Book IV.

§1. The fourth book discusses the account of the nature of the “product of generation,” and of the passionless generation of the Only-Begotten, and the text, “In the beginning was the Word,” and the birth of the Virgin.

It is, perhaps, time to examine in our discourse that account of the nature of the “product of generation” which is the subject of his ridiculous philosophizing. He says, then (I will repeat word for word his beautifully composed argument against the truth):—“Who is so indifferent and inattentive to the nature of things as not to know, that of all bodies which are on earth, in their generating and being generated, in their activity and passivity, those which generate are found on examination to communicate their own essence, and those which are generated naturally receive the same, inasmuch as the material cause and the supply which flows in from without are common to both; and the things begotten are generated by passion, and those which beget, naturally have an action which is not pure, by reason of their nature being linked with passions of all kinds?” See in what fitting style he discusses in his speculation the pre-temporal generation of the Word of God that was in the beginning! he who closely examines the nature of things, bodies on the earth, and material causes, and passion of things generating and generated, and all the rest of it,—at which any man of understanding would blush, even were it said of ourselves, if it were our nature, subject as it is to passion, which is thus exposed to scorn by his words. Yet such is our author’s brilliant enquiry into nature with regard to the Only-begotten God. Let us lay aside complaints, however, (for what will sighing do to help us to overthrow the malice of our enemy?) and make generally known, as best we may, the sense of what we have quoted—concerning what sort of “product” the speculation was proposed,—that which exists according to the flesh, or that which is to be contemplated in the Only-begotten God.

As the speculation is two-fold, concerning that life which is Divine, simple, and immaterial, and concerning that existence which is material and subject to passion, and as the word “generation” is used of both, we must needs make our distinction sharp and clear, lest the ambiguity of the term “generation” should in any way pervert the truth. Since, then, the entrance into being through the flesh is material, and is promoted by passion, while that which is bodiless, impalpable, without form, and free from any material commixture, is alien from every condition that admits of passion, it is proper to consider about what sort of generation we are enquiring—that which is pure and Divine, or that which is subject to passion and pollution. Now, no one, I suppose, would deny that with regard to the Only-begotten God, it is pre-temporal existence that is proposed for the consideration551    Prov. viii. 22 (LXX.). On this passage see also Book II. §10.    Reading, with the older editions, τῇ θεωρί& 139·. Oehler substitutes τὴν θεωρίαν (a variation which seems to give no good sense, unless θεωρία be translated as “subject of contemplation”), but alleges no ms. authority for the change. of Eunomius’ discourse. Why, then, does he linger over this account of corporeal nature, defiling our nature by the loathsome presentment of his argument, and setting forth openly the passions that gather round human generation, while he deserts the subject set before him? for it was not about this animal generation, that is accomplished by means of the flesh, that we had any need to learn. Who is so foolish, when he looks on himself, and considers human nature in himself, as to seek another interpreter of his own nature, and to need to be told all the unavoidable passions which are included in the thought of bodily generation—that he who begets is affected in one way, that which is begotten in another—so that the man should learn from this instruction that he himself begets by means of passion, and that passion was the beginning of his own generation? For it is all the same whether these things are passed over or spoken, and whether one publishes these secrets at length, or keeps hidden in silence things that should be left unsaid, we are not ignorant of the fact that our nature progresses by way of passion. But what we are seeking is that a clear account should be given of the exalted and unspeakable existence of the Only-begotten, whereby He is believed to be of the Father.

Now, while this is the enquiry set before him, our new theologian enriches his discourse with “flowing,” and “passion,” and “material cause,” and some “action” which “is not pure” from pollution, and all other phrases of this kind552    1 Cor. i. 24.    Oehler’s punctuation seems less clear than that of the older editions, which is here followed.. I know not under what influence it is that he who says, in the superiority of his wisdom, that nothing incomprehensible is left beyond his own knowledge, and promises to explain the unspeakable generation of the Son, leaves the question before him, and plunges like an eel into the slimy mud of his arguments, after the fashion of that Nicodemus who came by night, who, when our Lord was teaching him of the birth from above, rushed in thought to the hollow of the womb, and raised a doubt how one could enter a second time into the womb, with the words, “How can these things be?553    E. g.S. John xvii. 25.    S. John iii. 10” thinking that he would prove the spiritual birth impossible, by the fact that an old man could not again be born within his mother’s bowels. But the Lord corrects his erroneous idea, saying that the properties of the flesh and the spirit are distinct. Let Eunomius also, if he will, correct himself by the like reflection. For he who ponders on the truth ought, I imagine, to contemplate his subject according to its own properties, not to slander the immaterial by a charge against things material. For if a man, or a bull, or any other of those things which are generated by the flesh, is not free from passion in generating or being generated, what has this to do with that Nature which is without passion and without corruption? The fact that we are mortal is no objection to the immortality of the Only-begotten, nor does men’s propensity to vice render doubtful the immutability that is found in the Divine Nature, nor is any other of our proper attributes transferred to God; but the peculiar nature of the human and the Divine life is separated, and without common ground, and their distinguishing properties stand entirely apart, so that those of the latter are not apprehended in the former, nor, conversely, those of the former in the latter.

How comes it, therefore, that Eunomius, when the Divine generation is the subject for discourse, leaves his subject, and discusses at length the things of earth, when on this matter we have no dispute with him? Surely our craftsman’s aim is clear,—that by the slanderous insinuation of passion he may raise an objection to the generation of the Lord. And here I pass by the blasphemous nature of his view, and admire the man for his acuteness,—how mindful he is of his own zealous endeavour, who, having by his previous statements established the theory that the Son must be, and must be called, a “product of generation,” now contends for the view that we ought not to entertain regarding Him the conception of generation. For, if all generation, as this author imagines, has linked with it the condition of passion, we are hereby absolutely compelled to admit that what is foreign to passion is alien also from generation: for if these things, passion and generation, are considered as conjoined, He that has no share in the one would not have any participation in the other. How then does he call Him a “product” by reason of His generation, of Whom he tries to show by the arguments he now uses, that He was not generated? and for what cause does he fight against our master554    Prov. i. 2.    i.e.S. Basil., who counsels us in matters of Divine doctrine not to presume in name-making, but to confess that He is generated without transforming this conception into the formula of a name, so as to call Him Who is generated “a product of generation,” as this term is properly applied in Scripture to things inanimate, or to those which are mentioned “as a figure of wickedness555    The hiatus in the Paris editions ends here.    The reference is to S. Basil’s treatise against Eunomius (ii. 7–8; p. 242–4 in the Benedictine ed.). Oehler’s punctuation is apparently wrong, for Gregory paraphrases not only the rule, but the reason given for it, from S. Basil, from whom the last words of the sentence are a direct quotation.”? When we speak of the propriety of avoiding the use of the term “product,” he prepares for action that invincible rhetoric of his, and takes also to support him his frigid grammatical phraseology, and by his skilful misuse of names, or equivocation, or whatever one may properly call his processes—by these means, I say, he brings his syllogisms to their conclusion, “not refusing to call Him Who is begotten by the name of ‘product of generation.’” Then, as soon as we admit the term, and proceed to examine the conception involved in the name, on the theory that thereby is vindicated the community of essence, he again retracts his own words, and contends for the view that the “product of generation” is not generated, raising an objection by his foul account of bodily generation, against the pure and Divine and passionless generation of the Son, on the ground that it is not possible that the two things, the true relationship to the Father, and exemption of His nature from passion, should be found to coincide in God, but that, if there were no passion, there would be no generation, and that, if one should acknowledge the true relationship, he would thereby, in admitting generation, certainly admit passion also.

Not thus speaks the sublime John, not thus that voice of thunder which proclaims the mystery of the Theology, who both names Him Son of God and purges his proclamation from every idea of passion. For behold how in the very beginning of his Gospel he prepares our ears, how great forethought is shown by the teacher that none of his hearers should fall into low ideas on the subject, slipping by ignorance into any incongruous conceptions. For in order to lead the untrained hearing as far away as possible from passion, he does not speak in his opening words of “Son,” or “Father,” or “generation,” that no one should either, on hearing first of all of a “Father,” be hurried on to the obvious signification of the word, or, on learning the proclamation of a “Son,” should understand that name in the ordinary sense, or stumble, as at a “stone of stumbling556    Cf. Prov. i. 3 (LXX.).    1 S. Pet. ii. 8.,” at the word “generation”; but instead of “the Father,” he speaks of “the Beginning”: instead of “was begotten,” he says “was”: and instead of “the Son,” he says “the Word”: and declares “In the Beginning was the Word557    Gal. iv. 20.    S. John i. 1.” What passion, pray, is to be found in these words, “beginning,” and “was,” and “Word”? Is “the beginning” passion? does “was” imply passion? does “the Word” exist by means of passion? Or are we to say, that as passion is not to be found in the terms used, so neither is affinity expressed by the proclamation? Yet how could the Word’s community of essence, and real relationship, and coeternity with the Beginning, be more strongly shown by other words than by these? For he does not say, “Of the Beginning was begotten the Word,” that he may not separate the Word from the Beginning by any conception of extension in time, but he proclaims together with the Beginning Him also Who was in the Beginning, making the word “was” common to the Beginning and to the Word, that the Word may not linger after the Beginning, but may, by entering in together with the faith as to the Beginning, by its proclamation forestall our hearing, before this admits the Beginning itself in isolation. Then he declares, “And the Word was with God.” Once more the Evangelist fears for our untrained state, once more he dreads our childish and untaught condition: he does not yet entrust to our ears the appellation of “Father,” lest any of the more carnally minded, learning of “the Father,” may be led by his understanding to imagine also by consequence a mother. Neither does he yet name in his proclamation the Son; for he still suspects our customary tendency to the lower nature, and fears lest any, hearing of the Son, should humanize the Godhead by an idea of passion. For this reason, resuming his proclamation, he again calls him “the Word,” making this the account of His nature to thee in thine unbelief. For as thy word proceeds from thy mind, without requiring the intervention of passion, so here also, in hearing of the Word, thou shalt conceive that which is from something, and shalt not conceive passion. Hence, once more resuming his proclamation, he says, “And the Word was with God.” O, how does he make the Word commensurate with God! rather, how does he extend the infinite in comparison with the infinite! “The Word was with God”—the whole being of the Word, assuredly, with the whole being of God. Therefore, as great as God is, so great, clearly, is the Word also that is with Him; so that if God is limited, then will the Word also, surely, be subject to limitation. But if the infinity of God exceeds limit, neither is the Word that is contemplated with Him comprehended by limits and measures. For no one would deny that the Word is contemplated together with the entire Godhead of the Father, so that he should make one part of the Godhead appear to be in the Word, and another destitute of the Word. Once more the spiritual voice of John speaks, once more the Evangelist in his proclamation takes tender care for the hearing of those who are in childhood: not yet have we so much grown by the hearing of his first words as to hear of “the Son,” and yet remain firm without being moved from our footing by the influence of the wonted sense. Therefore our herald, crying once more aloud, still proclaims in his third utterance “the Word,” and not “the Son,” saying, “And the Word was God.” First he declared wherein He was, then with whom He was, and now he says what He is, completing, by his third repetition, the object of his proclamation. For he says, “It is no Word of those that are readily understood, that I declare to you, but God under the designation of the Word.” For this Word, that was in the Beginning, and was with God, was not anything else besides God, but was also Himself God. And forthwith the herald, reaching the full height of his lofty speech, declares that this God Whom his proclamation sets forth is He by Whom all things were made, and is life, and the light of men, and the true light that shineth in darkness, yet is not obscured by the darkness, sojourning with His own, yet not received by His own: and being made flesh, and tabernacling, by means of the flesh, in man’s nature. And when he has first gone through this number and variety of statements, he then names the Father and the Only-begotten, when there can be no danger that what has been purified by so many precautions should be allowed, in consequence of the sense of the word “Father,” to sink down to any meaning tainted with pollution, for, “we beheld His glory,” he says, “the glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father.”

Repeat, then, Eunomius, repeat this clever objection of yours to the Evangelist: “How dost thou give the name of ‘Father’ in thy discourse, how that of Only-begotten, seeing that all bodily generation is operated by passion?” Surely truth answers you on his behalf, that the mystery of theology is one thing, and the physiology of unstable bodies is another. Wide is the interval by which they are fenced off one from the other. Why do you join together in your argument what cannot blend? how do you defile the purity of the Divine generation by your foul discourse? how do you make systems for the incorporeal by the passions that affect the body? Cease to draw your account of the nature of things above from those that are below. I proclaim the Lord as the Son of God, because the gospel from heaven, given through the bright cloud, thus proclaimed Him; for “This,” He saith, “is My beloved Son558    Ps. xlv. 13 (LXX.).    S. Matt. xvii. 5..” Yet, though I was taught that He is the Son, I was not dragged down by the name to the earthly significance of “Son,” but I both know that He is from the Father and do not know that He is from passion. And this, moreover, I will add to what has been said, that I know even a bodily generation which is pure from passion, so that even on this point Eunomius’ physiology of bodily generation is proved false, if, that is to say, a bodily birth can be found which does not admit passion. Tell me, was the Word made flesh, or not? You would not, I presume, say that It was not. It was so made, then, and there is none who denies it. How then was it that “God was manifested in the flesh559    Prov. i. 6 (LXX.).    1 Tim. iii. 16. Here, as elsewhere in Gregory’s writings, it appears that he read θεὸς in this passage.”? “By birth,” of course you will say. But what sort of birth do you speak of? Surely it is clear that you speak of that from the virginity, and that “that which was conceived in her was of the Holy Ghost560    Compare with what follows Prov. viii. 12, sqq. (LXX.).    S. Matt. i. 20,” and that “the days were accomplished that she should be delivered, and she brought forth561    S. Matt. v. 3    S. Luke ii. 6, 7.,” and none the less was her purity preserved in her child-bearing. You believe, then, that that birth which took place from a woman was pure from passion, if you do believe, but you refuse to admit the Divine and incorruptible generation from the Father, that you may avoid the idea of passion in generation. But I know well that it is not passion he seeks to avoid in his doctrine, for that he does not discern at all in the Divine and incorruptible nature; but to the end that the Maker of all creation may be accounted a part of creation, he builds up these arguments in order to a denial of the Only-begotten God, and uses his pretended caution about passion to help him in his task.

Καιρὸς δ' ἂν εἴη καὶ τὴν περὶ τοῦ γεννήματος φυσιολογίαν τὴν ἐπιμελῶς αὐτῷ φιλοσοφηθεῖσαν ἐξετάσαι τῷ λόγῳ. φησὶ τοίνυν (ἐρῶ δὲ κατὰ λέξιν τὸν καλλιγραφηθέντα λόγον αὐτῷ κατὰ τῆς ἀληθείας): « τίς γὰρ οὕτως ἀμελὴς καὶ τῆς τῶν ὄντων φύσεως ἀνεπίσκεπτος, ὡς ἀγνοεῖν ὅτι τῶν σωμάτων, ὅσα περὶ γῆν ἐν τῷ γεννᾶν καὶ γεννᾶσθαι, ποιεῖν τε καὶ πάσχειν ἐξεταζόμενα τά τε γεννῶντα μεταδίδωσι τῆς ἰδίας οὐσίας καὶ τὰ γεννώμενα τῆς αὐτῆς μεταλαμβάνειν πέφυκεν, ἅτε κοινῆς οὔσης τῆς ὑλικῆς αἰτίας καὶ τῆς ἔξωθεν ἐπιρρεούσης χορηγίας, τά τε γεννώμενα γεννᾶται κατὰ πάθος καὶ τὰ γεννῶντα κατὰ φύσιν οὐ καθαρὰν ἴσχει τὴν ἐνέργειαν διὰ τὸ παντοίοις πάθεσι συνεζεῦχθαι τὴν φύσιν ». ὁρᾶτε πῶς πρεπόντως τοῦ ἐν ἀρχῇ ὄντος λόγου θεοῦ διαλαμβάνει τῇ θεωρίᾳ τὴν προαιώνιον γέννησιν ὁ τὴν τῶν ὄντων φύσιν δι' ἀκριβείας ἐπισκεπτόμενος, σώματα περὶ γῆν καὶ ὑλικὴν αἰτίαν καὶ πάθος γεννώντων τε καὶ γεννωμένων καὶ πάντα τὰ τοιαῦτα, δι' ὧν ἐρυθριάσειεν ἄν τις τῶν νοῦν ἐχόντων, κἂν περὶ ἡμῶν λέγηται, στηλιτευομένης τῷ λόγῳ τῆς ἐμπαθοῦς ἡμῶν φύσεως. ἀλλ' ἡ μὲν λαμπρὰ τοῦ λογογράφου περὶ τοῦ μονογενοῦς θεοῦ φυσιολογία τοιαύτη. ἡμεῖς δὲ τὸ σχετλιάζειν ἀφέντες (τί γὰρ ἂν καὶ πλέον ὁ στεναγμὸς ἡμῖν πρὸς κατάλυσιν τῆς τῶν ἐχθρῶν κακίας συναγωνίσαιτο;) τὸν νοῦν τῶν εἰρημένων, ὅπως ἂν οἷοί τε ὦμεν, δημοσιεύσωμεν, περὶ ποίου γεννήματος ἡ θεωρία προὔκειτο, τοῦ κατὰ σάρκα συνισταμένου ἢ τοῦ κατὰ τὸν μονογενῆ θεόν. διπλῆς γὰρ οὔσης τῆς θεωρίας, ἐπί τε τῆς θείας καὶ ἁπλῆς καὶ ἀΰλου ζωῆς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς ὑλικῆς τε καὶ ἐμπαθοῦς ὑποστάσεως, καὶ ὁμοίως λεγομένης ἐπ' ἀμφοῖν τῆς γεννήσεως ἀναγκαῖον ἂν εἴη τρανὴν καὶ ἀσύγχυτον τὴν διαστολὴν τῶν σημαινομένων ποιήσασθαι, μή πη τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἡ τῆς γεννήσεως ὁμωνυμία παραλογίσηται. ἐπειδὴ τοίνυν ἡ μὲν διὰ σαρκὸς εἰς τὸ εἶναι πάροδος ὑλική τίς ἐστι καὶ διὰ πάθους προάγεται, τὸ δὲ ἀσώματον καὶ ἀναφὲς καὶ ἀνείδεον καὶ τῆς ὑλώδους ἐπιμιξίας ἐλεύθερον πάσης διαθέσεως ἐμπαθοῦς ἠλλοτρίωται, θεωρῆσαι προσήκει περὶ ποίας γεννήσεως ἡ ζήτησις ἦν, τῆς ἀκηράτου καὶ θείας ἢ τῆς ἐμπαθοῦς καὶ ῥυπώσης. ἀλλ' οὐκ ἄν τις ἀντείποι τὸ μὴ [περὶ] τοῦ μονογενοῦς θεοῦ τὴν προαιώνιον ὕπαρξιν προκεῖσθαι τῇ θεωρίᾳ τοῦ λόγου. τί οὖν ἐμφιλοχωρεῖ τῇ σωματικῇ ταύτῃ φυσιολογίᾳ, ἐν τῇ βδελυρᾷ τοῦ λόγου διασκευῇ καταρρυπαίνων τὴν φύσιν καὶ τὰ περὶ τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην γέννησιν πάθη δημοσιεύων, καταλιπὼν τὴν προκειμένην ὑπόθεσιν; οὐ γὰρ τὴν ζῳώδη ταύτην γέννησιν τὴν διὰ σαρκὸς συνισταμένην μαθεῖν ἐδεόμεθα. τίς γὰρ οὕτως ἠλίθιος, ὡς ἑαυτὸν βλέπων καὶ νοῶν ἐν ἑαυτῷ τὸ ἀνθρώπινον ἄλλον ἑρμηνέα τῆς ἑαυτοῦ ζητεῖν φύσεως καὶ δεῖσθαι μαθεῖν τὰ ἀναγκαῖα πάθη, ὅσα τῇ γεννήσει συνθεωρεῖται τοῦ σώματος, ὅτι ἄλλως μὲν ὁ τίκτων, ἑτέρως δὲ τὸ τικτόμενον ἐν πάθει γίνεται, ὡς ἂν μάθοι ἐκ τῆς διδασκαλίας ταύτης ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ὅτι αὐτός τε διὰ πάθους γεννᾷ καὶ πάθος αὐτῷ τῆς γεννήσεως ἤρξατο; ταῦτα γὰρ καὶ σιωπώμενα καὶ λεγόμενα τὸ ἴσον ἔχει, κἄν τις διεξίῃ δημοσιεύων τὰ κρύφια, κἂν συγκαλύπτῃ [τῇ] σιωπῇ τὰ ἀπόρρητα, τὸ διὰ πάθους προϊέναι τὴν φύσιν ἡμῶν οὐκ ἠγνοήσαμεν. ζητοῦμεν δὲ περὶ τῆς ὑψηλῆς τε καὶ ἀφράστου τοῦ μονογενοῦς ὑπάρξεως, καθ' ἣν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς εἶναι πεπίστευται, σαφηνισθῆναι τὸν λόγον.
Ταύτης τοίνυν προκειμένης τῆς ἐξετάσεως ὁ καινὸς θεολόγος ῥεῦσιν καὶ πάθος καὶ ὑλικὴν αἰτίαν καὶ ἐνέργειάν τινα ῥύπου μὴ καθαρεύουσαν καὶ ἔξωθεν ἐπιρρέουσαν χορηγίαν καὶ πάντα τὰ τοιαῦτα τῷ λόγῳ προστίθησιν, οὐκ οἶδα τί παθὼν ὁ τῷ ὑπερβάλλοντι τῆς σοφίας μηδὲν τῶν ἀλήπτων ἔξω τῆς ἑαυτοῦ γνώσεως καταλείπεσθαι λέγων καὶ τὴν ἄρρητον τοῦ υἱοῦ γέννησιν ἑρμηνεύειν ἐπαγγελλόμενος, ἀποστὰς τῶν προκειμένων ἐγχέλυος δίκην εἰς τὸν ἰλυώδη βόρβορον τῶν λογισμῶν καταδύεται κατὰ τὸν νυκτερινὸν ἐκεῖνον Νικόδημον, ὃς τὴν ἄνωθεν γέννησιν τοῦ κυρίου διδάσκοντος πρὸς τὸν ἐν μήτρᾳ κόπον τοῖς λογισμοῖς κατεσύρετο, καὶ πῶς ἂν ἐκ δευτέρου πάλιν ἐντὸς τῆς νηδύος γένοιτο διηπόρει λέγων Πῶς δύναται τοῦτο γενέσθαι; νομίζων τῷ μὴ δύνασθαι τὸν πρεσβύτην διὰ σπλάγχνου πάλιν κυοφορηθῆναι μητρῴου τὴν πνευματικὴν γέννησιν διελέγξειν ἀσύστατον. ἀλλὰ κἀκείνου τὴν πεπλανημένην ὑπόληψιν διορθοῦται ὁ κύριος, ἄμικτα λέγων εἶναι τὰ τῆς σαρκὸς καὶ τοῦ πνεύματος ἰδιώματα, καὶ οὗτος ἑαυτὸν ἐν τοῖς ὁμοίοις, εἰ βούλεται, διορθούσθω. δεῖ γὰρ οἶμαι τὸν φροντιστὴν τῆς ἀληθείας ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων θεωρεῖν τὸ προκείμενον, μὴ διὰ τῆς τῶν ὑλικῶν κατηγορίας διαβάλλειν τὸν ἄϋλον. εἰ γὰρ ἄνθρωπος ἢ βοῦς ἢ ἄλλο τι τῶν διὰ σαρκὸς τικτομένων οὐ καθαρεύει πάθους γεννῶν ἢ γεννώμενος, τί τοῦτο πρὸς τὴν ἀπαθῆ καὶ ἀκήρατον φύσιν; οὐδὲ γὰρ τὸ θνητοὺς ἡμᾶς εἶναι τὴν ἀθανασίαν τοῦ μονογενοῦς παραγράφεται οὐδὲ ἡ πρὸς κακίαν τροπὴ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀμφίβολον ἐπὶ τῆς θείας φύσεως εἶναι παρασκευάζει τὸ ἄτρεπτον οὐδὲ ἄλλο τι τῶν ἡμετέρων καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν θεὸν μεταφέρεται, ἀλλά τις ἄμικτός ἐστι καὶ ἀκοινώνητος ἡ ἰδιότης τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης τε καὶ τῆς θείας ζωῆς καὶ παρήλλακται παντάπασι τὰ γνωριστικὰ ἰδιώματα, ὡς μήτε ταῦτα ἐπ' ἐκείνης μήτε τὸ ἔμπαλιν ἐπὶ ταύτης ἐκεῖνα καταλαμβάνεσθαι.
Πῶς οὖν ὁ Εὐνόμιος, τῆς θείας προκειμένης τῷ λόγῳ γεννήσεως, ἀφεὶς τὸ προκείμενον τὰ ἐν τῇ γῇ διεξέρχεται, οὐδεμιᾶς ἡμῖν περὶ τούτων πρὸς αὐτὸν οὔσης ἀμφισβητήσεως; ἀλλὰ πρόδηλος ὁ σκοπὸς τοῦ τεχνίτου, ἵνα τῇ πρὸς τὸ πάθος διαβολῇ περιγράψῃ τοῦ κυρίου τὴν γέννησιν. ἐφ' οἷς ἔγωγε τὸ κατὰ τὴν βλασφημίαν παρεὶς θαυμάζω τῆς ἀγχινοίας τὸν ἄνθρωπον, πῶς μέμνηται τῆς οἰκείας σπουδῆς, ὃς τὸ δεῖν γέννημα τὸν υἱὸν καὶ εἶναι καὶ λέγεσθαι διὰ τῶν προειρημένων κατασκευάσας νῦν περὶ τοῦ μὴ χρῆναι γέννησιν περὶ αὐτὸν νοεῖν ἀγωνίζεται. εἰ γὰρ πᾶσα γέννησις, καθὼς οὗτος οἴεται, συνεζευγμένην ἔχει τὴν κατὰ τὸ πάθος διάθεσιν, ἀνάγκη πᾶσα διὰ τούτων ὁμολογεῖσθαι, ὅτι τὸ τοῦ πάθους ἀλλότριον συναλλοτριοῦται πάντως καὶ τῆς γεννήσεως. εἰ γὰρ ταῦτα μετ' ἀλλήλων συνημμένως νοεῖται, τὸ πάθος τε καὶ ἡ γέννησις, ὁ τοῦ ἑνὸς τούτων ἀμέτοχος οὐδ' ἂν πρὸς τὸ ἕτερον τὴν κοινωνίαν ἔχοι. πῶς οὖν γέννημα διὰ τὴν γέννησιν λέγει τὸν ὅτι οὐκ ἐγεννήθη διὰ τῶν νῦν παρ' αὐτοῦ λεγομένων ἀποδεικνύμενον, καὶ ὑπὲρ τίνος μάχεται πρὸς τὸν διδάσκαλον ἡμῶν τὸν συμβουλεύοντα μὴ κατατολμᾶν ἐπὶ τῶν θείων δογμάτων τῆς ὀνοματοποιΐας, ἀλλὰ γεγεννῆσθαι μὲν ὁμολογεῖν, μὴ παρασχηματίζειν δὲ τὴν ἔννοιαν ταύτην εἰς ὀνόματος τύπον, ὥστε « γέννημα » τὸν γεννηθέντα προσαγορεύειν, ἰδίως τῆς φωνῆς ταύτης ἐπὶ τῶν ἀψύχων ἢ ἐπὶ τῶν εἰς εἰκόνα πονηρίας παρειλημμένων ὑπὸ τῆς γραφῆς τεταγμένης; ἀλλ' ὅταν μὲν παρ' ἡμῶν λέγηται τὸ δεῖν σιωπᾶσθαι τὴν φωνὴν τοῦ « γεννήματος », τὴν ἄμαχον ἐκείνην ῥητορικὴν προχειρίζεται, συμπαραλαμβάνων εἰς συμμαχίαν καὶ τὴν γραμματικὴν ψυχρολογίαν καὶ διὰ τῆς τεχνικῆς τῶν ὀνομάτων εἴτε παραγωγῆς εἴτε παρωνυμίας εἴτε οὐκ οἶδ' ὅπως δὴ λέγειν ταῦτα προσήκει, διὰ τούτων τοὺς συλλογισμοὺς συμπεραίνει « γέννημα » τὸν γεννηθέντα λέγειν οὐ παραιτούμενος. ἐπειδὰν δὲ τοῦτο δεξάμενοι τὴν τοῦ ὀνόματος ἔννοιαν θεωρήσωμεν, ὡς τοῦ κοινοῦ τῆς οὐσίας ἐντεῦθεν συνενδεικνυμένου, πάλιν ἀνατίθεται τὰς ἰδίας φωνὰς καὶ περὶ τοῦ μὴ γεννηθῆναι τὸ « γέννημα » διατείνεται, τῇ ῥυπώσῃ φυσιολογίᾳ τοῦ σωματικοῦ τόκου τὴν καθαράν τε καὶ θείαν καὶ ἀπαθῆ τοῦ κυρίου παραγραφόμενος γέννησιν, ὡς οὐκ ἐνδεχόμενον τὰ δύο κατὰ ταὐτὸν ἐπὶ τοῦ θεοῦ συνδραμεῖν, τό τε πρὸς τὸν πατέρα γνήσιον καὶ τὴν ἀπάθειαν τῆς φύσεως, ἀλλ' εἰ μὲν τὸ ἀπαθὲς εἴη, μὴ εἶναι τὴν γέννησιν, εἰ δὲ τὸ γνήσιόν τις ὁμολογοίη, καὶ πάθος τῇ γεννήσει πάντως συμπαραδέχεσθαι.
Οὐχ οὕτως ὁ ὑψηλὸς Ἰωάννης, οὐχ οὕτως ἐκείνη ἡ βρονταία φωνὴ τὸ τῆς θεολογίας κηρύσσει μυστήριον, ὃς καὶ υἱὸν ὀνομάζει θεοῦ καὶ πάσης ἐμπαθοῦς ὑπολήψεως ἐκκαθαίρει τὸ κήρυγμα. ἰδοὺ γὰρ πῶς προθεραπεύει τὴν ἀκοὴν ἐν τοῖς προοιμίοις τοῦ εὐαγγελίου. ὅση γὰρ ἐν τῷ διδασκάλῳ προμήθεια τοῦ μή τινα τῶν ἀκουόντων εἰς ταπεινὰς ὑπολήψεις καταπεσεῖν, πρὸς ἀτόπους τινὰς ὑπονοίας ἐξ ἀμαθίας ὑπολισθήσαντα. ὡς γὰρ ἂν μάλιστα πόρρω πάθους ἀπαγάγοι τὴν ἀγύμναστον ἀκοήν, οὐχ υἱὸν εἶπεν ἐν προοιμίοις, οὐ πατέρα, οὐ γέννησιν, ἵνα μή τις ἐν πρώτοις ἢ πατρὸς ἀκούσας κατασυρῇ πρὸς τὴν πρόχειρον ἔμφασιν τοῦ ὀνόματος, ἢ υἱὸν μαθὼν κηρυσσόμενον κατὰ τὴν ὧδε συνήθειαν νοήσῃ τὸ ὄνομα, ἢ προσπταίσῃ τῷ ῥήματι τῆς γεννήσεως ὡς λίθῳ προσκόμματος: ἀλλ' ἀντὶ μὲν πατρὸς ἀρχὴν ὀνομάζει, ἀντὶ δὲ τοῦ ἐγεννήθη τὸ ἦν, ἀντὶ δὲ τοῦ υἱοῦ τὸν λόγον, καί φησιν Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος. ποῖον ἐν τούτοις πάθος, εἰπέ μοι, ἀρχὴ καὶ ἦν καὶ λόγος; μὴ πάθος ἡ ἀρχή; μὴ ἐν πάθει τὸ ἦν; μὴ διὰ πάθους ὁ λόγος; ἢ ἐπειδὴ πάθος ἐν τοῖς εἰρημένοις οὐκ ἔστιν, οὐδὲ τὸ οἰκεῖον συνεμφαίνεται τῷ κηρύγματι; καίτοι γε πῶς ἂν ἑτέρως μᾶλλον διαφανείη τὸ κατ' οὐσίαν κοινόν τε καὶ γνήσιον καὶ τὸ συναϊδιάζον τοῦ λόγου πρὸς τὴν ἀρχὴν ἢ διὰ τούτων τῶν λόγων; οὐ γὰρ εἶπεν ἐκ τῆς ἀρχῆς ἐγεννήθη ὁ λόγος, ἵνα μή τινι παρατατικῷ νοήματι τῆς ἀρχῆς διαζεύξῃ τὸν λόγον, ἀλλ' ὁμοῦ τῇ ἀρχῇ καὶ τὸν ἐν τῇ ἀρχῇ συνεκήρυξε, κοινὸν εἰπὼν τῆς ἀρχῆς τε καὶ τοῦ λόγου τὸ ἦν, ἵνα μὴ ἐφυστερήσῃ μετὰ τὴν ἀρχὴν ὁ λόγος, ἀλλὰ φθάσῃ τὴν ἀκοὴν τῷ κηρύγματι, πρὶν μόνην τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐφ' ἑαυτῆς παραδέξασθαι, τῇ περὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς πίστει συνεισελθών.
Εἶτά φησι Καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν. ἔτι δέδοικεν ἡμῶν ὁ εὐαγγελιστὴς τὸ ἀγύμναστον, ἔτι φοβεῖται ἡμῶν τὸ νηπιῶδές τε καὶ ἀπαίδευτον, οὔπω καταπιστεύει τῇ ἀκοῇ τὴν τοῦ πατρὸς προσηγορίαν, ἵνα μή τις τῶν σαρκωδεστέρων πατέρα μαθὼν καὶ μητέρα κατὰ τὸ ἀκόλουθον διὰ τῆς διανοίας ἀνατυπώσηται. ἀλλ' οὐδέπω οὐδὲ υἱὸν ὀνομάζει ἐν τῷ κηρύγματι: ὑποπτεύει γὰρ ἔτι ἡμῶν τὴν πρὸς τὴν κάτω φύσιν συνήθειαν, μή τις υἱὸν ἀκούσας ἐξανθρωπίσῃ τὸ θεῖον δι' ἐμπαθοῦς ὑπολήψεως. διὰ τοῦτο ἐπαναλαμβάνων τὸ κήρυγμα λόγον πάλιν ὠνόμασε, σοὶ ταῦτα φυσιολογῶν τῷ ἀπίστῳ. ὡς γὰρ ὁ σὸς λόγος καὶ ἐκ τοῦ νοῦ ἀναφαίνεται καὶ οὐ μεσιτεύεται πάθει, οὕτως κἀκεῖ λόγον ἀκούσας καὶ τὸ ἔκ τινος νοήσεις καὶ οὐ νοήσεις τὸ πάθος. διὰ τοῦτό φησιν ἀναλαβὼν πάλιν τὸ κήρυγμα Καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν. ὢ πῶς παραμετρεῖ τῷ θεῷ τὸν λόγον, μᾶλλον δὲ πῶς συμπαρατείνει τῷ ἀπείρῳ τὸ ἄπειρον: ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, πρὸς ὅλον τὸν θεὸν πάντως ὅλος ὁ λόγος. οὐκοῦν ὅσος ὁ θεός, τοσοῦτος δηλαδὴ καὶ ὁ λόγος ὁ πρὸς αὐτὸν ὤν, ὥστε εἰ ὁ θεὸς περιώρισται, καὶ ὁ λόγος πάντως ἐν ὅρῳ, εἰ δὲ τοῦ θεοῦ ἡ ἀπειρία διαβαίνει τὸν ὅρον, οὐδὲ ὁ τούτῳ συνθεωρούμενος λόγος ὅροις καὶ μέτροις διαλαμβάνεται. οὐ γὰρ ἄν τις εἴποι μὴ πάσῃ τοῦ πατρὸς τῇ θεότητι συνθεωρεῖσθαι τὸν λόγον, ὡς ἂν μὴ τοῦ θεοῦ τὸ μὲν ἐν λόγῳ εἴη, τὸ δὲ γυμνὸν τοῦ λόγου ἐλέγχοιτο. πάλιν ἡ πνευματικὴ τοῦ Ἰωάννου φωνή, πάλιν τῶν νηπιαζόντων τιθηνεῖται τὴν ἀκοὴν ὁ εὐαγγελιστὴς τῷ κηρύγματι: οὔπω τοσοῦτον ηὐξήθημεν ἐν ταῖς πρώταις φωναῖς, ὡς υἱὸν ἀκούσαντες ἀνολίσθητοι μεῖναι διὰ τῆς συνήθους ἐμφάσεως. διὰ τοῦτο πάλιν ὁ κήρυξ ἀναβοῶν ἐν τῇ τρίτῃ φωνῇ ἔτι λόγον, οὐχ υἱὸν ἀνεκήρυξεν εἰπὼν Καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. πρῶτον εἶπεν ἐν ᾧ ἦν, εἶτα πρὸς τίνα ἦν, νῦν τί ἐστι λέγει, διὰ τῆς τρίτης ἐπαναλήψεως τελειῶν τὸν σκοπὸν τοῦ κηρύγματος. οὐ γὰρ λόγον, φησί, τινὰ τῶν κατὰ τὸ πρόχειρον νοουμένων, ἀλλὰ θεὸν κηρύσσω ἐν τῷ τοῦ λόγου προσρήματι: οὗτος γὰρ ὁ λόγος, ὃς ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν καὶ πρὸς τὸν θεὸν ἦν, οὐκ ἄλλο τι παρὰ τὸν θεὸν ἦν, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτὸς θεὸς ἦν. καὶ συνεχῶς διὰ τῆς ἐπαναλήψεως ἐπακμάζων ταῖς μεγαλοφωνίαις ὁ κήρυξ τοῦτον λέγει τὸν θεόν, τὸν ἐν τῷ κηρύγματι προδηλούμενον, τοῦτον εἶναι δι' οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο καὶ ζωὴν εἶναι καὶ φῶς ἀνθρώπων καὶ φῶς ἀληθινὸν ἐν σκοτίᾳ λάμπον καὶ ὑπὸ τῆς σκοτίας οὐκ ἀμαυρούμενον, τοῖς ἰδίοις ἐπιδημοῦντα καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν ἰδίων οὐ λαμβανόμενον καὶ σάρκα γενόμενον καὶ διὰ τῆς σαρκὸς τῇ ἀνθρωπίνῃ κατασκηνοῦντα φύσει. καὶ τοσαῦτα προδιεξελθὼν καὶ τοιαῦτα τότε πατέρα λέγει καὶ μονογενῆ ὀνομάζει, ὅτε οὐκέτι κίνδυνος ἦν τις τῷ διὰ τοσούτων κεκαθαρμένῳ πρός τινα ῥυπῶσαν κατολισθῆσαι διάνοιαν ἐκ τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς σημασίας. Ἐθεασάμεθα γάρ, φησί, τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός.
Εἰπὲ πρὸς ταῦτα τῷ εὐαγγελιστῇ, εἰπὲ τὰ σοφά σου ταῦτα, Εὐνόμιε, ὅτι πῶς πατέρα καὶ πῶς μονογενῆ κατονομάζεις τῷ λόγῳ, πάσης σωματικῆς γεννήσεως διὰ πάθους ἐνεργουμένης; ἀποκρίνεταί σοι πάντως ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ ἡ ἀλήθεια, ὅτι ἄλλο θεολογίας ἐστὶ μυστήριον καὶ ἄλλη τῶν ῥευστῶν σωμάτων φυσιολογία. πολλῷ τῷ μέσῳ ἀπ' ἀλλήλων ταῦτα διατετείχισται. τί συνάπτεις διὰ τοῦ λόγου τὰ ἄμικτα; πῶς τῷ ῥυπῶντι λόγῳ τὸ καθαρὸν μολύνεις τῆς θείας γεννήσεως; πῶς διὰ τῶν παθῶν τοῦ σώματος τεχνολογεῖς τὸ ἀσώματον; μὴ ἐκ τῶν κάτω φυσιολόγει τὰ ἄνω. υἱὸν θεοῦ κηρύσσω τὸν κύριον, ὅτι καὶ τὸ ἐξ οὐρανῶν εὐαγγέλιον διὰ τῆς φωτεινῆς νεφέλης οὕτως ἐκήρυξεν: Οὗτος γάρ, φησίν, ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός. οὐ μὴν ἐπειδὴ υἱὸν ἐδιδάχθην, πρὸς τὰς ὧδε τοῦ υἱοῦ σημασίας καθειλκύσθην ἐκ τοῦ ὀνόματος, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς οἶδα καὶ ἐκ τοῦ πάθους οὐκ οἶδα. ἐγὼ δὲ καὶ τοῦτο τοῖς εἰρημένοις προσθήσω, ὅτι οἶδά τινα καὶ σωματικὴν γέννησιν καθαρεύουσαν πάθους, ὡς καὶ ἐν τούτῳ ψευδῆ τοῦ Εὐνομίου τῆς σωματικῆς γεννήσεως τὴν φυσιολογίαν ἀπελεγχθῆναι, εἴπερ εὑρεθείη σώματος τόκος πάθος οὐ προσδεξάμενος. εἰπὲ γάρ, ἐγένετο σὰρξ ὁ λόγος ἢ οὐχί; οὐκ ἂν εἴποις μὴ γεγενῆσθαι. γέγονε τοίνυν, καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ ἀρνούμενος. πῶς οὖν ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκὶ ὁ θεός; διὰ τόκου πάντως ἐρεῖς. ποίου οὖν τούτου μνησθείς; ἢ δῆλον ὅτι τῆς παρθενίας, καὶ ὅτι τὸ ἐν αὐτῇ γεννηθὲν ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου ἦν καὶ ὅτι ἐπλήσθησαν αἱ ἡμέραι τοῦ τεκεῖν αὐτὴν καὶ ἔτεκε καὶ οὐδὲν ἧττον ἡ ἀφθαρσία συνδιεφυλάχθη τῷ τόκῳ. εἶτα τὴν μὲν ἐκ γυναικὸς γέννησιν καθαρὰν πάθους εἶναι πιστεύεις, εἴγε πιστεύεις, τὴν δὲ θείαν τε καὶ ἀκήρατον ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς οὐ δέχῃ, ἵνα μὴ πάθος νοήσῃς περὶ τὴν γέννησιν; ἀλλ' οἶδα σαφῶς ὅτι οὐχὶ τὸ πάθος αὐτῷ φευκτόν ἐστιν ἐν τῷ δόγματι, ὃ μηδὲ τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐνορᾷ τῇ θείᾳ τε καὶ ἀκηράτῳ φύσει: ἀλλ' ὅπως ἂν ὁ ποιητὴς πάσης τῆς κτίσεως μέρος νομισθείη τῆς κτίσεως, ταῦτα κατασκευάζει πρὸς ἄρνησιν τοῦ μονογενοῦς θεοῦ, τῇ ἐσχηματισμένῃ περὶ τὸ πάθος εὐλαβείᾳ συνεργῷ χρώμενος.