰρ περὶ τῆς κατασκευαστικῆς λέγῃ δυνάμεως, γέννησιν μὲν ὀνομάζει τὴν τοιαύτην ἐνέργειαν διὰ τὸ δεῖν πρὸς τὸ ταπεινὸν τῆς ἡμετέρας δυνάμεως καταβῆναι τὸν λόγον, οὐ μὴν συνενδείκνυται τὰ ὅσα παρ' ἡμῖν τῇ κατασκευαστικῇ γενέσει συνθεωρεῖται, οὐ τόπον, οὐ χρόνον, οὐχ ὕλης παρασκευήν, οὐκ ὀργάνων συνεργίαν, οὐ τὸν ἐπὶ τοῖς γινομένοις κόπον, ἀλλὰ ταῦτα ἡμῖν καταλιποῦσα μεγαλοφυῶς τε καὶ ὑψηλῶς τῷ θεῷ προσμαρτυρεῖ τῶν ὄντων τὴν γένεσιν ἐν οἷς φησιν ὅτι Αὐτὸς εἶπε καὶ ἐγενήθησαν, αὐτὸς ἐνετείλατο καὶ ἐκτίσθησαν. πάλιν ὅταν τὴν ἀπόρρητόν τε καὶ ὑπὲρ λόγον τοῦ μονογενοῦς ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ὕπαρξιν ἑρμηνεύῃ, διὰ τὸ ἀχώρητον εἶναι τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην πτωχείαν τῶν ὑπὲρ λόγον τε καὶ ἔννοιαν διδαγμάτων κἀκεῖ τοῖς ἡμετέροις συγκέχρηται καὶ υἱὸν ὀνομάζει, ὅπερ ἡ παρ' ἡμῖν συνήθεια τοῖς ἀπὸ ὕλης καὶ φύσεως ἀποτικτομένοις ὄνομα τίθεται. ἀλλ' ὥσπερ τὴν [διὰ] τῆς κτίσεως γένεσιν εἰπὼν ὁ λόγος ἐπὶ θεοῦ τὸ διά τινος ὕλης γενέσθαι αὐτὴν οὐ προσέθηκεν, οὐσίαν ὕλης καὶ τόπον καὶ χρόνον καὶ πάντα τὰ τοιαῦτα τὴν τοῦ θείου θελήματος εἶναι δύναμιν ἀποφηνάμενος, οὕτως καὶ ἐνταῦθα υἱὸν εἰπὼν ἀφῆκε πάντα τά τε ἄλλα, ὅσα περὶ τὴν κάτω γέννησιν ἡ ἀνθρωπίνη φύσις ὁρᾷ, πάθη τε λέγω καὶ διαθέσεις καὶ τὴν ἐκ τοῦ χρόνου συνεργίαν καὶ τὴν τοῦ τόπου χρείαν καὶ πρὸ πάντων τὴν ὕλην, ὧν ἄνευ πάντων ἡ κάτω γέννησις ἐκ τῆς φύσεως οὐ συνίσταται. πάσης δὲ τῆς τοιαύτης « ἐννοίας » ὑλικῆς τε καὶ διαστηματικῆς μὴ συμπαραληφθείσης ἐν τῇ τοῦ υἱοῦ σημασίᾳ, μόνη ὑπελείφθη ἡ φύσις, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τῇ τοῦ υἱοῦ φωνῇ τὸ οἰκεῖον καὶ γνήσιον τῆς ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἀναδείξεως ἐπὶ τοῦ μονογενοῦς ἑρμηνεύεται. καὶ ἐπειδὴ οὐχ ἱκανὸν ἦν τὸ τοιοῦτον τῆς γεννήσεως εἶδος ἀρκοῦσαν ἡμῖν ἐμποιῆσαι τῆς ἀρρήτου τοῦ μονογενοῦς ὑπάρξεως τὴν φαντασίαν, συμπαραλαμβάνει καὶ τὸ ἕτερον τῆς γεννήσεως εἶδος πρὸς σημασίαν τῆς τοῦ υἱοῦ θεολογίας τὸ ἐκ τῆς ὑλικῆς ἀπορροίας, καί φησιν ἀπαύγασμα δόξης καὶ ὀσμὴν μύρου καὶ ἀτμίδα θεοῦ, ἅπερ ἐν τῇ ἐκτεθείσῃ παρ' ἡμῶν τεχνολογίᾳ ἡ καθ' ἡμᾶς συνήθεια ὑλικὴν ἀπόρροιαν ὀνομάζει. ἀλλ' ὥσπερ ἐν τοῖς προειρημένοις οὔτε ἡ τῆς κτίσεως γένεσις οὔτε ἡ τοῦ υἱοῦ σημασία ἢ χρόνον ἢ ὕλην ἢ τόπον ἢ πάθος συμπαρεδέξατο, οὕτως καὶ ἐνταῦθα πάσης τῆς ὑλικῆς ἐννοίας « ἐκκαθάρας » τὴν τοῦ ἀπαυγάσματος καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν τῶν μνημονευθέντων σημασίαν, μόνον τὸ θεοπρεπὲς τοῦ τοιούτου τῆς γεννήσεως εἴδους ὁ λόγος παραλαβὼν ἐνδείκνυται τὸ δεῖν ἐξ αὐτοῦ τε καὶ μετ' αὐτοῦ κατὰ ταὐτὸν νοεῖσθαι διὰ τῆς κατὰ τὴν λέξιν ταύτην ἐμφάσεως. οὔτε γὰρ ἡ ἀτμὶς τὴν εἰς ἀέρα διάχυσιν ἐκ τῆς ὑποκειμένης ὕλης παρίστησιν οὔτε ἡ ὀσμὴ τὴν ἐκ τῆς ποιότητος τοῦ μύρου γινομένην πρὸς τὸν ἀέρα μετάστασιν οὔτε τὸ ἀπαύγασμα τὴν τοῦ ἡλιακοῦ σώματος διὰ τῶν ἀκτίνων γινομένην ἀπόρροιαν, ἀλλὰ τοῦτο μόνον ἐκ πάντων, καθὼς εἴρηται, διὰ τοῦ τοιούτου τῆς γεννήσεως τρόπου δηλοῦται, τὸ ἐξ ἐκείνου τε εἶναι καὶ μετ' ἐκείνου νοεῖσθαι, μηδενὸς διαστήματος μεταξὺ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ ἐξ αὐτοῦ μεσιτεύοντος. ἐπειδὴ δὲ διὰ πλείονα φιλανθρωπίαν ἡ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος χάρις πολλαχόθεν ἡμῖν ἐγγενέσθαι τὰς θείας περὶ τοῦ μονογενοῦς ὑπολήψεις ᾠκονομήσατο, προσέθηκε καὶ τὸ λειπόμενον τῶν ἐν γεννήσει θεωρουμένων εἶδος, τὸ ἐκ τοῦ νοῦ καὶ τοῦ λόγου. ἀλλ' ἐν τούτῳ πλείονι χρῆται τῇ προμηθείᾳ ὁ ὑψηλὸς Ἰωάννης, ὥστε μὴ ὑπὸ ἀτονίας τε καὶ μικροψυχίας καταπεσεῖν τὸν ἀκούοντα πρὸς τὴν κοινὴν ἔννοιαν τοῦ λόγου, ὡς φθόγγον τοῦ πατρὸς τὸν υἱὸν νομισθῆναι: διὰ τοῦτο προσμαρτυρεῖ τῷ λόγῳ τὸ κατ' οὐσίαν εἶναι ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ πρώτῃ καὶ μακαρίᾳ φύσει, οὕτως ἀναβοήσας τὸ κήρυγμα ὅτι ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ πρὸς τὸν θεὸν καὶ θεός, καὶ φῶς καὶ ζωὴ καὶ πάντα ὅσα ἐστὶν ἡ ἀρχὴ καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν.
Τούτων τοίνυν τῶν τῆς γεννήσεως τρόπων ἤτοι τῶν ἐξ αἰτίας ὑφεστώτων ἔν τε τῇ καθ' ἡμᾶς συνηθείᾳ γινωσκομένων, παραληφθέντων δὲ καὶ παρὰ τῆς ἁγίας γραφῆς πρὸς τὴν τῶν ὑπερκειμένων διδασκαλίαν οὕτως, ὡς εἰκός ἐστι πρὸς παράστασιν τῶν θείων ὑπολήψεων ἕκαστον τούτων εὐσεβῶς μεταληφθῆναι, καιρὸς ἂν εἴη κατανοῆσαι καὶ τοῦ Εὐνομίου τὸν λόγον, ἐπὶ ποίου δέχεται σημαινομένου τὴν τῆς γεννήσεως ἔμφασιν. « υἱόν », φησίν, « ἀληθινόν, οὐκ ἀγέννητον, καὶ ἀληθῶς γεννηθέντα πρὸ αἰώνων ». τὴν μὲν οὖν ἐν τῇ διαστολῇ κακουργηθεῖσαν ἀκολουθίαν ὡς παντὶ γνώριμον οὖσαν παραδραμεῖν οἶμαι προσήκει. τίς γὰρ οὐκ οἶδεν ὅτι, τῷ μὲν υἱῷ πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, τῷ δὲ γεννητῷ πρὸς τὸν ἀγέννητον οὔσης τῆς ἀντιδιαστολῆς οὗτος τὸν πατέρα παρεὶς ἀντιδιαστέλλει τῷ υἱῷ τὸν ἀγέννητον, δέον, εἴπερ ἀληθείας ἐποιεῖτο φροντίδα, μὴ παρατρέψαι τῆς σχετικῆς ἀκολουθίας τὸν λόγον, ἀλλ' εἰπεῖν ὅτι ”υἱὸν ἀληθινόν, οὐ πατέρα”, οὕτω δ' ἂν συνδιεσώθη τῇ ἀκολουθίᾳ τοῦ λόγου καὶ ἡ εὐσέβεια, τῇ διακρίσει τῶν προσώπων μὴ συνδιασχισθείσης τῆς φύσεως. ἀλλὰ τὴν ἀληθῆ τε καὶ ἔγγραφον τοῦ πατρὸς χρῆσιν τὴν παρ' αὐτοῦ τοῦ λόγου παραδοθεῖσαν ἐν τῷ λόγῳ τῆς πίστεως ὑπαμείψας « ἀγέννητον » ἀντὶ τοῦ πατρὸς κατωνόμασεν, ἵνα χωρίσας αὐτὸν τῆς φυσικῶς ἐνθεωρουμένης τῇ τοῦ πατρὸς κλήσει πρὸς τὸν υἱὸν οἰκειότητος κοινοποιήσῃ πρὸς πάντα τὰ ἐν τῇ κτίσει φαινόμενα, οἷς κατὰ τὸ ἴσον ἡ ἀντιδιαστολή ἐστι πρὸς τὸ ἀγέννητον. « Ἀληθῶς », φησί, « γεννηθέντα πρὸ αἰώνων ». παρὰ τίνος, εἰπάτω. παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐρεῖ πάντως, εἴπερ μὴ ἀναισχυντοίη πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν. ἀλλ' ἐπειδὴ τοῦ ἀϊδίου πατρὸς οὐκ ἔστι τὴν ἀϊδιότητα τοῦ υἱοῦ διαστῆσαι, συνενδεικνυμένης πάντως καὶ τὸν υἱὸν τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς σημασίας, διὰ τοῦτο τοῦ πατρὸς ἀποδοκιμάσας τὴν κλῆσιν μετάγει τὸν λόγον πρὸς τὸ ἀγέννητον, ἐπειδὴ τούτου τοῦ ὀνόματος ἄσχετόν τε καὶ ἀκοινώνητόν ἐστι πρὸς τὸν υἱὸν τὸ σημαινόμενον, καὶ οὕτως παραγαγὼν τοὺς ἀκούοντας πρὸς τὸ μὴ συνθεωρεῖν τῷ πατρὶ τὸν υἱὸν διὰ τῆς ὑπαλλαγῆς τοῦ ὀνόματος ὁδὸν ἔδωκεν τῇ κακουργίᾳ, διὰ τῆς τοῦ ἀγεννήτου παρενθήκης ὁδοποιῶν τὴν ἀσέβειαν. οἱ γὰρ κατὰ τὸ πρόσταγμα τοῦ δεσπότου εἰς τὸν πατέρα τὴν πίστιν ἔχοντες ὁμοῦ τῷ ἀκοῦσαι τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὸν υἱὸν τῇ διανοίᾳ συμπαρεδέξαντο, οὐδενὶ τῷ μεταξὺ διαστήματι τῆς διανοίας ἀπὸ τοῦ υἱοῦ πρὸς τὸν πατέρα κενεμβατούσης. οἱ δὲ ἀντὶ τοῦ πατρὸς παρενεχθέντες πρὸς τὴν τοῦ ἀγεννήτου κλῆσιν ψιλὴν τὴν τοῦ ὀνόματος τούτου ἀναλαμβάνουσιν ἔννοιαν, μόνον τὸ μὴ γενέσθαι αὐτὸν διδασκόμενοι, οὐ μὴν καὶ τὸ πατέρα εἶναι. ἐκ τούτου δὲ τοῖς μὲν συνετῶς ἐπαΐουσιν ἀσύγχυτος μένει καὶ διὰ ταύτης τῆς διανοίας ἡ πίστις. τὸ γὰρ μὴ γενέσθαι ὡσαύτως ἐπὶ τῆς ἀκτίστου λέγεται φύσεως, ἄκτιστος δὲ κατὰ τὸ ἴσον ὁ πατήρ τε καὶ ὁ υἱὸς καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, διότι πᾶσα κτίσις αἰσθητή τε καὶ ὑπερκόσμιος ἐκ πατρός τε καὶ υἱοῦ καὶ πνεύματος ἁγίου τὴν ὑπόστασιν ἔχειν παρὰ τῶν ἀκολουθούντων ταῖς θείαις φωναῖς πεπίστευται. ὁ γὰρ ἀκούσας ὅτι Τῷ λόγῳ κυρίου οἱ οὐρανοὶ ἐστερεώθησαν καὶ τῷ πνεύματι τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ πᾶσα ἡ δύναμις αὐτῶν, οὔτε ῥῆμα τὸν λόγον ἐνόησεν οὔτε ἆσθμα τὸ πνεῦμα, ἀλλὰ τὸν θεὸν λόγον καὶ τοῦ θεοῦ τὸ πνεῦμα διὰ τῶν εἰρημένων ἀνετυπώσατο. οὐ δύναται δὲ τὸ αὐτὸ καὶ κτίζειν καὶ κτίζεσθαι, ἀλλὰ διχῇ μεριζομένων τῶν ὄντων εἰς τὸ ποιοῦν τε καὶ τὸ γινόμενον, ἄλλο τι ἑκάτερόν ἐστι τῇ φύσει παρὰ τὸ ἕτερον, ὡς μήτε τὸ γινόμενον ἄκτιστον εἶναι μήτε κτιστὸν ὃ τὴν τῶν γινομένων κατεργάζεται φύσιν. τοῖς μὲν οὖν κατὰ τὴν δεσποτικὴν τῆς πίστεως ἔκθεσιν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος πεπιστευκόσι τὸ μὴ γενέσθαι τι τούτων ἐπίσης ὁμολογεῖται, καὶ οὐδὲν τοῦ ἀγεννήτου τὸ σημαινόμενον παραβλάπτει τὴν ὑγιαίνουσαν πίστιν: τοῖς δὲ παχυδέρμοις τε καὶ ἀδιαρθρώτοις ἀρχὴ τῆς ἀπὸ τοῦ ὑγιαίνοντος λόγου παρατροπῆς τοῦτο τὸ ὄνομα γίνεται μὴ συνέντες γὰρ τὴν ἀληθῆ τοῦ ὀνόματος ἔμφασιν, ὅτι μόνον τὸ μὴ γεγεννῆσθαι σημαίνει ἡ τοῦ ἀγεννήτου φωνὴ καὶ ὅτι τὸ μὴ γενέσθαι κοινόν ἐστι ἐπὶ παντὸς τοῦ ὑπερκειμένου τῆς κτίσεως, ἀφέντες τὴν εἰς τὸν πατέρα πίστιν τὸ ἀγέννητον ὄνομα ἀντὶ τοῦ πατρὸς προεστήσαντο: μὴ συνεμφαινομένης δέ, καθὼς εἴρηται, τῷ ὀνόματι τούτῳ τῆς τοῦ μονογενοῦς ὑποστάσεως, ἀπό τινος ὡρισμένης ἀρχῆς ὁρίζουσι τοῦ υἱοῦ τὸ εἶναι, λέγοντες ὅπερ νῦν οὗτος τοῖς εἰρημένοις προσέθηκε, « τὸ οὐκ ἄνευ τῆς πρὸ τοῦ εἶναι γεννήσεως ὀνομαζόμενον υἱόν ».
Τίς αὕτη πάλιν ἡ καινὴ τερατεία; ἆρα ἐπίσταται ὅτι περὶ θεοῦ ποιεῖται τὸν λόγον τοῦ ἐν ἀρχῇ ὄντος καὶ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ ὄντος καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ὅτε οὐκ ὄντος; οὐκ οἶδεν ὃ λέγει οὐδὲ περὶ τίνος διϊσχυρίζεται, ἀλλ' ὥς τινα τῶν ἀνθρώπων γενεαλογῶν τὰ κυρίως ἐπὶ τῆς κάτω λεγόμενα φύσεως ταῦτα ἐφαρμόζειν πειρᾶται τῷ δεσπότῃ πάσης τῆς κτίσεως. ὁ γὰρ Ἰσμαήλ, φέρε εἰπεῖν, οὐκ ἦν πρὸ τῆς εἰς τὸ εἶναι γεννήσεως, ἦν δέ « τι » πρὸ τῆς γεννήσεως αὐτοῦ πάντως, τὸ χρονικὸν λέγω διάστημα. ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ τῆς δόξης ἀπαυγάσματος τὸ πρὸ καὶ τὸ μετὰ τοῦτο χώραν οὐκ ἔχει: πρὸ γὰρ τοῦ ἀπαυγάσματος πάντως οὐδὲ ἡ δόξα ἦν: ὁμοῦ γὰρ τῷ εἶναι τὴν δόξαν συνεκλάμπει πάντως καὶ τὸ ἀπαύγασμα, καὶ τὸ διαζευχθῆναι τὸ ἕτερον τοῦ ἑτέρου φύσιν οὐκ ἔχει οὐδὲ δυνατόν ἐστι πρὸ τοῦ ἀπαυγάσματος ἐφ' ἑαυτῆς τὴν δόξαν ἰδεῖν. ἀλαμπῆ γὰρ καὶ τυφλὴν ἐφ' ἑαυτῆς εἶναι κατασκευάσει τὴν δόξαν ὁ τοῦτο λέγων, μὴ συνεκλάμποντος αὐτῇ τοῦ ἐξ αὐτῆς ἀπαυγάσματος. αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ τῆς αἱρέσεως κακουργία, ἵνα διὰ τῶν περὶ τὸν ἄνθρωπον νοουμένων τε καὶ λεγομένων ἀποστήσωσι τὸν μονογενῆ θεὸν τῆς πρὸς τὸν πατέρα ἑνότητος. διὰ τοῦτό φασιν: πρὸ τῆς εἰς τὸ εἶναι γεννήσεως οὐκ ἦν υἱός: οἱ δὲ τῶν κριῶν υἱοί, ὧν ὁ προφήτης μέμνηται, οὐχὶ κἀκεῖνοι μετὰ τὸ γενέσθαι καλοῦνται υἱοί; ὅπερ οὖν τοῖς υἱοῖς τῶν κριῶν ἐνορᾷ ὁ λόγος, τὸ πρὸ τῆς εἰς τὸ εἶναι γεννήσεως μὴ εἶναι αὐτοὺς υἱοὺς κριῶν, τοῦτο νῦν ὁ σεμνὸς θεολόγος ἀνατίθησι τῷ ποιητῇ τῶν αἰώνων καὶ πάσης τῆς κτίσεως, τῷ τὸν ἀΐδιον πατέρα ἐν ἑαυτῷ ἔχοντι καὶ ἐν τῇ τοῦ πατρὸς ἀϊδιότητι θεωρουμένῳ, καθὼς αὐτός φησιν ὅτι Ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοί. ἀλλ' οἱ μὴ δυνάμενοι τὴν ἐν τῷ λόγῳ κακουργίαν φωρᾶσαι μηδέ τινα τοῦ ἀκολούθου κατανόησιν πεπαιδευμένοι τοῖς ἀσυναρτήτοις τούτοις ἀκολουθοῦσιν, ὡς ἀκόλουθον δεχόμενοι τὸ τούτοις προσκείμενον φησὶ γὰρ ὅτι « πρὸ πάσης τῆς κτίσεως γενόμενον »: καὶ ὥσπερ οὐκ ἀρκούσης τῆς φωνῆς ταύτης πρὸς ἔνδειξιν τῆς ἀσεβείας, ἐφεδρεύει τῷ ἐφεξῆς λόγῳ τὴν βλασφημίαν εἰπὼν ὅτι « οὐκ ἄκτιστον ». πῶς οὖν ὀνομάζει υἱὸν ἀληθινὸν τὸν οὐκ ἄκτιστον; εἰ γὰρ τὸν οὐκ ἄκτιστον υἱὸν ἀληθινὸν λέγειν προσήκει, ἀληθινὸς υἱὸς καὶ ὁ οὐρανὸς πάντως ἐστί: καὶ γὰρ καὶ αὐτὸς οὐκ ἄκτιστός ἐστιν. οὕτως ἀληθινὸς υἱὸς καὶ ὁ ἥλιος, καὶ πάντα, ὅσα ἡ κτίσις ἔχει μικρά τε καὶ μείζονα, τῆς τοῦ ἀληθινοῦ υἱοῦ προσηγορίας ἄξια πάντως ἐστίν. πῶς δὲ λέγει μονογενῆ τὸν γενόμενον; πάντα γὰρ τὰ γενόμενα ἀδελφὰ πάντως ἐστὶν ἀλλήλων, κατ' αὐτὸν λέγω τὸν τοῦ γενέσθαι λόγον. παρὰ τίνος δὲ καὶ γενόμενον; πάντα γὰρ εἴ τι γέγονε, παρὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ πάντως ἐγένετο. οὕτως γὰρ ὁ Ἰωάννης μαρτύρεται λέγων ὅτι Πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο. εἰ τοίνυν καὶ ὁ υἱὸς κατὰ τὸν τοῦ Εὐνομίου λόγον ἐγένετο, πάντως ἐν τῇ φύσει τῶν γενομένων καὶ οὗτός ἐστιν. εἰ οὖν πάντα τὰ γενόμενα δι' ἐκείνου ἐγένετο, ἓν δὲ τῶν γενομένων καὶ ὁ λόγος ἐστίν, τίς οὕτως ἀνόητος, ὡς μὴ συνιδεῖν διὰ τῶν τεθέντων τὸ ἄτοπον, ὅτι αὐτὸν ἑαυτοῦ ἔργον γεγενῆσθαι τὸν δεσπότην τῆς κτίσεως ὁ καινὸς οὗτος δογματιστὴς ἀποφαίνεται, τῷ διαρρήδην εἰπεῖν μὴ ἄκτιστον εἶναι τὸν κύριον καὶ δημιουργὸν πάσης τῆς κτίσεως; πόθεν ἔχει τὴν παρρησίαν, εἰπάτω. ἐκ ποίας θεοπνεύστου γραφῆς; τίς εὐαγγελιστής, ποῖος ἀπόστολος τὴν τοιαύτην ἀφῆκε φωνήν; τίς προφήτης ἢ νομοθέτης ἢ πατριάρχης ἢ ἄλλος τις τῶν ὑπὸ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος θεοφορουμένων, ὧν ἀνάγραπτοί εἰσιν αἱ φωναί, τῆς τοιαύτης ῥήσεως καθηγήσατο; πατέρα καὶ υἱὸν καὶ πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἐν τῇ παραδόσει τῆς πίστεως παρὰ τῆς ἀληθείας ἐμάθομεν. εἰ κτιστὸν αὐτὸν εἶναι πιστεύειν ἐχρῆν, πῶς παραδιδοῦσα ἡμῖν τὸ μυστήριον ἡ ἀλήθεια τὴν εἰς τὸν υἱὸν πίστιν καὶ οὐκ εἰς τὸ κτίσμα ἐνομοθέτησε; πῶς δὲ προσκυνῶν τὸν Χριστὸν ὁ θεῖος ἀπόστολος τοὺς τῇ κτίσει λατρεύοντας παρὰ τὸν κτίσαντα εἰδωλολατρεῖν διορίζεται; ἢ γὰρ οὐκ ἂν προσεκύνησεν, εἰ κτιστὸς ἦν, ἢ οὐκ ἂν τοῖς εἰδωλολάτραις συνέταξε τοὺς τῇ κτίσει λατρεύοντας, ἵνα μὴ καὶ αὐτὸς εἰδωλολατρεῖν δόξῃ προσάγων τῷ κτιστῷ τὴν προσκύνησιν. ἀλλ' οἶδεν ὅτι ὁ παρ' αὐτοῦ προσκυνούμενος ἐπὶ πάντων ἐστὶ θεός: οὕτω γὰρ ἐν τῷ πρὸς Ῥωμαίους λόγῳ τὸν υἱὸν ὀνομάζει: οἱ τοίνυν ἀποξενοῦντες τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρὸς τὸν υἱὸν καὶ κτιστὸν αὐτὸν λέγοντες τί χλευαστικῶς αὐτῷ τὴν ψευδώνυμον κλῆσιν χαρίζονται, τῷ ἀλλοτρίῳ τῆς ἀληθινῆς θεότητος τὴν θεὸς φωνὴν μάτην ἐπιφημίζοντες ὥσπερ τῷ Βὴλ ἢ τῷ Δαγὼν ἢ τῷ δράκοντι; ὥστε ἢ μηδὲ θεὸν ὁμολογείτωσαν αὐτὸν οἱ κτιστὸν εἶναι διοριζόμενοι, ἵνα φανῶσιν ἰουδαΐζοντες, ἢ εἴπερ ὁμολογοῦσι τὸν κτισθέντα εἶναι θεόν, εἰδωλολατρεῖν μὴ ἀρνείσθωσαν.