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

§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 appellation of “Ungenerate” is conferred by us: but that the proper appellation of the Divine essence itself which expresses the Divine Nature, either does not exist at all, or is unknown to us.

But Peter and Paul, he says, were named by men, and hence it comes that it is possible in their case to change the appellations. Why, what existing thing has not been named by men? I call you to testify on behalf of my argument. For if you make change of names a sign of things having been named by men, you will thereby surely allow that every name has been imposed upon things by us, since the same appellations of objects have not obtained universally. For as in the case of Paul who was once Saul, and of Peter who was formerly Simon, so earth and sky and air and sea and all the parts of the creation have not been named alike by all, but are named in one way by the Hebrews, and in another way by us, and are denoted by every nation by different names. If then Eunomius’ argument is valid when he maintains that it was for this reason, to wit, that their names had been imposed by men, that Peter and Paul were named afresh, our teaching will surely be valid also, starting as it does from like premises, which says that all things are named by us, on the ground that their appellations vary according to the distinctions of nations. Now if all things are so, surely the Generate and the Ungenerate are not exceptions, for even they are among the things that change their name. For when we gather, as it were, into the form of a name the conception of any subject that arises in us, we declare our concept by words that vary at different times, not making, but signifying, the thing by the name we give it. For the things remain in themselves as they naturally are, while the mind, touching on existing things, reveals its thought by such words as are available. And just as the essence of Peter was not changed with the change of his name, so neither is any other of the things we contemplate changed in the process of mutation of names. And for this reason we say that the term “Ungenerate” was applied by us to the true and first Father Who is the Cause of all, and that no harm would result as regards the signifying of the Subject, if we were to acknowledge the same concept under another name. For it is allowable instead of speaking of Him as “Ungenerate,” to call Him the “First Cause” or “Father of the Only-begotten,” or to speak of Him as “existing without cause,” and many such appellations which lead to the same thought; so that Eunomius confirms our doctrines by the very arguments in which he makes complaint against us, because we know no name significant of the Divine Nature. We are taught the fact of Its existence, while we assert that an appellation of such force as to include the unspeakable and infinite Nature, either does not exist at all, or at any rate is unknown to us. Let him then leave his accustomed language of fable, and show us the names which signify the essences, and then proceed further to divide the subject by the divergence of their names. But so long as the saying of the Scripture is true that Abraham and Moses were not capable of the knowledge of the Name, and that “no man hath seen God at any time785    S. John i. 18,” and that “no man hath seen Him, nor can see786    1 Tim. vi. 16.,” and that the light around Him is unapproachable787    1 Tim. vi. 16., and “there is no end of His greatness788    Ps. cxlv. 3.”;—so long as we say and believe these things, how like is an argument that promises any comprehension and expression of the infinite Nature, by means of the significance of names, to one who thinks that he can enclose the whole sea in his own hand! for as the hollow of one’s hand is to the whole deep, so is all the power of language in comparison with that Nature which is unspeakable and incomprehensible.

Ἀλλὰ Πέτρος, φησί, καὶ Παῦλος παρὰ ἀνθρώπων κατωνομάσθησαν, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο καὶ μεταθεῖναι τὰς προσηγορίας ἐπ' αὐτῶν δυνατὸν γέγονε. τί δὲ τῶν ὄντων οὐ παρὰ ἀνθρώπων ὠνόμασται; σὲ μάρτυρα τοῦ λόγου προσάγομαι. εἰ γὰρ τὴν τῶν ὀνομάτων μετάθεσιν σημεῖον ποιῇ τοῦ παρὰ ἀνθρώπων κατωνομάσθαι τὰ πράγματα, συνθήσῃ διὰ τούτου πάντως πᾶν ὄνομα παρ' ἡμῶν τεθεῖσθαι τοῖς οὖσιν ἐκ τοῦ μὴ τὰς αὐτὰς τῶν ὑποκειμένων προσηγορίας παρὰ πᾶσι κεκρατηκέναι. ὡς γὰρ Παῦλος ὁ πρότερον Σαῦλος καὶ Πέτρος ἐκ Σίμωνος, οὕτω γῆ τε καὶ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἀὴρ καὶ θάλασσα καὶ πάντα τὰ τῆς κτίσεως μέρη οὐχ ὁμοίως παρὰ πᾶσιν ὠνόμασται, ἀλλ' ἑτέρως μὲν παρ' Ἑβραίοις, ἑτέρως δὲ παρ' ἡμῖν καὶ παρ' ἑκάστοις τῶν ἐθνῶν διαφόροις ταῖς προσηγορίαις κατονομάζεται. εἰ οὖν ἰσχύει τῷ Εὐνομίῳ τὸ ἐπιχείρημα Πέτρον καὶ Παῦλον διὰ τοῦτο μετακεκλῆσθαι κατασκευάζοντι διὰ τὸ παρ' ἀνθρώπων αὐτοῖς τὰς προσηγορίας τεθεῖσθαι, ἰσχύσει πάντως καὶ ὁ ἡμέτερος λόγος ἐκ τῶν ὁμοίων ὁρμώμενος ὁ πάντα παρ' ἡμῶν κατωνομάσθαι λέγων διὰ τὸ πάντων τὰς προσηγορίας κατὰ τὰς τῶν ἐθνῶν διαφορὰς ἐνηλλάχθαι. εἰ δὲ τὰ πάντα οὕτως, οὐδὲ τὸ γεννητὸν πάντως καὶ ἀγέννητον ἄλλως: καὶ γὰρ καὶ ταῦτα τῶν μετονομαζομένων ἐστί. τὸ γὰρ ἐγγενόμενον ἡμῖν περὶ τὸ ὑποκείμενον νόημα εἰς ὀνόματος τύπον μεταλαμβάνοντες ἄλλοτε ἄλλοις ῥήμασι τὸ νοηθὲν ἐξαγγέλλομεν, οὐχὶ ποιοῦντες τὸ πρᾶγμα, ἀλλὰ σημαίνοντες δι' ὧν ὀνομάζομεν. τὰ μὲν γὰρ πράγματα, καθὼς ἂν ἔχῃ φύσεως, ἐφ' ἑαυτῶν μένει, ἡ δὲ διάνοια τῶν ὄντων ἐφαπτομένη δι' ὧν ἂν γένηται δυνατὸν ῥημάτων ἐκκαλύπτει τὸ νόημα. καὶ ὥσπερ οὐ συμμετεβλήθη τῇ μεταβολῇ τοῦ ὀνόματος ἡ οὐσία τοῦ Πέτρου, οὕτως οὐδὲ ἄλλο τι τῶν θεωρουμένων ἐν τῇ τῶν ὀνομάτων ἐπαλλαγῇ μεταβάλλεται. διὸ καὶ τὴν τοῦ « ἀγεννήτου » φωνὴν παρ' ἡμῶν ἐπιτεθεῖσθαί φαμεν τῷ ἀληθινῷ καὶ πρώτῳ πατρὶ τῷ τοῦ παντὸς αἰτίῳ καὶ μηδεμίαν ἐν τῇ σημασίᾳ τοῦ ὑποκειμένου γίνεσθαι βλάβην, εἰ ἐξ ἑτέρας φωνῆς τὸ ἴσον γνωρίσαιμεν ἔξεστι γὰρ ἀντὶ τοῦ εἰπεῖν « ἀγέννητον » πρῶτον αἴτιον αὐτὸν προσειπεῖν ἢ πατέρα τοῦ μονογενοῦς ἢ ἐκ μηδεμιᾶς αἰτίας ὑφεστηκότα καὶ πολλὰ τοιαῦτα ὅσα πρὸς τὴν αὐτὴν διάνοιαν φέρει: ὥστε καὶ δι' ὧν ἐγκαλεῖ λόγων κρατύνει τὰ ἡμέτερα δόγματα, ὅτι ὄνομα τῆς θείας φύσεως σημαντικὸν οὐκ ἐμάθομεν. ἀλλὰ τὸ μὲν εἶναι αὐτὴν ἐδιδάχθημεν, δύναμιν δὲ προσηγορίας τοιαύτης, δι' ἧς ἐμπεριλαμβάνεται ἡ ἄφραστός τε καὶ ἀόριστος φύσις, ἢ οὐκ εἶναι καθόλου φαμὲν ἢ πάντως ἡμῖν ἄγνωστον εἶναι. ὥστε παρεὶς τὴν συνήθη μυθολογίαν δεικνύτω τὰς σημαντικὰς τῶν οὐσιῶν προσηγορίας καὶ τῷ παρηλλαγμένῳ τῶν ὀνομάτων συνδιασχιζέτω τὸ ὑποκείμενον. ἕως δ' ἂν ὁ τῆς γραφῆς ἀληθεύῃ λόγος, ὅτι Ἀβραὰμ καὶ Μωϋσῆς οὐκ ἐχώρησαν τὴν τοῦ ὀνόματος γνῶσιν, καὶ ὅτι θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακε πώποτε, καὶ εἶδεν αὐτὸν ἀνθρώπων οὐδεὶς οὐδὲ ἰδεῖν δύναται, καὶ ὅτι τὸ περὶ αὐτὸν φῶς ἀπρόσιτον καὶ τῆς μεγαλωσύνης αὐτοῦ πέρας οὐκ ἔστιν, ἕως ἂν ταῦτα λαλῆται παρ' ἡμῖν καὶ πιστεύηται, πᾶς λόγος ὁ περίληψίν τινα καὶ ἑρμηνείαν τῆς ἀορίστου φύσεως διὰ τῆς ὀνοματικῆς σημασίας ἐπαγγελλόμενος ὅμοιός ἐστι τῷ διὰ τῆς ἰδίας παλάμης πᾶσαν ἐμπεριλαμβάνειν οἰομένῳ τὴν θάλασσαν. ὃ γάρ ἐστι χειρὸς κοτύλη πρὸς πέλαγος ὅλον, τοῦτο πᾶσα δύναμις λόγων πρὸς τὴν ἄφραστόν τε καὶ ἀπερίληπτον φύσιν.