With what eyes will you now dare to gaze upon your guide? I speak to you, O flock152    O flock. This could not have been written earlier than 384, and there is abundant testimony that Eunomius still had his “flock.” Long before this, even soon after he had left his see of Cyzicus, and had taken up his abode with Eudoxius, he separated himself from that champion of the Homœan party, and held assemblies apart because he had repeatedly entreated that his preceptor Aetius might be received into communion (Socrates iv. 13). This must have been about 366, before his banishment by Valens for favouring the rebellion of Procopius. Sozomen says (vi. 29), “The heresy of Eunomius was spread from Cilicia and the Mountains of Taurus as far as the Hellespont and Constantinople.” In 380 at Bithynia near Constantinople “multitudes resorted to him, some also gathered from other quarters, a few with the design of testing his principles, and others merely from the desire of listening to his discourses. His reputation reached the ears of the Emperor, who would gladly have had a conference with him. But the Empress Flacilla studiously prevented an interview taking place between them; for she was the most faithful guard of the Nicene doctrines” (vii. 17). At the convention, however, of all the sects at Theodosius’ palace in 382, Eunomius was present (Socrates v. 10). His ἔκθεσις τῆς πίστεως (to which he added learned notes) was laid before Theodosius in 383. It was not till 391 that the Emperor condemned him to banishment—the sole exception to Theodosius’ toleration. “This heretic,” says Sozomen again, “had fixed his residence in the suburbs of Constantinople and held frequent assemblies in private houses, where he read his own writings. He induced many to embrace his sentiments, so that the sectarians who were named after him became very numerous. He died not long after his banishment, and was interred at Dacora, his birthplace, a village of Cappadocia.”of perishing souls! How can you still turn to listen to this man who has reared such a monument as this of his shamelessness in argument? Are ye not ashamed now, at least, if not before, to take the hand of a man like this to lead you to the truth? Do ye not regard it as a sign of his madness as to doctrine, that he thus shamelessly stands out against the truth contained in Scripture? Is this the way to play the champion of the truth of doctrine—namely, to accuse Basil of deriving the God over all from that which has absolutely no existence? Am I to tell the way he phrases it? Am I to transcribe the very words of his shamelessness? I let the insolence of them pass; I do not blame their invective, for I do not censure one whose breath is of bad odour, because it is of bad odour; or one who has bodily mutilation, because he is mutilated. Things such as that are the misfortunes of nature; they escape blame from those who can reflect. This strength of vituperation, then, is infirmity in reasoning; it is an affliction of a soul whose powers of sound argument are marred. No word from me, then, about his invectives. But as to that syllogism, with its stout irrefragable folds, in whose conclusion, to effect his darling object, he arrives at this accusation against us, I will write it out in its own precise words. “We will allow him to say that the Son exists by participation in the self-existent153    τοῦ ὄντος; but (instead of this), he has unconsciously affirmed that the God over all comes from absolute nonentity. For if the idea of the absence of everything amounts to that of absolute nonentity154    τὸ μηδὲν τῷ πάντη μὴ ὄντι ταὐτὸν., and the transposition of equivalents is perfectly legitimate, then the man who says that God comes from nothing says that He comes from nonentity.” To which of these statements shall we first direct our attention? Shall we criticize his opinion about the Son “existing by participation” in the Deity, and his bespattering those who will not acquiesce in it with the foulness of his tongue; or shall we examine the sophism so frigidly constructed from the stuff of dreams? However, every one who possesses a spark of practical sagacity is not unaware that it is only poets and moulders of mythology who father sons “by participation” upon the Divine Being. Those, that is, who string together the myths in their poems, fabricate a Dionysus, or a Hercules, or a Minos, and such-like, out of the combination of the superhuman with human bodies; and they exalt such personages above the rest of mankind, representing them as of greater estimation because of their participation in a superior nature. Therefore, with regard to this opinion of his, carrying as it does within itself the evidence of its own folly and profanity, it is best to be silent; and to repeat instead that irrefragable syllogism of his, in order that every poor ignoramus on our side may understand what and how many are the advantages which those who are not trained in his technical methods are deprived of. He says, “If the idea of the absence of everything amounts to that of absolute nonentity, and the transposition of equivalents is perfectly legitimate, then the man who says that God comes from nothing, says that He comes from nonentity.” He brandishes over us this Aristotelian weapon, but who has yet conceded to him, that to say that any one has no father amounts to saying that he has been generated from absolute nonentity? He who enumerates those persons whose line is recorded in Scripture is plainly thinking of a father preceding each person mentioned. For what relation is Heli to Joseph? What relation is Matthat to Heli? And what relation is Adam to Seth? Is it not plain to a mere child that this catalogue of names is a list of fathers? For if Seth is the son of Adam, Adam must be the father of one thus born from him; and so tell me, who is the father of the Deity Who is over all? Come, answer this question, open your lips and speak, exert all your skill in expression to meet such an inquiry. Can you discover any expression that will elude the grasp of your own syllogism? Who is the father of the Ungenerate? Can you say? If you can, then He is not ungenerate. Pressed thus, you will say, what indeed necessity compels you to say,—No one is. Well, my dear sir, do you not yet find the weak seams of your sophism giving way? Do you not perceive that you have slavered upon your own lap? What says our great Basil? That the Ungenerate One is from no father. For the conclusion to be drawn from the mention of fathers in the preceding genealogy permits the word father, even in the silence of the evangelist, to be added to this confession of faith. Whereas, you have transformed “no one” into “nothing at all,” and again “nothing at all” into “absolute nonentity,” thereby concocting that fallacious syllogism of yours. Accordingly this clever result of professional shrewdness shall be turned against yourself. I ask, Who is the father of the Ungenerate One? “No one,” you will be obliged to answer; for the Ungenerate One cannot have a father. Then, if no one is the father of the Ungenerate, and you have changed “no one” into “nothing at all,” and “nothing at all” is, according to your argument, the same as “absolute nonentity,” and the transposition of equivalents is, as you say, perfectly legitimate, then the man (i.e. you) who says that no one is the father of the Ungenerate One, says that the Deity Who is over all comes from absolute nonentity!

τίσιν ὀφθαλμοῖς ἔτι πρὸς τὸν ὁδηγὸν ὑμῶν ἀποβλέπετε; πρὸς ὑμᾶς λέγω τὴν τῶν ἀπολλυμένων ἀγέλην. πῶς ἔτι τὴν ἀκοὴν ὑποκλίνετε τῷ τοιαύτην στήλην τῆς ἰδίας ἀναιδείας διὰ τῶν λόγων στήσαντι; οὐκ αἰσχύνεσθε νῦν γοῦν, εἰ καὶ μὴ πρότερον, τοιούτῳ χειραγωγῷ πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν χρώμενοι; οὐ σημείῳ χρήσεσθε τούτῳ τῆς περὶ τῶν δογμάτων αὐτοῦ μανίας, τῷ οὕτω πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν αὐτὸν τῶν γεγραμμένων ἀναισχύντως ἀντικαθίστασθαι; οὕτως ὑμῖν καὶ τὰς θείας ἑρμηνεύει φωνάς, οὕτω τῆς τῶν δογμάτων ἀληθείας προΐσταται, ὡς ἀπελέγχειν Βασίλειον ἐκ τοῦ πάντη μὴ ὄντος γενεαλογοῦντα τὸν ἐπὶ πάντων θεόν; εἴπω τὴν παρ' αὐτοῦ ῥῆσιν, ἔκθωμαι τῆς ἀναισχυντίας τὰ ῥήματα; παρίημι τὰς ὕβρεις, οὐ μέμφομαι ταῖς λοιδορίαις: οὐ γὰρ αἰτιῶμαι τὸν ὀδωδότα τῷ στόματι ὅτι ὄδωδεν, οὐδὲ τὸν τῷ σώματι λελωβημένον ὅτι λελώβηται. τὰ γὰρ τοιαῦτα φύσεώς ἐστιν ἀτυχήματα τὴν παρὰ τῶν νοῦν ἐχόντων μέμψιν ἐκφεύγοντα. οὐκοῦν ἡ τοῦ ὑβρίζειν σπουδὴ λογισμῶν ἐστιν ἀρρωστία καὶ δυσκληρία ψυχῆς τὸν ὑγιαίνοντα λογισμὸν λελωβημένης. οὐδεὶς οὖν μοι λόγος ὧν λελοιδόρηται, ἀλλὰ τὴν σφοδρὰν ἐκείνην καὶ ἄμαχον τοῦ συλλογισμοῦ πλοκήν, δι' ἧς τὴν καθ' ἡμῶν κατηγορίαν πρὸς τὸν σκοπὸν ἑαυτοῦ συνεπέρανε, διαρρήδην γράψω κατ' αὐτὰ τὰ ῥήματα.
« Ἵνα γάρ », φησί, « μὴ κωλυθῇ τὸν υἱὸν ἐκ μετουσίας εἰπεῖν τοῦ ὄντος, λέληθεν ἑαυτὸν τὸν ἐπὶ πάντων θεὸν ἐκ τοῦ πάντη μὴ ὄντος εἰπών. εἰ γὰρ τὸ ”μηδὲν„ τῷ πάντη μὴ ὄντι ταὐτὸν κατὰ τὴν ἔννοιαν, τῶν δὲ ἰσοδυναμούντων ἀκώλυτος ἡ μετάληψις, ὁ λέγων ἐξ οὐδενὸς εἶναι τὸν θεὸν ἐκ τοῦ πάντη μὴ ὄντος εἶναι λέγει τὸν θεόν ». πρὸς τί τῶν εἰρημένων πρότερον ἴδωμεν, ὅτι ἐκ μετουσίας τοῦ θεοῦ τὸν υἱὸν οἴεται καὶ τοῖς μὴ τοῦτο δεχομένοις ἐπισκεδάζει τοῦ στόματος ἑαυτοῦ τὴν δυσωδίαν, ἢ τὴν ψυχρὰν καὶ ὀνειρώδη τοῦ σοφίσματος συνθήκην διεξετάσωμεν; ἀλλ' ὅτι μὲν τὸ ἐκ μετουσίας τῇ θείᾳ φύσει προσάπτειν υἱοὺς ποιητῶν μόνων καὶ μυθοπλαστῶν ἐστιν, οὐκ ἂν ἀγνοοίη τις τῶν καὶ ὁπωσοῦν μετεχόντων φρονήσεως. οὕτω γὰρ οἱ τοῖς μέτροις τοὺς μύθους ἐνείροντες Διονύσους τινὰς καὶ Ἡρακλέας καὶ Μίνωας καὶ ἄλλους τοιούτους ἐκ δαιμονίας εἰς ἀνθρώπινα σώματα συμπλοκῆς διαπλάσσουσι καὶ ὑπεραίρουσι τῶν λοιπῶν ἀνθρώπων τοὺς τοιούτους τῷ λόγῳ ὡς τῇ μετουσίᾳ τῆς κρείττονος φύσεως τὸ πλέον ἔχοντας. οὐκοῦν τοῦτον μὲν τὸν λόγον ὡς οἴκοθεν τὸν τῆς ἀνοίας ἅμα καὶ ἀσεβείας ἔλεγχον ἔχοντα σιωπῆσαι προσήκει, προθεῖναι δὲ μᾶλλον τὸν ἄμαχον ἐκεῖνον συλλογισμόν, ὡς ἂν μάθοιεν οἱ καθ' ἡμᾶς ἰδιῶται οἵων καὶ ὅσων οἱ τὰς τεχνικὰς ἐφόδους μὴ παιδευθέντες ἐζημιώθησαν. « εἰ γὰρ τὸ „μηδέν,” » φησί, « τῷ πάντη μὴ ὄντι ταὐτὸν κατὰ τὴν ἔννοιαν, τῶν δὲ ἰσοδυναμούντων ἀκώλυτος ἡ μετάληψις, ὁ λέγων ἐξ οὐδενὸς εἶναι τὸν θεὸν ἐκ τοῦ πάντη μὴ ὄντος εἶναι λέγει τὸν θεόν ». τίς ἔδωκε τῷ τὴν Ἀριστοτελικὴν ἡμῖν αἰχμὴν ἐπισείοντι, ὅτι τὸ λέγειν τινὰ πατέρα μὴ ἔχειν ταὐτόν ἐστι τῷ ἐκ τοῦ πάντη μὴ ὄντος αὐτὸν γεγενῆσθαι λέγειν; ὁ γὰρ τοὺς γενεαλογουμένους παρὰ τοῦ λόγου καθεξῆς ἀριθμήσας ἀεὶ τοῦ μνημονευθέντος ὑπερκείμενον πατέρα δηλονότι νοεῖ. τί γὰρ ἦν ὁ Ἠλεὶ τοῦ Ἰωσήφ; τί δὲ ὁ Ματτὰθ τοῦ Ἠλεί; τί δὲ ὁ Ἀδὰμ τοῦ Σήθ; ἆρ' οὐχὶ πρόδηλον καὶ τοῖς ἄγαν νηπίοις ὅτι πατέρων ἐστὶν ἀπαρίθμησις ὁ τῶν μνημονευθέντων τούτων ὀνομάτων κατάλογος; εἰ γὰρ ὁ Σὴθ τοῦ Ἀδὰμ υἱός, πατὴρ τοῦ ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεγεννημένου πάντως Ἀδάμ. οὕτως εἰπέ μοι καὶ τοῦ ἐπὶ πάντων θεοῦ πατὴρ τίς; εἰπὲ τῷ ἐρωτῶντι, ῥῆξον φωνήν, ἀπόκριναι, πᾶσαν τὴν λογικήν σου τέχνην πρὸς τὴν πεῦσιν ταύτην συγκίνησον: ἆρ' εὑρήσεις τινὰ λόγον τὴν τοῦ σοφίσματός σου λαβὴν διαφεύγοντα; τίς ὁ τοῦ ἀγεννήτου πατήρ; ἔχεις εἰπεῖν ὅστις; οὐκοῦν οὐκ « ἀγέννητος »; ἀλλὰ συνθλιβόμενος ἐρεῖς πάντως, ὃ δὴ καὶ εἰπεῖν ἐστιν ἐπάναγκες ὅτι ”οὐδείς„. τί οὖν, ὦ φίλτατε, ἆρά σοι οὔπω λέλυται ἡ μαλθακὴ τοῦ σοφίσματος αὕτη διαπλοκή; ἆρα συνῆκας τοῖς ἰδίοις κόλποις ἐνσιελίσας; τί φησιν ὁ μέγας Βασίλειος; ὅτι ὁ ἀγέννητος ἐξ οὐδενός ἐστι πατρός. ἐκ γὰρ τῶν προγενεαλογηθέντων πατέρων ἡ ἀκολουθία κατὰ τὸ σιωπώμενον συνομολογεῖσθαι δίδωσι τοῦ πατρὸς τὴν προσθήκην. σὺ τὸ ἐξ οὐδενὸς πατρὸς τὸ « μηδὲν » ἐποίησας, καὶ πάλιν τὸ « μηδὲν εἰς τὸ πάντη μὴ ὂν » μεταλαβὼν τὸν λελυμένον ἐκεῖνον συλλογισμὸν συνεπέρανας. οὐκοῦν τὰ σοφά σου ταῦτα τῆς τεχνικῆς ἀγχινοίας πρὸς σὲ μεταχθήσεται. τίς « τοῦ ἀγεννήτου » πατήρ, ἐρωτῶ; οὐδείς, ἐρεῖς κατὰ πᾶσαν ἀνάγκην. ὁ γὰρ ἀγέννητος πατέρα πάντως οὐκ ἔχει. εἰ τοίνυν οὐδεὶς τοῦ « ἀγεννήτου » πατήρ, τὸ δὲ οὐδεὶς παρὰ σοῦ πρὸς τὸ « μηδὲν » μετελήφθη, τὸ δὲ « μηδὲν » κατὰ τὸν σὸν λόγον « τῷ πάντη μὴ ὄντι » ταὐτόν ἐστι κατὰ τὴν ἔννοιαν, « ἀκώλυτος δὲ τῶν ἰσοδυναμούντων », καθὼς φῄς, « ἡ μετάληψις », ὁ εἰπὼν ὅτι οὐδείς ἐστι τοῦ ἀγεννήτου πατὴρ « ἐκ τοῦ πάντη μὴ ὄντος » εἶναι λέγει τὸν ἐπὶ πάντων θεόν.